partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlie Maynard

   Timms Review: Interim Report

   I thank the Minister and everyone involved in the review for their hard work; this is a difficult subject, so it is much appreciated. Today’s report has confirmed what perhaps all of us knew for many years, which is that PIP is supposed to act as a lifeline, but is administered through a broken system. Disabled people say that the application process actively disincentivises them from staying in work and maintaining an active social life. That is unfair on claimants and damaging for our economy, and it should worry us all. People deserve far better. We welcome this interim report, and we will engage constructively with the Government and play our role in the delivery of genuine improvements to the system. We want a society in which everyone can live independently and with dignity. We need the right support in place to ensure that disabled people and their carers can live their best possible lives, and the PIP system must be built around those principles. We must, however, recognise the structural underlying challenges in the operation of the system. In 2024 prices, spending on incapacity and disability benefits rose from £34 billion a year in 2019 to £51 billion a year in 2024, under the previous Conservative Government. The number of those economically inactive due to long-term health issues rose from 2.1 million to more than 2.8 million in the same period, and the figure is stuck at a similarly high level now. This is seriously worrying, and the UK is largely an outlier in that regard. On current trends, the total bill for working-age sickness and disability benefits is projected to rise to £78 billion in 2030, which means that it will have more than doubled in 10 years. Managing these economic pressures in an effective, fair and sustainable way is vital, so could the Minister expand a little on the work done to make sure that the evidence gathered is representative? Is work under way to address the root causes of these challenges in a holistic way, looking at everything from employment support to mental health? Can he also update the House on progress on merging PIP and universal credit incapacity benefit assessments?

   Hansard source
2. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlie Maynard

   Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

   I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for bringing such an important debate to the House. I appreciate all the speeches that have been given with such force. The issue is enormously important to many of my constituents in Witney. A disaster is happening in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Some 2,000 people have been killed just in the west bank since October 2023, but that is just the tip of an iceberg of settler violence and state-sponsored violence that is carving up land and putting in barriers. Between half and three quarters of a million Israelis now live in settlements in the west bank that are illegal under international law. The Israeli Government have doubled down on this with their active plans for a massive further expansion in the E1 zone, while the UK Government look on passively. We need to introduce a legislative ban on all UK trade in goods and services with illegal Israeli settlements. That should include a package of sanctions including large fines for any UK firms that bid for tenders relating to illegal settlement construction in the E1 area or elsewhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These sanctions should extend to include any financial institutions here in the UK that through the provision of finance directly facilitate UK companies’ involvement in construction or other service provision for illegal settlements —and yes, we are all thinking about you, JCB. Various hon. Members talked about the contrast with the speed at which the Government introduced sanctions on Russian-occupied Crimea and other illegally occupied parts of Ukraine, so I will not rehash those arguments, but the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs play key roles in those sanctions, which they are not being asked to play in relation to these sanctions. Members also talked about how other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium, are implementing bans or legislating to implement bans. If we do not know how to do it, why do we not ask them how they did it? We might learn something. I want to stress the important subject of services. Compared with the value of goods, the value of services is unknown, but it is almost certainly large, perhaps much larger than goods. Whatever that value is, we want services to be included in the sanctions. I am looking for a commitment from the Minister to a ban that includes services, and to the enforcement of that. On the Government’s non-enforcement of their own labelling measures, the Business and Trade Select Committee, of which I am a member, has written to the Government twice, most recently in April 2026 following a meeting with Palestinian delegates on 4 February and a Sub-Committee session with the Minister for Trade—I thank the Minister—on 25 February. The Government, however, have since refused the Committee’s request for evidence on enforcement of their current labelling measures. Will the Minister give us that evidence? These commitments matter, because we made them, along with Israel, under the UK-Israel free trade agreement, which requires the UK and Israel to differentiate goods produced within green-line Israel—within the pre-1967 borders—and goods produced in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is a key point. At the moment, I think many Members of this House share the overall impression that the Government’s inaction means that they are talking the talk about protecting human rights and upholding international law, but not walking the walk. This is a Labour Government; bluntly, I expect more from them, so I really hope we will see something today on this issue.

   Hansard source
3. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

   Farm Business Sustainability

   The NFU is concerned that the £240 million allocated for new sustainable farming incentive agreements in 2026 does not match the scale of farmers’ environmental ambitions and will not allow all farmers with expiring agreements a reasonable opportunity to access ongoing environmental land management schemes funding. How will the Government support farmers like mine in South Devon, who are keen to protect the environment while producing food but are unable to secure a new SFI agreement under this limited budget, to continue their valuable environmental work?

   Hansard source
4. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

   Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecution Rates

   8. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates in cases of violence against women and children.

