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
Is it true that the diplomats in the Foreign Office who deal with Pakistan are part of the obstacle to getting rid of this loathsome individual? Does the Minister agree that it is long overdue that the moral courage—indeed, heroism—of former Labour MP Ann Cryer, who first exposed this horrendous abuse, is properly and officially recognised?
On that point, I acknowledge the huge amount of effort, attention and concentration that the Minister has put into the scheme. I am therefore slightly surprised that the Haemophilia Society, which is a great champion for the community, says that in its opinion, care provided by family members is not being fairly compensated. It says that the scheme does not currently enable carers to make an adequate claim for the full impact of the care they provided, and that it does not sufficiently reflect the financial and personal sacrifices made by those who have delivered that care over decades, with particular reference to children and their educational sacrifices. I know there are no easy answers to this, but has the Minister had an interaction with the Haemophilia Society, which is well placed to represent the affected community?
I agree with the Minister that there is a great deal to welcome in Philip Rycroft’s conclusions. She talked about corporate donations. May I ask her to confirm that she is conscious of the vulnerability around unincorporated associations, which the Electoral Commission has identified for some time, and that she is focused on ensuring that that vulnerability is addressed?
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that one of the common themes in all the maternity scandals that we have been discussing in recent weeks, sadly, has been how a blame culture in the NHS makes it hard for NHS staff to speak openly about why tragedies have happened, and that that is why they welcome HSSIB, with its safe space protections? Is he worried that that could be undermined by putting HSSIB into the Care Quality Commission, which has a legal duty to act on information it receives, therefore creating the worry for people talking to HSSIB that the information that they give to it may no longer be protected in the same way?
The Prime Minister agreed that he would use all his might to tackle the shadow fleet tankers that were coming through British territorial waters. Since then, one has been taken, and just under 200 shadow fleet tankers have passed through our waters with nothing happening. Are the Government serious about stopping these tankers? Are they so serious about it that they will revisit the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which they seem to think prevents them from boarding the tankers?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), on securing this debate. As one of probably a few Members of Parliament who have worked in the ceramics industry, this is not just about jobs for me; it is about who we are, identity and what it means to make something tangible and real that can make a difference to our economy. It contributes £2 billion to our economy, including £600 million worth of exports from a country that, sadly, exports too little. The situation we are in is a tragedy. Ceramics is not just cups and saucers, plates and bowls; it is the tiles on our homes and the bricks. I have some amazing ceramics businesses in my constituency, whether that is Dunoon, Lucideon, AMRICC and, of course, Ibstock, which makes the iconic Staffordshire blue brick. It is crazy that we are in a situation where bricks are being imported into this country from India, Turkey and the Netherlands, and British manufacturers employing British people and providing British exports are being priced out of the market. The core issue here is energy costs—energy costs first, second and third. It would be disingenuous of me not to thank the Government for the action that they have taken to support the ceramics sector, but we will continue to see a decline in ceramics unless we address that core issue of energy. The Government have taken important steps to address it. The supercharger is important, but the reality is that only 10% of ceramics businesses are able to apply for that, for the simple reason that gas is not included, or not in the way that they are able to access it. Some 86% of the energy costs for ceramics manufacturers come from not electricity but gas. That is not through choice; it is necessary in order to make the product. They are not sat there thinking, “I don’t want to do the transition to electricity;” they cannot make that transition and, as the hon. Member for Lichfield rightly pointed out, hydrogen will not be able to come to the rescue and save those jobs. I am conscious that many people want to contribute, so I come to my ask of the Minister. I know that he is incredibly knowledgeable and passionate about this sector. I urge him to look at setting out a timetable for a review of extending the supercharger so that it can cover gas costs. If he is unable to do that and we are unable to get the support required, more British businesses will sadly go under; more British manufacturing businesses will no longer be manufacturing or exporting, and firms from across the sea will step into that gap. That is not something that anyone wants to see, whether in Staffordshire or across the United Kingdom.
