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. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mr Andrew Snowden

   Environmental Protection

   The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. In my previous role, and from meeting people working in the industry in my Fylde constituency, I discovered that the Environment Agency often regularly visits those businesses that are already abiding by the law and keeping good records, because those records are easy to inspect and the companies are easy to deal with, and it often issues fines for small misdemeanours. Meanwhile the criminal operators, who are flagrantly breaking the law, often evade any inspection because they are difficult to deal with and aggressive. The regulatory framework is important, but the culture of going after those who are flagrantly breaking the law, rather than just checking people’s paperwork, is really important as well.

   Hansard source
2. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Civil Service Pensions

   I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Nobody in this House should be in any doubt about the anxiety and hardship being felt by retired public servants and the grieving families left stranded by this operational collapse. We are talking about more than 6,700 outstanding pension quotations and more than 4,100 unresolved bereavement cases. These are not mere statistics; they represent vulnerable individuals who have been left facing severe financial distress. Let us be completely clear about where responsibility for this ongoing execution failure lies. The Minister can look backwards to November 2023 all he likes, but the critical transition phase, the data quality integration and the system go-live occurred on this Government’s watch and, more specifically, on his watch. The timeline of unheeded warnings is damning. Throughout 2025, both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee explicitly flagged that Capita was missing critical transition milestones and IT delivery targets, yet despite these clear red flags, the Cabinet Office chose to override the warnings, accepted flawed assurances and pressed ahead with the December go-live. The contract management failure belongs entirely to those on the Government Front Bench. Alarmingly, despite the establishment of the Minister’s flagship pensions recovery taskforce, the situation is deteriorating in key areas. The Minister has just admitted that the backlog of MP complaints has grown significantly under his watch, going from 1,500 to more than 1,900 outstanding constituent cases since the end of April—barely nine weeks ago—and it is getting worse. Worse still, instead of focusing purely on immediate operational rectification, the Minister is using this crisis as an ideological springboard to flip to default insourcing. I am agnostic on whether the scheme is provided in-house or externally, but there is little in the Government’s record to suggest that they are capable of running this scheme any less incompetently than the current operators. Retired civil servants do not need a lecture on procurement ideology; they need their pensions sorted today. The Minister must answer four specific questions. First, given that the Public Accounts Committee explicitly warned of the Capita IT system’s unreadiness last October, what independent technical verification did the Cabinet Office conduct before Ministers allowed the December go-live to proceed? Secondly, the Minister noted that the 140-strong Government surge team are costing significant resource. Although he intends to recover the costs from the £9.9 million withheld from Capita, will he guarantee that any remaining funds will be legally diverted into an immediate compensation scheme for those affected and for grieving families who have suffered real financial detriment? Thirdly, the Minister expressed deep frustration at Capita’s wider public sector footprint. The Procurement Act 2023 is fully active, and it established a centralised debarment list specifically to stop failing legacy suppliers winning further public work. Will the Minister commit at the Dispatch Box to formally referring Capita to the Debarment Review Service for investigation, or will he allow it to continue bidding for other contracts while he waits until 2027 to implement his insourcing reviews? If the threshold is not met in this case, where will the Minister consider it appropriate to use the powers that he has? Finally, given the Minister’s conclusion that Capita has always been an unsuitable operator of the scheme, can he tell the House why the current Government chose to award Capita the new Department for Work and Pensions contract—not in 2023, but this February? Public servants who have dedicated their working lives to this country deserve financial security and dignity. They have been let down by corporate failure, as the Minister says, but they are also being let down by this Government’s failure to manage the contract when it matters the most. It is time for the Minister to stop blaming the past, stop pitching future ideological tests, and finally fix the operational reality on the ground.

   Hansard source
3. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Payment Scheme

