What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that the Met police have the resources they need, and have increased funding by £446 million since coming to office. Court proceedings relating to Operation Manor are ongoing, and critical elements are still to be considered before any asset is realised. Ministers will consider how any residual funds are distributed, including reflecting on the role of the Metropolitan police service.
The hon. Gentleman, as ever, raises an important matter. We strongly condemn the persecution of Baha’i communities in many countries around the world. Our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), has met with the Baha’i international community UN representative to discuss the persecution that the Baha’i face, and regularly engages with the community. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s specific concerns with the Foreign Office and ensure that he gets a reply on what further action the Government can take.
I thank my hon. Friend for this well-timed question during Armed Forces Week. I join her in congratulating Donna Louise Armstrong on her years of service to her local community and on her very well deserved British Empire Medal for services to our veterans community. Her friends and family should be very proud of her.
That matter was raised earlier, and I understand Members’ concerns. Let me take this away and see if we can get the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman and others are seeking.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter during Armed Forces Week. Reservists are an integral part of the effectiveness of our armed forces. They bring experience from defence, strengthen resilience and provide specialist skills that cannot be generated or sustained in regular forces alone. I encourage him to seek a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate, so that he can make his strong case in greater detail.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. I acknowledge the important work of outreach in educating the public about what Parliament does and why it matters. This is, of course, a matter for the House. I know that some Members have raised it directly with the House authorities via oral and written questions, and I am sure that the House authorities have heard her concerns as they weigh up this matter.
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Road safety for children is vital. The work that lollipop people do for our young people is paramount. I hope that those at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council hear my hon. Friend’s contribution and take his concerns seriously. I pay tribute to Martin, Stella, Georgia and the many lollipop people across our communities for their work. I hope that this can be resolved properly.
My hon. Friend knows that bus transport in particular is a key priority of this Government —buses are so important to towns and villages—and we are making real progress on it. He will also know that this is not a clear either/or matter. If he wants a debate to weigh up the best use of those resources, I encourage him to apply for a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate so that he and others can make the case for the best possible public transport in their areas.
I met Capita’s senior leadership last Wednesday, and told them directly that their operational failures, missed targets and escalating backlog are completely unacceptable. The Cabinet Office continues to monitor performance daily to hold Capita to account robustly. Capita has until the end of June to restore the service to contractual levels.
The hon. Gentleman is completely right: those who have given a lifetime of service expect and deserve better. The Cabinet Office has held Capita to account robustly, using all commercial levers. Capita has a strict end-of-June deadline. If it fails to meet that deadline, we will consider all options. With your agreement, Mr Speaker, the Paymaster General intends to make a statement to the House about this issue at the end of the month.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the situation is unacceptable. If she contacts me about her constituents’ cases, I will be more than happy to take them up. As I have said, Capita has a strict deadline at the end of June. The Government have been robust in holding it to account. We will use all our commercial levers, and all options will be considered. After June, and with Mr Speaker’s permission, my colleague the Paymaster General intends make a statement to the House. As with the Royal Mail contract, we will not hesitate to hold Capita to account and let it feel the consequences of its actions.
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on this issue, which we have spoken about several times; he is a powerful advocate for his constituents. He will understand that we are currently prioritising and focusing on immediate service recovery. If Capita fails to restore core pension functions to contractual levels by the end of June, we will consider all available options to rectify the situation. We are preparing and planning for all eventualities.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that outsourcing by default does not work, and I agree with his assessment of Capita’s unacceptable failures. Our priority remains supporting those impacted and achieving full service recovery. As I mentioned, if Capita fails to deliver on that by the end of June, all options will be considered. Subject to your agreement, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General intends to make a statement to the House on the Government’s next steps.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the situation is completely unacceptable. I offer my support to her and her constituents in any way that I can. When I met representatives from Capita last week, they said that they want to under-promise and over-deliver. Clearly Capita has failed badly at that, but it has until the end of June to ensure that its services are delivered at an acceptable level. If it fails at that, we will use all options available. We are holding it robustly to account. Capita initially promised that all death in service and ill health cases were resolved, but that is not the case, and I am happy to take up the cases the hon. Lady mentions.
of course I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that matter. We will be launching the national school of government, which will ensure that we have a civil service fit for purpose, not only for the current challenges but for the challenges of the future.