I am grateful to the Minister for the £100 million grant she has given to Lincolnshire police and the transformative extra £12 million a year. We have been campaigning for that for years and have averted 400 job losses. When the Government do something right, it is right that we should say thank you. However, she may want to say a word about our problem. We are losing our excellent police and crime commissioner, Marc Jones—she could perhaps say a nice word about him—and those powers will be transferred to the mayor, but we have the Lincolnshire police and Humberside Police, and Humberside Police, of course, straddles two mayoralties, so she has a problem. May I urge her, in any local reorganisation, not to do away with small police forces such as Lincolnshire, to concentrate on old-fashioned policing—not woke, not courses, not staff—and to try to avoid throwing too many chairs up in the air with boundary reorganisation?
I am grateful for this opportunity to evaluate the Dash review of patient safety, and I thank the Minister for the meeting with her this afternoon. I hope that the House and Penny Dash will forgive me, but in the interests of brevity and clarity, I shall be direct. Whenever asked to justify the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, Ministers refer to Dash, but Dash fails to make the case for what it recommends. This new clinical incident investigator was established less than three years ago. HSSIB is a new concept in healthcare, conceived to challenge the culture of denial and blame in the NHS. It is proving itself, even with its very limited budget. One early report on aortic dissection led to 300 more people receiving lifesaving treatment. The Minister now has a list of key recommendation impacts produced by HSSIB. A lot of them may seem small or piecemeal, but so far it is only a small body. After a boy suffered an avoidable death from cancer, HSSIB recommended to NHS England a new community language translation and interpreting services framework so that non-English speaking patients would get appointment letters for their children that they could read and understand. HSSIB recommended a protocol between prisons and ambulance services to avoid wasting ambulance time and new guidance for non-accidental injury of babies in emergency departments where no specific guidance had existed before. The Dash review shows no understanding of HSSIB’s purpose and no comprehension of coherent safety systems management. Dash gets facts wrong and misinterprets the law, either through a failure of understanding or because the recommendation to abolish HSSIB somehow reflected the desired outcome of the review, regardless of the facts. I will set out some specific questions, most of which the Minister has had in advance. If she does not have enough time to respond, I look forward to discussing them at a future meeting that we discussed having.
I 100% agree with my right hon. Friend. He will note that I will pick up on those points during my remarks. I come back to the questions that I want to put to the Secretary of State. First, if HSSIB’s investigations are intended to continue unaffected by the transfer to the CQC, why bother with the expense of the transfer? Are Ministers simply using Dash as the pretext for what people in the Department or elsewhere in the NHS would like to have? HSSIB was deliberately started very small, but the intention was that over time it would take over more investigations in health and replace the need for wasteful, lengthy, inexpert ad hoc public inquiries. Over the years, inquiries have proved to be a chaotic means of investigation, assembling expertise from scratch, which is then lost after the inquiry, and failing to command public confidence or to fix the system. That is why, after the 1999 Paddington rail crash, the Ladbroke Grove inquiry in 2001 established the rail accident investigation branch. Since then, despite many fatal rail accidents, there has been no public inquiry into a rail crash—nor has the public felt the need to demand one—and rail safety has improved. Given that HSSIB is expert, full time, and can conduct much cheaper and quicker investigations than public inquiries, how can Ministers accept the Dash recommendation to abolish it? Why not consider expanding HSSIB to avoid the need for so many costly public inquiries? Dash complains about there being far too many recommendations—yes, there are—but, as Dash itself enumerates, it is the 30 public inquiries that, in its language, have “cluttered” the “landscape” with some 1,400 recommendations over recent years. HSSIB is therefore not the source of those recommendations. In HSSIB’s first 34 months of operation, it has produced only 56 recommendations. How can Ministers use that reason to justify HSSIB’s abolition? Dash refers more than once to “quality (including safety) of care”. That elides quality of care with safety. In any other safety-critical industry, safety is seen as a distinct, separate and overriding priority. It is telling that in the report, the words “including safety” are added merely in parentheses, as though safety is ancillary to quality, but that becomes justification for rationalisation while actually compromising safety. Safety system management is intrinsic to safety and public confidence in other safety-critical activities, such as aviation, but this is alien to NHS culture. I therefore ask the Minister again: without HSSIB, which independent body will promote a coherent understanding of safety system management in health, and who is to hold the NHS and Government to account for safety failures?