   I would like to start by thanking the Paymaster General for bringing forward these important regulations and also to say thank you to the former Minister for Public Health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for her valuable work when she was in office. This debate takes place in the shadow of one of the gravest injustices in modern British history. The infected blood scandal caused unimaginable harm, with lives lost, families devastated, careers destroyed, potential never realised, children robbed of parents and many victims forced to fight for decades just for recognition and to be heard. Compensation is not a gift from the state; it is a duty owed to those who were failed by the state. That duty must be delivered with urgency, compassion and fairness. The regulations make a number of amendments to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025. Many of the changes appear to address concerns raised by victims, families and campaigners about the structure and adequacy of the scheme and, obviously, those contained in the additional report. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the Government bringing forward these amendments to address the lessons learned from the early stages of the compensation scheme, to fill in some of the gaps and to implement the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report. However, the existence of this instrument also underlines the importance of getting the scheme right. Victims and their families have already waited far too long. They must not be required to navigate repeated technical changes, uncertainty or delays before receiving the compensation and recognition they deserve. The regulations also amend the method for calculating past and future amounts for certain awards, including financial loss awards. I would be grateful if the Minister sets out clearly how the Government will ensure that those changes are properly communicated to victims and to families so that people understand how their entitlement will be calculated and whether they may be better off as a result. The changes are sensible but, by necessity, regulations can appear rather daunting. My degree was in economics and law, and I am reasonably comfortable with legal texts and with algebra, but at first glance we can wonder what language some of it is written in, so it is obviously important that they are communicated in a way that can be properly understood. His Majesty’s Opposition also welcome the changes to the autonomy award for those infected as children. The fact that some people were infected at such a young age, with consequences that shaped their entire childhood and adult life, must be properly reflected in the scheme. This is not simply a question of medical impact; it is about lost childhoods, lost opportunities and the lifelong trauma experienced by those who infected when they were at their most vulnerable. There are also changes in relation to unethical research practices, which we have discussed many times in the Chamber. We greatly welcome the increase in the relevant award amounts and the extension in provision to those who received treatment for bleeding disorders before 1986. Given the seriousness of the issue, will the Minister confirm how the Government will identify those who fall into that category and what evidence he expects they will have to provide so that the process does not become another source of distress for victims and their families? We also note the creation of a new “severe health condition” category for qualifying chronic hepatitis-associated conditions based on support scheme categories. Again, we would welcome clarity from the Minister on how he expects that to work in practice and in particular how the Government will ensure consistency across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendments to affected injury awards are also significant. Families were not bystanders to this scandal; partners, parents, children and siblings lived with the consequences every day. Many provided care, endured bereavement, suffered stigma and experienced profound emotional and financial harm. The scheme must continue to recognise that the damage caused by this scandal extended far beyond those directly infected. Therefore, while these technical changes matter greatly, the central question remains delivery. Victims and families need to know when they will receive compensation, including as a result of the new regulations. They need to know how quickly claims will be processed, what support will be available to them to navigate the scheme, and how the Government will ensure that truly no one is left behind. I therefore ask the Minister to address the following points. First, what is his intended timetable for payments under the regulations, and how many people do the Government expect to receive compensation in the coming months? Secondly, how confident is he that that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the staffing, expertise and resources it needs to process claims under the regulations quickly and sensitively?

   Hansard source
4. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Payment Scheme

   I could not agree more. It is particularly important that infected and affected victims and their families, who for many, many years were not listened to, heard or believed, and who faced officials who denied what all the evidence later proved to be the case, now feel that they are being treated with respect and sensitivity. Thirdly, will the Minister clarify further, as I asked earlier, how the Government will communicate the broader changes to victims and their families in plain English, rather than simply relying on the legal and technical language in the draft regulations? Finally, what appeal or review mechanisms will be available if individuals believe that their reward has been calculated incorrectly or does not reflect their full circumstances? The Opposition strongly support the regulations, which build on work that has proceeded through this House with support from across the Chamber, and continue work that began before the last election. We recognise that they contain changes that many victims and families will welcome. I am sure that the Minister will agree that our responsibility as Parliament, and his as a Minister, does not end with the passing of statutory instruments. It ends only when victims and their families have received the recognition, justice and compensation that they have waited decades to secure. This scandal was defined by delay, denial and institutional failure, and the compensation scheme must not be defined by the same failings. The regulations are a strong and positive step towards ensuring that that is not the case, but the Government must now deliver them with urgency, transparency and humanity. That is the very least that victims and their families deserve after all this time.

   Hansard source
5. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Matt Vickers

   Police Leadership Commission Report

   I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and pay tribute to the noble Lords Herbert and Blunkett for producing such a timely and thoughtful report. The last year has done real damage to public confidence in police leadership. Of course, the report rightly recognises that there are many outstanding officers leading forces across the country, but the headlines that people remember tell a different story. From the shameful scenes surrounding the Maccabi Tel Aviv match to the heartbreaking murder of Henry Nowak, alongside too many other incidents, the public have been left asking a simple question: who is in charge? Leadership is not about managing decline or issuing guidance; it is about setting a culture and making it unmistakeably clear that the first duty of every police officer is to protect the public and uphold the law without fear, without favour and without distraction. The report gets to the heart of that when it says that police leaders must refuse to take sides and remain focused entirely on preventing crime, catching criminals and bringing offenders to justice. Culture starts at the top. If we want frontline policing to change, leadership must change first. What struck me most about the report was not simply its recommendations but the evidence behind them. This is not the work of critics looking in from the outside; it reflects what police officers themselves are saying. As the authors acknowledged in their letter to stakeholders, much of the evidence made for uncomfortable reading. Perhaps the most alarming finding is that only 13% of constables and just 17% of sergeants surveyed believed that they worked in a well-led and well-managed organisation. Think about that: more than four in five officers who put themselves in harm’s way to keep our streets safe do not believe that they work in a well-led organisation. If that does not ring alarm bells, I do not know what will. Time does not permit me to go through all 27 recommendations, but there is much that deserves support. In particular, I welcome the emphasis on merit. Our best officers should be recognised, developed and promoted because they are the best, not because they have ticked the right boxes. But we also have to be honest about the context. The report sits alongside a programme of wider police reform announced by the Government, although reports suggest that the incoming Prime Minister is already getting cold feet about those reforms. That matters, because many of the recommendations assume larger forces and more centralised models. If those reforms do not happen, Ministers need to explain how the recommendations will work in practice rather than simply in principle. There is another contradiction that cannot be ignored. If we want stronger leadership, we need to give police leaders the tools they need to succeed. That means enough officers on the streets and the technology to help them do their jobs effectively. Instead, officer numbers have fallen by about 1,300 across the country. At the same time, in London, the Labour mayor chose to pick a public fight with his own commissioner over the use of technology, with the commissioner making it clear that the mayor’s decision would leave the force able to achieve less. How can we demand better leadership while cutting officer numbers and denying forces the technology they say they need? There is much in the report that hon. Members on both sides of the House can support. Better leadership is not a partisan cause—it is a public necessity—but if we are serious about restoring confidence in policing, we cannot stop at identifying what police leaders should do differently; we also have to stop making political decisions that make their jobs harder. The public deserve better, our best officers deserve better, and the future of policing depends on us getting both police leadership and political leadership correct.