   Hansard source
5. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

   Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecution Rates

   The fact that so many colleagues have raised these questions again today is a clear indication of how serious the issue of low and slow prosecution rates is. If the primary purpose of custodial sentences is public protection, does the Minister understand why victims in my constituency clearly feel discouraged, having witnessed violent offenders being given very short custodial sentences, or being granted early parole in spite of the danger that they represent to society?

   Hansard source
6. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

   Timms Review: Interim Report

   Like my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), I welcome the broad direction of the review. I acknowledge that this is happening in the context of some people attempting to create a hostile environment—I hope Count Binface will deal with one source of that hostile environment in the weeks to come—but there is also the issue of language, as I think the Minister acknowledges. We should use less of the language of “welfare benefits” and “dependency”, and more of the language of “investment in people”, particularly investment in mental health services. Will he work with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people are supported before they need benefits, and that we invest in people so that their talents can be enjoyed in the workplace?

   Hansard source
7. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

   Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

   I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I did give her advance notice that because of the rescheduling of the debate, I would seek to intervene on her. As she knows, I visited the area a year ago, and the whole situation is unacceptable; in fact, the Foreign Secretary has already referred to the current circumstances as “settlement terrorism”. Does she agree that taking action on this is about not just cast-iron sanctions on trade but financial services and visas, including visas of British citizens who serve in the Israel Defence Forces?

   Hansard source
8. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

   River Wye: Pollution

   My constituency has been devastated by water pollution. We are now nearly seven years into a planning moratorium that has decimated the construction industry, because of pollution in the River Lugg, a tributary of the Wye. We are 10 years on from the first court case that said the Government should publish a plan to clean it up, but that plan, last year, set out that the current measures will not get close to fixing the problem. We urgently need a water protection zone. Will the Minister come to North Herefordshire to meet local campaigners, citizen scientists and farmers to understand why we need that water protection zone, and make a commitment to bring one in to finally resolve this problem?

   Hansard source
9. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

   Iran’s attack on commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz is clearly a flagrant breach of international law, and incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. The escalating US response is also extremely dangerous, and it is not just tit for tat—it is a disproportionate escalation. Let us not forget that this war was started by the US and Israel choosing to launch attacks on Iran on 28 February. Can the Minister say what the UK Government are doing to maximise pressure on both parties to come back to the negotiating table—through sanctions and so forth, on Iran and on the US—to pull them back from the brink of this incredibly dangerous moment of escalation?

   Hansard source
10. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

    I warmly thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this much-needed debate. It is much-needed, because despite the fact that we have discussed the need for a ban on settlement trade on numerous occasions in this Chamber, and despite the fact that colleagues from all parts of the House have repeatedly called on the Government to ban settlement trade, for the past two years we have heard nothing from this Government except excuses. That is simply unacceptable, because we in this country are complicit in what is happening. Failing to ban settlement trade means that money from Britain is actively supporting the perpetuation of the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and the clock is ticking. We debated just last week the E1 settlement expansion, which will put to death any prospect of a two-state solution and any prospect of lasting peace in Israel and Palestine if it is not stopped. The Government have an obligation to do everything in their power to pressure the Israeli Government to stop the illegal expansion of illegal settlements and the violence that goes along with it. There is a moral obligation. There is an international legal obligation, too. Two years ago, the International Court of Justice issued an opinion stating that very clearly. One of the excuses we repeatedly hear from the Government is that the opinion is only advisory, but we have UN resolutions and UN commissions of inquiry that state that there is a clear legal obligation on the UK Government to do everything possible to not provide material support to illegal occupation. There is a clear moral obligation, too. We hear two excuses repeated by this Government. One is that we cannot do this alone, and have to work in concert. We heard that yet again last week from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). We heard it in June last year, when I raised this precise issue with him in a debate that I led on tackling Israeli genocide in Gaza. He said: “at the moment no European power bans settlement trade in the way that she describes. It is something that we talk to our partners and allies about.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 66WH.] Since then, as we have heard, Spain has implemented a ban, as have the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, and it is possible that the entire EU will. Our neighbours and partners are moving far faster than us, yet the UK bears a specific historical responsibility for this situation. How is it that our Government are abdicating that responsibility and enabling the perpetuation of a situation that will actively counteract their declaration last year of their recognition of the state of Palestine? One excuse from the Government is that we need to work together, yet others are way ahead of us. Is it not time for the UK at least to catch up, even if we cannot bring ourselves to show leadership? The other excuse we hear is that a ban is too difficult, but as colleagues across the Chamber have already pointed out, it was not too difficult when it came to Russia or Crimea. We have the legislation in place, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We could put the provisions in place now.

