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
Professor Brian Cox is among the eminent scientists warning about the impact of Government cuts to research on advanced physics and astronomy—a move that he calls “inexplicable”. Meanwhile, the Government are spending millions on projects examining climate coloniality, decolonising justice and transforming LGBTIQ+ asylum policies. Are those the Secretary of State’s research priorities too? If not, has she made that crystal clear to UK Research and Innovation?
I think the Secretary of State just said that the eminent professors are wrong. Aside from research spend, one of the core reasons for the budgetary pressures in physics is the ruinous cost of energy under Labour. It is ideology in research spend, and it is ideology in energy policy. In March, the Secretary of State said we need to sort out the problems facing physics funding as soon as possible; it is now July. Has she lobbied the Energy Secretary to stop him driving up the core costs of our critical scientific research institutions?
rose—
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this really important debate. Does he share my concern that, from the Isle of Wight to Orkney and Shetland, the management of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are showing a lack of heart and a callous approach when it comes to their problem resulting from the model that they have developed for how to protect our coastline? It seems that they are driven by their problem with HMRC payments, when they should be putting the coastguard rescue officers first—brave men and women working on the frontline to keep our country safe.
I know that this legislation is fast-tracked, but the Minister did rattle through very rapidly. I will seek to follow her lead as best I can. It is a pleasure to debate the Bill on Second Reading and its measures on increasing the electricity generator levy, increasing the mileage allowance and introducing the 12-month HGV vehicle excise duty holiday. We are broadly supportive of the measures. However, we must consider the wider context in which we are debating them. The energy price cap has today increased by 13%, inflation is well above target, economic inactivity is rising, we have high borrowing costs, taxes are at record levels and are set to go higher, and, sadly, growth is non-existent. Those things cannot all be blamed on the conflict in the middle east, so it is little wonder that this zombie Government are under pressure to show that they have a plan for energy costs, business costs and the strain on ordinary family finances. Given the title of the Bill, people might expect ambitious measures in it to deliver cheaper energy for consumers and businesses, make our economy more competitive, and unwind the bills, levies and targets that are increasing costs, but there are not. Instead, this is a small package of measures with no serious plan to ease the burden.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, which I will come to shortly. I just note that when the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero had the opportunity to really break that link, he backed away from doing so. This measure does so in a limited way, but it does not make the ambitious reforms that could have been made by the Energy Secretary. The electricity generator levy—[Interruption.] I am sure the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), can intervene if he is allowed. The electricity generator levy was introduced by the previous Government in 2023 as a temporary windfall tax applying to revenue above the benchmark price. It was a short-term response to exceptional circumstances and is due to end in 2028. What do the Government propose? To increase the rate from 45% to 55% and to extend it beyond 2028, with no end date. This is another example of Ministers reaching for higher taxes while offering no certainty in return. The Government say, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), that the increased rates will support the decoupling of gas prices by incentivising generators into voluntary wholesale contracts for difference, but while the new higher levy applies from today, those new contracts are yet to be seen, the proposed strike price is not known, the likelihood of generators accepting them is therefore unknown and in question, and the value for money for taxpayers is yet to be proven. Will the Energy Secretary still be in post to oversee the reforms? We all sincerely hope he will not be in the Treasury. In the winding-up speech, will the Minister provide an update on when the consultation on the CfDs will be launched, when the first contracts are set to be awarded, and if that will be through an auction or an allocation round? The Government have said that their intention is to extend the levy beyond 2028, but with no clarity on when it will end. The Government do not know how long they want it to last and have said there will be further legislation on that point. The Exchequer Secretary, in the debate on the resolutions last week, said that this was something “the Government are considering”. That is hardly a robust approach when bringing legislation before the House. Indeed, it seems like a hasty measure to give the Chancellor something to announce. The House of Lords Constitution Committee previously recommended that for fast-track legislation, sunset clauses should be the default presumption. An amendment to add one is outside the resolutions of this House, but we have tabled a new clause that would