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
Will the Minister confirm that the Government will match this action against foreign financial influence by restoring the principle that voting in British parliamentary elections should be reserved for British citizens?
Shahid Butt is a convicted terrorist. He was convicted of attempting to blow up the British consulate in Yemen, an Anglican church and a hotel. That vile individual should never have been allowed into the UK, let alone be able to stand for the local council. It makes an absolute joke of our democracy, and I strongly support the idea of changing the law so that it can never happen again. But does the hon. Member agree that what should terrify us more than anything else in his case is that 452 people who have the vote voted for him? They voted for a convicted terrorist to represent them in the city hall in Birmingham. That is what should keep us awake at night.
A white man on a night out in Birmingham is assaulted by two black men. The police intervene and arrest the white man—the victim—and allow the two black lads to flee the scene. They then call the victim a “dick” and hit his head against a police car while they are sticking him in it. They then misrepresent what happened at the event, saying that it was a fight, when it was actually an assault. They say that absolutely nothing is wrong. The footage then goes viral, as ever, and the police are forced to change their tune—footage that the police actually tried to suppress. I have three simple questions for the Policing Minister. One, does she consider this to be another appalling incident of two-tier policing? Two, will she haul the acting chief constable of—
I was the only person to raise it. Millions of—
Well, well, this desperate Labour Government will stop at nothing to stop the rise of Reform UK—from trying to cancel elections, to donations, to changing the voting system in Manchester. If the Government are truly concerned about undue influence, has the Minister discussed the proposals with the Cayman Islands hedge fund Quadrature, which was the largest donator to the Labour Government, giving £4 million in 2024, or with the eight companies that have donated half a million pounds? Sure enough, those companies have had almost £150 million of Government contracts since.
The money in the DIP is clearly not enough, but it is welcome that some money has been found for defence, and I particularly welcome the new drone facility that is coming to Swindon in Wiltshire. In a genuinely constructive spirit, can I ask the Minister whether she is content with the model of defence procurement we have in this country, and whether she thinks that with a new Secretary of State and a new Prime Minister coming, now is the time to do a lot more to expedite the sort of innovative defence procurement that we will need to make the weapons for the future?
I welcome the statement. I want to follow on from the question from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). Yes, Ministers must take responsibility for the contracts, but ultimately Whitehall fails to deliver value for money on behalf of the public. It is not enough to say that the Government plan to insource more contracts—they cannot insource everything. What are the Government doing to ensure that Whitehall gets better value for money when it does procurement and project management?
I thank the Minister for her statement on the actions the Government will take to try to restore the public’s faith in our democracy. She mentioned that the “know your donor” rules will be strengthened, in particular with regard to the location of potential donors. Has there been any consideration of adding a prospective donor’s criminal history to the list of due diligence factors that a political party must consider when processing a potential donation?
