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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
My hon. Friend’s constituency is going to receive not just support via the £50 million Wales defence growth deal or the deep space advanced radar capability programmes at Cawdor barracks, but help for small and medium-sized enterprises in places like Castlemartin in his constituency. It is a good deal for Wales.
My hon. Friend knows that this south-west lad is a big fan of supporting the north-east industry to grow and create more opportunities. I will be very happy to meet with her and other north-east colleagues to look at what opportunities are available in the defence investment plan with its £298 billion spend over the next four years.
Food security is national security. Although farmers do not wear the uniforms of our men and women in the armed forces, they are equally as vital in making sure that we can protect our national security. One of the reasons that we are investing so much in the hybrid Navy to keep the strait of Hormuz open is because we know that importing, be it food or energy, is vital to our security. That is why we are investing in new capabilities.
I know that my hon. Friend represents a large number of constituents who work at Defence Equipment and Support at Abbey Wood, and who do so really well. In the DIP, we have set out our support for the whole team effort between civilians and military personnel, and we are looking at creating more efficiencies and using new technologies to do so. I value the work of our civil servants, and I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to further discuss Abbey Wood.
I add to the tributes to Sir George Howarth. All of us who served with him on the Labour party’s national executive committee very much admired his courage in taking on and rooting out antisemitism. I welcome the success of our forces in the middle east in counter-UAS work during the recent conflict there. What measures are being taken to increase the number of military personnel who have the required skills to do counter-UAS operations? It is not just about the kit; it is about the training of personnel to use it.
Defence continually assesses threats and risks in all areas, including aerial drones. The defence investment plan contains measures to accelerate transformation and equip forces for modern warfare, including £790 million for integrated air and missile defence. Defence has taken extensive steps to strengthen homeland counter-drone capability, including vulnerability assessments of defence sites, restricted flying areas over numerous bases, and enhanced counter-uncrewed aircraft systems capabilities delivered by the Ministry of Defence police.
The hon. Member is right to highlight the fantastic work being done at Predannack, and I agree wholeheartedly with him. The defence investment plan places significant emphasis on uncrewed capability and autonomy, and the hon. Member will be well aware of the other measures that we have taken to provide support, such as establishing the uncrewed systems centre.
I wholeheartedly agree. That was a key message of this defence investment plan, which looks ahead to the technology that we will need in the future—for example, we have allotted £5 billion to uncrewed systems, exactly as my hon. Friend says.
I thank the hon. Member for raising a hugely important point—he is absolutely right. When I was serving, I saw some of the areas in which we need improvement. This Government are absolutely committed to changing and improving our procurement system so that it can deliver the vital kit and equipment that our brave troops deserve.
My hon. Friend is right that as well as ensuring that we purchase the right kit and equipment, we must ensure that we have personnel who are trained and ready to use it, adapting to the new way of warfare. As he knows, there will be considerable effort across our armed forces, and our new uncrewed taskforce will deliver exactly that.
The UK is committed to security in the High North. As well as the Royal Marines’ cold weather training in Norway, ranger exercises in Sweden and Finland, and air policing operations, the UK plays a key role in NATO’s Arctic Sentry initiative and deployed our carrier strike group to the High North this year. The Secretary of State was able to witness that at first hand on a visit this weekend.
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the High North, and the defence investment plan positions our armed forces to focus on its protection, alongside our allies in NATO and the JEF. Through the Scotland defence growth deal and our intention to launch two defence technical excellence colleges, which we have invited the Scottish Government to match fund, we are continuing to support Scotland’s defence industry and provide it with the highly skilled workforce that it requires.
I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will agree that the changing nature of warfare means that we must change to meet it. Having a focus on uncrewed systems and AI is critical, and I welcome the vision set out by the First Sea Lord.
The hon. Member has been a doughty champion for his constituency, and he and I have had many exchanges on this subject. I confirm that all decisions taken about reserves will look at what will best support that force. Those decisions are yet to be made, but we will of course ensure that we are supporting the reserves.
