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
In the event that someone from Scotland comes into the hon. Gentleman’s hospital near Dover and a doctor wants to look at their healthcare record, does the hon. Gentleman envisage that the doctor will log on to their local system and see the records from Scotland, or that they will have access to the Scottish system to look at the records directly there?
If it is to include both, who will translate it into the simplest form and how much will that cost?
The clause says that information could be made available “to people involved in the provision to patients of health care or social care anywhere in the British Islands”. That implies that the English system will be used to share information with people outside England—in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—but it does not imply that those areas will necessarily have the same systems to share information with us.
I have a couple of questions. In lots of ways the provisions derive from clause 1 and the abolition of NHS England. Schedule 7 refers to operating a system in the interests of the health service, which is not the same as operating it in the interests of the patients. Does the Minister have any comments on that? The Nuffield Trust has pointed out that schedule 7 would not pass over to the Secretary of State NHSE’s duty to report to Parliament. Is that because the Minister thinks that duty is duplicated elsewhere and is therefore not necessary? Under the previous legislation, the Care Quality Commission was slightly stronger and could make a mandatory request that NHS England establish a system, and NHS England had to comply with that unless it related to an existing exception. Now if the CQC makes a request, it goes to the Secretary of State, and whether it is agreed to is then somewhat more optional. Will the Minister say why she needs to change that power?
In Aberdeen South, there is a jobs emergency, with 1,000 jobs a month being lost from the oil and gas sector. So will the Government ditch their damaging policies that are destroying the oil and gas industry and destroying jobs in Aberdeen South?
EnQuest has just announced that jobs will be lost at the Sullom Voe oil terminal, in the latest blow to the oil and gas sector. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a full debate on the future of the oil and gas sector before it is too late?
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament when it issued its own apology, and I know how important that was to those families. How will the Government work with devolved Governments to provide ongoing support, access to records and potential redress schemes to those affected?
There is a bit of an end-of-term feel in the House at the moment. I heard the Secretary of State set out his answer to his essay question, but I point out that UK business confidence is at a four-year low, unemployment is up, millionaires are fleeing, and the Department’s own figures show inward investment falling by 26% this year to the lowest level in over a decade. I would say that is a failing mark. What does the Secretary of State plan to do differently when the new headteacher arrives?
I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I did not hear a plan for improvement in that answer. I am afraid the mark is “must do better”. Let us turn to another bit of the Secretary of State’s coursework in this failing end-of-term report. Will he agree today to compensate all the Horizon victims, and to get Fujitsu to pay towards it, by the end of the year?
Order. Because of a fire evacuation of the Palace, the Serjeant on duty is requesting a suspension of the sitting. I have been advised by the Serjeant at Arms that the Chamber and Gallery should be evacuated, using the nearest available exits. Please proceed in an orderly manner and follow the directions of Doorkeepers or security staff.
Before I call Jonathan Brash to conclude his speech, the remaining Members will have a time limit of three minutes. I call Jonathan Brash.
Order. The hon. Gentleman might heed the fact that Members are on a very tight time limit, and he has not been present for any of the debate until this point.
That brings us to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
The House will be delighted to learn that 17-year-old Leo, whom I have mentioned previously in the Chamber, is now cancer-free after being matched with a stem cell donor. This is excellent news. In addition, Leo is up for an award—the BBC Make a Difference young hero of the year. Will the whole House join me in wishing Leo the best of luck, and perhaps the Leader of the House will root for Leo to go on to win?