One of my constituents submitted a request for their pension just over a year before their proposed retirement date, but is still waiting—sadly, it is little wonder that the June date has been missed. My constituents will thank the Minister for explaining the significant resource that the Government have allocated to eradicating this backlog, but, in advance of the August deadline, what additional resource in terms of staffing or funding is Capita allocating to the task?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his opening remarks, and the petitioners who brought the petition today. Public trust in our democracy is sadly at an all-time low due to broken manifesto commitments, resignations or just the perceived lack of accountability that has led to general political disillusion for so many. Every failure of standards and every perception that rules do not apply equally risks further damaging confidence in not only us as MPs but our democratic institutions. The petition was signed by over 200,000 people across the country, including 227 of my constituents in Guildford, and it asks a question that goes to the heart of our democracy: who is fit to stand for public office and how do we protect the institutions that make our democracy work? We Liberal Democrats believe that we should be working hard to restore public confidence in our democratic institutions. Those who have sought to undermine that confidence through political violence should face serious consequences. However, the question raised by the petition is not a simple one. Those who signed it are asking beyond whether someone convicted of terrorism offences should be able to stand for elected office; they are asking whether the system is serious about protecting itself. They are asking whether we understand what public office is for. The UK already disqualifies certain people with criminal convictions from holding elected office. Anyone sentenced to three months or more in prison is barred from serving on an English local authority for five years. Police and crime commissioner candidates are disqualified if they have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence. MPs serving prison sentences of more than a year are disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1981, so a framework is already in place. The question is whether it goes far enough for terrorism offences specifically. We do not think that it would be right to bar every person with any historic conviction from ever standing for office; that would be disproportionate and cut against the principle of rehabilitation. But terrorism and national security offences are different. They are, by definition, attacks on the institutions that the person may later seek to serve. It is reasonable for Parliament to treat them as a special case. Any new prohibition, however, must meet two tests. First, it must comply with the 1998 Human Rights Act. Restrictions on the right to stand for election must be proportionate and subject to proper legal safeguards. That is not a barrier to action; it is the framework that any workable law will have to fit within. Secondly, any prohibition must be consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. The constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland has held peace for a generation, and legislation drafted without regard to it could do real damage. That is a practical consideration, not a theoretical one, and I hope the Minister will address it directly. Within those tests, though, there is a clear route forward. The Elections Act 2022 already allows courts to issue disqualification orders, but only for five years. The Liberal Democrats support giving courts the power to issue longer disqualification orders, so that people who pose an ongoing threat to our democracy can be barred from public office for as long as that threat lasts. Currently, the Representation of the People Bill is making its way through Parliament. It provides a great opportunity for the Government to make changes to our electoral system. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has tabled an amendment that I fully support, which would prevent anyone convicted of offences relating to the promotion, incitement or use of political violence from making donations to political parties. If we agree that people who have used violence against our democracy should not sit in its chambers, we should also agree that they should not be funding the parties that do. I ask the Minister to look at that amendment seriously at the next stage of the Bill. There is a wider point about how nominations are handled. Returning officers currently have to accept nominations at face value. They cannot investigate allegations or reject a nomination because they think someone might be disqualified. As candidates self-declare their eligibility, the system depends on honesty. It is worth the Government asking whether that is still fit for purpose. Tackling extremism also requires more than legal disqualification. It requires the police and prosecutors to have the resources and training to prevent and prosecute hate crimes. It requires protective funding for places of worship, schools and community centres that have been the targets of attacks, and it requires all of us in public life to think very carefully about the rhetoric that we use and about the rhetoric that has too often been the precursor to violence. The Government currently have no plans to change the existing disqualification criteria. I hope that, having listened to the debate, the Minister will be willing to go further than that. Public trust is hard won and easily lost. On this issue, the Government can show that they take that trust seriously.
My constituent Anita was widowed suddenly in December 2025, and Capita has failed to calculate her lump sum and pension payments. She is living in desperate hardship; she has exhausted all her credit cards and there are no friends and family left who can support her. She has not even been able to scatter her husband’s ashes. The Minister has insisted that bereavement cases are prioritised, but the evidence suggests otherwise. What is the Minister doing now to ensure that people like Anita are not living in hardship? They need urgent action.
The Minister is right to point out that although we—I think across the House—welcome his work and diligence, and that of the previous Government, on the scheme and recognise the work that needs to be done, there is absolutely no doubt there are still too few who have received compensation. As of 2 June, my understanding is that just over 3,000 out of a potential 30,000 victims had received compensation. Can he update us on what he is doing to ensure that more people get the money they need as soon as possible?
Can the Minister advise the House on how earnings from foreign sources not made directly as political donations, such as hosting or appearing on TV channels supporting foreign adversaries, will be treated? They enable the significant indirect self-funding of candidates, future candidates, MPs and political parties by those who seek to influence political campaigning. Therefore, an overall cap on donations from British people, including those who are candidates and MPs, is really necessary. Will she comment on that source?