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Recommendation 1 in the Dash review says that the new National Quality Board should “avoid unfunded mandates being imposed on the system without due consideration”. Public inquiries have certainly made well meaning but unaffordable recommendations—I think of the Francis inquiry recommendation on blanket standards for minimum staffing—but it is wrong to see safety as a cost in opposition to other benefits. The cost of safety failures is astronomic, with NHS clinical negligence costing £3.6 billion a year, despite all the public inquiries. Effective safety management is about the cost-effective management of risk, not risk elimination at any cost. If the air accidents investigation branch did not balance costs with effective risk management, aeroplanes would not fly. Can the Minister therefore point out which of HSSIB’s recommendations have been too expensive to implement? If not, where is the justification for abolishing HSSIB? Neither the NQB nor the CQC should control investigations. The AAIB cannot be prevented from making independent recommendations by the Civil Aviation Authority, the Transport Secretary or airlines themselves. Why should the NQB, which will be subject to political direction, be allowed to decide what safety recommendations should be made and what should be investigated, as Dash recommends? On page 31, Dash incorrectly states: “HSSIB was not able to retain the maternity programme because the Health and Care Act 2022 does not make provision for maternity investigations under HSSIB.” Why have the Government accepted that assertion as true? It is wrong in fact and law. The new statutory HSSIB did not take on maternity and newborn safety investigations, because they were commenced without the safe space protections, so their evidence is available for legal proceedings. That is not how HSSIB operates. Since 2023, HSSIB has been conducting its own maternity investigations. Indeed, when the Amos review was established, it took on the relevant investigations from HSSIB and then relied on HSSIB for assistance with them. With sufficient resources, HSSIB could conduct all maternity investigations much more effectively than the maternity and newborn safety investigations programme. Amos reported that MNSI investigations are not trusted by families, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) was saying, and are not consistent or effective in identifying learning or providing accountability. Amos also says that families should have access to an independent investigation if they lose confidence in the local investigations. Without HSSIB, who will provide those independent investigations? Finding 6 accuses HSSIB of having “expanded” its “scope of work beyond the original remit…For example, HSSIB was originally established, along the lines of safety investigatory bodies in other industries, to look at specific cases or incidents of severe harm, but it has since broadened its work into making more systemic recommendations.” That is what Dash says. It is complete nonsense. HSSIB is exactly equivalent to the AAIB, the marine accident investigation branch and RAIB, and was, like them, set up to conduct systemic investigations. That is why they are such effective bodies. The Health and Care Act 2022 does not limit HSSIB investigations to individual incidents. There is no reference whatsoever to “severe harm”, as Dash puts it, in the 2022 Act. It was always intended by Parliament that HSSIB should make systemic recommendations arising from the investigation of specific incidents or groups of incidents. I can say that with authority because it was my Select Committee that recommended HSSIB in the first place, and I also chaired the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the draft legislation, so how can Ministers give any authority to the Dash review, which claimed that HSSIB has expanded its remit, when it has done no such thing? Recommendation 3 proposes: “Most investigations into safety incidents should continue to be managed within provider organisations”. This really is the fundamental flaw in Dash. Recent maternity investigations conducted by trusts have highlighted the deficiency of provider-led investigations, as Ockenden and Amos have pointed out. Do the Government accept that investigations by provider organisations are inherently conflicted? Just ask the clinicians, patients, families and patient safety organisations what they think about trusts marking their own homework. None of them has confidence, because providers are keen to protect themselves from litigation and reputational damage. How can Ministers accept the Dash recommendation that we should rely on investigations conducted by provider organisations?