   Hansard source
6. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Matt Vickers

   National Security (State Threats) Bill

   The Government’s decision to allow alterations to this Bill will come as a surprise to many who followed it through its earlier stages. As colleagues in the other place observed, this came as a surprise because, throughout the interregnum, the Government repeatedly informed the official Opposition that they were unable to make further policy decisions. That position even extended to measures confirmed as Government policy, such as passport seizure powers. Given that even fundamental issues relating to countries such as China could not be addressed then, it surprising that we are considering further amendments to this Bill now. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and we are considering the Government’s amendments on humanitarian activities. I understand the intention behind them. Nobody wants genuine humanitarian organisations that are carrying out vital work in difficult parts of the world to be caught by legislation never intended to target them, but we also have to recognise the reality of the threats that we face. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recently pointed out, hostile states are willing to hide behind legitimate activity. Just as they might exploit legal or journalistic cover, they might also seek to exploit humanitarian cover. That is why the amendment he suggested was narrower than the one before us today. My concern is that the Government’s wording is capable of broader interpretation, particularly around conduct said to be for the purpose of “the carrying out of humanitarian activities”. That risks creating uncertainty and opportunities for abuse. What is striking is that this is not the position the Government took a short time ago. On Report, the Minister made it clear that genuine humanitarian work would not be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, when rejecting amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), she argued that the prohibited purpose test would protect legitimate conduct without creating loopholes for hostile actors. If that was the Government’s position then, what has changed? We would be naive to assume that this defence could never be exploited. We have seen hostile states attempt to use charitable organisations as vehicles for influence and interference. The chief executive of the Charity Commission has warned about those risks, and Ministers themselves have highlighted concerns about Iranian-backed charities operating in this country. Members have worked hard to expose those threats. As we strengthen our powers to tackle hostile state activity, we must be careful not to create new opportunities for hostile actors. This Bill already contains a higher threshold—or safeguards, as some would call them—that creates greater protections for those who support state bodies directing acts of terror, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, than for those who support the terrorist groups that the IRGC funds and directs, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. This threshold, we believe, will make prosecutions far less likely, as the extra hurdle and burden of intent is too high, and necessarily so. In addition, any prosecution requires the consent of the Attorney General, providing a significant safeguard against inappropriate cases. That makes me question whether these provisions are necessary. I appreciate the Government’s intentions, but our first responsibility is to ensure that this legislation is robust. This Bill exists because the threats posed by hostile states are real and growing. If we are giving our police, intelligence agencies and security services the powers they need to respond, we must ensure that those powers are not weakened by loopholes. For that reason, we remain concerned that these amendments, however well intentioned, risk creating opportunities for hostile actors to evade the measures that the Bill is designed to put in place.

   Hansard source
7. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lincoln Jopp

   Topical Questions

   On Armed Forces Day, I had the huge honour of unveiling a veterans’ buddy bench in Sunbury Park in my Spelthorne constituency. The idea is that the bench is dedicated to veterans; veterans go there, and members of the public are encouraged to go and sit with them. As the Front Benchers go around the country, will they encourage other constituencies to get a veterans’ buddy bench?

   Hansard source
8. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lincoln Jopp

   Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

   I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) on securing this urgent question and thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it, because Shabir Ahmed is a vile individual and his continued presence at liberty on our streets is an affront to every single value that we hold dear. The Minister has come here and said that all options are on the table, but he has also said he needs to tread carefully. The people of Spelthorne, who have been talking to me about this all weekend, do not want him to tread carefully; they want him to pull on his hobnail boots and frogmarch Shabir Ahmed to the airport today.

   Hansard source
9. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Katie Lam

   Support for Veterans

   Twiggy Roberts, who is a veteran himself and runs HX Motors in my constituency, training other veterans to maintain and customise Land Rovers, says that he hears a lot from veterans of his generation about their frustrations as they try to gain access to the mental health services that they need and deserve, especially when dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. It would be good to hear about what conversations the Secretary of State is having with Cabinet colleagues, particularly those in the Department of Health and Social Care, about how veterans can be given access to those services. They give one another great support, but it is clearly not the same as support from professionals.

   Hansard source
10. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Katie Lam

    Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether the Government are planning to change the law to deport Rochdale grooming gang leader, Shabir Ahmed.

    Hansard source
11. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Katie Lam

    Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

    Shabir Ahmed has committed some of the most despicable crimes imaginable. As the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, he was responsible for grooming, trafficking and raping children as young as 12 years old. He was jailed in 2012 for 30 counts of child rape. His victims were promised that when he got out of prison, he would be deported back to Pakistan. He has been released from prison, but now we are told that he will not be deported because of a provision in the 1971 Immigration Act. The idea that he might be allowed to stay in this country because of a clause in a decades-old law designed for a completely different time and context is not just absurd, but sickening. As recently as 2023, parole officers concluded that Ahmed posed a “very high risk of serious harm” to children. How can he possibly be allowed to walk the streets again? When the law produces an outcome that is clearly so wrong, the law must be changed. The Government must now change this law to make sure that we can remove Ahmed. Conservative Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, have made it clear that, if the Home Secretary puts forward changes to the law that would allow us to deport Shabir Ahmed, we will support them. The shadow Home Secretary has already drafted an amendment that the Government could adopt. The argument for deporting Ahmed is clear, and the mechanism has already been created. All that remains in question is whether the Government have the will to act. If so, we will be happy to support them. If they do not, people across this country will rightly ask, as they are already asking, whether this is a Government that can really keep the British people safe.