This is long overdue, and so I congratulate the Prime Minister on bringing this forward and for the tone in which he has delivered it. I would like to raise the case of Jenny and Scott, two constituents who I have been supporting in recent months. They have been fostering a child called Alfie for six years. They have provided a loving and nurturing home to Alfie, but have persistently come up against blocks from the state as they seek to adopt him. With Walsall council in particular, they found it very difficult to gain support so that they could make progress on adopting Alfie and, regretfully, they have now had to instruct the local authority to look at a new fostering placement for him. Does the Prime Minister agree that while a pragmatic balance has to be struck between safeguarding and enabling a loving home to be found, the state must remove any bureaucratic obstructions along the way? Will the Prime Minister support me in trying to secure a meeting with the relevant Minister, so that Jenny and Scott can elaborate on this more comprehensively?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this debate. Whatever our political differences, I welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue that should unite Members across this House: ensuring that every young person, wherever they live, has the opportunity to develop the skills they need to succeed. After the previous Labour Government badly neglected apprenticeships, the Conservative party prioritised them, delivering around 5.8 million apprenticeships between 2010 and 2024 and creating apprenticeship routes into 70% of occupations. The Conservatives are clear that further education is a great driver of social mobility. That is why I am proud that the previous Conservative Government introduced T-levels, degree-level apprenticeships and the apprenticeship levy, and put English and maths at the heart of all vocational qualifications, helping people to climb up the ladder of opportunity and fortify their careers with the in-demand skills that businesses need. Access to apprenticeships is not simply about education policy; it is about opportunity, social mobility and ensuring that the next generation can harness their unique talents to build rewarding careers, support their families and contribute to the prosperity of our country. Apprenticeships should enjoy parity of esteem with academic routes. University is the right choice for many, but it is not the only route to success. We know that higher-level apprenticeships are now out-earning the average degree, according to the Centre for Social Justice. The right qualification at the right time can alter the trajectory of an entire family for generations, but we must also be honest that warm words alone will not create a single apprenticeship place, and with level 2 apprenticeship starts hitting their lowest level in four years last year, the time for action is now. Ministers wax lyrical about growth, skills and opportunity, yet employers continue to raise concerns about complexity, uncertainty and a system that is still failing too many young people. Young people cannot build careers on announcements alone. This week, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) spoke passionately about placing technical education at the heart of economic renewal. That aspiration is welcome, but aspiration without delivery does little for young people looking for an apprenticeship today or for the small business struggling to recruit for today and tomorrow. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition has put forward a clear alternative through our new deal for young people, which places apprenticeships and technical education at the heart of economic opportunity. It would expand high-quality apprenticeships, remove barriers that prevent employers from taking on young people and ensure that skills funding follows the needs of local economies rather than the priorities of Whitehall. We believe that employers should find it easier, not harder, to invest in the next generation. We believe that colleges should have the flexibility to respond to local labour market demand. Above all, we believe that every young person deserves a pathway into skilled employment, whether through university, an apprenticeship or another technical route. If the Government genuinely believe that apprenticeships are central to growth, they—and the party of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby, which needs to see what properly considered policy looks like—should accept our fully funded new deal for young people. It would: scrap real interest rates on plan 2 student loans so that balances can no longer rise faster than inflation, saving graduates tens of thousands of pounds over the course of their careers; create 100,000 more apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds by lifting funding caps and supporting employers with up to £5,000 for every British apprentice they hire; and introduce a £5,000 first job bonus allowing young people to keep the first £5,000 of national insurance they would have paid by placing it into a savings account for a first home or future security. The proposal for an apprenticeship hub in the hon. Member’s constituency deserves to be examined on its merits. If it can demonstrate value for money, genuine local demand and strong employer engagement, I hope that Ministers will engage constructively. But the debate, as we have heard in contributions from across the House, is about more than one constituency; it is about whether a young person leaving school believes that hard work and determination will be rewarded, whether employers have confidence that Britain is developing the skilled workforce that it needs and whether the Government will match their words with action.
Today, we Conservatives have launched a campaign to save the summer job. Employment rights do not help young people if they cannot get a first experience of work, and they are trapped in a Catch-22 situation of needing experience to get work but not being able to get any during their education years. Young people say it, businesses say it and Alan Milburn, the former Labour Minister, says it. Will the Government now back our plans to save the summer job, cut employment red tape, support seasonal working and lower taxes?
This week, our hard-pressed automotive industry has sounded the alarm: under the zero emission vehicle rules, British car makers are being fined for making precisely the type of cars people want to buy. That is costing them £5 billion a year, denying consumer choice, damaging British jobs and putting automotive firms at risk. Like me, the Secretary of State met with car makers earlier this week, so will he listen to them, adopt the Conservative policy of scrapping these rules and support our great British automotive industry?
In early 2025, Rutland police caught a local shop owner red-handed with a carload of illegal fake cigarettes. Since then, I have reported this to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the police and trading standards, and nothing has happened. Will the Minister please haul in trading standards, because this individual runs two shops in my constituency, which are both still open, attracting in children and encouraging the sale of vapes? That is wrong, and such shops are clearly part of the black economy.