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Only an independent investigator can find the causes of the incident that may be part of the culture or practice of that provider, or of the system as a whole. It is like suggesting that airlines or aircraft manufacturers can protect passenger safety without the independent accountability provided by the AAIB. Of course, providers should have the capacity and capability of conducting patient safety investigations, but they must know that HSSIB can and will look at that work and will hold them to account. Recommendation 3 also says that HSSIB should continue as what it calls “a centre of excellence for investigations” in the CQC, but I am afraid that this is just a sop. The CQC, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, is a regulator and compliance enforcer, not an investigator. How can the CQC also be an independent investigator? Dash also says that the CQC internal successor should collaborate through the NQB to agree the scope of any investigations it carries out and agree the recommendations. Dash is effectively saying that CQC investigations will be overseen by the NQB. That is a direct attack on the independence of investigations. Can the Minister explain who in future will conduct independent and unconflicted investigations into safety incidents in the NHS? For example, how would an investigation under the CQC be free to find that the CQC inspections themselves were causing unintended harm to patients, or is it back to the misery of litigation through the courts and more public inquiries? The recommendation also makes no reference to the statutory safe space raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) that provides for protected disclosure by patients and their families, clinicians and others in safety investigation bodies. It is a crucial safeguard, allowing people to speak. It allows for the duty of candour. I would just point out that the duty of candour does not work if it is just imposed on people. People cannot be forced to incriminate themselves. If placed under the CQC, confidence in the safe space investigations will collapse—and back we go to public inquiries. The Health Bill does attempt to address this by replicating the 2022 Act’s safe space provisions, but that Act also provided for disclosure in certain circumstances, which is allowed on the basis that the benefits for the safety of patients outweighs any impact on current and future investigations. But under this Bill, who will decide what protected information can be disclosed? How will the CQC give the same confidence that the safe space is not being compromised as HSSIB? Finally, Dash fails to look at the comparative cost of HSSIB investigations versus the cost of public inquiries. HSSIB at the moment only costs £6.3 million per year. To save money, the Secretary of State should request that HSSIB conducts far more investigations into matters which he thinks are important, provided that he also provides the funding for the necessary capacity. HSSIB, for example, has conducted eight investigations into mental health suicides since 2023. Each was completed in a few weeks or months, costing a total of £850,000. In comparison, the Lampard inquiry into the Essex partnership university trust in my constituency—investigating the same problem—is expected to cost more than £5 million. Ockenden cost £14 million. This is very far from the best use of resources for conducting investigations. So I ask the Minister, why have Dash and the Government ignored the whole question of HSSIB’s value for money? Even if HSSIB only saves a fraction of the £3.6 billion in costs of clinical negligence, it will pay for itself many fold. I do hope that Ministers will reconsider the whole issue, reflecting on the fact that none of the Royal colleges, nor any of the patient safety organisations, nor the all-party group on patient safety support this unjustifiable policy.
I am listening very carefully to what the Minister is saying. She has engaged positively with the questions I have asked, but she has actually made the case for keeping HSSIB separate. Will she reflect on that? If the only thing she wants is for the CQC to own the recommendations, she should amend HSSIB and say, “The CQC must ensure that the recommendations are implemented.” In fact, the recommendations are directed at Ministers and bits of the health service that are answerable to her and to the Secretary of State. We should keep HSSIB separate, but by all means let us discuss how to ensure that the recommendations are implemented properly.
As the hon. Lady has said, the House owes considerable gratitude to their noble Lordships Blunkett and Herbert, but surely the problem is very well rehearsed: a lack of consistent, high-quality leadership within the police. Will she explore further the benefits of having within the police the structure of a professional officer corps? That has been regularly advocated, and we know that in the military it delivers outstanding leadership and leadership structures. Will she therefore bear in mind that there are many brilliant, very senior officers in the British military who would bring undoubted leadership skills to bear at the most senior levels within the police, including in future for the role of Metropolitan Police Commissioner?