There has been an abhorrent loss of life; children must never be the victims of war. We have already suspended licences for Israel where the items might be used in military operations in Gaza. Licences are kept under continuous review. For operational security reasons, we do not offer comment on or information relating to foreign nations’ routine military movements.
I hope that my hon. Friend heard my previous answer, in which I expressed my deep sadness over the innocent victims of war. To confirm, we have already suspended licences for Israel where the items might be used in military operations in Gaza, noting the F-35 components going to the global programme. Licences are kept under continuous review.
My constituents have been treated appallingly by Capita. Some of them have died waiting for their pension—the inevitable consequences of outsourcing contracts on the cheap. I welcome the Government’s decision to hold Capita to account at last. Will the Minister ensure that no more Government contracts will be awarded to Capita and explain why, given its dreadful performance, anyone thought it was sensible to award it the Synergy contract?
I recently met a woman who had spent her career fighting fraud for the Department for Work and Pensions. If she had behaved in the way that this company is behaving around her pension, she would have been fired on the spot. It is one rule for ordinary working people and another for these outsourced companies, which behave so terribly on the taxpayers’ money. In Darlington, we have a Capita base with over 1,000 employees. Capita recently announced that it could no longer afford to pay the real living wage. How much profit is it making on this £200 million contract that it is failing to deliver?
In South Dorset, the Lantern Trust and the Veterans Hub have recently applied for Valour funding, which would make a huge difference to both organisations as they grow the services they offer to veterans—in particular the hub, which is the first port of call for many local veterans. Will the Minister look closely at those applications for funding, and look to support the fantastic work of the Veterans Hub in Weymouth?
I thank the Minister for her considered statement. We recently learned that shortly after receiving £5 million from a crypto billionaire halfway across the world, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) used a private audience with the Governor of the Bank of England to lobby against a policy that could cost that same billionaire dearly. It should not be this easy to pump money into British politics from the other side of the planet. While I welcome the measures announced today regarding the overseas donation cap, I would like some reassurance from the Minister—for me and for my constituents—that foreign-based donors will not be able to dart in and out of the country as they choose to avoid the new cap on foreign donations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on presenting this debate, and my constituent Hayley who brought the petition. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am a member of GMB. While the petition speaks to the wider issues facing the ceramics sector, it was set up following the devastating news that Denby Pottery, the largest employer in my constituency, was entering administration. The nearly 110,000 signatures—3,900 of which are from Amber Valley; I thank my constituents for signing it—are a testament to the national significance, rich history and enduring popularity of Denby Pottery, handcrafted using clay from the very site on which the company was founded. Throughout its 217 years, the pottery has remained committed to local craftsmanship, even as its competitors offshored production to mass-produce goods more cheaply. That commitment has inspired extraordinary loyalty, with many in the local area having worked there for decades and even generations. However, despite its world-class reputation, Denby Pottery struggled financially. It had previously been through administration, and more recent global shocks in energy markets faced further pressure on manufacturing costs. That is why I worked with Hayley to produce the petition, which calls for the ceramics sector to be included in the British industry supercharger scheme. In the months that followed, I met repeatedly with Ministers and officials and raised Denby Pottery’s situation directly with the Prime Minister. He committed to a full review of the supercharger scheme across all sectors. But understanding the need for a more immediate intervention for Denby Pottery and the sector more widely, the Chancellor acted decisively and announced a bespoke package of £120 million for ceramics. I thank those who worked tirelessly to produce this, including Ceramics UK, GMB Union, colleagues here today and the Treasury, as well as the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. Heartbreakingly, in spite of that support, we now know that investors were unable to view Denby Pottery as a viable business proposition, so I am refocusing my efforts towards fighting for a different future, working with Government, the administrators, local businesses and any future purchaser of the site to maximise opportunities for good quality jobs in Amber Valley. Alongside that, I am clear that Denby Pottery’s heritage must be preserved. The onsite museum told the story of more than two centuries of innovation and industry. I commend the excellent work being done by Linda and others to ensure that the collection will be enjoyed for generations to come. Denby Pottery has many legacies, ranging from the nationally significant to the deeply personal: its heritage, its skilled and committed workforce and the pottery itself—treasured, gifted at weddings and passed down through generations. Today, its legacy must live on in the lessons learned from its closure and the changes that it catalysed, so that other ceramics companies can continue and thrive. I therefore urge the Minister to continue working with industry to ensure that UK ceramics manufacturers can compete on a level playing field. That includes insulating the sector from unfair competition, such as the dumping of heavily subsidised products from overseas markets. The public want to back overseas business and manufacturing, as illustrated by the incredibly moving scale of the support for the #SaveDenby campaign. I pay tribute to the campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for clearer country of origin labelling, and I hope the Government support his private Member’s Bill. To any potential purchaser of the Denby Pottery brand alone, I say this: if your produce is not made in Denby, using clay extracted from the ground in Denby village and hand-crafted by the people of Denby, then regardless of the name stamped upon it, it will never be recognised as true Denby pottery.
