What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I appreciate that my hon. Friend, and indeed all hon. colleagues, are keen for a defined timeline. What matters and is hugely important in this case is that, whatever option is taken forward, it resolves the situation and it sticks. It is right, therefore, that we take the time to get it right—but, as I say, we are working at pace, because we totally understand the seriousness of this case.
It is important to say that in this case, the barrier to removal—the initial and currently unmoved barrier to removal—is section 7 of the 1971 Act. That has to be resolved, so I would not run to the second part of that question. Our returns agreement with Pakistan last year returned 1,300 people who had no right to be here, including sex offenders. We want to work closely with the Government of Pakistan to remove people with no right to be here, and that is what we are doing.
On the second part, I absolutely agree. I want returns agreements with everybody and, critically, I want them to be functioning. Where they are not, we should have conversations with those countries to ensure that they do function and that they follow up on the things they said they would do. On the first part, I share the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. It is important that people understand that there are legal hurdles in many cases in all walks of life, and legal protections are important, but it should be understood that Parliament is sovereign and that when we think that things are wrong, we can make changes—sometimes, very healthily in a democracy, on points of significant disagreement and division, or often in cases where we agree too. We have the ability to do that, and that is one of the options on the table.
Fundamentally, when it comes to options that we take forward, it will be for the public to assess whether or not they think we are doing the right thing and for us to demonstrate that we are. On that specific case, as I think the hon. Gentleman would understand, there are important safeguards around the information that we would share, particularly around victims first, but we can, with constituency MP and victim consent, share some of that information. Let me pursue that with the hon. Gentleman outside these proceedings, because I want him to have the fullest information impossible so he can see, as would be my contention to all colleagues, just how vigorously we pursue removals of foreign criminals.
I hear the spirit and strength with which my hon. Friend, who represents Hartlepool, speaks. I think we have demonstrated the strength of the Government’s ability to remove people and remove them in significant numbers. As I say, this case clearly has legislative hurdles. All options are on the table, and I ask him and colleagues to give us a little bit of time to consider them and to come forward with plans.
I am grateful for that question and know that the people of Spelthorne, like the people of Nottingham, are very sensible people. What I would say is that the hon. Gentleman has heard about the interaction of section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 with the rights of a wide range of Commonwealth citizens, and we know where that can end if done badly. In that context, he will want us to do things right, because when anything could happen in this space, he would want to know that the action taken has been legally considered properly and, as I have said to colleagues, is robust. That is why all options are on the table, and I ask just for that little bit of time in order for us to come forward with plans.
My hon. Friend raises a characteristically thoughtful point. The ability to deprive individuals of British citizenship—the ultimate foundational right shared collectively by people across the country—is a significant step and a crucial tool in our armoury to ensure people who come to this country and commit crimes here are removable. That is really important and something that we take exceptionally seriously.
We have made significant progress, removing nearly 10,000 foreign offenders since we took office. As we said in our asylum policy statement in November, and as reflected in the legislation that we brought forward last week, there are hurdles that are used to frustrate removal, be they abusing crucial protections from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 or the gaming of article 8 of the ECHR that goes far wider than Strasbourg case law. That is why we have brought forward legislation to ensure we are able to remove people who forfeit their right to be in the country.
I know the wisdom of the people of Harlow: they are tolerant and respect people from all over the world and from all backgrounds, whether they are 500th-generation Harlow, like my hon. Friend, or have arrived more recently. They know that when people commit crimes and abuse that status then, of course, they should be removed. We have made significant progress during our time in office and there will be more progress made through our recent legislation so that we can go further. I look forward to his support and the support of colleagues.
Page 39 of the report says that the college is hampered in its quest for reform by the constant attempts to try to reach consensus. In the light of that, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the governance of the national police service will be fit for purpose?
13. What assessment he has made of the level of threat from Russia.
I was concerned to see reports last week of drones launched from Russian shadow fleet vessels overflying critical infrastructure in the UK, including nuclear air bases and nuclear sites, as well as other concerning issues. I welcome the action taken by the Royal Marines to seize the shadow tanker vessels, but will the Secretary of State give more detail on how we will tackle the drones that are being launched? Do we have the capability to intercept them, and if not, when will we have it?