require the Government to come forward before the due end date in March 2028 to say whether they think the levy should continue. There is an absence of any publicly available costings on the measures. That is true for all the measures, yet this House is being asked to approve an indefinite extension. When the levy was first introduced, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that it would raise £2.3 billion a year, but the out-turn in 2024-25 was only £700 million. That matters, because part of the rationale for the higher levy is to generate revenues to support businesses and households. What measures is the Minister proposing in that regard? Surely not the Thorpe Park VAT cut, because that is funded by changes to corporation tax. Can the Minister enlighten us on what other benefits the consumers—my constituents—are getting from the tax? The levy needs to be seen in the context of the Government promising to reduce energy bills by £300—instead, bills have increased by around that amount. That is what happens when Governments do not have a plan. The Conservatives would cut bills for businesses and consumers through our cheaper energy plan, taking VAT off energy bills, axing the carbon tax and legacy subsidies, and backing the North sea to get drilling. The second measure on increasing mileage payments to 55p for 10,000 business miles is something that we support. It is right that those workers, including carers, who are using their own vehicles for work should not be left to absorb the rising cost. The measure is backdated to the start of the financial year. When winding up, can the Minister guarantee that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not pursue anyone for any income tax or national insurance contributions that may otherwise have arisen on payments made before the legislation took effect? The increase applies only to the first 10,000 miles. When we debated the resolution, the Minister said that the Government considered an increase in the 25p rate, but that it did not represent good value for money. If Ministers accepted that the 45p rate needed to be increased, can the Minister explain how they justify leaving the longer-distance rate untouched at 25p? As has been set out, this is the first increase for some time, which raises the question of how we can avoid such a long period between increases in future. I accept that indexation would be complicated, but what commitments will the Minister make to regularly review increases? Mileage is an important part of motorists’ costs, but the bigger impact comes from fuel duty. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to scrap both the 15-year freeze and the 5p cut that the Conservatives put in place. It was only after pressure from the Opposition that the Chancellor made a U-turn. However, it was only a partial one, and those costs are going to start hitting from as soon as January. For the logistics sector, which pays £5.4 billion in fuel duty, a 1p increase per litre will increase costs by nearly £83 million. Perhaps the new Chancellor will recognise the folly of that approach and reverse the plans they inherit. We welcome the HGV vehicle excise duty holiday. That duty had been frozen since 2014 until Labour came into office. For a year from today, HGVs will pay just £1, which will be a significant saving for the sector. However, the Government must recognise the full scale of the pressures facing hauliers and accept responsibility for those they have added; the Chancellor did not have to increase business rates, transport taxes and fuel duty. More than 95% of road haulage firms are small businesses with small margins, so any increase in costs is a challenge. The Government say that the measure will save £600 for a typical lorry, and £900 for the largest vehicles. At peak prices, filling a single HGV costs more than £1,000. Yes, the measure is helpful, but not markedly so. Taken together, the measures reveal a Government reaching for short-term fixes while avoiding the harder questions. On the generator levy, they are demanding higher taxes without certainty or proper costings—all while displaying a lack of urgency on reforms to decouple energy prices. Mileage allowances are a partial change, and one that leaves high-mileage workers behind. The vehicle excise duty holiday is a temporary relief without a plan for what comes next. The Conservatives welcome the measures, as far as they go. However, they have not been brought forward by choice; they have been forced by the consequences of the Chancellor’s decisions. Taxes remain at record highs, and are set to go higher, costs continue to rise, and growth has stalled. Against that backdrop, the measures offer very limited relief.
Given that the levy kicks in from today and the Minister said that the consultation will be published before the end of the year, six months henceforth, and then legislation will have to go through, are the Government considering any backdating provision? If a company generator wanted to go into one of these wholesale CfDs, doing so would allow it to have that backdated; at the moment, it would not have the option to go into the wholesale and will just be hit with the higher levy.
I think the Minister might be coming to a conclusion, and I would not want him to miss the opportunity to refer to the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the presumption that fast-tracked legislation should include sunset clauses. Could he explain why the Government have chosen not to follow that guidance in this case?