Dorset is about to get its fourth chief constable in just eight years. While I wish Amanda Pearson well in her retirement, those I spoke to who were involved in the recruitment panel said that the only potential candidates were the deputy chief constables or the assistant chief constables. In a place like Dorset, we tend to get someone who is either internal or about to retire. In almost every case, there is only one candidate. Given that situation, how will the Minister look to introduce fresh ideas and a culture free from nepotism, bias and toxicity in such a small cohort, so that we can get the leadership that we need?
Last month the former Defence Secretary said that he believed he was misled by his own Department while he was Defence Secretary. Former Scotland Secretary Baroness Liddell, who sat on the Philip review panel, said that she was misled. Given that, surely the Secretary of State must support the Chinook Justice Campaign families’ long-standing pleas for a fresh inquiry into why their family members were put on that particular flight?
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Has she considered the merits of establishing an office of the whistleblower, which would create new legal protections for those who declare wrongdoing and promote greater public awareness of whistleblowers’ rights? Will the Government ensure that there are criminal sanctions on officeholders who fail to whistle blow when they know or become aware of political interference or wrongdoing?
Growing the economy is one of the essential duties of the Government, and the levy is a key part of ensuring that productivity is part of that agenda. The levy gives the opportunity to grow core industries and infrastructure, and to change our economy so that we become more environmentally sound, tackle climate change and have a cleaner economy, which is essential. Many of the jobs included in the levy help achieve that. Colleagues have already alluded to the more than 1 million NEETs that are in our communities, and we know that this issue can be tackled through the levy. As Liberal Democrats, we believe in working in partnership with employers and educationalists, and we know that this can be achieved through the levy. Torbay is one of five core areas of opportunity for electronics and photonics across the United Kingdom. Companies such as Bay Photonics and Gooch & Housego work in partnership with South Devon college to ensure that there is a pipeline of opportunities for young people in Devon. As Liberal Democrats, we warmly welcome the proposals before us.
6. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential merits of increasing funding for the defence investment plan.
I recently visited RNAS Yeovilton and saw the welcome improvements to single living accommodation for serving personnel at HMS Heron. However, funding to refurbish or replace 14,000 service homes across the country—such as those in nearby Ilchester—has now been pushed back to 2030-35 to help pay for the defence investment plan. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether personnel serving at bases such as RNAS Yeovilton will be affected by that delay, and what they should expect by 2030?
My team are dealing with 18 civil service pension scheme cases. One of them involves Frosoulla, from Glastonbury, who took partial retirement earlier this year to care for her 92-year-old mother. She has made more than 15 calls to Capita and each time been reassured that her case has been prioritised—but she still has not had any correspondence at all, and she has no pension to draw on. After years of public service, she deserves better. How does the Minister intend to restore confidence for people like Frosoulla, who simply want access to the money that they have worked hard to earn?
I thank the Minister for setting out this statutory instrument, which the Liberal Democrats support. For too long, the system regulating who can transport and manage our waste has relied on a simple registration scheme, scarcely able to distinguish between reputable operators and rogue ones. That simply cannot continue. Replacing carrier, broker and dealer registration with an appropriate and robust permitting regime is the right call. Distinguishing waste controlling, waste transporting and waste controlling-transporting means that regulation can finally be risk-based, rather than having a one-size-fits-all free-for-all. Giving the Environment Agency the power to check before granting a permit, rather than after damage is done, is exactly what the Liberal Democrats have long called for. We therefore back this statutory instrument, but supporting it does not mean we accept that it is job done. Permitting who is allowed to move waste does nothing for what happens when criminals move it anyway. Earlier this year, a space outside the Red Brick Building alongside a key gateway into Glastonbury was blighted by a mountain of fly-tipped waste. No single body was able to or wanted to take responsibility for its clean up, so local residents stepped in and raised £1,500 towards clearing this eyesore. After a full day of volunteers shifting rubble by hand, and a local firm sending a