    Hansard source
12. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

    I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 759385 relating to disqualification from election candidacy for terrorism convictions. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I begin by thanking Richard Donaldson for creating this petition and the more than 200,000 people across the United Kingdom who signed it. I also thank the 205 people from my own constituency who added their names. As Members know, my role today is to introduce the petition and facilitate this debate. However, having considered the evidence and having spoken to the petition creator, I believe he raises an important point that Parliament should not dismiss. At its heart this debate asks a simple question: should someone who has been convicted of terrorism offences be entitled to seek public office? For me the answer is no—not because I reject the principle of rehabilitation and not because I believe people cannot change, but because holding elected office is not an automatic right. It is a privilege bestowed by the public, and with that privilege comes an expectation that those who seek to represent our communities demonstrate respect for the democratic institutions they wish to serve. For most people, the current law simply does not pass the common sense test. We already prevent certain people from standing for elected office. Individuals may be disqualified because they are subject to certain bankruptcy restrictions. Others are disqualified because of corrupt electoral practices, certain sexual offence notification requirements or offences involving intimidation of candidates. Yet someone with a historical terrorism conviction may still be entitled to stand for election. Many members of the public struggle to understand that distinction. Terrorism is not an ordinary crime. It is an attack on democracy itself. It seeks to replace political debate with violence. It seeks to intimidate Governments, frighten communities and undermine the rule of law. That is why Parliament has consistently recognised terrorism as different. We have unique counter-terrorism powers, unique sentencing provisions and unique monitoring arrangements following release from prison. We recognise that terrorism is fundamentally different because it is directed against the democratic values on which this country is built. If we accept that principle elsewhere in our law—and I believe we should—it is entirely reasonable to ask whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permitted to hold democratic office.

    Hansard source
13. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I will come on to that individual’s case shortly, but I do share his concerns. Indeed, there were cross-party concerns at the time of that individual’s candidacy—both Labour and Conservative politicians expressed concerns about that. As I say, I will move on to that later in my speech.

    Hansard source
14. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

    I am grateful for that point. That is accurate, but the fact that anybody would want to vote for a convicted terrorist does raise serious questions, which I think we should be concerned about. Every day we walk through this palace, reminded of the human cost of terrorism. Within these walls are memorials to Members of Parliament murdered in terrorist attacks, including Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Their lives were taken because they believed in democracy. Those memorials serve as a permanent reminder that terrorism is not simply another criminal offence; it is an attack on democratic life itself. We should not forget the many other victims of terrorism across our country. From Lockerbie to the 7 July bombings, the Manchester Arena attack and the attack here at Westminster in 2017, terrorism has left deep scars on communities throughout the United Kingdom. Those attacks were intended not just to kill innocent people, but to undermine our confidence in democracy and the rule of law. The petition before us arises because many members of the public were surprised to discover that under our current law, someone convicted of terrorism offences in certain circumstances could stand for elected office. Historical convictions, even for very serious offences, may not prevent someone from standing. Indeed, candidates largely self-certify that they are eligible, with returning officers having only limited powers to determine whether someone is disqualified. The Government’s response to the petition states that there are currently “no plans” to change those rules. I hope that today’s debate will persuade the Minister to think again. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the catalyst for this petition was the case of Shahid Butt, who stood as a candidate in Birmingham during this year’s local elections. It is a matter of public record that he was convicted in Yemen in 1999 of involvement in a terrorist bombing plot that targeted, among other sites, the British consulate and that he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Mr Butt has consistently maintained that he was wrongly convicted and that his confession was obtained through torture. Those claims have been reported widely. Members may hold differing views about that case, but today’s debate is about something much broader than one individual. It is about whether our electoral law contains an obvious gap that should now be addressed. There is also a practical consideration that deserves attention. If someone convicted of terrorism offences were elected to this House, the parliamentary authorities would have little choice but to issue them with a parliamentary security pass, allowing routine access to much of the parliamentary estate. Members often focus on ourselves, but this is also about the thousands of people who work here every day: our staff, Clerks, police officers, security personnel, cleaners, caterers and many others. They deserve to know that Parliament takes their safety seriously. Some will argue that once someone has served their sentence, they should once again enjoy the full rights of citizenship. That is an important principle, but society already accepts that certain positions carry additional responsibilities and require higher standards. Serving in Parliament, in a devolved legislature or on a local council is different from ordinary employment. They are positions of public trust. The public are entitled to expect exceptionally high standards from those who seek those positions. This debate is therefore not about preventing rehabilitation. It is not about denying someone the opportunity to rebuild their life. It is about deciding who should exercise democratic authority on behalf of others. Those are not the same things. Others may point to Northern Ireland and the peace process. It is important that we approach that history carefully and respectfully. The Good Friday agreement transformed Northern Ireland and brought to an end decades of violence. Nothing I say today should diminish that achievement. Indeed, we should rightly distinguish between those convicted of terrorism offences and figures such as Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, neither of whom was convicted of terrorism offences. Today’s petition concerns something much narrower. It concerns people who have been convicted of terrorism offences. That distinction matters. It is also worth noting that concern about this issue is not confined to one political party. Following the Birmingham case, both Labour and Conservative Members publicly expressed concern that someone convicted of terrorism offences could stand for election. Victims of terrorism have questioned whether such individuals should be eligible to represent the public in a democracy. This should not be a partisan issue. It should be about maintaining public confidence in our democratic institutions. Democracy depends on not only free elections but public confidence in those elected. If the public lose faith that Parliament is capable of drawing sensible lines around who is fit to hold elected office, that confidence is weakened. Parliament should never be afraid to legislate where the public can plainly see that the law no longer reflects common sense. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State for Defence recently acknowledge that the Government are considering this issue through the defending democracy taskforce. That is welcome, but today’s debate gives Members an opportunity to go further. The obvious question is: what should change? The petition proposes a straightforward legal disqualification, preventing those convicted of terrorism offences from standing for elected office. The detail would require careful consideration. There would undoubtedly need to be safeguards where overseas convictions were concerned, to ensure that politically motivated convictions, handed down by regimes without independent judicial systems, were not automatically recognised. Those are important drafting questions, but they are not reasons for doing nothing; they are reasons for careful legislation. The principle is clear: those convicted of terrorism offences should not be entrusted with elected office. Our democracy is one of Britain’s greatest achievements. We rightly welcome robust political disagreement; we encourage free speech and we welcome vigorous campaigning, but democracy also has the right—indeed, the responsibility—to defend itself against those who have sought to destroy it through violence. That is not intolerance; it is common sense, it is resilience, and it is about protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions. I thank Richard Donaldson once again for bringing this matter before Parliament. Petitions such as this demonstrate democracy working as it should: a member of the public identified what he believed to be a gap in our law, more than 200,000 people agreed, and today Parliament has the opportunity to consider whether that gap should be closed. For my part, I believe that it should. I hope that the Minister will move beyond acknowledging the issue and commit the Government to examining proportionate, workable and robust legislative options. Those who seek to destroy our democracy should not be able to exploit it.