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the importance of continuing the skills and heritage of the pottery industry. Will he join me in congratulating Fran, Kate and Daizy? They were employees of Denby Pottery and recently set up the Potter’s Nook in Ripley, where people in my constituency and beyond can go to learn the skills needed in the pottery sector.
I welcome much of the Minister’s statement, but I am disappointed that there is not an outright ban on cryptocurrency donations. I cannot foresee us ever arriving at a place where the regulation is robust enough that it would be safe for cryptocurrency donations to proceed, so I would like to understand why the Minister is not proceeding with an outright ban. The point about having safeguards on the algorithmic amplification of hate during election campaigns is crucial. That affords certain candidates and certain parties millions of pounds in free publicity, and it affords them an income stream from social media platforms. Why are we not banning that now?
I recently visited the sea cadets in Stafford, and it was brilliant. They are somehow thriving, despite being about 70 miles from the nearest coastline. What they lack in coastline, they very much make up for in enthusiasm. Unlike some of the Army and air cadet units, sea cadets are run as a charity and miss out on the cadet expansion programme funding. Will the Minister tell me what support is available for sites such as Stafford, so that even those of us missing out on sea access do not miss out on fair funding access?
I do not wish to dwell too much on this point, because we will all come back to it later, but in the interests of accuracy I think it is also important to record that 90% of people in the Sparkhill ward did not vote for that candidate.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on the thoughtful and able way in which he introduced this important debate, and I thank the 583 Birmingham Northfield constituents who took the time to sign the petition. This petition raises important questions about democratic participation and the potential abuse of our political systems, and it is right that we are debating it. I understand and share the sentiment behind the petition. Most people would hold the view that terrorists should not hold elected office, and certainly not positions of executive authority. There is also a valid question to be asked about the effective five-year prohibition against standing for election that applies in practice for domestic convictions of terrorism but not for overseas convictions. Those overseas convictions are not always straightforward, as has already been acknowledged, and I am sure that we will come back to that point during the debate. It has been said that there are important matters of detail to work through. One of those is that the petition calls for people who hold such a conviction to be barred from standing for public office, but it would not, as drafted, debar appointments to the House of Lords or to senior civil service positions. I do not want to spend long on this point, because I suspect that it is a drafting issue, but hon. Members will recall when a former member of the Revolutionary Communist party—an organisation that acted as an apologist for the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign—was appointed to the other place a few years ago and has never disavowed those views. That is a particularly important point for colleagues in Warrington, and for all those affected by the Brimingham pub bombings. We must also be mindful of the precedent set by the peace process in Northern Ireland. One of the aims of the Good Friday agreement was to permit people to move from physical force republicanism and physical force loyalism to democratic participation. That peace was built on the primacy of the ballot box, and I am sure that it is not the desire or the intention of the petition’s drafters to undo any part of that settlement.