biohazard specialist to safely handle and remove what had been dumped there, it was finally cleared. Although it is a great example of people power and coming together to solve a problem that could not be solved otherwise, it should never have been necessary for local people to be forced into intervening. That is what enforcement failure looks like on the ground. It is not an abstract statistic, but ordinary people left to clean up after the criminals, simply because nobody else would. The scale of the problem stretches far beyond Glastonbury. Council figures show that 3,000 fly-tipping incidents were reported just last year in Somerset alone. Across England, there were 1.26 million reported incidents but just 1,377 initiated prosecutions. The average fine was a meagre £539, while fewer than 0.2% of incidents ever saw the inside of a courtroom. That is just the start of the problem. A BBC investigation at the end of last year identified 517 active illegal waste dumps across England. Eleven of them are what investigators call “super sites”. The largest is in Northwich and holds an estimated 280,000 tonnes of illegally dumped waste. That is not fly-tipping; that is industrial-scale organised crime happening in plain view. Just 13 custodial sentences were handed down for fly-tipping offences in England last year, while a massive 35% of waste crime is attributed to organised criminal gangs. The former chief executive of the Environment Agency called waste crime “the new narcotics”. While this SI fixes the front door, it is silent on who it brings to justice. That must be the criminals committing serious waste crime. A permit regime has the ability to stop a rogue operator registering, but it will never stop a criminal gang that were never going to register in the first place. Why would they, when they are making their millions in the knowledge that there is no fear of being caught? What assessment has been made of how this new permitting framework will improve detection and enforcement against the organised gangs already operating illegally, outside any system that the Government could permit them into? The Liberal Democrats have consistently set out what genuine reform looks like. It is not more law stuck on the statute book, when the powers to fine, seize vehicles and imprison for up to five years already exist and are barely used. What we require is proper resourcing and co-ordination to actually use those powers. That is why we call on the Government to go further. First, they should raise each fixed penalty notice for fly-tipping to £2,500, so that the penalty better reflects the profit being made. Secondly, the National Crime Agency or the forthcoming national police service must be given clear and unambiguous responsibility for investigating serious organised waste crime. There must be no more gaps in co-ordination among local police, the Environment Agency and our hard-stretched local authorities. Thirdly, we must introduce rewards of more than £5,000 for information leading to the successful prosecution of the criminal gangs behind sites such as Northwich. Fourthly, we must establish a single national reporting route for rural and waste crime, with one number and one point of contact, with automatic triage to the correct enforcement body. As it stands, the system gives a farmer in Somerset who finds waste dumped on their land no clear direction as to whether to call the unitary council, the Environment Agency or the police. That confusion is actively suppressing reporting, and with that comes the lack of enforcement. This SI is a genuine and welcome step. Risk-based permitting is well overdue. The Liberal Democrats will back the SI today, but my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton and rural communities the length and breadth of the country need to know that criminals are not able to act with impunity, illegally dumping waste across the country. I hope that the Minister will confirm that today’s reform marks the start of that reckoning, not its conclusion.
Much of the commentary on the defence investment plan is on the threat to the UK mainland, our interests and our assets. First, does the Secretary of State think that it is more useful to think about the Russian threat to NATO in general terms? Secondly, now we have the DIP, is the UK still 31st out of 32 NATO members, when it comes to our commitment to strengthen and modernise the armed forces?
My thoughts are with the victims and survivors, who have already suffered unbelievable harm and trauma. They have been failed at every stage, and they deserve better. It is completely unacceptable that someone who has been convicted of such vile offences, and who has rightly been stripped of his British citizenship, cannot be deported because of what I believe is a loophole in the law. It was not intended back in 1971 that the law should protect people like this, and the law must be rectified as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government will bring forward the necessary changes, and whether they have set a deadline for doing so? What progress has been made in discussions with Pakistan to ensure that this offender is deported?