    Hansard source
15. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

    Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

    I thank all the Members who participated in this important debate, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). All Members made very valid points, particularly both the Members from Northern Ireland—the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) —who are obviously acutely aware of the challenges of having terrorists operating in their democratic institutions. I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim; I totally forgot that Martin McGuinness had been convicted. Of course, anybody who is convicted of a terrorism offence should not be allowed to stand for office. I appreciate the Minister’s response and her initially positive style, but I am a bit disappointed with her conclusion. This is such an important principle: people who want to destroy our democracy, who want to pull the rug from under us and who have gone to great lengths to bring down everything that we in this place believe in, should absolutely not be allowed to stand for election, whether that is for local government, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament in Westminster. If they have ever held those fundamental views about bringing down the very pillars of what our country believes in, they absolutely should not be allowed to stand for Parliament. I was disappointed that the Minister could not quite bring herself to say that. Yes, there are challenges around overseas convictions, but we employ very clever drafters for our Government; they can come up with wording to get around that to ensure that those who have been wrongly accused of something overseas are not debarred from standing for election. Yes, we have disqualification rules, but we should be able to extend them further to ensure that terrorists—those who want to destroy our country and the institutions we in this place guard and protect dearly—are barred from standing for Parliament. I hope the Minister and her Government will reflect on today’s debate and on what the petitioner and all those who signed the petition put forward. I thank Richard Donaldson again for bringing this petition forward, and all Members who have taken part. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 759385 relating to disqualification from election candidacy for terrorism convictions.

    Hansard source
16. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·James Cartlidge

    Russia: Level of Threat to UK

    May I echo your sentiments, Mr Speaker, about Sir George Howarth, and pass on the Opposition’s condolences to his family and friends? Also, for their first oral questions, I welcome the new Ministers to the Front-Bench team. Today’s reports of Russian provocation illustrate the scale of the threat from Putin, but they also show why Britain needed a defence investment plan that was fully funded, instead of one with a £5 billion IOU for the next Prime Minister. On that point, the Defence Readiness and Industry Minister, responsible for producing the DIP, admitted on the media round last week that he only found out about the missing £5 billion after the DIP was published. When did the Secretary of State find out?

    Hansard source
17. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·James Cartlidge

    Russia: Level of Threat to UK

    This is not good enough. The defence investment plan has completely unravelled because, despite it being many months late, the Government still have not worked out where they are going to get the money from. Either the Secretary of State knowingly signed off a defence investment plan with a £5 billion poison pill for the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), or the Defence Secretary was, like his procurement Minister, kept in the dark by the Chancellor. Which is it?

    Hansard source
18. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·James Cartlidge

    Topical Questions

    On the day of its publication in June 2025, the headline promise of Labour’s strategic defence review was a commitment to buy “up to 12 attack submarines”. At the time, the Labour Government could not answer the question of exactly how many submarines that meant in practice, but they assured us that the detail of all their SDR promises would be set out in the defence investment plan, so exactly how many attack submarines are they going to buy?