4. What steps he is taking to increase the availability of the Royal Navy surface fleet.
With the retirement of HMS Iron Duke, the number of deployable Type 23s is reducing. In government, we ordered a total of 13 Type 26s and Type 31s. With the Chagos deal now dead, does the Minister agree with our policy that the immediate saving of £400 million should be used to accelerate the commissioning and launching of the Type 26s and Type 31s?
Like all of us, several constituents have raised heartbreaking issues with me—they are getting into real financial duress. My constituents viewing our proceedings today will be thinking, “Well, what’s going to change?” Will the Minister consider compensating people from Capita’s profits, so that all missed payments are given to people who are in financial difficulty? Everybody should get what they should have got on the date they should have got it, straight out of Capita’s profits.
I thank the Minister for his statement and, through him, his officials, and particularly the surge team, who are trying to clear up this mess of Capita’s creation. I am sure the Minister will share my bemusement at Capita’s stance. It seems to have no emotional intelligence whatsoever in relation to understanding the very demonstrable harm that is being done to constituents the length and breadth of this country. It does seem cognisant that His Majesty’s Government happen to be customer No. 1 as far as Capita’s balance sheet is concerned. Is it unwilling or unable to face into the situation as it currently presents itself, and really put its shoulder to the wheel and sort this out, or does he fear it has just given this up as a bad job, is just waiting for the contract to be taken from it and will just soft-pedal between now and when that time comes?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am a member. I also thank all the petitioners from across the country who kindly signed the petition which, put simply, asks whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permanently barred from standing for elected public office. That is a serious question that deserves careful consideration by Members. Before I go any further, let me be clear that it is my firm belief that we should never be in a situation where someone convicted of terrorism can stand for office in this country. I accept that we cannot always rely on the integrity of some overseas courts, but a terrorism conviction is incredibly serious and should have an impact on a person’s right to stand for and be elected to public office. There has, quite rightly, been a lot of emphasis on the specific case of Shahid Butt, who, as we have heard, stood for election to the Sparkhill ward in the May 2026 local elections for Birmingham city council. At the time, it was known that Mr Butt had previously been sentenced in Yemen to five years in prison for terrorism, after being convicted with five other UK nationals of plotting to blow up the British consulate there, among other locations. This individual should never have been permitted to stand for election and—as others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, have said—it is deeply worrying that people in the ward voted for someone who had previously been convicted of terrorism offences. This debate is incredibly important because it opens up a much wider conversation about who can and cannot stand for public office. It is right that we properly scrutinise any convictions that have been awarded by foreign courts, but surely the fact that a conviction has been awarded sparks a level of interest in an individual, so I urge the Government to consider tightening the rules. The reality is that if someone becomes elected, having previously been convicted of terrorism offences, either to this place or to a local authority, they not only represent their ward members or constituents but have access to information. Public confidence is at risk of being derailed because of that individual. What does it say about democracy in this country when an individual who has previously been convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand for election? I do not think the Government’s response to the petition is anywhere near good enough. They have responded by saying that they “currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria” for those standing for election who have been convicted of such offences, but that they keep the counter-terrorism framework “under constant review to ensure it is fit for purpose.” I say gently to the Minister that the current scenario is not fit for purpose if someone such as Mr Butt was able to stand for election in the May 2026 Birmingham city council elections. Given the level of concern expressed in the debate, what will the Government be doing to tighten up provisions to deal with what the petitioner is ultimately asking for?
Before we move on from Shahid Butt, I want to be clear that he was allowed to stand for local elections. The Government have said they currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria for those standing for election. Why is that? At the moment, somebody convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand. Why would the Government not want to change that?
I cannot quite believe the words that I am hearing from the Minister. He says that all options are on the table, but the only option that the Government should be considering is deportation. He has the ability to bring through emergency legislation, which I am sure would get the backing of both sides of the House, to ensure that Shabir Ahmed is deported. When will he bring forward such legislation, so that we in this House can vote on it and ensure that this individual, who has committed heinous crimes across Rochdale, is deported?