I thank the noble Lords Blunkett and Herbert for the report, which is a welcome shining light on the challenges facing leadership in our police forces. I know at first hand from my constituency that police forces deal day in, day out with highly sensitive, dangerous and traumatic incidents. They keep us safe. It is deeply challenging work, and we are greatly indebted to them. That is why the findings of the report are so concerning. The report shows that officers are too often hampered by scarce resources, excessive bureaucracy and conduct processes, which leave them unable to focus on delivering for the public. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a return to the proper community and neighbourhood policing that our constituents want. For that to happen, officers must be properly supported and equipped to tackle the many issues facing our communities. Will the Minister set out what plans the Government have to increase the numbers of bobbies on the beat? Even more concerning are the report’s findings on the inconsistent leadership standards across our police forces. The numerous instances of leaders falling short of the standards of integrity, honesty and professionalism expected of them—including in cases of cronyism, nepotism and abuses of power for sexual purpose—are appalling. It is clear that we need root-and-branch reform of the policing system, as the report calls for, to stamp out that bad behaviour, improve leadership and hold senior officers to the highest standard. Will the Minister confirm that that recommendation and others in the report will directly inform the forthcoming police reform Bill? Finally, the Police Federation has highlighted poor leadership in the police and an increase in officer suicides, but we do not have the data. Will the Minister commit to requiring police forces to gather that data?
The Liberal Democrats have supported the principle of the National Security (State Threats) Bill for some time. We know why it must pass, and why it must pass quickly. At present, our country is suffering from co-ordinated attacks from foreign states. Their actions subvert our democracy, intimidate the public and erode our values. The number of state threat investigations by MI5 has surged by a staggering 48% in the last year alone. Those figures are a stark reminder of the scale of the threat we face. That is not an isolated spike; it is the frontline of an expanding and evolving threat that the United Kingdom faces from both foreign Governments and hostile foreign actors. Chief among them is the increasingly emboldened Iranian regime, which is aggressively asserting itself to undermine our national security. Since the start of 2022, our security services have responded to 20 Iranian-backed plots, which present a direct and potentially lethal threat to British citizens and UK residents on our own soil. Let us be clear about who Iran is targeting: it is targeting dissidents, media organisations and journalists who have the bravery to report on that regime’s violent oppression. I have spoken to constituents who fled Iran and now live in Woking, and I know that they would support the Bill. Critically, Iran is also targeting the Jewish community who live in our country. We cannot allow that to happen.
I am pleased that, for once, we have cross-party consensus on an issue. However, it has been more than a year since Jonathan Hall KC first recommended the powers contained in the Bill to tackle state-backed and state-linked threats. The Government and this Parliament have been too slow to listen to his concerns. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the legislation creates the power for state-backed entities to be designated under the National Security Act 2023. On Second Reading, my Liberal Democrat colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), raised strong concerns that the offences in the Bill might inadvertently capture the activities of humanitarian workers. Tackling state threats and protecting those who provide vital assistance and support to some of the planet’s most vulnerable people are not and should never be mutually exclusive. I therefore highly commend the amendments tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Northover, as well as by Lord Anderson, in the other place, which we are now considering. They will protect those who carry out humanitarian work, which, as colleagues have said, we never intended the Bill to capture. I am pleased and relieved that the Government are supporting the amendments.