Doncaster Rovers are a league one football club, but the Club Doncaster Foundation is truly premier league in its outreach work. Last year, it delivered nearly £23 million of social value in Doncaster, and for every £1 invested, there was an £11.50 return through education and community impact. Does the Leader of the House agree that football clubs and their charity foundations should be celebrated for their work, and that other clubs should look to Doncaster Rovers and the Club Doncaster Foundation for best practice, on and off the pitch?
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on bringing this debate to this Chamber. I will talk about the port of Liverpool, which is actually mostly in my constituency of Bootle, and set out its importance. I am not able to see Northern Ireland from Liverpool, but I am able to see Wales every day, so there is some Celtic connection there. The total annual tonnage from Liverpool port is 31 million, about 10% of annual shipping freight in England. Liverpool city region’s maritime sector directly employs about 10,900 people. The port of Liverpool itself employs about 1,400, and its wider supply chain employs 48,000, so it is an important economic asset to our community. It is also a strategic and national asset. Improving its rail links and connectivity is important, and it has an impact on regional growth. Grid capacity and decarbonisation have to be developed in the context of an appropriate planning framework. Liverpool port deals with bulk timber, bulk liquids, bulk cargo and general cargo and with 720,000 passengers a year. It is a huge economic asset to our area and has encouraged growth in our economy for many years. The impact on local communities is, of course, crucial, and when we expand or develop ports, we must take that into account. In my local community there is a road that goes from the M57-M58 down to the docks. Thankfully, the Government decided not to put through the Rimrose Valley road, which was going to cost £350 million. I have fought for years for rail investment, because that is the key. I am really pleased that the Railways Bill has a target of 75% rail freight growth by 2050. That will enable us to unlock other markets, and of course it will provide public and private investment in connectivity; it is important that the two work closely together. Local communities have to be part of the development of the programme. The A5036 has a junction that has the best part of 2,300 heavy good vehicles going past in both directions—something like five HGVs a minute. The Government are trying to mitigate the impact of road traffic on communities—it is a heavily populated community—so I call on them to ensure that National Highways provides the money to build a new bridge across that road, since the previous one is broken. I will persist in asking for that. We want port development, with thousands of jobs linked to it and a massive amount of development, but we must also look after our communities.
It is encouraging to hear that SMEs will benefit from greater access to Government procurement routes. Can the Minister set out which kind of sectors in particular they think will benefit the most, because that will be of great interest to people in Colchester and the east of England?
Young people in Colchester will benefit from their new youth hub, which is one of 14 set up across Essex. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the early impact of those youth hubs, and the youth guarantee that so brilliantly underpins them?
If I may, I will start with an apology to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). I had intended my statement to be sent much earlier today, and I understand that it did not reach her in time; I apologise for that, because that certainly was not my intent. With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Conversion Practices Bill, which we are publishing in draft today. Across the House, we can all agree that nobody deserves to be abused, no matter who they are, but right now, gaps in the law are allowing a very specific form of abuse to occur: abuse driven by the false belief that being LGBT+ is shameful, that it can be forcibly changed, and that if you cause someone enough pain, you will somehow stop them being who they are. We are talking about people being shamed in front of a congregation, and pushed to the ground in an effort to remove the devil; about families threatening to rape and murder people, if they do not change their identity; and about people being beaten or sexually assaulted by those trying to “correct” who they are. These are real stories, real people, and real abusers getting away with it. Today, with this legislation, that stops. The draft Bill that we are publishing today fills gaps in our criminal law in order to ban abusive conversion practices. It gives victims and authorities a clear definition with which to identify, tackle and prevent this abuse. Specifically, the Bill creates a new criminal offence of abusive conversion practice, measured by three specific criteria: first, conduct intended to change a person’s sexual orientation or transgender identity; secondly, conduct that is abusive, in line with other criminal law; and thirdly, conduct that causes serious harm, alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on the victim’s day-to-day activities. We have listened to concerns that this legislation must not create a loophole that pushes abuse abroad, and have included a second offence of encouraging or assisting an abusive conversion practice outside England and Wales. We are also creating new conversion practice protection orders, to support victims as well as those at risk of abuse. These will be similar to protection orders for forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and can protect people even before abuse has happened. Breach of a protection order may be prosecuted as a criminal offence. Offences will carry a maximum penalty of five years in custody or a fine, while breaching a protection order carries a maximum penalty of two years or a fine. In addition to bringing in the new measures in this Bill, the Government will continue to fund the conversion practices support helpline, and are taking wider action to tackle abuse against the LGBT+ community, including by equalising hate crime legislation through the Crime and Policing Act 2026. In developing this Bill, I have consulted widely and spoken to many who have legitimate concerns about legislating in this area. I have heard concerns about freedom of expression, parental rights and religious freedoms. I have spoken to therapists who worry that their important exploratory work with young people