    Hansard source
11. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. One of the other excuses we hear from the Government is that settlement goods do not benefit from the preferential trade agreement that we have with Israel. That implies that it is already possible to distinguish between settlement goods and non-settlement goods, under existing provisions that we should be enforcing. Fundamentally, as has been pointed out, the shoe should be on the other foot. If Israeli exporters cannot prove that their exports do not come from illegal settlements, they should not be able to export to us. We should be absolutely certain. We must make it clear that it is unacceptable for British money to be at any risk of supporting the continuation of these illegal settlements. There is no excuse. We do not have the excuse that we have to wait for other countries to move, because they have moved ahead of us; and we do not have the excuse that this is too technically difficult, because the legal framework already exists, so what are the Government waiting for? Why will they not take this step? Will the Minister recognise the absolute imperative on the UK to take this step now, or will we hear yet more excuses from him when he sums up?

    Hansard source
12. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Topical Questions

    At the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday, the Minister for Nature did not have a clear answer for why the national security assessment on ecosystem collapse has not been released in its full form to MPs. I got the impression that it was not her decision to withhold the full unredacted report from MPs. Whose decision was it?

    Hansard source
13. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Timms Review: Interim Report

    I have heard from constituents of different ages who are concerned about the planned changes to PIP, and who highlight its importance in enabling them to work and to play a full part in society. I want to ask specifically about young people under the age of 25. What mechanisms are being put in place as part of this review to ensure that young people with cancer and other disabilities are considered, and that their distinct experiences are properly accounted for and heard as part of this process?

    Hansard source
14. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

    I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful speech. She talks about international law; does she agree with me on the importance of applying it consistently? In particular, given that the UK has rightly imposed sanctions and trade restrictions elsewhere—notably on Russia—does she agree that the same measures need to be applied to the Israeli Government’s illegal settlements on Palestinian territory?

    Hansard source
15. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    In recent weeks, DEFRA’s quangos have made headlines: the Environment Agency is failing to prosecute waste criminals, instead going after virtuous volunteers who are cleaning up the rivers for it; Natural England is demanding more madcap fish schemes at Hinkley Point C, on top of its recommended £700 million fish disco policy, all of which will be paid for by our constituents; and Natural England’s threat to Dartmoor ponies was the quickest U-turn yet by this Government. Does the Secretary of State feel she has control over these quangos?

    Hansard source
16. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    Oh dear. This may be the last time the Secretary of State gets to give such an inadequate answer to what is a reasonable question about her grip on her Department. But let us look at Labour’s wider chaos. After two years of record-breaking tax rises and the highest number of farm closures, the next version of a Labour Government are coming back for even more, with rumours of a brand-new tax on land value, which will target rural residents from their gardens to their farms. Has Labour learned nothing from its family farm tax fiasco, which every Labour Member voted for?

    Hansard source
17. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    NATO Summit

    Having criticised successive coalition, Conservative and Labour Governments for inadequate defence spending, may I yet again remind the Foreign Secretary that during the 1980s we successfully came through the height of the cold war by spending between 4% and 5% of GDP on defence, and that was without creative accounting? On a more positive note, did she detect the seeming shift in the attitude of the American President towards the Ukraine conflict? Is that because he just wants, as always, to be on what he perceives to be the winning side, or is it a sign that the depredations of the killer in the Kremlin are finally getting through to the occupant of the White House?

    Hansard source
18. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Timms Review: Interim Report

    Does the review plan to look into the question of what happens when something goes wrong in the arrangements for a disabled person receiving PIP or universal credit? This time last week I raised with the Leader of the House at business questions the fact that my casework team had been trying for six months to get an answer on behalf of someone who lost PIP and UC. We had a holding letter in February, but we have still had no substantive reply and this lady is getting more and more desperate. We did write to the Minister on 8 June. I know he has been very busy, but he should be receiving a letter, if he has not already, from the Leader of the House. When he deals with that individual case, will it perhaps serve as a guide to what is needed more generally to be able to communicate on behalf of our constituents?

    Hansard source
19. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Edward Leigh

    NATO Summit

    I agree with everything that the Foreign Secretary said in her initial statement, particularly the point that we live in a more dangerous world than ever—I also agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary, obviously. The point is surely this: there is no point apportioning blame between us. We are where we are now, in the most dangerous position that we have ever been in. Will the Foreign Secretary take away this thought in her talks with the new Prime Minister? Will she say that Members on both Front Benches, including the new Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, should co-operate in meeting our NATO defence commitments in full? That means no black holes or creative accounting. We should pay for them by curbing the spiralling welfare bill, which is out of control. It is a win-win situation; we defend the nation, get people off benefit dependency and work together to save our country.