I think I have made it clear in my remarks about other representatives that I hold no truck at all with apologism for or the glorification of terrorism. There is one more problem. The petition seeks to disbar from public office all those who hold overseas terrorism convictions, but such a disqualification could, if drafted without the greatest of care and precision, effectively allow foreign Governments to determine who can stand for election in the United Kingdom. Authoritarian regimes routinely misuse terrorism laws against political opponents and democracy activists. One example is Russia. UN special rapporteurs have said that the Russian Government deploy a “repressive toolbox targeting civil society…A key part of the government strategy has been to abuse anti-extremism and counter-terrorism provisions by designating civil society organisations as ‘extremist’ or ‘terrorist’, and bringing criminal charges, including extremism and terrorism-related, against their members or anyone associated with them, including victims of human rights violations.” We need only to think about parliamentary colleagues who have been sanctioned by regimes overseas because of comments they have made in this place. Critics of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine are now routinely labelled as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. We cannot create the prospect of British citizens being tried in absentia by states they may never have stepped foot in and then effectively being barred from running for council or parliamentary positions. However well-intentioned the petition’s aim, we cannot hand Vladimir Putin a veto over our political representation or any other aspect of British public life. It is helpful to return to the case that led to the petition—that of an independent candidate in Birmingham, the city of which I am proud to represent a part. While I do not seek to tar them all with the same brush, Birmingham had no shortage this year of independent candidates who preached messages of division and seemed to enjoy bringing the circus of national and international media attention down on parts of the city. We even had candidates who took their direction from or co-ordinated with George Galloway, a man who used to make a pulpit out of the Russian and Iranian state broadcasters and who now apparently lives in Russia. In Sparkhill, one of the independent candidates was a man called Shahid Butt. Mr Butt holds a Yemeni terrorism conviction dating back to 1998-99. We can also look to more recent events to see why Mr Butt is utterly unfit to be a community representative or elected politician. Before the planned Aston Villa match against Maccabi Tel Aviv, he said this on social media—I have seen the original, and it is not taken out of context: “if someone comes into your face, you knock his teeth out. That’s my message”. It is worth pointing out that while it is right that we debate the petition’s important proposals, the people of Sparkhill rejected Mr Butt’s candidature. He lost decisively and two Labour councillors were returned. In that case, we needed good organisation and trust in the people of this country. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) would forgive some comments about part of his constituency. Much has been said in the national press about Sparkhill, egged on by inflammatory comments made two years ago by a former Member of this place who should have known better. My mum was born on Evelyn Road in Sparkhill, and I feel a certain defensiveness when that area or any other part of Birmingham is used as a national political football. Many of us are fed up, and I am fed up of the national and social media tourists who think they can use Birmingham as a passing canvas to propagate stereotypes for cheap clicks, and who give the oxygen of publicity to unrepresentative ideologues and self-obsessed narcissists who crave attention. I am very glad that this year, in Sparkhill, their politics was defeated.