I will be speaking primarily to new clauses 4 and 5 tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, specifically related to the electricity generator levy and the HGV vehicle excise duty holiday. I have to say to the Exchequer Secretary that it is quite nice to see a Treasury Bill that is so concise, rather than the hundreds of pages that we see in every Finance Bill, adding complexity and costs for businesses. I hope that he will take that point back to the Treasury when he returns with the next Finance Bill. I think he has also given a commitment, or expressed an ambition: he said he likes to scrap taxes, so I hope that we will see more taxes scrapped. Now we turn to one that he is increasing, rather than introducing. 3.15 pm New clause 4 would require the Treasury to review the impact of increasing the generator levy to 55% and to report on its findings to Parliament before 31 March 2028. Importantly, the review should also consider whether the levy should continue to be charged at a rate of 55%. Due to the resolutions passed by the House, it is not possible to seek to amend the Bill to put a levy end date on the face of the Bill, so this is a modest amendment, but it is an important one because it goes to the heart of whether this Government have thought through the consequences of their approach. The levy was originally introduced as a temporary windfall tax, designed to capture exceptional receipts in extraordinary market conditions. The Government are now proposing to raise it further and to extend the regime, but without setting out an end date. In last week’s debate, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said: “we have not made a definitive announcement on whether that rate will last a short period or will go on into the future, but we will update in due course”.—[Official Report, 24 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 397.] In his winding-up speech on Second Reading, the Exchequer Secretary said he wanted to consider how the impact of the wholesale contracts for difference might impact on the levy. I gently suggest that a joined-up policy might have considered those two things before bringing forward one of them, because that is not a sound way to make energy or other policy. If the Treasury believes the measure to be justified, it should welcome a formal review. This new clause matters because investment in energy depends on confidence, predictability and a stable fiscal framework. It would require that implications for consumers and energy security are considered. If the Government are going to increase the tax burden on generators, they must be prepared to show what that means for future investment decisions, project financing, and the UK’s attractiveness as a place to build and expand capacity. The new clause also asks questions about electricity prices and consumer bills. Ministers have suggested that this measure and the policy may help to reshape the market—to decouple gas and electricity prices—but the measures designed to do that have not been published. All we know from the Exchequer Secretary is that they will be published by the end of the year. In those circumstances, we should not be asked to accept on trust that a higher and indefinite levy will have no adverse consequences. This new clause is a call for scrutiny, for transparency and for certainty, and the Government should have no objection to a review by March 2028 and a statement on whether they intend for the levy to continue. Doubtless the Exchequer Secretary, who is consistently consistent, will say that all measures are always kept under review by the Treasury. If so, I look forward to him accepting the new clause, which simply says that there will be a review; otherwise, I will urge other hon. Members to support it. Similarly, new clause 5 would require the Treasury to review the impact of the temporary VED rates for goods vehicles and to provide a report to Parliament. This report must consider whether it remains appropriate for the temporary excise duty rates on goods vehicles to continue, and it should be produced before 30 June 2027. It would force Ministers to explain whether this short-term relief is delivering and whether an extension might be appropriate. The temporary holiday is welcome, but it is limited; it is not a silver bullet, as the Exchequer Secretary has acknowledged. Equally, I acknowledge that it is a good measure and the right starting point, because the freight and logistics sector is under immense pressure from rising operating costs, fuel costs, business costs and wider economic uncertainty; more than 95% of those road haulage firms are small and medium-sized enterprises operating on margins as low as 2%, and the sector simply cannot absorb repeated shocks. A policy like this should therefore be tested properly, and the long-term benefits properly weighed. New clause 5 would do precisely that. It would also assess the impact on the public finances, the competitiveness of the freight sector and operating costs for goods vehicle operators. If the Government’s measure improves supply chains and helps firms keep goods moving efficiently across the UK, then they should demonstrate that. If it does not, Parliament should know that too. The new clause also asks the sensible question of whether this temporary reduction should continue. Businesses need certainty, not a series of one-year sticking plasters. Haulage firms plan investment, staffing, maintenance and route costs on a long-term horizon, not on the Treasury’s timetable. In the face of mounting pressures, the Government should assess whether this support needs to be continued in the future. Temporary relief is no substitute for a coherent growth strategy. New clause 5 would ensure that Parliament has the evidence to judge whether the policy is working and whether we should support an extension. The Government have brought forward a package of measures that are more of a short-term fix than a serious plan. That package includes an indefinite tax on electricity generators, a limited increase in mileage allowance, and only temporary relief for HGV operators. They have failed to give the House the clarity that it deserves about the fiscal impact of the measures. The Exchequer Secretary referred to the OBR scoring of the original levy rate. That scoring was provided at the time that the levy was announced because we announced it at a Budget. The problem we have is that this Chancellor makes announcements outside of a Budget, and then refuses to provide any costings or estimates. Presumably she had advice from officials before she brought the measure forward, so why can she not share with us the indicative amounts in order to aid our debate? The Government also failed to give clarity on the duration of the electricity generator levy—we are supposed to just wait and see—and on the long-term support needed for businesses and working people. I urge hon. Members to support our two modest new clauses.
I am happy to clarify that for the Minister. My point was rather that if the Government are to introduce a higher levy rate on the basis that it will incentivise people to move into wholesale contracts for difference, it might be as well to have the policy for those wholesale contracts for difference ready.