    Hansard source
20. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Edward Leigh

    Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on the tone of her speech, and I agree with her motion. I could give a speech on dry, legalistic grounds, which in themselves are completely obvious, to show why we should have a trade ban with illegal settlements—because of the Geneva convention, or because of the fact that these settlements rely on international trade. The case is overwhelming, but I want to be more emotional. I am a Conservative MP. I am not the sort of person who goes on marches, or who chants about a Palestine from the river to the sea. I am also realistic about the fact that Israel is surrounded by enemies. I am profoundly philosemitic, and profoundly immersed in Jewish culture—I read the Old Testament every day and that sort of thing. I have been to the site of the music festival; I have wept at the appalling pogrom against our Jewish brothers. So I am emotional, and I am entirely in favour of the right of Jewish people to defend themselves. But this is so different. I have been to the west bank; I have seen what is going on there. This is profoundly wrong. People who have merely tilled their land for 2,000 years are being bullied and forced out. Even when we went there, we were confronted with armed settlers. This is outrageous. The whole House should cry out against it with one voice, and the Government should take action. That is why the motion is so important. I am appealing to my Jewish friends, and to so many good, honest, reasonable people who detest what is going on at the moment. They are entirely in tune with Jewish culture, but unfortunately the Netanyahu Government are bound by right-wing extremists, and by people who care nothing about human rights and who have this weird and ridiculous notion that because 2,000 years ago that land was perhaps held by Jewish people—we are not even certain of that—they have a right to go in and force out people and destroy their lives. I appeal to moderate Jewish people: this must stop. The Israeli Government could stop it tomorrow, couldn’t they? And if the whole world acted with one voice, I think we could put sufficient pressure on them. But just imagine, dear colleagues, if this stopped tomorrow. I will leave you with this thought: if there were no more illegal settlements, if no existing settlements were expanded, and if the Palestinian people were allowed to live in peace and freedom like everybody else, would not the skies lift? Would not Israeli people feel that they could live in peace? We cannot have endless war. Empires come to an end. The Israeli Government cannot just destroy the Palestinian people with the misguided notion that that will give them security. It will give them no security; there will be endless war, endless hatred. Let us in the House say that we believe profoundly in a unity of the human spirit. There should be no Muslim, no Jew, no Christian—we are one people, and we demand that the Palestinian people, like all other peoples on Earth, have a right to their own nation.

    Hansard source
21. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Jury Trials

    3. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials in certain circumstances on the rule of law.

    Hansard source
22. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Jury Trials

    Where is the evidence that jury trials are causing the delays? In the south-east and other parts of the country, the backlog is already falling. The Government should be commended for that, but what are the other causes of delays, and are they not much more significant than any delay caused by the fact that they are jury trials?

    Hansard source
23. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

    I ask this question in all sincerity. Throughout this conflict, the Government have pleaded for de-escalation, but if Iran is gratuitously escalating, should we not give unambiguous support to the Americans for retaliating? Who else is going to retaliate against gratuitous escalation by Iran if it is not the Americans? Rather than hedging our bets, can we not give more unambiguous support—if not military support, then political support—for the United States’ efforts to resolve this conflict? It has already given so much ground in the negotiations. We cannot complain that it has not tried to be as reasonable as it possibly can.

    Hansard source
24. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Business of the House

    The Leader of the House did not mention in the forthcoming business that the House is about to be asked to decide on whether to issue a writ for a farcical and unnecessary by-election. [Interruption.] Have we had it already? I beg your pardon; I was not in the Chamber. What opportunity do I have to raise the question of how the by-election should be paid for? Many of my constituents live in the tendering district and will be inflicted with the cost of the by-election. It seems most unfair that this political stunt should cost council tax payers in my constituency or in Clacton.

    Hansard source
25. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    NATO Summit

    Could the Foreign Secretary say anything about the bilateral discussions between President Trump and President Zelensky, and can she shed any light on the discussions they had about the United States sharing its Patriot missile production licences with Ukraine? What can the Government do—apart from welcoming that, as I hope the Foreign Secretary will—to facilitate that exchange and ensure that it happens? It could be crucial.

    Hansard source
26. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    NATO Summit

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During business questions, I mentioned the interests of council tax payers in Tendring district. I probably should have drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where it says that I am a council tax payer in Tendring district.

    Hansard source
27. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sarah Bool

    Topical Questions

    My constituent Guy Smith runs Sky Birds Sales, which successfully imports budgies. The Animal and Plant Health Agency has drastically changed its approach to batch testing, which is devastating his business. Will one of the Ministers meet me and my constituent to discuss this issue?

    Hansard source
28. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sarah Bool

    Business of the House

    Silverstone put Northamptonshire on the map this week with the best attended grand prix ever: 564,000 people visited over three days, which is amazing. The next date I want Members to put in their diaries is the Blakesley Show on 1 August. In its 141st year, it is the perfect opportunity for locals to celebrate our farming community. I hope that the Leader of the House will join me in encouraging people to come along and support our farming and agriculture.