    Hansard source
19. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Civil Service Pensions

    I currently have 11 unresolved cases in my constituency and the numbers are going up. My constituents deserve certainty about these unacceptable delays. During Cabinet Office questions on 25 June, I raised these failures with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), who assured the House that “all…levers” were being used to ensure that Capita met its end of June deadline. Can the Minister tell us what those levers were, given the fact that they appear to be attached to nothing—Capita has still failed to meet that deadline—and what levers he will pull when the August deadline is, inevitably, not met either?

    Hansard source
20. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

    Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

    As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. With your indulgence, I will start by welcoming the new Conservative Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South. I am sure that, in a series of firsts as he finds his feet around the House of Commons, his first Delegated Legislation Committee will be the one that stands out most in his mind. As the Minister laid out, the draft regulations make several technical amendments to the capacity market. They are perhaps most notable for the absence of the proposed multiple price capacity market, which would have created a two-tier system that the industry warned would result in increased costs for consumers. I understand that the Government have said that these changes would “ensure the continuation of security of supply while supporting the transition to a decarbonised energy system.” However, can the Minister explain why the results of the latest four-year-ahead capacity market auction secured only 40 GW of generating capacity, which was 3 GW less than the year before? Not only is that less than the current peak demand of 50 GW, but it is less than the projected peak demand of around 80 GW by 2030. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have warned countless times that forcing decarbonisation and electrification on to families and businesses at any cost would simply result in industry shutting down and livelihoods being lost. Although the Government have rejected those warnings in public, the results of that auction seem to suggest that they have privately accepted the fact that industrial energy consumption will fall thanks to their policies. I have no doubt at all that the Minister will seek to reassure the Committee that the Government’s mass roll-out of renewable energy and associated infrastructure will make concerns about security of supply redundant. However, what this completely fails to address is the cold, still winter nights when electricity demand is at its highest, yet generation from wind and solar is effectively nothing—precisely the scenario that the capacity market is supposed to address through securing firm power from conventional means, such as gas. Even assuming the Government’s highly optimistic predictions that the billions of pounds-worth of additional generating capacity, battery storage systems and grid connections needed to support an entirely intermittent renewables-based electricity grid will be online by 2030—which currently seems very unlikely—that would still not ensure the security of supply that our electricity grid needs. As both the Government and the National Energy System Operator have admitted, nearly all our currently installed generating capacity from gas will need to remain online in 2030 to meet peak demand. However, by refusing to support private investment to build new gas power stations, placing more burdensome decarbonisation requirements on new and refurbished generators, as well as pushing gas to the sidelines of our electricity supply while still expecting full capacity to remain available, the Government are making continued operation for many gas power stations economically and technically unviable. Let us be very clear what the Government’s energy policy means: placing increasing strain on demand through legally binding electrification and decarbonisation requirements; reducing supply by failing to secure new firm power from gas; and the Government forcing families and businesses to ration electricity through consumer-led flexibility at the risk of facing blackouts. Although the Opposition do not oppose the very technical amendments made by these draft regulations, we believe that it is well past time for the Government to accept that they cannot sustain our energy system on blind faith in renewables, and that they must instead fully support new generating capacity from gas and nuclear.

    Hansard source
21. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Davies

    Topical Questions

    In a written answer to me last month, the Government revealed that the Army is conducting a review of its reserve basic training. I believe that this was the first time that was disclosed to this House. Will the Secretary of State commit to putting the terms of reference for that review in the Library of the House, and will he commit to not closing Prince William of Gloucester barracks until the review is complete?

    Hansard source
22. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

    Civil Service Pensions

    Sadly, it is not just Capita that is missing deadlines; it is the Government, too. I raised a constituent’s case in ministerial correspondence in mid-February and received a response from the Parliamentary Secretary only on 30 June, four-and-a-half months later. My constituents want a swift solution. Given that the April deadline has been missed and the June deadline has been missed, what confidence can they or this House have that the August deadline will be hit?

    Hansard source
23. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

    I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, and he has adopted the tone of the House, which is united on tackling this issue; but there is clearly a lacuna in the law as it stands. It will take time, however fast the Government work, to get that change on the statute books. In the interim, is the Minister prepared to use sanctions against Pakistan to ensure the deportation of this grievous individual?

    Hansard source
24. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Topical Questions

    I welcome the new Defence Secretary to Question Time, and simply pose a quick question to him, because we need some clarity about the Chagos deal. Will he confirm that it has been cancelled and that the money—the billions—that was going to Mauritius has now been transferred to defence spending?

    Hansard source
25. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Ceramics Industry

    Order. There is a lot of interest in this debate, so I am imposing an indicative time limit on speeches of four minutes, an exemplar of which will be Sir Gavin Williamson.

    Hansard source
26. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Ceramics Industry

    That was commendably brief, although not everyone will get in at this rate. I shall have to impose a three-and-a-half minute indicative time limit.

    Hansard source
27. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Ceramics Industry

    Order. I am calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at 6.58 pm—so do the maths, folks.

    Hansard source
28. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Russia: Level of Threat to UK

    The Ministry of Defence said over the weekend that the action against HMS Prince of Wales was “unsafe and unprofessional”. Does the Secretary of State not agree that it is far more than that? It is provocative. Does he not further agree that Russia will take the next step, if this threat is not faced down? What action will we take to make it absolutely clear to the killer in the Kremlin that this sort of thing is simply not acceptable?