This has indeed been fast-tracked legislation, at 90 minutes—no need for extra time here. [Laughter.] There is more. The Government have sought to move rapidly to impose a higher levy on generators, but the measures designed to decouple electricity and gas prices have not been given the same priority. Motorists using their cars for work will welcome the increased mileage rates, but those driving more than 10,000 miles a year will be puzzled that those rates remain unchanged. Reducing the costs on those who keep goods moving around our country will make a difference, but that has to be seen as only part of the ledger and set against higher employment and higher taxes. I congratulate the Minister on so ably shepherding the Bill through this afternoon. I am sure that he will have many more Bills to take through as the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, but this may well be the last piece of legislation to be granted Royal Assent before the Prime Minister shuffles off the stage. For this Bill and this Prime Minister, they think it’s all over—it is now.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing today’s debate—quite a feat, given that the Department for Transport was not meant to be answering Westminster Hall debates this week. He managed to secure a debate on an issue that has caused serious concerns not just for our coastal areas across the United Kingdom, but for all of us; I speak as a Member of Parliament representing a seat about as far away from the sea as it is possible to get within England. The changes to the renumeration of coastguard volunteers have raised fundamental questions about the future of the service, as we have heard clearly from across the House today. I thank my colleagues who have attended the debate to set out those concerns and the scale of the challenges facing the coastguard. Those colleagues included my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who has had to go to run the drop-in event. I welcome his informative comments on the process in the main Chamber, given his constituent’s role in the legal case and the need to get the response to the legal decision right. The question of how the coastguard operates truly matters. Protecting our coastlines from harm is essential, and the coastguard has played a central role in that over centuries. We must preserve the lives of those who are in danger and support our coastal towns and cities, where upholding safety is a priority. That brings us to the issue underpinning the debate: what happens if we no longer have those volunteers? We know that the 3,000 volunteer staff play a considerable role in protecting the public; it is integral that they remain part of the service. For as long as the coastguard has existed, there have been questions of remuneration. For example, in 1831, the Admiralty published new regulations as part of a plan for the coastguard to become a reserve for the Royal Navy. It included payments and allowances—a salary of £10 for a chief boatman and £5 for a commissioned boatman. As volunteer servicemen entered the system, the Government provided support to the coastguard and to volunteer lifesaving organisations across the UK. More recently, the 1990s saw the Department conduct internal reviews of the role that auxiliaries should play in the service compared with those working full time. The relationship between the state and the coastguard has changed throughout the years along with the evolution of its structure, but there has been a principle of ensuring that people can volunteer, while maintaining incentives so that the coastguard is able to operate effectively. Worryingly, the decision that was accepted by the Government, stemming from the court case, completely alters the relationship that has been put in place.
Back from the Division break, we can think about the possible impact of the court judgment and the Government’s decision. I put it to the House that it is crazy that the Government have made this decision affecting our brave coastguard rescue officers. We face the prospect later this year of huge numbers of our coastguard personnel leaving because the Government have failed them. I appreciate that the Minister has reiterated in multiple written answers that this was not a decision that the Government wanted to take. It was taken after a recommendation from the MCA; after engagement through the MCA with the coastguard rescue service—although on the basis of speeches earlier in the debate we can question the veracity of that—over previous months on the implications for the service; and after further conversations with area management teams, senior leadership visits and national representative forums, as well as two all-member surveys, which played a direct part in understanding the impact of the models upon the service. It is important to reflect on those remarks, because while they show on the face of it that steps were taken, I am unsure of the level of consideration they demonstrate. The Government seem to have sought to understand the models but reverted to the simplest option. There needs to be a comprehensive explanation of the thought processes within the Department. Let us consider the action stemming from the legal decision. What steps were taken to establish a path forward? Can the Minister explain how much time the Government took to analyse the legal decision and whether other bespoke approaches would have been more appropriate? I acknowledge that the Minister has said that the suggestion came from the MCA and the Government accepted it. However, the MCA’s annual report for 2024-25 highlighted a lack of legal resources within the organisation. To quote one of the priority concerns listed in the annual report, the MCA said that there is a “lack of lawyer resources to implement legislative change – the ability to bring about legislative change hinges on the availability of scarce lawyer resource. The Agency continues to work with the Department for Transport Legal Team to ensure that it can access necessary resource. Progress is being made but the risk remains current.” I hope that the Minister can clarify whether that remains the case, because the issue of remuneration and volunteer status is clearly a legal matter that could have consequences for legislation. If the MCA was considering the issue with the Department for Transport legal team, is it right to frame this as a decision merely stemming from the MCA? What legal resources were provided by the Department, and what work did its officials undertake to consider alternative options? I hope that the proposal did not merely stem from the Department’s own legal team. Furthermore, the Minister’s previous responses referenced the discussions he has had with senior leadership and the surveys that were conducted. But for such a consequential decision, unless I have missed something, the Government have failed to publish significant analysis of the decision’s impact on volunteer numbers. From the outside, the Government seem to have chosen not to fully explain the scope of the options available to them and their full reasoning. That exacerbates worries among hard-working volunteers across the country who know about their loss of pay but get the sense that there is a lack of explanation. That is reflected in the comments of the anonymous volunteer who told the BBC that they thought the choice would “damage morale and weaken the service”. I say all this recognising that there is no simple option for the Government, but we cannot ignore the fact that they have taken a decision with possibly serious consequences for an institution with over 200 years of history. Given the reports about the impact of the change, I ask the Minister whether there is anything that can be done to delay it while the Government sort out the mess that many volunteers have identified. Meanwhile, the Government have known the outcome of the case since January. The judgment on this area of law consisted of just 14 pages; since then, we have not seen anything as detailed from the Government. They should have anticipated the decision from the court, and we believe that they need to put together a solution that does not cause droves of people to leave our coastguard service. The current allowances should not be abolished before that is resolved. Across the House, it feels like it has been lost on the Government that they have significant powers available to them and they should use those powers to achieve the best outcome for the British people. In this case, that should mean maintaining the existing system until they are confident that they have found a positive way forward that actually works for the safety of our coastlines and the future of our coastguard.
