partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

   Employment Rights Act 2025

   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?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

   Advanced Manufacturing

   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?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

   Topical Questions

   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.

   Hansard source
4. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

   Business of the House

   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.

   Hansard source
5. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

   Historical Forced Adoption

   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?

   Hansard source
6. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alex Burghart

   Historical Forced Adoption

   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.

   Hansard source
7. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Warinder Juss

   Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

   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?

   Hansard source
8. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tony Vaughan

   Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

   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.

   Hansard source
9. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tony Vaughan

   Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

   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.

   Hansard source
10. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    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?

    Hansard source
11. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Steve Witherden

    MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

    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.

    Hansard source
12. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    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.

    Hansard source
13. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    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.

    Hansard source
14. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    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.

    Hansard source
15. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    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.

    Hansard source
16. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    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.

    Hansard source
17. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Russell

    Engagements

    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?

    Hansard source
18. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Owen

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    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?

    Hansard source
19. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

    Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026

    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.

    Hansard source
20. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

    Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026

    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.

    Hansard source
21. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    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?

    Hansard source
22. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    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.

    Hansard source
23. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    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.

    Hansard source
24. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    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.

    Hansard source
25. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    A plethora of interventions, but I have to go to the sister at the back first.

    Hansard source
26. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I hope to amplify the hon. Lady’s points later in my speech. Glass is not just another packaging material; it is infinitely recyclable.

    Hansard source
27. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I completely agree. Trying to level the playing field on this EPR measure is the one thing that I hope the Minister will give us comfort on today. Our hospitality industry is really suffering. More generally, I worry where the remaining places of community are in our towns, cities and villages. If we are not protecting the ones we have—the few we have—it is going to be a very dark future. Let me now get back to glass.

    Hansard source
28. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    As I said, I think the principles of the scheme are laudable. What frustrates me is that it is disincentivising using renewable materials, which in the long term are much cheaper. Instead, it is driving businesses to plastics, which have a very real cost on our environment as well as on our pockets. The Minister needs to do anything she can to mitigate that risk, but I hope this debate will grant her the opportunity to do so in a fair and equitable way. Glass supports a circular economy. It underpins supply chains across food, drink and pharmaceuticals. We all support the principle underpinning the EPR—that those placing packaging on the market should pay towards its collection—but, as Members have said, the weight-based fee structure that the Government have chosen to utilise disproportionately penalises glass, making glass significantly more expensive per unit than lighter, less sustainable alternatives like plastic.

    Hansard source
29. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s points. The methodology throughout—I will come on to it later—has been flawed, if not straight wrong in some cases. I would much rather that the research he is talking about—on the methodology—was done years in advance, rather than on the hoof as seems to be happening now. The Government seem to be suggesting that they will retrospectively look at what is happening and make adjustments, but unfortunately for a business and its bottom line, it is not possible to retrospectively charge people for something the Government choose to modify. Let me state one inescapable fact. Glass is heavier than plastic—it simply is. By choosing to base fees on weight rather than on units, which they could have done, the Government are pushing businesses towards switching to a cheaper, less recyclable and much more environmentally harmful packaging. The industry has been told by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the modulation of fees will save glass, but let us be honest: this is too little, too late. Why not get the scheme right at the beginning, rather than trying to modify it later?

    Hansard source
30. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    My hon. Friend makes a point that I was not aware of. I have been in contact with loads of different industries, but not that particular one. It seems as though it is the same sort of double payment that hospitality is facing. That absolutely needs to be addressed. Businesses have also been told that they need to move towards reuse systems. I am sure that both the points we are raising will be mentioned by the Minister in her response. It is true that glass is the perfect material to reuse, but it is not within the power of the glass manufacturing sector to force producers to move to use reusable bottles. Let us be honest: widescale reuse systems in the UK will take significant buy-in from the whole supply chain and will take at least a decade to become a reality, by which point—let me also be honest again—we will not have a glass manufacturing sector in the UK to supply the reusable glass packaging. The signal that the Government are giving to businesses is clear: switch away from glass right now. The result? We are seeing an evident and accelerated shift away from UK-made glass towards both cheaper imports, which now account for—I am really surprised by this—14% of the market, and increasingly towards plastic.