    Hansard source
29. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Robbie Moore

    Farm Business Sustainability

    Delinked payments dramatically reduced; SFI stopped and started and ultimately made competitive; targets to dramatically reduce livestock numbers recommended; the state given more power to buy farmland below market value; the fertiliser tax; the double cab pick-up tax; the introduction of family farm and family business tax; Natural England given more power; an EU realignment deal that is set to cost our farmers thousands and result in job losses; and the annual grant for young farmers removed for the first time—oh, but beavers have been released. Which one of those measures that the Secretary of State has introduced in the last two years does she think will support the long-term financial sustainability of our farming businesses?

    Hansard source
30. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Rishi Sunak

    Farm Business Sustainability

    Attracting the next generation of farmers is key to the long-term sustainability of the sector. I recently visited Great Smeaton young farmers’ club, and it was wonderful to see both their contribution to the local community and their commitment to farming. Groups like that are vital to engaging young people in farming. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to Great Smeaton YFC and the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs for their important contribution to our national life?

    Hansard source
31. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Priti Patel

    Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if she will make a statement on Iran’s violation of the ceasefire.

    Hansard source
32. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Priti Patel

    Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

    The terrorist regime in Tehran has once again violated the ceasefire, illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz and striking our allies in the region, including Bahrain and Kuwait. These new assaults in the strait on at least three tankers were the most in a single day since April, according to the UN International Maritime Organisation. Earlier this week, the Iranians said they targeted Salman port in Bahrain, where Britain and the US operate naval bases. What were the Government doing when British assets were in danger and our friends and security allies were being attacked by Iran? What exactly are the Government doing to help protect the thousands of British nationals in the region who once again find themselves under rocket fire from Iran? Our security allies once looked to the UK to be a reliable and dependable partner, but their confidence is increasingly shaken. How will the Government put that right? This is a time for action, not words. I have asked again and again what are the British Government doing, or what have they done to date, through the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement to support Bahrain? The NATO Secretary-General said that the strikes by the US were “absolutely necessary”—do the Government agree? We have had little of substance from the Government in recent days, other than the Foreign Secretary’s telly remarks when she said yesterday that she was “very concerned” by the Iranian strikes. The US Administration have announced that they are reimposing oil sanctions on Iran—of course, oil funds its terrorism. When will the Government stop the UK’s financial system being used to launder Iranian terrorist funds? What is the Government’s assessment about whether the ceasefire framework and the 60-day period in the agreement remain? Let us be honest: the fact that Iran continues to breach the ceasefire and threatens our interests on a daily basis demonstrates that the Government have failed to have a clear plan to get defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the decade, leaving our country exposed and our security at risk. While Ministers are putting their job security ahead of the defence and the interests of this country, this discredited Labour Government have failed to offer solutions to the most serious and significant conflict that the world has seen in decades or to be part of any negotiations. Britain has a huge stake in the future of the middle east, but under Labour our interests have been neglected and our standing in the world has fallen.

    Hansard source
33. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Priti Patel

