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
On the first and third questions asked regarding this measure, consumers should not expect an immediate or visible change as a result of the instrument, but the Government will work closely with Ofcom to ensure that mobile coverage is improved through other policy measures. If the shadow Minister will forgive me, on the substantive numbers of gigabit availability—
Yes, sorry—I will write to him. I am grateful for the support across the House on the draft instrument. The direction it revokes has already been fully implemented in terms of obtaining—
I will not. The direction being revoked serves no practical purpose. This SI is therefore a simple but important step to ensure that the statute book reflects the current position by removing provisions that are no longer needed. In doing so, it supports a clear and coherent framework for spectrum management, giving certainty to regulators and industry alike. It helps to maintain the conditions for continued investment, innovation and reliable connectivity across the economy. I commend the order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
Magistrates play a vital role in delivering local justice, and we value their contribution as volunteers. Up to 2029, we are increasing the number of magistrates to 21,000, which is a 50% rise. We have quadrupled investment in magistrate recruitment with a new national campaign, which I hope hon. Members have seen—it launched in the autumn—and we will have more frequent regional campaigns going forward.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that our target is ambitious, but it is achievable. We are recruiting the same number of magistrates into the system as was the case back in 2014, so we have done it before and we can get there. What has changed this time is that there is a national taskforce to fast-track the process and halve recruitment times, and we are working with the judiciary to ensure that magistrates feel more appreciated. It is also important to say that I will provide an update on the numbers, which will be published on 9 July, and while I do not want to pre-empt that publication, it is good news that we are already seeing progress.
The hon. Member makes a good point. The reform of expenses in this area is important. We are seeing more self-employed people come forward for the magistracy, and we are seeing good numbers in relation to ethnic minorities and diversity right across the country. It is important that younger people feel able to volunteer in this way.
My hon. Friend’s point is apposite and on the money. Alongside this recruitment, we are appointing more judges to the magistrates court. We are recruiting up to 30 new district judges to start sitting in the second half of 2027 in addition to the latest round of recruitment, which should result in more than 100 new judges sitting from December 2026 onwards.
The hon. Lady makes a good point. We are reforming legal advisers’ pay and career progression. She is right that our magistrates courts need those legal advisers—they have to be in place across the country. We are funding more legal advisers and recruiting 100 new trainee legal advisers each year for the next three years.
I recognise the profound financial and psychological impact of so-called SLAPPs and the threat that they represent to democracy and free speech. Last year we implemented new laws to tackle SLAPPs relating to economic crime and to stop wealthy elites from effectively silencing critics, journalists and activists. I have confirmed that we intend, when parliamentary time allows, to introduce legislation that comprehensively tackles all SLAPPs.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to champion this issue. She is right that SLAPPs go well beyond journalism and issues of free speech; we have heard harrowing stories of SLAPPs being used to silence sexual abuse survivors, cosmetic surgery patients unhappy with the quality of their treatment, and even tenants who have complained to landlords. The economically related SLAPP measures represent a positive step forward, but there is more to do. We will bring forward legislation, and we are also working across the House to see what more we can do over this next period. We are determined to move in this area before the next general election.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that very serious issue. We are aware of it, it is hugely concerning and it underlines why we have to legislate. I hope that, by working cross-party, we can move swiftly in this area.
The hon. Gentleman’s question shows the range of people we see being intimidated before the court. He will be aware of Catherine Belton and her book “Putin’s People”, Tom Burgis and his book “Kleptopia”, and Tom Latchem and his care home investigation. They have all been on the receiving end of a SLAPP. We have to act, as I have said. We will work cross-party. There are some vehicles by which we might well be able to see progress over the coming months and, on Second Reading, we will set out our position regarding some of the private Member’s Bills that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have tabled.
Official statistics for the year to March 2025 show 262 recorded releases in error, and the latest figure will be published next month. In April we also released ad hoc data from April 2025 to March 2026, which was published alongside Dame Lynne Owens’s independent review into releases in error.