might be impacted, and that they may be accused of conversion practices. I want to be completely clear today: I have heard those concerns and acted on them. This Bill does not remove anyone’s right to freedom of expression or religion, or to choose how to parent; this Bill simply prevents abuse. To ensure that there is no inadvertent chilling effect on important healthcare, there is an exemption in the Bill for all healthcare professionals. Across the globe, countries are acting to ban conversion practices. We have learned from the 28 countries that have some sort of ban in place. We have drawn on the important framework from the Council of Europe, fought for by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne). We have studied the evidence on the prevalence and types of conversion practice abuse, and we are clear about where there are gaps in the law. In the Bill published today, we are confident that we have learned the right lessons and got the balance right. This will be a comprehensive ban on abusive conversion practices, with no loopholes, and we have clarity that we will not inadvertently impinge on freedom of expression, important healthcare and people’s ability to parent how they choose. There has been a cross-party consensus for years on the importance of this ban. It was Baroness May who first promised legislation on this back in 2018, and there are Opposition Members who have held my job and worked hard on this issue. This ban has been in the manifestos of parties from across the political spectrum, because despite our other political differences, we can all agree that abuse is unacceptable. I hope sincerely that we can work constructively on this issue across the House. I welcome cross-party engagement as we discuss our draft legislation, and that is why we have requested and welcome pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill by a Joint Committee. I am confident that this process will make our Bill stronger. There are people today suffering crushing, hateful abuse because someone has decided that their identity is wrong and can be changed—abuse that is allowed to happen because our legal framework simply does not acknowledge it. I understand that this draft Bill will cause debate—these are not easy issues—but I welcome that challenge and that debate, because we cannot let fear of argument prevent us from remembering what matters: it is our job and our moral responsibility to prevent this pernicious abuse. I am confident that the Bill we are publishing today will do just that.
I understand that the shadow Minister did not have my statement in enough time, but I am disappointed with the way that her comments have massively broadened and misrepresented the scope of the draft Bill. I would encourage people to look at the detail of the draft Bill, and the very specific thresholds that we have established, because it is beholden on us all to ensure that this conversation is based on real facts. I am also disappointed that the Conservative party, to which I gave credit for its commitment to equalities issues in the past, has found itself in the position of having promised for years that it supports a ban on conversion practices, but now sounds as though it does not. That is a grave shame. The hon. Member asked some good questions, which I will attempt to answer. She asked whether such practices are already illegal, and my answer to that is no. There are two reasons for that. First, gaps in existing law mean that we cannot prosecute offences properly. With domestic abuse legislation, for example, or coercive control, the legislation is designed for someone who has a relationship with an intimate partner, and it would not capture an offence committed by someone they did not know. There are many such examples where there are gaps in the law. Secondly, it is important that we have a definition of conversion practice in law. As with other offences such as upskirting or non-fatal strangulation, a definition is important to help victims understand what has happened to them and be able to come forward, and for prosecutors to build a case. I am confident that there is a need to legislate in this area. The hon. Lady asks about the evidence base for the use of conversion practices. I have just come from an event this morning, and a report published by Galop—I have it here today. It contains hundreds of case studies of people it has spoken to on its helplines over the past few years, and of the appalling abuse that is happening right now in this country. The examples I used in my statement were from those case studies—people being threatened with rape and assault; people being beaten because of their identity in an attempt to change them. The evidence is clearly there, and I say to the hon. Lady that one case of abuse is too many. I also say categorically to the hon. Lady that the cases she mentioned steered widely clear of the remit of the draft Bill. For example, the case of a mother helping a child is categorically not captured under the draft Bill. The case of an exploratory therapist helping somebody to understand their identity, and taking time in asking supportive questions, is categorically not included in the Bill. A healthcare exemption is included in the Bill to ensure that we do not have a chilling effect on healthcare professionals providing this vital service to young people, and indeed any person—[Interruption.] They are legitimate questions, and I am answering them today. The hon. Lady asked me about the pre-legislative scrutiny process, which will be a Joint Committee of both Houses. I look forward to it—I genuinely want to have cross-party and good conversations about the draft Bill, and I hope that Conservative Members engage with that process in good spirits, just as I intend to engage with it. She asked about the principle of informed consent. We are talking about a criminal threshold for an abusive practice that is in line with other forms of criminal abuse, for example domestic abuse. I do not think someone can consent to abuse. That is a fundamental principle, and it is right that it moves forward in the legislation. The hon. Lady asked other questions about how, when the Bill becomes law, it will interact with other safeguarding requirements or guidance in schools. Those are all important questions, and we will, of course, address them in detail as the Bill moves towards the statute book. I welcome the hon. Lady’s engagement, but I remind her that she says she stands against abuse, so I urge her and her party to think again. This Bill fills a gap in the law to stop the most abhorrent and pernicious abuse faced by LGBT people in our country, and I urge her to change her mind.