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee and to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford, and of course to see the Minister. I refer Committee members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly my prior career in asset management, which involves some of the structures we are debating today. I thank the Minister for providing such a thorough and clear explanation of the Government’s intentions with the regulations before us today. Whenever we debate regulations, we should always remember that it is essentially a balancing act—in this case between privacy in business and ensuring fairness, governance and transparency. Those aims are not mutually exclusive. It is our job to ensure that we get that balance right as often as we can. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, he said that the regulations remove the requirement to provide trust names for applications looking to access unpublished information through the trust disclosure service. Paragraph 5.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that that is because many applicants have been found “unlikely to have this information”, resulting in their request being rejected. The Minister said that just moments ago. Can he therefore tell us how many applications have been made to the trust disclosure service since it was launched in August 2025? How many were rejected for that reason? That would help us understand the basis for the regulatory changes today. By lowering the bar for applications and applicants, Withers law firm has warned that the change could open the door to speculative fishing expeditions. The Minister will be aware of that challenge from Withers, so I wonder what his response is to that specific challenge and concern. Secondly, the regulations seek to introduce a requirement in most cases for the provision of a replacement address for individuals who submit a suppression application to remove their home address from the register of overseas entities. Can the Minister clarify whether those who have already successfully secured suppression of their home address from the public register will now be required to provide a replacement address, and whether it will be retrospective? If so, will they be informed, how will they be informed and what is the timeline for that information to be provided? Finally, on the measures relating to LLPs, which the Minister discussed at the end of his remarks, page 3 of the explanatory memorandum states that these regulations are required because legislation was brought forward and passed in error by the Government last year, before adequate “Companies House systems had been developed”. I understand that the Government intend to bring the service requirement back, so when does the Minister expect Companies House to have the systems up and running so that they can process what they originally intended to last year? When will the reinstating regulations be laid before the House?
The Minister has one of the toughest jobs in Government, and he carries out his duties with diligence, courtesy, reasonableness and ability. I wish him well in whatever the future holds, and I hope he retains his post. Members on both sides of the House have rightly highlighted the illegality of settlements and rightly expressed support for a two-state solution. However, it was reported that on approving the E1 zone development last year, Israel’s Finance Minister said that it would “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”. Will the Minister unequivocally reiterate his full condemnation of such a statement and approach?