At the outset, I draw attention to my membership of GMB and Unite, both of which organise workers in the engineering construction sector. It is a pleasure to speak in this SI debate, which may be auspicious as, depending on the Government’s future reform of the sector, we may be moving towards longer-term settlements for levy changes on account of the consultation that closed two weeks ago. Industrial training boards once covered a much wider share of the economy, before many of them were sadly scrapped in the early 1980s. It is difficult to imagine a role in the modern economy for the Wool, Jute and Flax Industry Training Board, but it is worth reflecting that, in the past, training boards oversaw some important skills transitions—particularly the Gas Industry Training Board’s role in the highly successful conversion from town gas to natural gas. As we think about the future of home heating, perhaps we would be in a stronger position today if that body still existed. Thankfully, both the CITB and the ECITB have survived, and are now modern, 21st-century institutions. Engineering construction refers to that aspect of the construction industry that crosses beyond design into implementation, covering everything from bridges to tunnels, and from energy from waste-plants to High Speed 2 and new nuclear sites. In other words, if we are to build the infrastructure that the UK needs, we need that steady pipeline of skills. Industry training boards are not the whole of the answer, but they are an important part of it. Construction productivity is lower in the UK than in some comparable countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands. The problems in our country are deep seated: 38% of engineering construction workers are aged 50 or over, rising to 40% in the oil and gas sector. Although some progress has been made, there are still critical shortages for skills such as plating and welding. That is an issue that the Transport Committee, of which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) is a member, looked at. We repeatedly heard that shortages in those key skills are holding back the UK’s ability to deliver major products, as well as raising costs for taxpayers. This statutory instrument is necessary to continue the provision of essential skills training. It carries forward an effective 1.2% levy on on-site net labour costs and 0.33% on off-site costs—rates unchanged since 2023. There is clearly a good level of satisfaction in the quality of individual courses, because the share of employers who voted in favour of the levy went up slightly in this round. This statutory instrument should raise around £138 million over the next three years. To give an idea of the scale of the training that it delivers, in 2024, the ECITB supported almost 2,200 new entrant starts, and 64,000 people were trained on ECITB courses and other products. We have heard a lot, rightly, about employment in the North sea oil and gas sector. Many workers in that sector feel a great sense of frustration because they know that their skills are transferable, but there has not always been sufficient recognition across related sectors of the transferability of those skills. Indeed, attempts to create a skills passport under the previous Government ran into some frustrations and ran over in terms of timing. I think it is important to quote the three North sea trade unions—GMB, Unite and RMT—in respect of the ECITB’s connected competence programme: “The Trade Unions have been calling for a standardised, fair and transparent approach to competence and skills assessment for several years and we welcome Connected Competence. We sincerely hope this initiative is adopted and utilised by all contractors and industry bodies… This would truly enable workers to transition around the energy sector and help maintain and develop a…skills base. This is good news for both workers and the wider UK economy.” Clearly the value of the ECITB does extend beyond the provision of training courses, as important as that is. We have heard about the Government’s reform programme, which, in fairness, was prompted by the independent review commissioned under the previous Government. At the heart of those proposals is the proposed merger of the CITB and the ECITB, with the justification being more effective long-term planning and strategic decision making on which courses should receive investment. I am sure that the whole House will agree that it is important that we realise those aims. At the same time, however, while the construction industry and engineering construction are allied trades, they do have important differences. I think it would be helpful if we could hear about how the distinctive nature of engineering construction skills requirements would be protected should the merger go ahead. The consultation, as we have heard, has closed only recently, but it would be appreciated if the Minister was able to give any information on when he anticipates that the Government will respond in full. I wonder whether in the short time left I might make a point about workforce representation on the ECITB—I have previously raised a related point about the CITB. When these boards were established in the 1960s, there was equal 50:50 representation on the boards of the industry training schemes for trade union representatives, representing the workers, and employer representation. Over the years—it was not an immediate process—the trade union representatives were gradually squeezed off both boards to the point where there is now no trade union representation on the boards of either the CITB or the ECITB. The trade unions are represented on a subsidiary advisory board, but this is of lesser status, and it means that they are not in the room when the core decisions are made. As we approach the point of potentially wholesale ITB reform, I wonder whether we could take this opportunity to right what was, I think, a mistake, which was removing that direct worker voice from the boards of these organisations, whether through the continued stand-alone, separate existence of the ECITB or CITB or otherwise. I wonder whether the Minister would provide some information on that proposal either in writing or when he sums up.
The barbaric and deliberate targeting and killing of Palestinian children by the Israel Defence Forces has received little media coverage or outrage. A report by the United Nations Human Rights Council estimates that the IDF have killed over 20,000 children and injured more than 44,000. Will the Minister say what assurance she can give that arms transferred through UK military bases are not used to facilitate war crimes? When will she facilitate a full arms embargo?