7. What steps his Department is taking to collaborate with the national health service in Richmondshire.
May I add my welcome to the new Minister? I know that he will bring experience and dedication to the role, and I thank him for his answer. The Minister is absolutely right that the new care centre will serve both serving personnel and the local community, and it will improve healthcare provision. May I ask that the MOD continues to liaise with the local authority as it develops its Catterick town regeneration plan, to ensure that things are joined up? May I also raise a broader point, on which I know the Minister will agree with me? As he said, this is the first collaboration of its kind between the NHS and the MOD, and I hope that it can serve as a template for other areas across the country. Will he join me in thanking all those who have been involved in the project, which has taken many years to bring to fruition?
This draft order will allow the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, known as the ECITB, to continue collecting a levy on employers in order to fund training and address skills shortages. The engineering construction industry underpins many of the services that we rely on every day: heating our homes, supplying clean drinking water, or providing the energy and fuels that keep our economy moving. The levy helps to ensure that we have the skilled workforce needed to build and maintain critical infrastructure, a workforce essential to the UK’s future energy security and economic growth. The order continues the board’s established approach of setting levy orders for a three-year period. Under the proposals before us, the levy rates for employees working on site will remain at 1.2% of total enrolments and rates for off-site employees will remain at 0.33%. That is unchanged from the 2023 levy order. As we have heard, exemptions will continue to be in place for smaller employers. This draft order is particularly relevant to my constituency. Devonport dockyard, in the neighbouring Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, and its supply chain provide thousands of highly skilled engineering and construction jobs across Plymouth and the wider south-west. Indeed, the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent has been maintained from Plymouth for over 70 years and will need a trained workforce—something that Team Plymouth is working hard to deliver. As major investment continues in defence and nuclear infrastructure, it is critical that we maintain a steady stream of skilled engineers, technicians and apprenticeships. I can confirm that we Conservatives will not oppose the order. However, this debate is a useful opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s plans to address the issues with recruitment and retention. As the Minister has already said, the training levy clearly commands industry support, with 85% of levy-paying employers voting in favour of it in 2025, representing 98% of the levy paid. The levy system plays a vital role in developing a consistent pipeline of home-grown engineering construction workers. According to research commissioned by the ECITB in 2024, 65% of employers felt that, without the levy and grant system, the training would not take place. In an increasingly fragile geopolitical climate, it is vital that we have a well-trained domestic talent pool across those sectors. The levy works because it is driven by industry need. Companies understand their workforce requirements far better than Whitehall ever could, and we should be empowering businesses to create jobs, not burdening them with ever greater costs and then attempting to compensate through Government schemes that seek to manage the consequences of labour shortages after they have arisen. One reason levy rates are not being increased is that employers are already facing higher operating costs, not least because of Labour’s damaging national insurance hikes. That is classic Labour economics: making it more expensive to hire people, then intervening with subsidies to solve a problem of the Government’s own making. As I have said before, most employers would rather keep more of what they earn and invest it themselves than have the Government take with one hand and give a little back with the other. I believe such details are included in the explanatory note. The levy proposals are expected to raise a total of £137.9 million over the levy periods between this year and 2028. We must ensure that this levy delivers the workforce that the industry needs. More than 70% of employers are now experiencing significant hiring challenges, up from 53% in 2021. According to the ECITB’s 2025 report, the main reasons for skills shortages include “a shortage of qualifications and skills among candidates, a mismatch between candidate expectations and what employers can offer, a limited applicant volume, mobility and location issues, and increased competition among employers and other sectors.” To make matters worse, the engineering construction industry faces an upcoming wave of retirements. Almost 15% of the workforce are already over the age of 60. Workers in craft roles, in particular, are in short supply. Concerningly, about one in four welders and one in five pipefitters are over 60. Although the number of workers under 30 has slightly increased since 2021, from 14.7% to 16.8%, new entrants are not yet arriving quickly enough to offset experienced workers leaving the industry. We know that the ECITB invested £28 million in training grants and new entrant programmes in 2024, supporting more than 2,000 new entrant starts, including 1,000 apprentice starts and more than 500 graduates. That is to be welcomed, but those