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition in support of this statutory instrument. Over a million anti-social behaviour incidents are recorded by the police every single year in England and Wales. That is not a statistic that should wash over us; behind every one of those incidents is a pensioner who is afraid to walk to the corner shop, a shopkeeper who has been harassed and threatened, or a community that has been slowly ground down. When the Government brought forward the Crime and Policing Act, we supported the creation of respect orders; in fact, we wanted them to go further. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) tabled amendments in Committee that would have lowered the age of eligibility from 18 to 16. We argued for a fine on a second order, for a maximum prison term of five years for repeated breaches and for those who receive repeated orders to be deprioritised on social housing lists. The Government did not accept all those amendments; I still think they were right and the legislation would have been stronger, but we are where we are, and what matters now is that the respect order regime works as intended and in line with our other measures. What makes respect orders different from what came before is simple: a breach is now a criminal offence and police can arrest immediately. There are no more long waits for civil contempt proceedings and no more watching someone breach their order again and again with no immediate consequences; when someone is made subject to a respect order, they face serious consequences if they breach it. Their liberty is at stake, and it is right that people in that position can access legal advice in line with our criminal norms, not because we are soft on anti-social behaviour, but because a fair system is a stronger system, and an order made appropriately with appropriate legal process is an order that will stick. This instrument, as the Minister explained, extends the legal framework for access to criminal aid not just to respect orders but to youth injunctions and housing injunctions under the Crime and Policing Act. We support that. Young people facing injunctions and residents facing housing injunctions deserve clarity on their rights. Although the position of the official Opposition is to support the SI, where we feel the intent and the legal aid provision are right, the Government must ensure that the police and court can handle what follows in the operation of these orders. Those of us who have been involved in policing and politics have heard various iterations of attempts to get anti-social behaviour under control over various Governments and many decades, and this is just the latest version of it. We need something that will work; communities across this country are tired of tolerating anti-social behaviour. Respect orders can be part of the answer, and the official Opposition will keep pressing to ensure that they are delivered as intended.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 15 October 2024, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), said: “This Government are committed, as we were in opposition, to doubling the number of medical school places.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 683.] On 22 April 2026, in a Westminster Hall debate, the current Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), said: “Yes, it is still our intention to double the number of medical school places.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 134WH.] However, on 27 April, some five days later, the Minister for Care issued a somewhat bizarre ministerial correction. He said: “The Government have never committed to doubling medical school places.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 3MC.] Given what was said by so many Ministers before the election, and by the former Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, how can that be accurate? I raised this issue with the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), in the Health Bill Committee last week, but there has still been no response. How can I establish whether that is still Government policy?
This might be the last time this Department for Science, Innovation and Technology ministerial team get the chance to face us at the Dispatch Box, so on behalf of our team I wish them well over the next few weeks as the Government go through their hard reset. Has the Secretary of State spoken to the virtual Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and told him of the work under way to deliver the essential safeguards to restrict social media for under-16s following the successful campaign by parents, families and the Conservative Opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition? Or is it that, as when we pull the plug on a computer, any unsaved progress will be lost?
I share the Minister’s frustration about our appearing to be on the sidelines as this Israeli Government divide up the west bank, making a two-state solution nigh-on impossible. What is happening is contrary to the fourth Geneva convention, Oslo II and all the rest of it. However, does he agree that his capacity to influence what is happening is finite? If Israel, under Netanyahu, is not listening to the Trump Administration, it almost certainly will not listen to the Administration that the Minister is part of. However, he can do something in this awful situation: he can at least protect those in this country who will suffer the consequences of what is happening in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who are the butt of a lot of the violence in this country, namely the Jewish community. What will he do to ensure that they do not suffer the consequences of what is going on?
I completely agree that the funding settlement is inadequate and unfair for Scottish fishermen, but will the hon. Member confirm that the SNP policy is to rejoin the EU and then rejoin the hated common fisheries policy?
I asked the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) whether the SNP policy is still to rejoin the EU and rejoin the hated common fisheries policy. He failed to answer that question. Could the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) try to answer it?
One of the challenges our fishermen now face is the high cost of fuel. In Ireland, the Government have announced a €15 million fuel aid package for their fishermen; in France, a similar scheme has been announced. Will the UK Government consider a similar scheme to help our fisherman with the high cost of fuel?
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on his clear response to this statement. My constituents in Brook Drive, Ruislip and all across the floodplain of the River Pinn are very interested in this issue, so I will ask the Minister two questions. In a borough where a tiny fraction of properties are in bands A and B, there is a risk that this change means that the cost of insurance will no longer be priced based upon the risk incurred at that property, but upon its council tax band. That risks shifting the provision from being a premium to simply being a tax based on the value of a property, which clearly would not be welcome and was not the original basis of Flood Re. Can she give the House a clear assurance that the claims experience data gathered by Flood Re will then be used by colleagues across Government to feed into such things as planning regulations, so that flood resilience can be built in to homes in the future?