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for everything she did when she held my role to get us to a position where we are now able to publish the draft Bill. She did a great service in her role, and I am grateful to her for it. She is right to say that the value of the Bill is a simple statement of intent and principle to the LGBT community: “there is nothing wrong with who you are, and it’s not okay for somebody to forcibly try to change you, to abuse you, or to harm you”. This place sends out that important message to the country, and to people who are in these terrible situations and feeling fear and shame.
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I am grateful for her party’s support for the principle of the legislation and look forward to engaging with her further as we go through the process of pre-legislative scrutiny. On the timeline for the legislation, we will set up a joint Committee with both Houses as soon as possible. That process tends to take about 12 sitting weeks, on average, but the Committee will be able to set out more details once established. We will then press on with the legislative process as fast as we can, to ensure that we get the Bill on to the statute book. I emphasise that this is a manifesto commitment for this Government and that we will continue to adhere to it. On representations and engagement, I have already had many wonderful conversations with members of the LGBTQ+ community as I have gone about designing the legislation, and I will continue to do so. At an event this morning I was able to thank those organisations for the work they have done over many years to campaign for the ban. I particularly thank those who have come forward with their own stories about the appalling abuse that they have suffered. I thank them for having the courage and bravery to share their stories so that others may not have to experience the same fate. The hon. Lady mentioned legislation in other countries. There are now 28 conversion practice bans around the globe. We have been able to learn from the wonderful experiences that those countries have had and the approaches that they have taken in the development of our legislation, which has been very useful. She points to the league tables. We are hosting the European International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia—IDAHOT+—forum in London next year, which I am very exciting about, and I hope and expect that we will climb back up those tables.
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her conversations with me on this important topic. Let me be clear about what the Bill does. The legislation is symmetrical in its approach to abusive conversion practices that attempt to change somebody from one gender identity to another or from one sexual orientation to another. There are three parts to the criminal threshold as set out in the Bill: first, there must be an intent to change somebody; secondly, that must be through an abusive practice in line with other legislation, including the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and thirdly, that practice must have caused significant harm. Those are the tests that will be used by the courts when determining whether prosecutions should be brought.
I am clear that the Bill will not impact the ability of parents to parent how they wish. The abuse thresholds, which I have set out several times this afternoon, are clear about that. To repeat: there has to be an intent to change somebody, there has to be abuse —the abuse that we have defined in the legislation mirrors the abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act—and there has to be serious harm. It is not the case that there are exemptions for parents relating to any other form of abuse that takes place in a family relationship, and I do not think that it is appropriate for such an exemption to be in place in this legislation.
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work campaigning for those freedoms. When considering the legislation, I reflected on the impact of my experiences growing up as a young lesbian and the impact that shame had on me. I cannot even begin to comprehend how that might feel for someone who has been subjected to this kind of abuse, which is one of the important reasons why we must act to prevent it. This Labour Government are committed to defending and extending the rights of LGBT people everywhere. I am proud that we have equalised the hate crime laws, and I am proud that we are putting this draft Bill before the House today.
I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the draft Bill and I look forward to engaging with her further on it. It is vital that we continue to defend and protect LGBT rights in our country and around the world, where we have a proud role to play too. That is something that this Government and I are committed to doing with our equalisation of the hate crime laws and through this draft Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and engagement on this important topic. He is of course right: abuse is never acceptable, wherever we find it, and this is a really important piece of legislation to make that completely clear. To be clear, LGBT people are subject to that abuse at the moment because we have not legislated in this area, and legislate we must. Let me turn to my hon. Friend’s question about the devolved Administrations. We are going into the process of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I hope very much that conversations with the devolved Administrations will be very productive in that period. We look forward to working with whoever wants to work with us to make this legislation a reality.