    NATO Summit

    I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I start by recognising some of the positive commitments in the NATO summit communiqué, including the important reaffirmation of the alliance’s commitment to collective defence under article 5 and to the transatlantic bond, and the essential new defence procurement announcements. The recognition of Ukraine as a contributor to transatlantic security is overdue, and we back the reiteration of the alliance’s support for Ukraine. I share the Foreign Secretary’s disgust at the Russian attacks in Kyiv in recent days. The outcome of the Ukrainian war matters profoundly to NATO, as does our collective commitment to lead the world in helping Ukraine turn the tide in this war. We all know that the best deterrent against an invasion like this ever happening again is Russia’s expulsion from Ukraine. Now is the time to ramp up our support for Ukraine. Will the Government provide Ukraine with additional military capabilities or broker any new international packages of support, as we did so effectively at the outset of the war? Following the boarding of a Russian shadow fleet ship last month, will there be a sustained effort to disrupt the fleet’s operations? Will the Foreign Secretary commit to leading international pressure on the refineries buying Russian crude oil in order to cut the financial flows that are funding Russia’s illegal war? The NATO communiqué refers to the conflict in Iran and touches on the strait of Hormuz. As I said this morning in the urgent question, this despotic terrorist regime, which has been illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait and our allies, including Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman’s ships and territory, all while repressing its own people in the most brutal ways imaginable, must be made to feel the consequences of its actions. I put on the record our solidarity with Oman following the outrageous breach of its sovereignty by Iran. We understand that Oman has agreed to work with Britain and France to ensure that its territorial waters remain safe. Last week in a joint statement with the French, Downing Street said: “The UK and France also stand ready to deploy the wider Multinational Military Mission to support freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.” What does that mean in practice? Will there be a deployment? What will be the scale of the deployment? What will it consist of and over what timeframe? How will we reassure our strategic and security partners in the region of our commitment, so that they do not think we have stepped back, particularly given the rising tide of attacks from Iran? What opportunity will we have in this House to scrutinise and debate the Government’s plans? As Defence Secretary, my good friend Ben Wallace invested millions in the development of cutting-edge autonomous minehunters. In his previous role as Minister for Defence Procurement, the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), delivered Britain’s first ever defence drone strategy in 2024, which emphasised the use of uncrewed drones in the maritime domain, including for mine detection. Will either of those capabilities be deployed in the mission? It is vital that Britain has capabilities to operate in theatres around the world, and of course that requires cash now, which the current Labour Administration are refusing to provide. Britain is already spending less of its GDP on defence than Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, the United States, Denmark, Greece and Finland. How can we expect others to find more for defence when we are not leading by example? Because this Labour Government, in the words of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), have been “unable” and “unwilling” to provide the money we need to keep Britain safe, our country faces a huge shortfall in the years ahead. By the end of this decade, Britain will be nowhere near the 3% and barely ahead of where we are now, while all our allies continue to surge. I do not need to remind the Foreign Secretary of the numbers, but Germany is set to spend 3.7% of GDP by 2030, while Sweden has pledged to reach 3.5%, as have other countries. There will be a change of Labour leadership in the coming weeks. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been left to find £4.7 billion at his next Budget, and there is no serious detail about the billions of pounds of so-called efficiency savings that this Government have identified. As the Foreign Secretary’s counterpart, the Polish Foreign Minister, said of Britain under Labour: “You’re spending something like £65 billion on defence and £360 billion on welfare. Lucky you, you must not feel any danger”. In reality, this Government are prepared to plough billions into welfare while short-changing defence. We want to change that, and I ask the Foreign Secretary again: will she work with us to make progress on this? This is a serious time—Britain is under threat—and we need to step up in a significant way. The Foreign Secretary also mentioned Sudan and the horrific situation in El Obeid. We know that words are not enough; action is needed. I agree with her on the need for the arms embargo to be extended, and the two warring parties must be pressed into a ceasefire.

    Hansard source
34. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mr Peter Bedford

    Timms Review: Interim Report

    I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. I put on record my thanks to the 38,000 people and organisations who took part and responded to the call for evidence. Let us be honest about how we got here. This review was not born out of principle; it was born out of panic. Last summer, the Government brought forward proposals for £5 billion of welfare savings, but 126 of their own Members rebelled, and within days, Ministers had abandoned the lot. The Timms review is a fig leaf draped over that failure—a review commissioned not to fix the system, but to get the Government through a difficult week. A year on, what do we have? An interim report. Not a decision, not a reform, but a report about a report, with a promise of full findings in the autumn, and perhaps legislation at some later stage. Meanwhile, the welfare bill keeps rising. Spending on PIP alone is forecast to reach £43 billion a year by the end of this decade. Every month of drift is paid for by working people, and every month of uncertainty is endured by nearly 4 million claimants. The Opposition accept that the system needs reforming. That is why, last month, we launched the Conservative party’s review of disability and sickness benefits. It is a root-and-branch review of a failing system that will look into who should get help, how they should be assessed, what form that help should take, the conditionality of support and how to control the level of overall spending. It asks a much more fundamental set of questions than this review. It sets out to make savings, as well as to build a better system. The Government have now had two years, one abandoned Bill and two reviews, but they have not delivered a single lasting reform. The official Opposition’s position is clear. We would restore face-to-face assessments as the default, because decisions of this consequence should not be made down the phone. We believe that people with milder health conditions are better served by treatment and support to get them into work than by being signed off for a lifetime on welfare. We would restrict access to sickness and disability benefits for those without a long-term connection to this country. We would bring the welfare bill down, because a welfare system that is unsustainable is no protection for those in genuine need. Let me press the Minister on a few points, because there was very little detail in his statement. First, after two years of dither and delay, the Government have finally accepted what we have been saying all along: the welfare system is in urgent need of reform. Ministers boast about consulting nearly 40,000 people, yet they appear to have ignored the most important stakeholder of all—the British taxpayer. When will the Government actually take decisive action to get the system back on track? Secondly, the Minister told the Work and Pensions Committee in June that the review has the power to recommend reductions, and that he had personally asked it to consider conditions such as anxiety and depression and neurodiverse conditions. Will the interim findings address whether PIP is the right benefit for those conditions, and will he tell the House whether he is ruling them in or ruling them out? Thirdly, before this review began, we were told that spending would not rise beyond existing projections, yet those projections already build in £43 billion of PIP spending by 2030. Does the Minister seriously believe that this amounts to meaningful reform? Would it not be better for the review to focus on identifying savings and restoring the long-term sustainability of the welfare system, rather than rubber-stamping an ever-growing bill for taxpayers? Finally, the Milburn review concluded that the PIP system is failing to engage young disabled people in meaningful conversations about aspiration, challenges and the support that they need, yet the Government response appears to move precisely in the opposite direction by extending PIP award periods and reducing the frequency of contact between claimants and the system. Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental contradiction between Alan Milburn’s diagnosis of the problem and the Government’s proposed solution? Welfare should be a safety net, never a way of life, and a Government who cannot reform welfare cannot control spending. Disabled people deserve certainty, and taxpayers deserve value. The country cannot afford yet another year of dithering and delay, so I ask the Minister simply: when will the Government stop reviewing and start reforming?