numbers must keep growing if the industry is to replace retiring workers while simultaneously expanding the workforce needed for future projects. The industry will face peak demand for workers in four years’ time, and 40,000 extra workers will be needed for major projects by 2030, according to ECITB forecasts. That does not even take into account the demand in manufacturing sectors not covered by the ECITB. I accept that the Minister said that 5,000 places have been filled but, given that 40,000 figure, we will need further work on this. Can the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking, alongside the ECITB’s work, to attract new entrants into the workforce? Given the significant training costs that employers incur, does he believe that current ECITB grant support is sufficient to incentivise employers to expand recruitment, particularly in occupations facing the greatest shortages? We know that retention is equally critical, so could he confirm what proportion of apprentices, graduates and new entrants supported through the ECITB are still working in the industry 12 months after completing their training? The Government have recently consulted on proposals to bring together the Construction Industry Training Board and the ECITB in a single body. As those responses are considered, I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on how the specialist needs of the engineering construction sector will be protected. Constituencies such as mine rely on highly skilled engineering and technical workers to support major defence and nuclear infrastructure, but we also need construction workers to build new homes and the like, and it is important that those skills are not overlooked within a larger organisation. I want to ask the Minister another question, if I may. Since the removal of local training groups by the Construction Industry Training Board, I have heard that money for regional employer networks has not been found in certain regions, and as a result those networks have not been properly set up. We have debated that point in the past, and I appreciate that it is not entirely related, but it is about employment and training. How is the Department working to mitigate the apparent failure of the regional employer network hubs that were being set up? To conclude, the engineering construction industry requires a strong pipeline of skilled workers. There is clear evidence that employers continue to support the levy system, but I would welcome the Minister’s response to the points I have raised about recruitment, retention and the future direction of the ECITB. If we are serious about delivering our ambitions on energy, infrastructure and industrial growth, we must be equally serious about investing in the workforce that will make those ambitions a reality.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and Philip Rycroft for his review. On Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, we Conservatives reaffirmed our support for measures to tackle foreign interference, in the light of growing threats from China and other hostile actors. However, we have expressed our concerns about the lack of proper consultation on the detail of the proposed measures, and the lack of engagement with political parties on changes to the law affecting political parties. The Bill should have been introduced after the Government’s response to the Rycroft report, rather than being hastily amended halfway through. The integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to public trust in politics. Every political party represented in this place has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are prevented—well, almost every political party. [Laughter.] I thought Labour Members would like that. However, while we support the objective of protecting British democracy from foreign interference, we have significant concerns about both the process that the Government have adopted and several of the proposals emerging from the review. First, the Government immediately accepted—with retrospective effect—a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors, yet those decisions were announced without any meaningful consultation or engagement with political parties. That is particularly disappointing because questions of party funding have traditionally been approached through dialogue and cross-party discussion. Such conventions exist for good reason: rules governing political competition should command broad confidence, and should not be changed unilaterally by whatever party happens to be in government. The breakdown of these long-standing conventions should concern all parties, regardless of their political perspective. If Governments begin introducing retrospective and highly partisan changes to the rules of political finance without consultation, we risk creating a precedent that future Administrations may follow. Parliamentary questions have shown that there has been no engagement with the House of Commons—with the Committee on Standards, the registrar, or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—despite changes directly relating to the registration of donations by Members, and despite this House’s code of conduct. Yet again, the Government are making announcements, such as changing the policy on a cap on donations and changing the rules on candidate donations, with zero consultation. Without stepping into matters that are the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I note that it is already the case that newly elected MPs are supposed to declare gifts and donations that they received in the past 12 months. There also appears to be uncertainty about the scope of the new requirements relating to candidate