    Hansard source
29. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Foreign Interference in UK Politics

    The Government are right to pursue this. Foreign interference in UK politics is a blight that needs to be dealt with, and the Government are right to commission Philip Rycroft to do the work. However, does the Minister not understand that the optics of failing to consult political parties across the House are not good? Whatever emerges has to command the respect of everyone, and although I am no apologist for the Reform party, this looks very much like something of a stitch-up, which does none of us any good.

    Hansard source
30. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Police Leadership Commission Report

    Lords Blunkett and Herbert have done a good job, but I would counsel against introducing a new police rank when most large organisations are stripping ranks out and trying to compress their hierarchies. Does the Minister agree that the No. 1 thing that needs to be done is to improve the quality of top leadership? Their lordships made that point very clearly. In 1839, Captain Samuel Meredith of the Royal Navy was appointed as the first chief constable of Wiltshire. Will the Minister give some consideration to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) about allowing people from the armed forces and other uniformed services to aspire to top ranks within our police force? It would break down groupthink, and I think it would add a great deal—middle-grade senior people within the armed forces, in particular, would have a great deal to offer.

    Hansard source
31. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Simmonds

    Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on the way in which he introduced this complex debate. Let me start by addressing the issue that prompted the petition that we are debating. Many of us will have heard of Councillor Robert Alden, the leader of the Conservative group in Birmingham, who called on voters to “help keep extremists out” of Birmingham city council. We have heard examples from a number of different parties of how, in response to a high-profile individual with a very serious conviction, there was a sense across the political system in that city that they would not welcome division into their local politics. Although some in the ward voted for that individual, the community exercised what I think most of us would respect as being good judgment. That leads to the broader question of how, particularly in local elections where turnout can be extremely low—sometimes as low as 20% at ward level—and in complicated politics with sometimes five or more political parties and a number of independent candidates, we ensure that people who wish to bring extremism into politics do not use those types of elections to leverage public office to pursue extremist aims. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) represents a community that has had to face and deal with some tensions, and he has led the response to that extremely effectively. He set out in his clear contribution that we need to ensure that in our politics and democracy—how we come together to collectively make the best decisions to support our communities and national interest—we do not see people seeking to leverage political office to create division. This debate comes at a time when there is a bigger picture when it comes to those seeking to import disputes from other parts of the world into our politics. All of us, as constituency MPs, deal with that on a daily basis. Sometimes there are heartfelt requests for the intervention of the British state. I recently met constituents who wanted to talk to me about access to reservoirs and water in Sri Lanka. They felt that people in their country would respect the intervention of the British Government and that it would produce a positive impact on something directly affecting the lives of their friends, family and relations in a community with which they, like Britain, have a strong connection. However, there are also those who seek to use British politics as a means of pursuing conflict and division, and clearly we do not welcome that. In considering cases like that of Shahid Butt, we know that Yemen is a country beset by terrible conflict and violence that have cost the lives of many thousands of innocent people. We do not want that conflict to be pursued either in Birmingham city council’s town hall or in any other part of our politics. The challenge for the Government, who currently hold the responsibility to address this issue, is how we strike the right balance when seeking to draw boundaries around who is eligible for public office in our country. We are a country that respects and cherishes freedom of speech, and we support the right to the freedom of religion and belief. We believe, and it is enshrined in our rules, that there should be a path to redemption and reconciliation for people who break the law or the norms of our society. However, as politics becomes an increasingly contested space, we need to ensure that we balance those principles with preserving the integrity of our politics. People could seek local office not to benefit the wider community but because they want a decision to be made in favour of a planning application, a grant from the council or the sale of a piece of land to the benefit of them and their associates. People could also seek election to this Parliament to try to change the policy of the British Government in respect of interventions in conflict, wars and disputes in other countries. None of those things is about the longer-term interests of the British people. Given the rising tide of antisemitism, which most of us will have heard about from our constituents—the Maccabi football team case in Birmingham was a classic example—we need to ensure that our governance and local ethics are free from the taint of extremism, wherever it may be found. The official Opposition support the Government in seeking to take forward their policies on this area. I reflect on what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) set out in respect of the complex history of Northern Ireland. It must be difficult for members of that community to find themselves face to face with people who are not only terrorists but may have been involved in the murder or harm of their own relatives. I have personally heard about that from Northern Ireland politicians. They have told me what it is like to sit in a council chamber knowing that somebody there was directly involved in the killing of someone very close to them, and trying to work out how to put that dispute behind them and move forward in the interests of the community, while not disrespecting the memory of those they loved.

    Hansard source
32. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Simmonds

    Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

    The hon. Member has set out clearly, and I think boosted, the point about the complexity. She is absolutely right that we should not have a situation where someone feels that their election to office overrides their obligation to the basic good conduct and due process we expect of all politicians—the basic respect for human rights, the lives of other people and everything that makes this country strong. We need to make sure—I am sure the Minister will—that the Government reflect on the long-term lessons from Northern Ireland. This is not just about what Shahid Butt may have done in Yemen in 1999; it is about our experience as a country of terrorism influencing our politics and our communities, and about making sure those lessons are taken into account, so that we can be better protected for the future. The Opposition will support the Government in seeking to bring forward whatever policy changes are necessary, and some suggestions have been made in the debate about what those might look like. That could include a test specifically around convictions for terrorism or around crimes of violence that would impact on the suitability of someone for public office. It could include how we work with other countries to ensure that convictions abroad are captured through the nominations process, so that we know what people may have been convicted of and are able to make an effective appraisal of the soundness of that conviction—recognising that a conviction in Russia or China may not carry the same weight in the view of our politics as a conviction in France, Germany or Ireland. We pledge to work with the Government to seek to address this issue and make sure that all of our communities, for the long-term future, can have total confidence in the integrity of our political system.