T4. I was pleased to see co-operation with the Netherlands on a new amphibious fleet in the defence investment plan. I spent two years of my career working alongside the Dutch marines, and the Royal Marines have a long history of co-operation with them—mostly not fighting each other—but since our amphibious ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are out of service, when can we expect amphibious ships to be operational in this new Anglo-Dutch fleet?
This weekend we had the pleasure of hosting the Nepal cup in Aldershot—a celebration of the Brigade of Gurkhas. Talking to some of the Gurkha veterans there, and hearing of their experiences, again underlined the urgent need for a resolution of long-standing issues such as Gurkha pensions. I pay tribute to the new Minister for Veterans and People for the progress that has been made, and I thank him for working with me to engage directly with Gurkha veterans and ensure that they feel heard. Will the Secretary of State explain how he will build on that work so that those veterans receive the support and recognition they deserve?
We have seen a 30% increase in Russian subsurface and surface activity, Russian proxies rampant across Africa, £15 billion-worth of cyber-attacks across Europe, sabotage and drone incursions across the border. Can the Secretary of State confirm that if the Russians were to test us on NATO’s eastern flank, they would look across that flank and see not a NATO brigade, but something that looks like a Ukrainian brigade?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening this debate. It is fitting that that was done by a good, loud and honourable Staffordshire voice—it could be no other way. Like him, I declare an interest as a proud member of the GMB. This debate is personal for those of us who call Staffordshire—the best county in England—our home, so I thank Hayley for allowing us to debate this issue. Newcastle-under-Lyme and north Staffordshire are at the heart of the British and worldwide ceramics industry—they always have been, and they always will be. I welcome the ceramics industry support package, which contains £120 million of real and meaningful support for businesses such as Silverdale Bathrooms and Ibstock Brick in Chesterton. We fought hard for that support, hunting as a Staffordshire pack—with a little bit of Derbyshire and Leicestershire thrown in, alongside the mighty union movement and Ceramics UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said. I thank the Minister, who has been a real champion and a solid ally in this effort. For generations, people in my community in Newcastle-under-Lyme have produced the very best British products, with skill, smarts, experience and talent. Their work has powered and fuelled our local and national economies. There will be a theme in all the speeches in this debate: we welcome the £120 million, but we want to know that that package of support will be made speedily and widely available. There will be asks of the Government to step up properly and ensure that this age-old and successful industry is protected and to ensure that we train and equip our young people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across our country with the skills necessary to enter and thrive in this most important industry. There will be the important demand that our communities should no longer be ignored, forgotten or left behind. As I say, team Staffordshire hunts with all parties as a pack, and that can be seen in this debate. For too long, our communities, home to the ceramics industry, were let down and left behind by the powerful few. We are here to change that, and change that we will. I am the third generation of my family to call Staffordshire home, and I have seen up close the powerful impact the ceramics industry has had on our part of the world. I can see its potential to do so in the future but we need to act. Out of all the sectors that once powered and thrived in our industrial heartlands, ceramics has been left behind, despite having built our homes, schools and hospitals. We need urgent action on energy bills and the costs associated for businesses in the ceramics industry. We need to ensure that the industry is at the heart of our trade agenda, and we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that we buy British every step of the way. That is why I brought my “back British bricks” Bill to Parliament, and I will continue to push that agenda. The most important point that we must all remember is simple: the ceramics industry can flourish, thrive and continue to lead the world, but that requires the state to act. We are not asking to be bailed out or to get the same level of commitment that other industries have received in recent months. The growth potential of this industry is massive in communities like mine and in our national economy, too. I ask the Minister to remember that now and in the months and years ahead, because we will not be going away and we will not stop making the case for the ceramics industry, which has brought such pride and opportunity to communities in the industrial heartlands like mine in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
My constituents Scott and Pamela McBride from Peterhead are victims of this shambolic bùrach. They retired in April 2020 and are still waiting on a resolution. They came to me in February. I will keep it simple: if I write to the Minister with the details, can his surge team help me with a surgery appointment to sort this out?
Does the hon. Member not think that this shows that we do not properly consider the inadvertent effects of the legislation we pass in this place? We have had useful amendments introduced in the House of Lords, but surely when we are drafting legislation on issues as important as this, we should get it right in the first place. We should not have to rely on hastily drawn up amendments in a Bill’s last stages to put it right.