I am pleased that my colleagues in the other place drafted the amendments and that the Government support them. Earlier today, we were talking about the Immigration Act 1971. Parliament never intended to protect someone who had been stripped of his British citizenship and committed heinous crimes, but there is a risk that because the legislation was badly drafted in 1971, we cannot do what we all want to do now and deport him. The intention of legislation is so important, and I am pleased that through the Lords amendments, we have managed to put some meat on the bones of the Government’s legislation to protect vital humanitarian workers. It is so important that we tackle state threats while also protecting those workers. I therefore highly commend the amendments tabled by my colleagues in the other place. I pay tribute in particular to Baroness Northover, whose work with the Government on these amendments deserves our praise. I also thank other colleagues in the other place for their work on the Bill. Humanitarian workers often work in extremely challenging and unstable areas, and they need to know that the law has their back when they are putting their lives at risk. To provide essential aid, they have to work with a wide variety of local groups. Without the new legal protections, they could easily be penalised simply for doing their jobs. Sometimes, that involves landmine clearance or paying a fee to access a particular zone. We must ensure that our laws do not criminalise aid workers. My noble Friend Baroness Northover’s amendments—Lords amendments 1, 2, 4 and 6—provide a defence for those carrying out humanitarian activities. The amendments ensure that humanitarian organisations will not face significant additional barriers to delivering their invaluable work. If the Bill passes today—and I hope it does—the Government need to work with urgency to introduce secondary legislation to finally designate the IRGC, as the Liberal Democrats and I have called for. As the summer recess looms, it is clear that such regulations must be made before the House rises on 16 July. Will Minister reassure me and the House that they will?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the petitioner on securing 109,000 signatures, as well as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on introducing it. I thought that when I had written a speech about bricks, I would be the only Member to talk about them, but then I noticed that the hon. Members for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) were present and realised that I would definitely not be. Bricks are the nation’s favourite building material. They are durable, beautiful and woven into every constituency across the United Kingdom. In any of our constituencies, we can walk past beautiful brick-built homes and terraces built to last—many of them more than a century old, still standing, loved and lived in. That concerns the first point I want to make to the Minister. A recent report published by Create Streets set out a serious issue about how we measure carbon in new homes. The standard assessment assumes that the building will last only 60 years. As we know, bricks do not last 60 years. Assess a brick over a realistic lifespan—120 years or more—and they perform significantly better on whole-life carbon. By baking in a 60-year assumption, the standard systematically makes bricks look higher carbon than they are and favours materials that look low carbon on day one but may need significantly more maintenance, replacement or even demolition early in the planning process. The short-termism of that standard is penalising one of the most durable, repairable materials that we have. This cost is being placed on factories. According to reports, domestic production has fallen from about 2 billion bricks not many years ago, to 1.3 billion in 2024. That is a 32% reduction in just a few years. The sector supports thousands of skilled jobs and is worth more than £1 billion. We have seen some brick factories closing already, and if more follow, we must make sure that we do not simply import bricks, adding risk to the supply chain and transport emissions while hollowing out our British industry. That, unfortunately, is being made harder, not easier, for British manufacturers. The UK is already the single largest importer of Indian bricks, and the trade agreement that the Government have signed with India will take away the remaining protected tariffs on those bricks imported to zero.
The hon. Gentleman is correct about the social impact, with modern slavery used in bricks coming from outside the United Kingdom. The Business and Trade Committee recently heard about how, although the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was a good start and had the full support of the House, the declaration requirements within it are not strong enough. A company can import things potentially made by modern slaves and satisfy the requirements, so we need to see a new piece of legislation to ensure that companies cannot import items that they know or feel have been made using slavery. We must also ask what the British public actually want to see in buildings. In visual preference research, bricks were preferred by 60% of the population when asked to compare two proposed buildings: one made out of bricks and one not. That is very clear across age, gender, religion and political affiliation. We are trying to build more homes, but pushing developers away from building with the material that the majority of the British public want to live in. Brickmakers are caught in the same energy trap as all the ceramics sector. Firing clay takes enormous heat, and that heat comes from gas, but because the Government’s flagship energy relief policy is designed around electricity, gas-intensive makers are largely excluded. The same industry is squeezed from multiple directions: a penalising carbon standard is undervaluing its products, we are shutting out suppliers in the United Kingdom and favouring suppliers overseas, and then there is the energy-intensive issue. I have four questions for the Minister. First, will he work with colleagues across Government to review the 60-year reference period for whole life carbon assessments and adopt a longer, more realistic lifespan so that we do not by accident create a de facto ban on bricks? Secondly, will the Government commit that sustainability standards will not rule out quality, durable, repairable materials that people love? Thirdly, will the Minister support cleaner brick production here at home rather than importing bricks from overseas, which sends the jobs and the emissions abroad? Fourthly, will the gas-intensive brick and ceramics industry finally be given the proper support that it needs via the Government’s supercharger scheme, so that its firms can compete on a level playing field? Bricks are not relics; they are well used, beautiful, durable, repairable and genuinely part of what makes Britain great. We should be building more homes and neighbourhoods that last for our children and our grandchildren, and stop penalising the material that does exactly that.