    Hansard source
31. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I absolutely support what my hon. Friend says. GMB and Beatson Clark have been fantastic on this issue, as have other unions. We should never forget the human impact of the debates that we have in this Chamber. When we talk about numbers, percentages and import tariffs, we forget that it is the people making the products who are suffering the most and facing the uncertainty. A survey conducted by British Glass found that nearly half of businesses say that they have already switched away from glass, or plan to do so, due to EPR fees. Once those decisions are made, and once investment is committed to new packaging formats, they are unlikely to be reversed. Glass manufacturing is not easily replaced. Furnaces represent long-term capital investment—often hundreds of millions of pounds. Decisions about whether to rebuild or reinvest are already being delayed or cancelled, meaning hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in the UK is already being lost. When production shifts overseas and capacity is lost, it is almost impossible to rebuild. I am not talking about short-term disruption. I am talking about permanent industrial decline. If left unchecked, the policy will not just reshape the packaging market; it will hollow out an entire industry. With that decline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) said, comes something even more serious: job losses.

    Hansard source
32. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    That is absolutely my concern. People do not talk about the impact on the supply chain. We already know that at least 350 jobs—more than 5% of the direct workforce—have been lost so far, but we do not know about the impact on the supply chains and associated businesses. These are not abstract numbers; these are well-paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs, concentrated in industrial communities like mine, where, to be honest, such opportunities are at a real premium. Since I first raised these issues nearly two years ago, I have been contacted by a range of businesses and industry groups, including: UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the UK Spirits Alliance, the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates, O-I Glass, the Scotch Whisky Association, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, GMB, Unite, AB InBev, the all-party parliamentary beer group, the APPG on packaging in the circular economy, the Packaging Federation, Teva Pharmaceuticals, British Glass, and the Campaign for Real Ale. Their concerns are strikingly similar. The EPR is not just affecting glass. Across the packaging sector, businesses are struggling in the face of this poorly designed, poorly implemented policy. Graphic Packaging International employs 57 people in my constituency, and upwards of 1,700 across the UK. It produces a range of fibre-based packaging for household goods, supplying major UK retailers with sustainable and innovative products, which are largely made from renewable or recyclable raw materials. However, like glass, they face unfairly high fees on the basis of being a heavier than their plastic equivalents. That distortion is even greater for fibre-based composite packaging. Industry groups have identified what appear to be substantial errors in the methodology used for DEFRA’s EPR fee calculations for fibre-based packaging. By way of example, in the EPR fee cost breakdown, the cost of FBC collection is more than twice that of paper and board, yet it is collected for recycling with paper and board. How can the costs to local authorities be so radically different? Similar anomalies are observed with other EPR cost categories, including sorting, residual collection and handling and disposal overheads. Costs for managing FBC should be similar to those for paper and board, yet are wildly disproportionate. Industry groups believe that that results from DEFRA seeming to have used data for another, wholly distinct type of FBC—beverage cartons—in its FBC fee calculation. Such elementary errors risk undermining the EPR’s core objectives. The Alliance for Fibre-Based Packaging has already reported evidence that long-standing shifts away from plastic towards more sustainable alternatives are slowing and, in some cases, reversing altogether.

    Hansard source
33. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I think it is infinitely more than disappointing, but I will follow the hon. Member’s parliamentary language: it is hugely frustrating. Colleagues here are raising the real, human costs of that. Something needs to change, and I do not want that change to be us losing our hospitality and renewable packaging industries. Hospitality businesses have faced similarly unfathomable logic from DEFRA. EPR fees are meant to offset the cost to local authorities of handling and recycling waste. Hospitality businesses’ waste is not collected through public collections, but through commercial waste removal contracts. Yet perversely, the annual burden to British pubs for EPR fees has been estimated by the British Beer and Pub Association to be £50 million. Hospitality businesses are, in effect, being told to pay for the same thing twice. DEFRA has long been aware of this anomaly—I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for his debate on it—but nothing has been done to address it. Packaging EPR fees will disproportionately affect generic medicines, where high-volume, low-margin products risk becoming commercially unviable, increasing the likelihood of supply disruption, medicine withdrawal from the UK and higher costs to the NHS. Medicines manufacturers have minimal flexibility to redesign packaging, because primary packaging is tightly regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The Government’s one-size-fits-all approach is revealed again when we consider social enterprises. The Minister will no doubt be familiar with Belu, which supplies water for parliamentary catering—indeed, Belu water bottles are in front of us on the Table right now. Belu donates 100% of its net profits to WaterAid, which supports clean water, sanitation and hygiene programmes around the world. However, while charities are rightly exempt from EPR fees, no such exemption exists for social enterprises, which are treated exactly the same as for-profit companies. The result for Belu is £1.1 million of EPR costs over the next two years—money that would otherwise be donated to WaterAid. The EPR system adds complexity and uncertainty for businesses. Baseline fees were not finalised until very shortly before liability for EPR was due to begin. Fee modulation remains unclear, and the system allows for retrospective fee calculation, potentially creating exposure to unplanned costs late in the financial cycle.