    Hansard source
33. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Simmonds

    Cadets

    Cadet centres such as the TS Pelican in Ruislip in my constituency are a vital part of our armed forces community, but given that the Government have decided to cut the funding that supports our cadet groups, can the Minister tell us what progress is being made with the private sector investment that the Government have said will backfill the consequences of those cuts?

    Hansard source
34. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Simmonds

    Civil Service Pensions

    The Minister set out for the House the robust accountability measures that he has in place. I appreciate that it is difficult for him to ensure that he gets the response he wants from Capita, but can he please ensure that when constituents of mine, like Keith Wyvill, contact their former employer, the Cabinet Office, they are not simply given the brush-off and told to raise the issue with Capita, but at least have set out for them the actions that the Government are taking?

    Hansard source
35. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Reed

    Defence Investment Plan

    Earlier this year, when I served on the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee, the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), assured us that funding for service housing was “ringfenced” and: “Nothing in the DIP process will stop us getting on with the job”. However, the defence investment plan cuts £300 million from the funding due to be spent in this Parliament, pushing that investment into the next. Can the Secretary of State tell the House exactly how many service family homes will now have their refurbishments or rebuild delayed into the 2030s because the Government have failed to honour that commitment? Can he confirm that that figure is 14,000 homes?

    Hansard source
36. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Reed

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), it is clear that this new piece of legislation could allow hostile states to set up shell charities or hide behind humanitarian cover. As a matter of purely operational wording, does the British state have the ability to actually identify whether that is happening and put a stop to it?

    Hansard source
37. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Ceramics Industry

    It is an honour to follow such an interesting speech about bricks. I congratulate Hayley and the other petitioners, the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for bringing this important issue into Parliament; it has been a really interesting debate. It is fair to say that the efforts of the petitioners have made sure that the concerns of workers, manufacturers, suppliers and the local communities that depend on the ceramics industry have truly been heard in Parliament. It is clear that the ceramics sector faces several existential pressures including, in particular, high energy costs, as well as burdensome regulation and rising labour costs. We have heard a range of valuable contributions from Members, and the importance of the industry, not just in Staffordshire but in many other parts of the UK, has truly come across. I was fascinated to hear about Scotland, Cornwall and Stroud, and about a number of businesses in the ceramics sector. It was very welcome to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who made a powerful contribution on behalf of a sector in which he has first-hand experience of working. We have learned that the ceramics industry is not simply another manufacturing sector. It is a source of highly skilled employment, a proud part of our industrial heritage and a significant contributor to our economy. For generations, the British ceramics industry has been recognised all around the world for its quality, craftsmanship and innovation, but it is clear that the industry faces particular challenges because it is particularly energy intensive. The high temperatures that kilns need mean that the industry cannot simply find, at short notice, alternative sources of energy, or switch on and off when prices fluctuate. The industry is uniquely exposed to very high energy costs, and the recent challenges facing some of its well-known firms should serve as a warning. The supercharger scheme is a sticking plaster on the damage that has been caused by the Energy Secretary’s net zero policies, which have driven up the cost of energy and piled that cost on to businesses. The net zero costs that the Government have imposed on businesses have meant that the Government were required to introduce a £120 million subsidy for the ceramics industry.

    Hansard source
38. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Ceramics Industry

    I will not give way, given how tight we are for time. I hope Members will welcome the fact that the Conservatives have a clear and credible plan to cut energy bills, reduce regulation and lower taxes. We have a cheap power plan that will cut household energy bills by £200 a year and cut electricity bills for businesses by 20%. That could save ceramics businesses a large amount of money. It would save the average restaurant £5,500 and the average pub £1,100. We would achieve that by axing the carbon tax in full, including the UK emissions trading scheme and carbon price support. We would also scrap the renewables obligation certificate scheme, which would free up money that is currently used to fund the payments through general taxation. We would back the North sea and get Britain drilling again, unlocking home-grown energy and generating an estimated £2.5 billion in additional tax revenues each year.

    Hansard source
39. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Ceramics Industry

    I am very tight for time, but if the hon. Gentleman insists.

    Hansard source
40. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Ceramics Industry

    It would mean we would have to import less from countries outside the UK because we would have our own supply. I do not want to intrude on arguments within the governing party, but I will call out the fact that it does not make sense to leave our own gas in the ground. The policies I have been outlining are precisely the ones that energy-intensive sectors such as ceramics have been calling for. If we are serious about protecting the British ceramics industry, we need to act now to cut the cost of industrial energy. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions. We have heard a bit about the challenge in respect of imports, so it would be interesting to hear from him what representations the industry has made to the Trade Remedies Authority. Will the Government support the cheap power plan that would cut business energy costs, and therefore abandon the ideological policies that are driving proud sectors such as ceramics into decline? The future of a great British industry, and all the livelihoods that it supports, are too important to ignore.

    Hansard source