donations. It is not yet clear which categories of elected officials the provisions will cover, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. What assessment has been made of the impact of the new profit test on the ability of all political parties to undertake sponsorship and advertising at their party conferences? Have the Government properly considered with the Electoral Commission the interaction of the new requirements with the proposed draft guidance on sponsorship? Does the Minister think that a company sponsoring a lounge or a lanyard is foreign interference? Had the Government engaged fully with political parties, electoral administrators, compliance professionals and other stakeholders before announcing their response, many of these practical difficulties and unintended consequences could have been identified and addressed at an earlier stage. To be clear, we support measures that genuinely strengthen the resilience of our democratic system. We recognise the risks associated with cryptocurrency donations and agree that safeguards are necessary. We also support tighter rules governing donations in the period immediately before elections. However, good policy requires more than good intentions; it requires engagement and a willingness to listen to those responsible for implementing the rules. The protection of our democracy is too important to be pursued through retrospective legislation and measures whose practical consequences have not been fully thought through. Unfortunately, this is a Government who talk about defending democracy while trying to cancel local elections for two years in a row; who amended the electoral system for mayors for partisan advantage; and who changed the laws on election pilots in complete secrecy. They are now gerrymandering local government boundaries. The official Opposition will work constructively with the Government to defend the national interest from foreign interference, but Ministers would be wise to step back from US-style, hyper-partisan legislation, and actually learn to consult.
Order. Before the Minister responds, let me say that one question is enough.
Order. Mr Jenrick, one question is normally enough, and I have given you the privilege of two. I call the Minister.
Mr Vince, you have moved. No wonder it is so quiet in your usual part of the Chamber.
Order. We refer to colleagues not by their names, but by their constituencies. You have already named the Chair of that Committee, so dive into the question.
Order. To help more Members get in, questions need to be short and limited to just one question.
Order. The questions are far too long. Too many colleagues will be disappointed unless questions are kept short. I call Kim Johnson to show us how it is done.
Order. Gosh—a long question and the hon. Member is saying “you”; it is not my responsibility. Minister, over to you.
Order. What can I do to restore confidence, or what can the Minister do? You mean the Minister?
I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege. Clause 2 Offences relating to designated bodies
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 6.
Mr Sewards, normally when a Member is called last, they are under a time limit, but you now have more than an hour.
I call the Minister to wind up. As I said, an hour and 15 minutes is yours.
May I endorse your tribute to the late Sir George Howarth, Mr Speaker? May I also take this opportunity to welcome the incoming Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), to his new position? In the two years that he has been in the House, he has already established a reputation for independence of mind and for fearlessly speaking truth to power, regardless of the consequences. I am sure that will stand him in very good stead now. May I ask a specific question about Northern Ireland veterans? When the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), resigned on principle, partly over the legacy issue, he famously described Labour’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill as “unfit for purpose”. What does the Secretary of State think he meant by that?
We have been waiting for those amendments almost as long as we have been waiting for the DIP. Where is the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) on the legacy issue? Many regiments that hail from the north-west—such as the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, which has already mentioned once today, and, before it, the King’s Regiment, which traditionally recruited from both Liverpool and Manchester—did multiple tours in Northern Ireland on Op Banner. Has the Secretary of State had any indications that our likely new Prime Minister is going to do right by those former soldiers from his own region, scrap the benighted Bill, which helps Sinn Féin pursue our veterans via lawfare, and get rid of the whole nonsense altogether?
One of my constituents, Caroline from Rickmansworth, has been waiting over six months to receive the documentation required to retire. Capita publicly stated that all outstanding retirement quotes would be issued by the end of June 2026. However, this deadline has passed and Caroline is still waiting. What advice can the Minister offer Caroline about what she should do to receive this essential documentation?
In my previous role as Lancashire’s police and crime commissioner, the connection between such sites and organised crime gangs was often well documented. As the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) outlined, a multi-agency response is often needed, but it is important that we do not forget the role of the police, who often have to escort other agencies to the sites in order to protect them from the people operating them.