In West Worcestershire we have the River Severn, the River Avon, the River Teme and many brooks, so flooding is a perennial issue. Over the years, we have built many new flood defence schemes. I thank the Minister personally for her role in the Severn Stoke scheme, which is currently under construction. Unfortunately, the Tenbury Wells scheme has been cancelled, and there will be individual property-level resilience in that town. Does the Minister have any advice for the town council, which is unable to get any insurance now? Will she consider changes to the Flood Re scheme to enable properties that have benefited from flood resilience measures to get access to Flood Re for their insurance?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. Far too many lives are still being tragically cut short by offences involving knives and other bladed weapons. I pay tribute to the family of Ronan Kanda, who fought so bravely after their son’s future was stolen by thugs who used fake ID to order a zombie knife off the internet, collected it from the post office that same day, and then brutally murdered him. His family have campaigned tirelessly in his memory to secure stronger laws, and they deserve enormous credit for their determination. It was for precisely those reasons and those horrors that the previous Conservative Government introduced legislation to ban zombie knives and machetes, building on our 2016 ban, and banned cyclone knives in 2019. Those are incredibly dangerous weapons, and there is no legitimate reason for them to be available for purchase. However, it is frustrating that must reopen this legislation because the Government did not get it right first time and proceeded with an error in the previous instrument. As the Minister set out, the instrument used the figure of 5% in relation to the secondary cutting edge, when it should have been 105%. That is frustrating, not least because the Conservatives raised that exact question in Committee in the House of Commons and in the Lords. We said that the drafting was overly narrow and would not catch the weapons that it needed to. We were dismissed in the House of Lords and in the Commons. The Minister in the Lords went so far as to state that “the order before the Committee is very specific and tightly defined.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. GC112.] Against that backdrop, can the Minister confirm that the wording before the Committee is now correct, and will she set out what impact, if any, the previous drafting error had in practice? Will we move forward and work together to keep dangerous knives and weapons off our streets? We must protect our children and save lives.
May I add my thanks to Baroness Amos? I join the Secretary of State in emphasising the importance of culture change, but culture change will not happen without accountability. In all the conversations I had with families who were suffering bereavement, harm to themselves or harm to their children, what shocked me most was the cover-up culture in the NHS, which persists to this day, and was exposed once again by Donna Ockenden in her report last week. There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether we continue with place-based inquiries or have a national statutory public inquiry, and we must have that debate. But whatever the answer to that question, any report will be worth the paper it is written on only if all those involved in decision making and care are held to account through a duty of candour. Given that, where is the Hillsborough law? The law is important not just for justice for the 97, but for justice for these families and in preventing future harms. Will it at least go through this House before the summer recess? Until it is on the books, people will continue to duck the real questions.
Of course, this Government would not have such an uphill mountain to climb were it not for the decisions taken by our predecessors. I really think the Conservatives would have more credibility if they acknowledged that fact more readily and with more humility than they have shown today, and on every previous occasion the shadow Secretary of State has been at the Dispatch Box. None the less, as the Secretary of State himself has acknowledged, we need to go further and faster. What we have here is a good foundation to build on, but there is more to do. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State set out the Government’s rationale for not joining the defence security and resilience bank, and will he reconsider?
1. What steps he is taking to increase the number of magistrates. [R]
Although I support the Government’s reform of the justice system to tackle the courts backlog, it is clear that more cases will be going to the magistrates court. Estimates suggest that will require the recruitment of an additional 6,000 to 7,000 magistrates by 2029, but previous attempts to increase their numbers have been unsuccessful. Will the Secretary of State please tell me what the Government are doing differently this time around? What practical steps is his Department taking to recruit and retain magistrates? Finally, what contingency plans are in place if the recruitment target is not met?
Young people are our future. They are the future politicians, technicians, writers, sportspeople, physiotherapists or whatever they want to be. The laws, policies and funding that we put forward must help in building their future. We must invest in them, inspire them, and give them the tools and skills for their future, so that they have the confidence and resilience to deal with whatever life throws at them. Decent access to youth services and sporting activities is an integral part of that. Almost 1 million of our young people are not in education or employment. Youth unemployment is also strongly linked to social and economic inequality. I have spoken many times about why I set up the Youth Violence Commission. Soon after I was first elected in 2015, five of my young constituents were murdered in quick succession. The commission gathered evidence from academics, youth workers, educators and, most importantly, young people themselves. It showed how many different factors influence a young person’s life. Some were more immediately obvious, such as their schooling, health, housing situation and relationship with their family, but our work also really brought home the power of sport, youth services and the arts to inspire and motivate our young people, as well as offering them a safe place to go. I am not talking just about the activities themselves, but about the interventions that happen alongside them. To give a brief example, there is a boxing club in my constituency called Double Jab. While young people might initially go there to learn how to train and box, they are also offered mentorship and guidance on how to navigate life’s challenges. Strong mentors and trusted adults can deliver a change in attitude and get someone on the path towards a better future. Access to sport, youth activities and culture, improves a whole variety of outcomes. However, Government must go further with their ambitions. Culture, media and sport are not just a “nice to have” to be tagged on to other stuff. Instead, they must be at the heart of everything. We need a public health approach, with all of Government working together on a cross-departmental strategy, led from DCMS and focused on the right outcomes for our young people. If we can get that right—if we can meet our ambition for every single young person—I am sure that colleagues from the Treasury will be delighted to know that it has the potential to result in significant savings down the line.
Order. I ask hon. Members to stand if they wish to speak. I hope to begin the wind-ups at 10.28 am.