    Hansard source
34. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I completely agree with the hon. Member’s points, because I agree with the polluter pays principle—I believe that is at the heart of this issue—but the people who are paying are our workers, our hospitality businesses and the poorest people in the world who would have been getting £1 million. They are the people paying, not the polluters, because this policy is perversely driving businesses to using plastic, which surely is the exact opposite of what it should be trying to do. With all of that in mind, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this is a poorly designed and implemented policy which is having a severe negative impact on British businesses. Despite these concerns, DEFRA has argued that the EPR will in fact create jobs, but that claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The figures are not based on official calculations and, critically, the jobs referenced are not comparable to those being lost. They are more likely to be lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in waste management, often at entirely different locations. These mythical jobs will not deliver the same economic value, will not support exports, and will not provide the same level of regional resilience. I must be very clear: we cannot replace high-skilled manufacturing jobs with lower-value roles and then claim an economic net gain. That is not growth; that is managed decline. The EPR is also adding significant inflationary pressures that will be reflected in consumer prices. Producers expect to pass on the vast majority of EPR costs, often over 95%, to the end user. The upshot is that the EPR will not represent a boon to the public purse. On the contrary, this failed policy will cost the UK economy and that cost will be substantial. I have raised these issues time and again, as have other Members. I have had meetings with Secretaries of State, Ministers and civil servants, and I have written, led debates and asked questions, all to no avail. This situation demands urgent action now, not a review in a year’s time. It requires not minor adjustments but immediate intervention to sort out this deeply flawed policy. The glass industry has been clear in its ask: a targeted, time-limited reduction in the glass EPR fees of at least 75%. This is not about abandoning the policy or doing a U-turn; it is about fixing it. The Minister has the opportunity today to stabilise demand, prevent further switching away from glass, protect jobs and investment, and buy time to assess properly the real-world impacts of her policy. Crucially, it would allow the Government to realign the policy with their own original environmental and economic objectives. More broadly, the Government must make sure that the EPR protects UK jobs and investment, that incentives towards less sustainable products are removed, that fees reflect real-world costs, and that businesses have the clarity they need to plan and invest for the future. Across the many sectors that have raised concerns about the EPR, support for its core principle has been universal. Businesses want to play their part in a circular economy, but the current system is not working; it is driving the wrong behaviours, undermining UK businesses, and putting jobs, investment and regional growth at risk. If we continue to get this wrong, the consequences will not be measured in tonnes or targets; they will be measured in job losses, lost industries and lost opportunities for the communities, like mine, that need them most. I urge the Minister today at the Dispatch Box to put this scheme back on track.

    Hansard source
35. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    Can the Minister tell us whether that will be the 75% discount that the glass industry is asking for? Does she know what the falling rates will be, please?

    Hansard source
36. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
37. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    We have two and a half hours, Minister.

    Hansard source
38. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    It is reassuring that we are going to have the consultation. Would it not have been much better to have had it before the scheme was implemented? The Minister mentioned a meeting with my constituency business, Beatson Clark. That meeting only happened because I urged the previous Secretary of State and the Minister to make it happen, and I assume that the other examples of meetings that have taken place, or not, have been at the insistence of MPs. Why was that work not done before the scheme was rolled out?

    Hansard source
39. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    Perhaps the hon. Member was distracted when I mentioned the issue of me holding a roundtable with all these industries on this very issue, but I am happy to meet colleagues from across the House on these issues. I explained in the point that he perhaps missed that it is tricky because it has to be regulatable—we have to ensure that the regulator can verify what would happen. Of course, it is a complex micro-econometric model. As soon as fees are reduced in one area, they go up in another area. That is the bottom line on all this.

    Hansard source
40. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rushanara Ali

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    The E1 settlement expansion programme is clearly designed to undermine a Palestinian state, despite this Government, for the first time in our history, recognising Palestinian statehood. Will my hon. Friend highlight the timeframe that he is working to, for discussions on the FTA, as well as for other actions, including sanctions? I recognise that he cannot talk about the specifics, but will he set out the timeline in order to assure us that it works, in the light of the expansion plan, so that we are not acting after the event, as has often been the case in relation to the Israeli Government’s actions?

    Hansard source