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving us an update and introducing the regulations. He did so with real sincerity, guile and grace, and I think we are all grateful for the way in which he engages with us all across the House. I do not know how many of these statements and urgent questions I have attended over the course of the past 15 or 20 years. I seem to be spending an awful lot of time with the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), attending debates and meetings of the all-party parliamentary group that he so assiduously chairs. I have written letters to various Ministers, got responses, taken them to constituents, let them down again and perhaps even given them some sense of encouragement. I would like not to be doing that any more; I would like just for things to just work. I would like to think that everybody I have represented and got to know within the community is feeling positive and good about what is happening, and satisfied that things are moving on. I would like to think that the people who deserve these payments are securing them. I would like to think that they do not have to worry any more or be anxious about their domestic or personal situation—that they do not have to be concerned about those they care for, love or live with, because things are just being done. It would be great to be in that position. I always like to hear from the Minister, and it is great that he gives us constant updates, but would it not be something to get to that place of resolution, where people are satisfied with the progress and the payments being made? We had a very good debate a couple of weeks ago, which has been referenced by a couple of Members. I thought it was really good; lots of important and relevant points and issues came up. That is why I was a little bit surprised to find that the regulations were laid the very next day. Surely we should have taken that opportunity to pick up some of those things, because the themes were quite consistent across the House. Several concerns were consistently raised, and I think the Minister got a very clear impression of the priorities among those of us who work with the community—that was all loud and clear. There is something I do not get; perhaps the Minister can explain it to me. Maybe it was always part of the timetable that the regulations would be laid on that particular date, but surely we should have had time to reflect and go through the various points that came up from Members right across the House before we made this final progress and these regulations were laid. Important points came up, and we have heard some of them again today. I will not repeat them, because I have said them so many times to various Ministers at the Dispatch Box. The key thing that really needs to be progressed, looked at and resolved is the pace of the payments. We know that the infected are being looked after, and it looks like we are making real progress there. The Minister is right to refer to the structure and process used, because it has worked; I think we are all satisfied that things have moved on quite significantly and that payments are being made. But when it comes to the affected, I think we need to see a little bit more dynamism and energy. We need to ensure that the payments are made to these people, who are desperately waiting. I do not think the issues around interferon are properly addressed through the regulations. We are all happy and satisfied that we have the new 2B payments, but there is a huge case to be made for further levels of payments, particularly around 3B or 4B awards, which the community have been asking for quite consistently. The Government and their expert group seem to have ignored the huge amounts of real-world evidence of the debilitating, enduring impact of interferon treatment. In the debate a couple of weeks ago, I said it was akin to chemotherapy. We should start thinking about the damage that has been done by interferon on the same basis, and take it as seriously. We welcome the increase in the figure for families who have been subject to research and medical trials; I think the Minister said £60,000, compared with £25,000 previously, so that is a significant rise. However, there are still a few questions and issues around some of those payments and the inclusion of some people in the unethical research group. Again, it all comes back to that date of 1986—I think I heard the Minister say something about that particular date. That still seems to be a pretty rigorous cut-off point for people to be considered, particularly as the report itself references damage done beyond that date. Maybe the Minister could clarify that a little bit, and satisfy me that any cases belonging to that particular group that came after 1986 will be addressed. It is disappointing that there has been very little reference to the significant problems with estate claims, despite a number of meetings and much correspondence with the Cabinet Office. As we have heard from several hon. Members, it is a feature that came up in the previous debate. This is about the evidential hurdles that are impacting so many people—the fact that records do not exist, and it is really difficult to prove that certain documentation existed when it is no longer there because of historical issues, or because it has been lost, mislaid, or perhaps destroyed. We heard a little bit about the Government’s role in facilitating that—a number of records that had been kept by various Departments are no longer available to people who need to access them in order to progress their claims. Again, as a couple of Members have mentioned, we cannot forget the thousands of bereaved families who continue to wait for their compensation claims to begin, causing great anxiety and distress. The most important thing is the scaling up of the claims process to end the unbearable period of limbo that people are still having to endure. The number of the affected who have been through the process remains too low—now is the time for real progress. I think we are