Order. I have to impose a two-minute formal time limit, and Wendy Morton will be the first to show us how to stick to that.
Order. I call Jim Shannon.
I thank hon. Members very much; everyone got in, and we now come to the wind-ups.
Order. The Minister may want to give the Member in charge two minutes to wind up.
My constituents will welcome this defence investment plan, which is more than £298 billion over the next four years. Of course, BAE Systems in my constituency is part of that programme of expansion and the new jobs and opportunities it will bring for young people. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the defence dividend will increase our sovereign capacity and provide jobs and opportunities for all our people in this country?
I am encouraged to hear about the experience that my hon. Friend has recounted, but does he share my concern that Jewish students often have limited confidence in universities’ complaints procedures? Quite frequently, reports of antisemitism are dealt with rather slowly or without any form of consequence.
I occasionally meet Jewish students at the University of Nottingham for dinner on a Friday evening, hosted by Chabad. Those students talk about being proud of their faith, but they frequently question whether they can be openly Jewish on campus. Does the hon. Member agree that no student should ever feel that they have to hide their identity on a university campus?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on securing this estimates debate. I thank them for their efforts in scrutinising the work of this Government and shining a light on the issues that matter. DCMS is the Department that brings joy to people’s lives while focusing on driving growth, fostering civic pride and supporting our world-class sectors. From sport to arts, media and heritage, culture binds our social infrastructure. Our work reaches every part of the country. Regardless of a person’s postcode or background, the Department should reach them in some way. The shadow Minister rightly pointed out the figures for jobs and economic contribution. This debate centres on sport and youth, and I will focus my remarks in that area. Some Members raised other issues, and I will endeavour to write to them. Some Members requested a meeting; I am always happy to meet colleagues. I will talk specifically about school sport and the report in a moment. Across the country, people have been supporting our national teams at the world cup. Of course, I wish England good luck tomorrow night, and give my commiserations to Scotland—the results did not go their way. The women’s cricket team play on Thursday in the T20 world cup, and we wish them every success. The global spotlight is on Wimbledon, and will be on the British grand prix at Silverstone this weekend. Major sporting events foster an undeniable sense of national pride and social cohesion, while driving economic growth. We have seen their impact up and down the country, whether it be the women’s rugby world cup last year, the women’s T20, which we are currently hosting, or the Commonwealth games, which we will host in Glasgow next month. Over the next few years, we are investing over £500 million in hosting Euro 2028, the Tour de France, and Tour de France Femmes. The investment in those events alone is predicted to deliver £3.2 billion in socioeconomic benefits—a near sixfold direct return on investment for the British public. I would also like to mention the important work that the Government have done to secure the Crucible theatre in Sheffield as the home of the snooker world championship through a £35 million investment in it. We will continue to work closely with UK Sport to keep the UK at the very top of the global event hosting pipeline, because these events are so important in inspiring the next generation to get active. Inactivity is the story of inequality, and that is why this Government are investing at least £400 million in community sports facilities across the country over the next four years.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I would be delighted to meet him. I was on a visit near his constituency recently. Leisure is a real challenge; I really want to do more on it. Of course, it is a responsibility of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but we are absolutely aware how important this issue is for physical activity. That is why we are investing £400 million in sports facilities. That is alongside the £250 million of Exchequer and lottery funding for grassroots sports annually. This financial year, we are delivering £85 million via the multi-sports grassroots facilities programme. It will build and upgrade vital pitches, changing rooms and clubhouses. Fifty per cent of the investment will be prioritised for the 30% most deprived areas in the UK, and at least 40% of projects will offer multi-sport access, benefiting rugby, cricket and basketball, alongside football. We have innovative projects, as the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham said, which I am happy to write to him about. The projects will prioritise women and girls’ provision, doubling access, and I am committed to promoting women’s sport and tackling some of the challenges that it faces. That is why I established the women’s sports taskforce, and we had our most recent meeting in Southampton to coincide with the T20 world cup. We are working with local leaders, in a place-based approach, to deliver funding beyond this year, so that areas can have a greater say on the facilities that they need. I have seen this the length and breadth of the country. This Government believe in the power of sport, not as a luxury, but as an essential driver of national health, wellbeing and economic productivity. It helps tackle so many issues, such as mental and physical health and loneliness. I think about Jed in Wombwell Main in my constituency, who took up walking football after his wife sadly passed away. That is the power of sport in this country. I turn to school sport. Over £1 billion will be invested in school sport over the next three years. We are launching the new physical education and school sport partnership network. It intentionally replaces the old PE and sport premium, putting an end to the one-size-fits-all model that failed too many children for too long, while meeting the clear asks of leading voices in sports education.