Does the Secretary of State accept that long delays in publishing the defence investment plan and the instability at the top of his Department have sapped confidence from the industry and our allies, at the very moment when the Russian threat demands more certainty from us?
Protecting British interests in the High North requires a strong Royal Navy. Under the current DIP, the Type 45s will go out of service in 2035 and be replaced by some CCVs and other uncrewed systems that currently exist only on PowerPoint. The idea that it will be nine years from PowerPoint to power projection stretches credibility somewhat, so will the Minister stake her personal credibility on confirming that these systems will be delivered on time and that we will not have a gap in our air defences in the High North?
May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who last week took the decision to take her Department and herself off Twitter—or X, or whatever it is called these days? We talk about online misinformation and malign foreign influence, so it is worth remembering that Twitter is a platform owned by an individual who is hostile to British values and has openly fomented violence on our streets. At a march last year, he said: “Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die”. Does the Minister have any thoughts on removing her Department, or any further advice for Ministers or Members of this place on whether staying on that platform is in the interests of our democracy? What steps are the Government and the defending democracy taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign influence currently, before the measures in the Representation of the People Bill can be introduced?
The report finds structural issues within police forces, with fragmented and inconsistent systems that do not make the most of our police talent. If an officer sees cronyism, nepotism and abuse of power around them, they will not have their future career at the top of their mind or trying to break through that system. Given the impending Government reorganisation, how will whichever Home Officer Ministers are in place under the new Prime Minister ensure that the proposed police reorganisation puts strong systems in place, so that there is effective police leadership and development and we break out of the situation that has developed?
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Just over five months ago, I stood here and asked the Secretary of State to strengthen the Representation of the People Bill by ensuring that post-tax profits, not overall revenue, were used when assessing the eligibility of company donations. He rejected that plea, as did the Minister in Committee, but I am delighted that this Minister has now agreed to accept that. It was a recommendation from Philip Rycroft and from those working in the democracy sector, and it is a welcome change. We Liberal Democrats champion a fair and free society, so we also welcome the announcement that candidates will have to declare gifts of over £2,320 in the year prior to their election. That, hopefully, will provide further useful clarity for those who may thus far have been confused about what they do and do not have to declare. We welcome steps towards cracking down on any foreign interference in our democracy, but we still have some way to go, and we urge the Minister to consider banning anyone who has served in a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups, as well as banning donations from those convicted of political violence; that would include those funding the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. People who hold British values in contempt and act as a mouthpiece for those who want to undermine our democratic institutions should have no place in our democracy. We need a much more transparent system to ensure that the British people have faith in politicians. What the Minister has announced today will close loopholes, but too many will remain. Will she consider exploring the benefits of a cap on donations from UK donors, and year-round spending caps by political parties and candidates? That is the way in which loopholes are truly closed. Finally, can the Minister gives us some insights into how this important work will be handled across the multiple ministerial Departments and agencies? It involves the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Cabinet Office. The Minister is very able, but she is the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy. Does she agree that a more streamlined portfolio is what our democracy deserves?
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The failure of Capita to meet the 30 June deadline is deeply disappointing, but, sadly, not surprising. Behind it sit 1.7 million current and former civil servants who simply want peace of mind that the pension they have earned through decades of public service will be handled competently, fairly and with dignity. Capita’s repeated failures are causing distress and uncertainty for people who deserve better, including several of my constituents, such as Sue from Romiley, Tracy from Offerton and Christopher from Marple. The Public Accounts Committee did indeed warn that Capita risked not being ready to take over full administration back in December, and it raised serious concerns about weak contract management and poor oversight. Those warnings have now come to fruition as thousands of retired civil servants have experienced delays or complete failures in pension payments since Capita took over. How will the Government restore confidence for the 1 million-plus current and former civil servants who simply want reassurance that their pensions will be administered competently? What assessment has been made of the systemic failures in the administration of this scheme, and what lessons have been learned for future contracts of this kind? How can the Minister ensure that this failure is given sufficient weight should Capita have the brass neck to bid for any future Government contracts in this are or wholly unrelated ones? The Minister has rightly called the thousands of unresolved bereavement cases harrowing. These grieving families are being denied closure. Will he commit today to ordering Capita to prioritise all bereavement cases as a matter of particular urgency, and will he guarantee that this specific backlog will be zero by a certain date?