looking for a commitment that the Government will reflect on some of the issues we have highlighted, and perhaps think about coming back to the House having considered some of the things that have been raised consistently in debates and statements over the course of the past few weeks. Perhaps the Government could give us an update on how they intend to deal with those issues. It will not surprise the Minister that I am going to raise the issue of the duty of candour, which I think is the most important missing detail in all this—the thing that profoundly needs to be addressed. We know that the Hillsborough law Bill is coming up; I suggest ever so gently to the Government that that Bill has to be an absolute imperative. We need a duty of candour for civil servants who are involved in some of these scandals. Twenty years ago, civil servants would give stuff to Ministers for correspondence to me that they knew was lies, not just misleading or getting a few things wrong. I was raising issues on behalf of constituents who were experiencing real difficulties, and civil servants were supplying correspondence—facts and figures—to the Ministers replying to me that they knew was wrong. We need to try to understand why that happened and address it. The duty of candour aspect of any Hillsborough law is going to be highly important to ensure that nothing like this scandal ever happens again. I will end by saying that we are in such a better place than we were five years ago, or even three years ago; we are getting there. All of us who care about this debate, who have been in the Chamber putting these issues to the Minister, do not want anybody left behind; everyone, infected or affected, should be brought with us and should benefit from this resolution in the House. I will say one other thing to the Minister. The community have suffered so much throughout the decades. They have taken up this fight with such distinction and such courage, and they need to be thanked. We had the service, which was brilliant, but I hope that as we go forward, the Minister will look at the community as a resource—a source of lived experience who have a background in these issues that goes beyond anything that any expert group could have. They have lived with this, they have seen it, and it is they who are dealing with it. I am satisfied that we are moving forward and I hope we get some updates. I congratulate the Minister again on bringing the measure forward, but will the Government please look at some of the things that so many of us have been saying for such a long time, and make sure that they are properly addressed as we go forward?
We learned from the defence investment plan that there will be no new Type 83s or Type 32s, but we will get some unspecified, undetermined and uncrewed—and currently unbelievable—replacement. That is precisely the same sort of budget-cutting, finger-crossing nonsense from the MOD that sees the geriatric Land Rover not replaced until 2030, Sandown and Hunt removed before they are replaced, and C-130 retired before low-level parachute drops can take place from the A400M. Those are just three examples of the MOD missing its targets. Will the Secretary of State get a grip on the bean counters in the MOD, who apparently are not very good at counting beans? Will he commit to building all future complex warships on the Clyde or at Rosyth—preferably both?
I welcome the modest measures announced today. However, Thai-based billionaire and Reform party donor Christopher Harborne has already insisted that these new rules will not stop him donating. Billionaires, oligarchs and all those who wish to subvert our democracy believe that they are untouchable, so these measures must be rigorously enforced with severe punishments for anyone found breaking them. Given that the ex-leader of Reform in Wales is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking Russian money during his time as an MEP, will the Minister ensure that anyone found guilty of undermining the integrity of our democracy is dealt with with the same severity?
My constituent Jamie Dalgleish served 25 years in the submarine service, followed by 23 years in the Ministry of Defence police. He retired last year, but is still waiting for his monthly pension to start. Such is his financial hardship that at 65 years of age, Jamie has now taken a civilian job back with the MOD police, cleaning out the dogs’ kennels for minimum wage. He has been failed by Capita. Will the Minister take Jamie’s case directly to Capita and find a speedy resolution to this shocking injustice?
Can the Secretary of State explain to this House, the British people and our NATO allies how it is that our welfare bill is increasing by roughly £19 billion this year, we spent £13 billion on foreign aid last year and £15 billion has been committed to net zero schemes, and yet the defence investment plan still has a funding gap of £4.7 billion?
Will the Minister commit to reviewing every case where an individual has been stripped of his British citizenship on public protection grounds but remains in Britain because deportation has failed, and will he tell the House how many such people there are?
Will the Minister confirm that the Government will match this action against foreign financial influence by restoring the principle that voting in British parliamentary elections should be reserved for British citizens?
Shahid Butt is a convicted terrorist. He was convicted of attempting to blow up the British consulate in Yemen, an Anglican church and a hotel. That vile individual should never have been allowed into the UK, let alone be able to stand for the local council. It makes an absolute joke of our democracy, and I strongly support the idea of changing the law so that it can never happen again. But does the hon. Member agree that what should terrify us more than anything else in his case is that 452 people who have the vote voted for him? They voted for a convicted terrorist to represent them in the city hall in Birmingham. That is what should keep us awake at night.