    Hansard source
35. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Conflicts: Impact on Older People

    It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate—the last debate of his that I contributed to was a few weeks ago on stoma care, when we managed to get some rather interesting entries into Hansard on the names that people give to their stomas, some of them quite inappropriate. An interesting point from that debate, which connects through to this issue, is the way conditions affect older people in different ways. Translating the very specific care needs that older people with stomas have, for example, into the context of a war zone or refugee camp gives an example of how that suffering would be greatened. As always, through referencing his constituent Margaret, the hon. Member brings to life the fact that, while we often talk in broad terms about statistics and facts in these debates, each of those represents a person with their own story to tell and their own suffering. I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution and for her long-standing commitment. I have been in a number of debates where she has spoken, and while I have a different view from her on aid spending and I support the Government’s position, I recognise that she has long-standing and very sincerely held views on this subject. Debates such as this are where those views can be exchanged, and she has remained consistent in her views and advocated for them over time. I shall break the jolly consensus just to respond to one little point. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), brought forward the idea that we can use defence bonds as a magic answer for defence spending, and that that would avoid having to make any cuts whatsoever to the aid budget and get us back up to 0.7% without worrying. Borrowing costs are at their highest levels in decades, and the bond market is not a great place at the moment—and bonds still have to be paid back. We have not yet seen any understanding from the Liberal Democrats about how those bonds would be paid back, and how those ever-increasing borrowing costs would be factored in. The solution is not as simple as taking out a few extra bonds and then all will be fine with the international aid budget.

    Hansard source
36. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Conflicts: Impact on Older People