In 2023, I secured funds from the last Government to conserve and bring home our 10-foot sea dragon to Rutland. Unfortunately, Rutland county council has now overrun on another project and has decided not bring the ichthyosaur back to Rutland, which will cost our local economy in terms of future prosperity. The local conservator has said that he will reduce the cost of conserving this specimen of national importance, but the council has said that it cannot accept a reduced cost or retender for the work because of national Government rules. Does that not seem preposterous? It flies in the face of the idea of best value for taxpayer money.
To all the mothers and your stolen children who have wrongly carried grief and shame for so long, you were denied the love that you deserved and tortured by a state—and the silence only revictimized you. We are sorry. It is shameful that Barnardo’s and the Salvation Army have yet to apologise and face up to the role that they played in this. My father was haunted by the way in which Barnardo’s played a role and he would tell me of his horror, which he carried for life, of seeing the laundries as he walked around the streets of Dublin. In addition to those who were cruelly and forcibly adopted, hundreds of babies died—frankly, they were killed—as their mothers were tortured, and they were buried in unmarked graves. Will the Prime Minister, as he continues with his important work on this, put in place an effort to find those graves and to force the opening up of those records so that the mothers who were denied a lifetime of memories with their children can at least now bury them and have time at those graves with them?
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for coming to the House to deliver the statement himself. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, we welcome what he has said and agree that whenever the state makes grave errors, it has a deep responsibility to apologise for what it did to those it has wronged. One hundred and eighty-five thousand children grew up in Britain without their mothers because of bad decisions and fundamentally flawed beliefs that treated unmarried mothers with a shame and stigma that is mercifully alien to us today. Those decisions and beliefs left a permanent mark on each and every one of those lives: on children separated from their mothers, and on the mothers whose children were taken away. As the Prime Minister said, this is a stain on our history. Bonds between mothers and children are the foundation of security and identity; indeed, perhaps the foundation of all we have. While I know from much experience that the act of adopting a child is among the greatest kindness one person can show another, and that many of those children will have gone on to be raised by loving families, there can be no doubt that they will also have carried a great grief across many years. One cannot help but be moved by the powerful testimonies that some have given. I will mention just one mother’s experience: the journey back from the hospital “was the longest I held my daughter—it was two hours—and it was like everything suddenly made sense. I just felt like this was absolutely right, and I wouldn’t let go of her…a woman appeared and said, ‘It’s time’…and she was taken from my arms and handed over. And she howled—I assume I did…and the following week they sent me back to school.” Thousands upon thousands of such experiences happened every day in every corner of our country over many years. Thankfully, in the years since, a huge amount has been done to ensure that such things cannot happen again in our country; change in adoption law and modern courts and legislation make a repeat of these injustices much less likely. We welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has outlined today and the fact that the Education Secretary is writing to local authorities and agencies setting the expectation that requests for records should be swiftly responded to. I am glad that that builds on the steps the previous Government tried to take to improve access to adoption records, offer post-adoption counselling and improve the complaints procedure for agencies. We hope that all these steps will make a difference to some whose experiences lie in the past, and to many in the future. I would like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. The Education Committee called for an assessment of international redress schemes. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the Government are considering that? I welcome his announcement of support groups for mothers and adopted adults. Who will be responsible for establishing this service and what budget will be set aside for it? I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement and repeat what he has said to those affected: the shame was never yours.
I welcome the Minister’s strong condemnation of the annexation of land in Gaza and the west bank. What reassurance can he give to Members of this House that no military components that we have sold to Israel—not just bombs and bullets—have been used in this further illegal settlement expansion?
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I pay tribute to the brilliantly dedicated and inspiringly selfless coastguard rescue officers across the country, but particularly those who operate in my constituency—at Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh. They are represented in the Gallery today. For my constituents and the many visitors who come to our area to experience our brilliant and beautiful coastline, the coastguard makes a vital contribution to the emergency services’ ability to keep people safe. I recently met a number of volunteer officers from the Folkestone and Romney Marsh coastguard rescue teams. They attend hundreds of incidents a year, including cliff rescues—we have the white cliffs of Dover; sadly, people sometimes jump off them: it is necessary to address what is going on at the top as well as at the bottom—as well as missing persons. There are all sorts of circumstances in which the police or the fire brigade cannot or will not reach people, so the CROs perform a vital role as part of the emergency services.