A white man on a night out in Birmingham is assaulted by two black men. The police intervene and arrest the white man—the victim—and allow the two black lads to flee the scene. They then call the victim a “dick” and hit his head against a police car while they are sticking him in it. They then misrepresent what happened at the event, saying that it was a fight, when it was actually an assault. They say that absolutely nothing is wrong. The footage then goes viral, as ever, and the police are forced to change their tune—footage that the police actually tried to suppress. I have three simple questions for the Policing Minister. One, does she consider this to be another appalling incident of two-tier policing? Two, will she haul the acting chief constable of—
Well, well, this desperate Labour Government will stop at nothing to stop the rise of Reform UK—from trying to cancel elections, to donations, to changing the voting system in Manchester. If the Government are truly concerned about undue influence, has the Minister discussed the proposals with the Cayman Islands hedge fund Quadrature, which was the largest donator to the Labour Government, giving £4 million in 2024, or with the eight companies that have donated half a million pounds? Sure enough, those companies have had almost £150 million of Government contracts since.
The money in the DIP is clearly not enough, but it is welcome that some money has been found for defence, and I particularly welcome the new drone facility that is coming to Swindon in Wiltshire. In a genuinely constructive spirit, can I ask the Minister whether she is content with the model of defence procurement we have in this country, and whether she thinks that with a new Secretary of State and a new Prime Minister coming, now is the time to do a lot more to expedite the sort of innovative defence procurement that we will need to make the weapons for the future?
I welcome the statement. I want to follow on from the question from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). Yes, Ministers must take responsibility for the contracts, but ultimately Whitehall fails to deliver value for money on behalf of the public. It is not enough to say that the Government plan to insource more contracts—they cannot insource everything. What are the Government doing to ensure that Whitehall gets better value for money when it does procurement and project management?
I thank the Minister for her statement on the actions the Government will take to try to restore the public’s faith in our democracy. She mentioned that the “know your donor” rules will be strengthened, in particular with regard to the location of potential donors. Has there been any consideration of adding a prospective donor’s criminal history to the list of due diligence factors that a political party must consider when processing a potential donation?
One of my constituents submitted a request for their pension just over a year before their proposed retirement date, but is still waiting—sadly, it is little wonder that the June date has been missed. My constituents will thank the Minister for explaining the significant resource that the Government have allocated to eradicating this backlog, but, in advance of the August deadline, what additional resource in terms of staffing or funding is Capita allocating to the task?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his opening remarks, and the petitioners who brought the petition today. Public trust in our democracy is sadly at an all-time low due to broken manifesto commitments, resignations or just the perceived lack of accountability that has led to general political disillusion for so many. Every failure of standards and every perception that rules do not apply equally risks further damaging confidence in not only us as MPs but our democratic institutions. The petition was signed by over 200,000 people across the country, including 227 of my constituents in Guildford, and it asks a question that goes to the heart of our democracy: who is fit to stand for public office and how do we protect the institutions that make our democracy work? We Liberal Democrats believe that we should be working hard to restore public confidence in our democratic institutions. Those who have sought to undermine that confidence through political violence should face serious consequences. However, the question raised by the petition is not a simple one. Those who signed it are asking beyond whether someone convicted of terrorism offences should be able to stand for elected office; they are asking whether the system is serious about protecting itself. They are asking whether we understand what public office is for. The UK already disqualifies certain people with criminal convictions from holding elected office. Anyone sentenced to three months or more in prison is barred from serving on an English local authority for five years. Police and crime commissioner candidates are disqualified if they have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence. MPs serving prison sentences of more than a year are disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1981, so a framework is already in place. The question is whether it goes far enough for terrorism offences specifically. We do not think that it would be right to bar every person with any historic conviction from ever standing for office; that would be disproportionate and cut against the principle of rehabilitation. But terrorism and national security offences are different. They are, by definition, attacks on the institutions that the person may later seek to serve. It is reasonable for Parliament to treat them as a special case. Any new prohibition, however, must meet two tests. First, it must comply with the 1998 Human Rights Act. Restrictions on the right to stand for election must be proportionate and subject to proper legal safeguards. That is not a barrier to action; it is the framework that any workable law will have to fit within. Secondly, any prohibition must be consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. The constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland has held peace for a generation, and legislation drafted without regard to it could do real damage. That is a practical consideration, not a theoretical one, and I hope the Minister will address it directly. Within those tests, though, there is a clear route forward. The Elections Act 2022 already allows courts to issue disqualification orders, but only for five years. The Liberal Democrats support giving courts the power to issue longer disqualification orders, so that people who pose an ongoing threat to our democracy can be barred from public office for as long as that threat lasts. Currently, the Representation of the People Bill is making its way through Parliament. It provides a great opportunity for the Government to make changes to our electoral system. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has tabled an amendment that I fully support, which would prevent anyone convicted of offences relating to the promotion, incitement or use of political violence from making donations to political parties. If we agree that people who have used violence against our democracy should not sit in its chambers, we should also agree that they should not be funding the parties that do. I ask the Minister to look at that amendment seriously at the next stage of the Bill. There is a wider point about how nominations are handled. Returning officers currently have to accept nominations at face value. They cannot investigate allegations or reject a nomination because they think someone might be disqualified. As candidates self-declare their eligibility, the system depends on honesty. It is worth the Government asking whether that is still fit for purpose. Tackling extremism also requires more than legal disqualification. It requires the police and prosecutors to have the resources and training to prevent and prosecute hate crimes. It requires protective funding for places of worship, schools and community centres that have been the targets of attacks, and it requires all of us in public life to think very carefully about the rhetoric that we use and about the rhetoric that has too often been the precursor to violence. The Government currently have no plans to change the existing disqualification criteria. I hope that, having listened to the debate, the Minister will be willing to go further than that. Public trust is hard won and easily lost. On this issue, the Government can show that they take that trust seriously.