I really welcome the Minister’s statement, and his acknowledgment that Capita has failed—and failed miserably, not for the first time—1.7 million civil servants, including some in my constituency. I would like to ask him: what due diligence was undertaken, and how much profit is Capita making when it is not paying the living wage? Should you now consider sanctioning the company more than the £9.9 million, and will you please work with unions to—
I welcome Lords amendments 1 to 6, which clarify the Bill. However, as the Bill stands, journalists could still face a prison sentence of 10 to 14 years for working with or even approaching sources in hostile Governments. Will the Minister consider pausing the legislation so that we can go back to the drawing board?
The Minister has touched on organised crime. As I am sure she is aware, modern slavery can be a real issue within the waste crime sector; we have had some powerful debates on that issue in the Chamber. The waste crime action plan sets out that people will be held to account and given community service, but we need to reach further up the chain, because often the people who are caught in the act are the ones being exploited or forced to carry out such activities. I am reassured by what she says, but does she agree that we need to go further up the chain?
10. What steps he is taking to protect British interests in the High North.
Protecting our interests in the High North depends not only on our armed forces, but on a resilient defence industrial base. Constituencies such as mine are home to highly skilled defence and engineering businesses that play an important role in supporting our national security. How is the Department ensuring that UK industry has the investment and skilled workforce needed to sustain these capabilities into the future?
I thank the Minister for his statement. New cases are still coming into my office, with tales of failure to get through on the telephone or a lack of online access. They remain common, but most common is the financial distress. My case team keep hearing about people who are about to lose their house. The interim interest-free loans made available in January were welcome, but for those who are still awaiting settlements, will the Government consider further payments?
My constituent logged into the pension portal this morning and it told him that he had only been employed by the civil service for one year, not the 35 that he had been employed for. He was told this by an agency that did not even exist when he started working for the civil service, and that still cannot tell him what his annual pension value is. That is after a software upgrade at the weekend, by the way, so God knows what it was like before then. This shows just what a shambles the system is. I welcome what the Minister said about the public interest test, but do we not also need to make a competence test a key part of that, so that these companies that are serial offenders do not get near public contracts again?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on securing this debate and on his opening remarks. His strength of feeling and that shown by the petitioners, including nearly 800 in my constituency, demonstrate how important the ceramics and manufacturing sector remains to communities like mine and across the country. I would like to declare that I am a proud member of the GMB. The Government have rightly identified advanced manufacturing as a strategic priority for their modern industry strategy. Manufacturing accounts for nearly 15% of the east midlands economy, a greater share than in any other region in England. The £120 million support package for the UK ceramics industry is a welcome example of this Government backing manufacturing in the midlands. Over 450,000 people are employed in manufacturing across the east midlands, including a significant portion in the ceramics industry. These are not just jobs; they represent generations of expertise, craftsmanship and industrial knowledge that have been passed down through families and communities of working people across generations. Broxtowe still bears the scars of the industrial decline. Parts of Eastwood, a former coalfield community, have never recovered from the loss of traditional industries and the secure jobs that they provided. Broxtowe remains a home to major manufacturers, including Reckitt in Beeston and Caunton Engineering in Moregreen. Yet in meetings with both those companies, they highlighted challenges shared by manufacturers across the country: persistently higher energy costs and the challenge of decarbonising industrial processes while remaining competitive. Those pressures are being felt now. Without action, we risk seeing further investment in jobs being moved overseas. We must ensure that British manufacturers are not placed at a competitive disadvantage. If we are serious about retaining high-value industrial jobs, businesses cannot continue to face energy costs significantly higher than those of their international counterparts and competitors. We must ensure that the infrastructure needed for industrial decarbonisation is in place. Many manufacturers are ready to electrify their operations but are held back by constraints in local electricity networks and grid capacity. The ceramics industry has rightly highlighted those issues, but the lessons apply across the manufacturing industry. I urge the Minister to consider expanding eligibility for energy cost relief for manufacturers that fall outside the existing schemes and to support investment in local electricity networks and grid capacities to enable industrial decarbonisation. By supporting energy-intensive industries and providing the infrastructure they need to invest, we can protect skilled jobs, strengthen our industrial base and deliver growth in communities that have waited far too long for their share in prosperity.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Minister to wind up.