That is a really important question. Let me explain how this will work. It is my view that legitimate healthcare would not fall under the remit of this Bill in any way, shape or form, because legitimate healthcare would never be abusing somebody to try to change their identity and causing them serious harm. However, I recognise the concerns about the risk of a chilling effect. We do not want that, because good therapy and good conversation is really important. That is why we have put this exemption on the face of the Bill. I am clear that if somebody falls below the standards expected of them in a healthcare profession, they will fall under this Bill. That would prevent the example that the hon. Lady outlines, in which somebody pretends to be a healthcare professional in order to perform an abusive conversion practice. I am confident that there is no loophole here, but that is a clear statement that healthcare professionals can continue to do their important work.
On my hon. Friend’s last question, I can say that there will absolutely be time. One of the many merits of the pre-legislative scrutiny process is that we can work through those issues together. The question of the definition of healthcare workers is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, which I know will work closely with us on that process. I agree with my hon. Friend that conversion practices are abuse, plain and simple, and that is why we are legislating to stop them. I also agree with him about the toxicity and hostility towards the LGBT community in our current debate. I reflect on the fact that one hon. Member from Reform has written something essentially calling for a return to section 28 in our schools, and I note that Reform has defunded Pride events across our country and said that we should not be advertising Pride events. We must stand up to that divisive, hateful politics as firmly as we can.
I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. As I said earlier, I really want to thank the brave people who have experienced these appalling practices for having the courage and strength to come forward and talk about their experiences. I agree that they should be at the front and centre of this conversation as much as they want to be. It is because of their courage and strength that we are acting today and can prevent this abuse from happening to anybody else.
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work and support, and for his very important question. I can confirm that asexual people will be included in the remit of the Bill, because our simple principle is that abuse is not acceptable, no matter to whom it is done or where we find it.
I can confirm that the Bill is fully trans-inclusive, because abuse—no matter to whom—is unacceptable. I concur wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend’s sentiments about the importance of being able to choose yourself and live your life with pride, and I thank him for sharing the testimonies of Mich, Rosie and Johnnie. They are really powerful stories that remind us of the importance of action.
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work on this important issue. I often reflect on the difference that a Labour Government made to my life, as well as the difference that this House made to my life. I am very proud of our party’s record on LGBT rights in government, and I am very proud that this Labour Government are going to continue that journey towards proper legislative equality.
I thank my hon. Friend for the many conversations I have had with him on this topic, and agree with him that people cannot consent to abuse. There is a provision in the Bill to prevent people taking others abroad for abuse; we saw that was a potential loophole, and wanted to make sure it was closed. That is an offence in the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend for being a fantastic ally to the community. He is often in debates on these topics in the House, and I am grateful to him for that—he is a fantastic champion for his LGBT constituents in Harlow. I agree with him that this Bill is a really important, line-in-the-sand statement of intent that it is not shameful or wrong to be LGBT, and if somebody tries to change you, abuse you or cause you harm, that should be illegal. I am proud and pleased that this Labour Government are going to deliver that ban.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I wonder whether, like me, she would like to hear from the Minister today how the vision for ports that she outlined, which is so clearly tapping into opportunities in Cornwall across the critical minerals, renewable energy and many other industries, could link into our broader view for industrial strategy zones.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again and I wholeheartedly support the work taking place at the port of Falmouth to get the rail connection back for freight. I really hope that we can draw support from the Department for Transport in accelerating that to the next stage. However, does she agree that we also need to take a broader look at the vision for freight rail in Cornwall and wholeheartedly develop a strategy for it?
We have heard very serious allegations this week that Foreign Office officials, and allegedly even senior members of this Government, may have been swayed by ties with international partners in determining how the UK acts to de-escalate this conflict and prevent atrocities in Sudan, against the backdrop of what we have seen in El Fasher, which has been found to bear the hallmarks of genocide, and in the light of the impending tragedy in El Obeid. I appreciate that the Minister has firmly rejected some of those allegations, and we must trust his word on that. Given all that, what steps is he taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that, whatever the truth of that matter, the UK is never in a situation where it is beholden to allies who are culpable for such atrocities?
The Government held the first-ever UK-EU summit last year, where we announced a new common understanding that is good for bills, for borders and for jobs. We look forward to going further at the next UK-EU summit, which will be held at the earliest possible opportunity.