Civil compensation is disregarded from pension credit entitlement calculations, but military compensation is not. I know that the new Minister for Veterans is sympathetic to addressing this injustice, so I wonder whether he would meet me and the family of Pauline Cole—a veteran who was fighting to address this matter—in order to put it right.
Our military personnel risk life and limb every day to keep the country safe, and they deserve the best support that we can give them, so it is shocking that for many of our veterans, military compensation received counts as income when local means-tested benefits are assessed. Will the Minister commit to ending that practice, so that veterans can be properly rewarded for their sacrifice to this country?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), my good friend and colleague on the Petitions Committee, on his excellent introduction to this debate. He talks about the wares of Armitage Shanks; I would venture to suggest that Armitage Shanks products are seen in some of the great houses the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. One may wonder what a Member from the north of Scotland doing on his feet on this debate. There are two ceramic companies in my constituency: ANTA in Fearn, owned by Lachie and Annie Stewart, whose products can be seen in Dumfries House—a place not unfamiliar to His Majesty the King—and Highland Stoneware in Lochinver, which is owned by Mr David Grant, whose wares can be seen in Balmoral. We are very proud of that. My point is that these companies actually teach vital local skills that would not otherwise be taught, create jobs in some of the remotest areas of the United Kingdom and provide a tourist product, which is absolutely crucial when it comes to visitors. When people, including right hon. and hon. Members, come to my part of the world in the north of Scotland, they should come and see ANTA’s fine ceramics in the village of Fearn. They should come and see Highland Stoneware in Lochinver. They will not be disappointed. We would not dare to compete with Stoke-on-Trent in terms of quality, but we are very proud of what we do. I am going to keep my contribution very short, but I want to make one point. It is not really pertinent to the Minister, but those fledgling and now grown-up companies would not have come into being had it not been for a key decision taken by Harold Wilson’s Labour Government in the 1960s, which was to put in place the Highlands and Islands Development Board. This was to encourage enterprise in some of the remotest parts of the UK and to halt and reverse the depopulation that was the curse of some of the remotest parts of Scotland. It was a great success story, and I give credit where it is due. However, that success story is not what it once was. This is a political point, but under the stewardship of the present Scottish Government the Highlands and Islands Development Board, now Highlands and Islands Enterprise, is a shadow of what its parent once upon a time was, which is a great pity. Although that is not the responsibility of the Minister or indeed the UK Government, I give due notice that this is a matter I shall continue to raise in future. Thank you very much, Dr Murrison, for your forbearance.
Just to be absolutely tidy, could I make a plea on behalf of those families where the member is deceased but the estate still has a claim? There is sometimes, possibly wrongly, an impression that these people are put to the back of the queue. Could I have an assurance that that would not be the case?
As our brave Ukrainian allies have halted the advance of the Russian army, Putin has resorted to expanding his air campaign against Kyiv and other Ukrainian civilian targets. His growing barbarism is matched only by his desperation. The UK is rightly proud to have led the world in supporting Ukraine and punishing Putin for his aggression, but we must now turn the screw further. I welcome the new sanctions announced today by the Foreign Secretary, but the lifeblood of Putin’s war economy is the sale of oil, gas and coal to the world. The Liberal Democrats believe that there should be no legitimate routes to market for Russian fossil fuels, so, ahead of tomorrow’s NATO summit, will the Secretary of State and colleagues in the Foreign Office ask the Prime Minister to work with our allies to ban the provision of all maritime services for the export of Russian oil, oil products, gas and coal?