    I hold Government bonds myself—as I am sure many people do—so I should probably declare an interest. As we know, the interest rate that all bonds are generally driven by is the headline interest rate and the bond markets overall. Otherwise, the Government would just borrow from the public every single time. It is not that simple, and there are knock-on effects of doing that. There is a reason why premium bonds are capped —because they are moving people’s money out of taxable savings into non-taxable savings, which hits the Treasury somewhere else. The issue is not as straightforward as it is presented. To get to the actual subject, it is evident that we are currently living in a more dangerous world than at any time in our recent past. Humanitarian crises in Africa are exacerbated by the actions of Governments; there is war in the middle east, with the terrorist regime in Tehran hellbent on causing chaos and instability; and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine signalled the end of the post-war peace dividend and brought the realities of war to Europe once again. Evidence shows that conflict disproportionately affects older people, as the hon. Member for Strangford has highlighted. Almost half the civilian deaths in the conflict in Ukraine are persons older than 60, despite that demographic constituting about one quarter of the population. Older people are more likely to remain in conflict zones because they have strong ties to their homes, lands and territories, or because they are physically more limited. With that in mind, we must seek to ensure that our overseas aid is targeted at those who need it most, with budgets properly scrutinised and value for money sought in every penny spent. Although many will want to discuss the size of the budget, it is equally important that we consider reforming the existing budget and improving the way it is spent. How can we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—for our national security, prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients abroad? With approximately 1.9 million pensioners living in the UK in relative poverty, we owe it to them to ensure that the money we send abroad is money well spent. That is why, throughout this debate, we must ask ourselves the best way to deliver for the needs of older people. We also must deliver a message to older people, both at home and in conflict areas overseas, that we see them, we hear them and we are here for them when needed. We have numerous reminders of older people’s vulnerabilities to conflict over recent years. In 2020, elderly Armenians who stayed in Nagorno-Karabakh were subject to summary executions. Indeed, older people made up more than half of all Armenian civilian deaths. We saw that trend again in Myanmar: older Rohingya who stayed in the face of advances were killed and tortured, and some people indicate that the highest rates of Rohingya deaths are among people aged 50 and over. It is no surprise, though it is never any less shocking, to see the suffering that Putin’s illegal invasion has caused to older Ukrainians. As I said, Ukrainians over 60 make up only 25% of their country’s population, yet they account for nearly half of civilian deaths and more than a third of injuries in frontline communities. The UN refugee agency polled older Ukrainians who remained in or near Russian-occupied areas last year and found that many stayed because they lacked an alternative. Indeed, 20% of respondents said that they would not evacuate because they felt helpless and did not know where to get the help they needed. Many felt that they would have nothing left if they evacuated. There is an opportunity to think outside the box on how we assist older people in conflict areas. For example, we know that many older people’s finances prevent them from evacuating. Ukraine and Poland have innovated and agreed a mechanism to allow refugees access to their pensions. Is the Minister discussing similar proposals with counterparts in war-torn countries elsewhere in the world where that could possibly be replicated? Many older people cited poor health as reasons for not evacuating their homes. After all, older displaced Ukrainians are more likely to report difficulties in accessing healthcare. I therefore ask the Minister how his Department is working with our humanitarian partners to make it clear to older people who want to evacuate how they can access that help. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that internally displaced peoples are able to return home when appropriate, rather than being forced to seek refuge in another country? Displaced older people in Sudan report difficulties in accessing information on essential services. Many older Syrians remained in war-torn areas in order to continue accessing healthcare. Some older Syrians are now returning to those same war-torn areas in search of more affordable and accessible healthcare. With that in mind, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that best practice on healthcare is shared? Of course, evacuating older people from conflict zones is only the first step. Those people can be vulnerable at every stage. Many older people are not mobile enough to reach official displacement camps. Some stop at unofficial locations, which are often overcrowded and have inadequate access to essentials. Some older people become separated from their families while evacuating, and they are vulnerable, particularly those with dementia, to becoming lost in institutional systems. Some evacuated older people struggle to register their presence at displacement camps. They often lack official documents, and registration points can be inaccessible. As a result, they may miss out on aid distribution and medical care. The international landscape is, sadly, defined by conflict and instability. Older people in conflict-threatened zones continue to be vulnerable. Problems accessing help, healthcare and finances persist. The Government have an opportunity to support older people affected by conflict. That will involve working with our partners to find new solutions and address the specific needs that older people have, as part of a wider programme of meaningful reform. I hope the Minister will explain how his Department is meeting the realities of our most dangerous world. I look forward to his response to my questions and the very detailed requests—as we would expect—from the hon. Member for Strangford.

    Hansard source
37. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Martin Vickers

    Business of the House

    On Tuesday morning, I, along with Members across the House, attended the national parliamentary prayer breakfast, which was a very uplifting occasion. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be an opportunity to thank the churches and faith groups across the country that provide so much support in our local communities? Will he arrange a debate in Government time so we can express our thanks and identify the many people up and down the country who contribute so much?

    Hansard source
38. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Martin Vickers

    NATO Summit

    May I take the Foreign Secretary back to the reply she gave to the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? By including some other admittedly vital services, she managed to come to a figure of 4% spending on defence. The reality, as we know, is that Europe is still heavily reliant on the US for its defence. Bearing in mind the President’s recent comments, will she acknowledge that further increases will have to take place over the coming years? It is an internal debate for Government whether that comes from the welfare budget, as the Father of the House suggested, or elsewhere.

    Hansard source
39. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mark Pritchard

    Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

    I join the Minister in condemning Iran’s attacks in the region, but at some point very soon the UK will need to review its own defensive posture vis-à-vis UK armed forces responses in the region. Iran’s nuclear programme is diminished, not destroyed. Its ballistic missile programme is diminished, not destroyed. The Iranian regime is diminished, not destroyed. Meanwhile, the Iranian people continue to suffer—many of them have been executed in the last few days—and so do our friends and allies in the region, as we have seen over the last few hours. My constituents in Shropshire also continue to suffer, because of higher fuel prices. The United States has been around for 250 years; Iran—Persia—has been around for 2,500 years. Given that President Trump is supposed to be the great dealmaker, does the Minister agree that the Iranians are perhaps a little better at doing deals—or at not doing deals—than President Trump first thought when he set out on this adventure? Does the Minister also agree that it is perhaps time for the United Nations to get more involved?

    Hansard source
40. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mark Pritchard

    Business of the House

    This Saturday, we have the Newport agricultural show. Does the Leader of the House agree that agricultural shows are the lifeblood of many rural communities, a great showcase for the rural way of life and a great family day out? May we have a debate on the importance of agricultural shows, not only to Shropshire but to other counties as well? I also have a belated birthday present for him. If he would like to come to the Newport show—I do not know whether it will be the first time, but it may be the last—I invite him to get on and drive a tractor.

    Hansard source