My constituent Anita was widowed suddenly in December 2025, and Capita has failed to calculate her lump sum and pension payments. She is living in desperate hardship; she has exhausted all her credit cards and there are no friends and family left who can support her. She has not even been able to scatter her husband’s ashes. The Minister has insisted that bereavement cases are prioritised, but the evidence suggests otherwise. What is the Minister doing now to ensure that people like Anita are not living in hardship? They need urgent action.
The Minister is right to point out that although we—I think across the House—welcome his work and diligence, and that of the previous Government, on the scheme and recognise the work that needs to be done, there is absolutely no doubt there are still too few who have received compensation. As of 2 June, my understanding is that just over 3,000 out of a potential 30,000 victims had received compensation. Can he update us on what he is doing to ensure that more people get the money they need as soon as possible?
Can the Minister advise the House on how earnings from foreign sources not made directly as political donations, such as hosting or appearing on TV channels supporting foreign adversaries, will be treated? They enable the significant indirect self-funding of candidates, future candidates, MPs and political parties by those who seek to influence political campaigning. Therefore, an overall cap on donations from British people, including those who are candidates and MPs, is really necessary. Will she comment on that source?
Dorset is about to get its fourth chief constable in just eight years. While I wish Amanda Pearson well in her retirement, those I spoke to who were involved in the recruitment panel said that the only potential candidates were the deputy chief constables or the assistant chief constables. In a place like Dorset, we tend to get someone who is either internal or about to retire. In almost every case, there is only one candidate. Given that situation, how will the Minister look to introduce fresh ideas and a culture free from nepotism, bias and toxicity in such a small cohort, so that we can get the leadership that we need?
Last month the former Defence Secretary said that he believed he was misled by his own Department while he was Defence Secretary. Former Scotland Secretary Baroness Liddell, who sat on the Philip review panel, said that she was misled. Given that, surely the Secretary of State must support the Chinook Justice Campaign families’ long-standing pleas for a fresh inquiry into why their family members were put on that particular flight?
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Has she considered the merits of establishing an office of the whistleblower, which would create new legal protections for those who declare wrongdoing and promote greater public awareness of whistleblowers’ rights? Will the Government ensure that there are criminal sanctions on officeholders who fail to whistle blow when they know or become aware of political interference or wrongdoing?
Growing the economy is one of the essential duties of the Government, and the levy is a key part of ensuring that productivity is part of that agenda. The levy gives the opportunity to grow core industries and infrastructure, and to change our economy so that we become more environmentally sound, tackle climate change and have a cleaner economy, which is essential. Many of the jobs included in the levy help achieve that. Colleagues have already alluded to the more than 1 million NEETs that are in our communities, and we know that this issue can be tackled through the levy. As Liberal Democrats, we believe in working in partnership with employers and educationalists, and we know that this can be achieved through the levy. Torbay is one of five core areas of opportunity for electronics and photonics across the United Kingdom. Companies such as Bay Photonics and Gooch & Housego work in partnership with South Devon college to ensure that there is a pipeline of opportunities for young people in Devon. As Liberal Democrats, we warmly welcome the proposals before us.