I entirely agree. That is absolutely key. A coastguard officer said to me that the money they get helps to offset some of the costs, but I think this phrase sums it up: “we do not do this for the money; the money means we can do it.” Other Members have talked about sacrificing family time; one officer said to me that he once left a wedding to attend a call-out. That is the level of bravery and commitment that these individuals are showing every day. The approach that the Maritime Coastguard Agency has adopted is not the way to treat them. If we remove the recognition in those payments, I, like the CROs I have spoken to, think it is obvious that availability will fall, resilience will decline and our coastal rescue services will simply start to disintegrate. That will put lives at risk. I echo the point made by others: the MCA has dealt with this in a very heavy-handed way—it seems entirely procedurally irregular. The MCA has serious questions to answer about how it has gone about this. My questions for the Minister are similar to those posed by other hon. Members. Does the Minister know whether the MCA has modelled the likely reduction in volunteer availability following the proposed changes to remuneration, particularly for high-demand response teams such as those in Folkestone and Romney Marsh? If so, can we please see them? Does the Minister know whether the MCA has carried out a safety impact assessment, and whether that will be published? Critically—this has been raised by others—what meaningful engagement does the Minister know the MCA has had with unions such as the GMB and with serving officers? Are the Government open to reviewing the proposed model of employment and the removal of the call-out fee for CROs in the light of that dialogue? Finally, like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), I ask for the implementation of these changes to be paused so that we can understand the impact on volunteer capacity. Ultimately, we have to maintain the standards of the service and the good will of those who volunteer every day to keep people safe. That is in the interests of the country and of all those who put their lives on the line for that service.
I express my concern about the tone taken by the shadow Minister at the beginning of the urgent question. Netanyahu could not have been clearer about his point of view that there should not be a Palestinian state, and the plans for the E1 area near East Jerusalem are just the continued manifestation of the intention to entirely destroy the viability of a Palestinian state. Taken together with clear evidence of war crimes, it is obvious to all that this Israeli Government are not serious about a sustainable peace for the region. As hon. Members have said numerous times, I fear that Netanyahu is pressing ahead with this in order to shore up his support ahead of critical elections that could see fresh leadership in Israel, which we would all like to see. Will the Minister tell us a little more about what steps he is taking with allies to keep the two-state solution alive? What sanctions and penalties might be imposed should these settlements proceed?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for the campaigning work he has done over many years on this important issue. As Members of Parliament, we are privileged to be here, but this is a demanding, full-time role. Our time, energy and focus should be dedicated to representing our constituents, and to that alone; but, as we have already heard, it is all too common for Members to have multiple jobs, often serving corporate interests despite the obvious potential for a conflict of interest. Every MP earns at least £98,599 a year, with Ministers and Select Committee Chairs earning even more. That is more than two and a half times the average wage, and almost 20 times the annual equivalent of the basic universal credit allowance. Before my election in 2024, my salary as a teacher, a head of curriculum area and a member of the extended senior leadership team at my school was less than half an MP’s salary. It is difficult to argue that Members need second, third or even 16th jobs while many of our constituents struggle to make basic ends meet. Members being hired as advisers or consultants, primarily because of their political connections and access, is not only wrong and out of touch; it poses a genuine risk to public confidence in our democracy and, as we saw from the Tory lobbying scandal during covid, a genuine risk to public health. The reality gap between claiming to represent ordinary working-class people and earning vast sums through private income streams is stark. It is best illustrated by, though by no means limited to, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I did contact him, Mr Western—who has declared more than £2 million in earnings since his election to this House in July 2024 from media contracts, paid Cameo appearances and serving as a brand ambassador for a gold dealer. That would be laughable if it were not so concerning. I support a ban on second jobs for Members of Parliament, with sensible exemptions where work is necessary to maintain professional qualifications and skills in the public interest—as teachers, doctors or nurses, for example. This is a necessary step towards restoring trust and integrity in our political system. The privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament should come with a singular commitment: serving the public, and serving them alone. Diolch yn fawr.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for the timely opportunity to take part in my first fisheries debate and to set out the priority I place on this industry. I congratulate him on the timing of this debate; I assume that he is not an England football fan. In addition, I welcome the two new Members—the hon. Members for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) and for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden)—and I congratulate them on contributing so successfully this afternoon. Having proudly grown up in a coastal community and now representing a constituency that has a small fishing port, as well as having a father who regularly took me sea fishing, I am delighted to have been appointed as the new fisheries Minister. I am excited to have the chance to support the fishing industry and help it to adapt to the opportunities and challenges ahead. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East made a number of specific points, and I assure him early in my speech that I am very happy to write to him on the specifics. As ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made some helpful points on immigration policy and visas. He will recognise that such matters are for the Home Office to comment on. However, I can assure him this afternoon that my Department is in regular conversation with counterparts in the Home Office about the concerns that the industry and Members have raised today. I have already met my equivalent fisheries Minister in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member will know the seriousness that I place on my relationship with colleagues in Northern Ireland, and I assure him that I will do the same in my new ministerial role. Fishing is not just an industry, and fishermen are not just businessmen; they and their industry are economically, socially and culturally important to the vitality of many coastal communities across the United Kingdom. Before I go further, it is customary to pay tribute to those in the fishing community who have been injured or have tragically lost their lives in what can be a very dangerous industry. On Sunday, I attended a memorial for seafarers, and my thoughts are with all those who have been injured or have tragically lost their lives at sea. We must not lose sight of the fact that fishing communities contend with really tough and dangerous working conditions. The work to improve safety across the industry remains essential, and I welcome the efforts from the industry and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to drive progress in this important area. Our fishing fleets across the UK are incredibly diverse, as we have heard, from small day boats in my Portsmouth South constituency to the large trawlers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East. Across our nation, each and every one of those vessels, their crew and those supporting them on shore work hard to support our food security and provide jobs in our coastal communities. UK seafood is in high demand, with a world-class reputation for quality. I am deeply proud to promote and support a thriving, sustainable fishing sector. I have heard from representatives of the UK fishing industry about the work that goes into getting our revered British seafood from net to plate. I met the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation this week, and it gave me valuable insights into the opportunities presented to the fishing industry and the solutions to some of the challenges.
I will make some progress. I strongly believe in working with those in industry who best know the solutions and how to deliver lasting change, so I will be listening to and working with the industry. I look forward to getting out on the quayside, accepting the invitation from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East to visit his constituency and engaging with fish markets and processing facilities to hear at first hand what fishermen and those working across the supply chain have to say about our world-class fish and seafood.
The hon. Member teases me to visit Northern Ireland, knowing that scampi is my dish of choice on a Friday, so perhaps that is a visit we can get into my diary sooner rather than later. I am very aware that the fishing industry faces a multitude of opportunities and challenges. As we have heard in today’s debate, enabling the industry to benefit from opportunities and adapt to challenges is a top priority, building on the good work of my predecessors. At the heart of this is a recognition that for the fishing industry to thrive, it has to be environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. I will carefully consider how to address pressure on fish stocks as we enter the autumn peak of negotiations with other coastal states for fishing opportunities.
I thank the new hon. Member for his intervention—I was waiting for an invitation to visit him in Scotland, but perhaps that will come later. I am very alive to the issues around costs. He will know about the interventions the Treasury has already made on red diesel, which will benefit the fishing community. I continue to monitor the situation closely, working with industry on potential solutions. The extreme temperatures that we have seen this summer have rightly focused attention on climate change, and we must take that more seriously. The fishing industry will need to adapt to the impacts on stocks where new species flourish in our waters and where stocks that we have traditionally fished move away. Also on my mind, as covered in today’s debate, is the need to respond to current and emerging challenges, such as operating costs and pressure for marine space. The fishing and coastal growth fund is therefore one of the key tools that this Government have introduced to support the sector right across the United Kingdom. Shaping how that fund is used in future years is a priority. Having met with my ministerial colleagues in the devolved Governments already, I know that they will be thinking about this too. The context of these issues is important. The fund is in addition to the largest real-terms spending review settlement for the devolved Governments of any settlement since devolution. Importantly, devolution means that all Governments have the autonomy to shape their funds in the way that works best for their nations. I am confident that, by working together, we can ensure that the UK seafood industry has a bright future for generations to come.
I would politely say to the shadow Minister that I will take no lectures from the Conservative party, who saw the fishing community decimated with broken promises, fishing numbers down, economic damage done and a dramatic decline in exports. I will take no lectures from him, given his party’s record on these issues. I want to briefly touch on some of the Government’s achievements since 2024. First, I remind hon. Members that, despite a difficult scientific backdrop, the UK has secured access to 640,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for the 2026 fishing year, estimated to be worth just over £1 billion based on historical landing prices. Our fisheries management plans set out how to maintain or restore fish stocks to sustainable levels. The UK programme is well under way and being delivered in close collaboration with the fishing industry and other stakeholders. We have been working with the industry in England to understand its priorities and those of coastal communities, and that is helping to shape the fishing and coastal growth fund. That is already driving growth for the future. In England, this April, we began to deliver funding through the fisheries and seafood scheme, supporting fishing and seafood industries and coastal communities across England. So far, we have received around 260 applications with a value of around £15 million in grants. Those are just three headline achievements this year, and our work continues at pace on a range of other areas. We are now beginning our preparations for the end-of-year consultations with the EU and other coastal states on fishing opportunities for 2027. Over the summer, we will be working closely with the sector to consider the scientific advice and to understand its perspectives and requirements for next year. Our export markets are vital—in 2024, seafood exports were worth £2.1 billion—and support jobs not just at sea but across the supply chain. We are working at pace towards a new SPS agreement with the EU and aim to have legislation in place by the end of 2027. That will make it easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner, and will strengthen the economies of our coastal communities. We will continue to set our own rules outside the common fisheries policy—rules that support sustainable fisheries and protect marine life—and the deal will remove costly paperwork for fish exports to the EU. By cutting red tape and helping fisheries get their products on the shelves quicker and more cheaply, we are looking to allow UK shellfish exports that are currently banned—a big win for producers. We also export beyond the EU and are backing export success through a £1.5 million a year seafood export package funded from the fishing and coastal growth fund. That will ensure that UK businesses best placed to take advantage of trading relationships by opening new opportunities for growth and trade. Let me turn to the issues raised on managing marine space. Last year, DEFRA gave a steer to the Crown Estate on the key risks and issues associated with future offshore wind development in the English sea. That was informed by the marine spatial prioritisation programme, and has helped the Crown Estate to unlock offshore wind in a way that considers all marine sectors and fisheries and protects the marine environment. In conclusion, I am proud to represent a coastal opportunity and to have the opportunity to help shape fishing’s contribution to coastal communities, food security and the wider economy. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East and all colleagues in the long term to ensure that fishing has a sustainable future across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Q8. Dr Carly Mellor, an NHS dentist in my constituency, recently said the following to me:“Ministers had pledged to fix the failed contract we work to within this Parliament. The Government has begun discussions on a new contract, and promised a public consultation on it this summer. With a typical dentist now delivering NHS care at a loss, with every passing month more practices are reconsidering their futures in the NHS, while millions of patients continue to struggle to access care.”Reforming the contract is the route to better treatment for my constituents. Can we please start the consultation without delay?
Before I start, I thank the Minister not only for his statement but for his robust response to the Opposition Front Bench, whose response was appalling. The E1 settlement plan deliberately cuts the west bank in two. The escalating violence and expansion of illegal settlements not only undermine the viability of the Palestinian state but fly in the face of international law. This is not by accident; this is by deliberate design. Will the Minister outline how exactly the Government can guarantee that illegal settler activity is not supported by UK-registered businesses, charities or trade, and how we will hold them to account if they ignore the guidance set out?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. The draft order seeks to amend the definition of “ninja sword” in the list of prohibited offensive weapons by amending the definition contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. I will briefly set out the context. The existing legislation, which bans ninja swords, followed a manifesto commitment to respond to the tireless campaigning by the family of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was fatally stabbed in 2022 by a person using a ninja sword. In 2024, the Government ran a public consultation on the proposed definition of a ninja sword in order to ban the weapons, in line with our aim to halve knife crime within a decade. The consultation sought views from the public and interested stakeholders on a draft definition of a ninja sword. Ninja swords are defined as a bladed article with a blade between 14 inches and 24 inches in length, with one straight cutting edge and a tanto-style point. That length was chosen in order to exclude knives and tools designed for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen knives and other types of knives. In order to be within scope of the ban, the article should also have the features described in paragraph 1(u) of the schedule to the 1988 order, namely: a “primary…cutting edge”, a “secondary…cutting edge” and a “blunt spine”, with either a “tanto style point” or a “reversed tanto style point”. Those terms are further defined in the detail of the legislation. We introduced legislation following analysis of the consultation responses, and ninja swords became prohibited from 1 August 2025. However, the Government recently became aware that the wording of the legislation does not correctly describe the length of the secondary straight cutting edge of a ninja sword, as was intended. The draft order therefore seeks to rectify that and align the legislation with the original intention. To be clear, this amendment is a technical clarification to existing secondary legislation banning ninja swords. Although the amendment to the definition widens the scope of the existing wording, it does not introduce new offences, bring any ninja swords out of scope, or impose additional requirements on the public. Under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire a weapon specified in an order made under that section. The legislation contains a detailed description of the tanto-style or reversed tanto-style point of the sword. The legislation states that “a secondary straight cutting edge is a cutting edge…which forms an angle with the primary straight cutting edge and the spine, and…is no more than 5% longer or shorter than the width of the blade immediately after the handle.” The reference to the 5% is incorrect and limits the scope of what size of tip falls under the legislation. We therefore propose to use the order-making powers under section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to amend the definition to: “a secondary straight cutting edge is a cutting edge…which forms an angle with the primary straight cutting edge and the spine, and…is no more than 105% longer than the width of the blade immediately after the handle.” That correction will allow the legislation to function as intended and remove any ambiguity about which swords fall within scope of the definition. We have also included an additional diagram in the explanatory note to make the definition easier to understand—it certainly helped me, and it may be useful for Members. To conclude, the Government are determined to stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, and this clarification will assist the police in exercising their powers to prevent violence and keep the public safe. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s remarks about Ronan Kanda’s family and their tireless campaigning. We are very grateful to Ronan’s mother and sister for being part of our coalition to tackle knife crime. They give their time freely and generously, and we spend lots of time listening to what they have to say. They are pushing us, as they should, to go further in tackling knife crime. Their work has led us to consulting on a licence regime for knife sales—we are working through that at the moment—and they keep pushing us to do more. We have had some success, with a 10% fall in knife crime and a 27% fall in knife murders, but we have a long way to go. To reassure the hon. Lady, we understand there have been no cases in which the legislation has impacted on any outcome. We have talked to the police about it and sought to rectify the error that was made as soon as we could. In no case has somebody not ended up going to court because of this problem. We are right to fix it as soon as discovering it, and that is what we are doing. I hope that the Committee is reassured that we are doing the right thing as quickly as we can, and that we will continue to bear down on knife crime. Question put and agreed to.
It is right that the Government acknowledge that Israel’s presence in Palestine is illegal under international law, but for two years they have not responded to the ICJ’s advisory ruling that Israel’s actions towards Palestinians in the west bank may constitute forcible transfer. The Israeli Government expressly back the E1 scheme, which will necessarily displace tens of thousands of Palestinians and dissect the west bank. Netanyahu said of the plan: “We are going to fulfil our promise that there will be no Palestinian state. This place belongs to us.” The UK’s current situation is unsustainable. Will the Minister acknowledge the Israeli Government’s role in the forcible transfer of Palestinians in the west bank and act accordingly with a full range of diplomatic interventions?
Residents of Catcliffe and Treeton in my constituency have suffered two devastating floods in the last decade or so. That means that, even if people are eligible for insurance from Flood Re, it is extremely expensive, and in some cases prohibitive. Can the Minister reassure us that that will not apply to, in particular, low-income householders, and that they will be able to obtain insurance? Let me finally put on record my gratitude to the volunteer flood wardens who, every time it rains, try to keep their communities safe.
I am very grateful that you have granted tonight’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that we have so much time to discuss this important issue. Packaging extended producer responsibility, which I will call EPR, is a policy that genuinely has a laudable goal: the move towards a circular economy, in which recycling is the norm, waste is minimised and we shift away from environmentally harmful materials such as plastic—something that the House can get behind. If done right, EPR could deliver just that, but the reality of the scheme now being implemented by the Minister is altogether different. We are seeing jobs being lost, British businesses losing contracts and investment, an increase in carbon-intensive glass being imported and, ultimately, producers switching from infinitely recyclable materials to plastic.
I will indeed be talking about the pub industry. I thank all the Members who have been campaigning so hard on this particular point for the last two years. The hon. Member will need to read the speech afterwards—it will be brilliant. We will try to protect our hospitality industry. While this debate is not focused on a single material, I must declare a particular interest in glass. Next month, I will be really proud to attend an event marking the 275th anniversary of the founding of Beatson Clark. Since the earliest days of the industrial revolution, it has been manufacturing glass in my Rotherham constituency, providing generations of skilled, well-paid jobs to my constituents. Throughout world wars, economic decline, depression and indeed renewal, it has endured, helping to drive our regional economy. I say to the Minister that I want Beatson Clark to thrive for another 275 years, but the reality is that the EPR is placing that future at risk.