The hon. Lady was not listening to the figures I gave. We are seeing a reduction in the numbers because of the review that I asked Dame Lynne Owens to lead. We are implementing the recommendations so that the numbers come down, but I have to ask the hon. Lady: who left us with the mess? Who saw 800 releases under their watch? When did they update Parliament? When did they set up a review? They did absolutely nothing. We have a paper-based system. That is why we are introducing digital ID.
Because you almost broke the prison system. You built just 500 places in 14 years, and we had to fix that system. You had 17 different forms of guidance on early release in the last year, all done in secret. That is why we introduced the Sentencing Act 2026, which got Royal Assent in January, and why we are doing everything we can to build more prison places—14,000 prison places by 2031.
One of the first things I announced when appointed as the Secretary of State for Justice was a £40 million extra investment to strengthen prison security, including £10 million for counter-drone measures such as netting and wire. I recently visited Woodhill prison to look at how we are tackling this growing threat and committed a further £35 million to install heavy-duty grilles on windows at 17 of our most high-risk prison sites.
My hon. Friend knows that, because of the war in Ukraine, drone technology is moving at pace. That is why, when I was in Ukraine in January, we announced that we are working with the UK defence innovation fund—an innovative fund—to set up an international business competition to ensure that the Prison Service keeps up at pace with moving technology. We are also working with our French and Italian colleagues, who are experiencing the same threat. I have spoken to Justice Ministers about how we share best practice.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The director-general of the National Crime Agency has directed police chiefs to work with the Prison Service to jointly tackle the threat from criminal drones. We saw that recently in a large-scale joint operation that resulted in more than 200 arrests. He is absolutely right; that blocking technology is available to the system. I was in Doncaster visiting our specialist unit that does this work, often at night, to ensure that we are bringing down those drones.
One in five homicides are domestic homicides, with women and girls overwhelmingly the victims of these brutal crimes: mothers, sisters and daughters, such as Ellie Gould, Poppy Devey Waterhouse and Megan Newborough, who were cruelly murdered by their current or former partners. However, the gravity of these crimes is not always fully reflected. Under the current sentencing framework, higher starting points place particular weight on a weapon being taken to the scene with intent, whereas domestic homicides often happen in the home involving weapons already present. Today I can announce that we will introduce a 25-year starting point for domestic murders, a change made possible thanks to the Government’s grip on the prison population through the Sentencing Act 2026. I pay tribute to the mothers of Ellie, Poppy and Megan—Carole, Julie and Elaine—and my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). They have all campaigned tirelessly for this change, which means that those who kill their partners or former partners will spend longer in prison.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. What we have heard is devastating—absolutely horrific. I will discuss this issue with the Health Secretary. His Department obviously has responsibility for human tissue while we have responsibility for the coroner service and the law regarding death, and we will work together on this issue.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but when the Bar Council do a detailed piece of work, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to look closely at what it has recommended. That is what I will do in the coming months, and I am sure that when that process has concluded, we can have this discussion in a serious way. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be serious. He often takes to Twitter on these issues, but I think we should take the Bar Council of England and Wales seriously.
Halving violence against women and girls is a decade-long mission for this Government. That case is extremely concerning, and our thoughts are with the victim, Sarah. Given the cross-agency nature of this case, my officials are working across Government, and we are raising it with the US Government to establish the full facts.
I am very grateful to the Father of the House. He may not have noticed, but he made me blush. He knows that the right to a fair trial, and the component of it that requires a jury, is an important right, and we are not abolishing it, but we are seeking to bring down the backlog, so that people can get swift justice. We are making a decision that has been made previously by other Prime Ministers, including Margaret Thatcher, to change the threshold for jury trial, while ensuring that justice is done. I think it is also important to acknowledge the tremendous work done by our magistrates.
Our plan to halve knife crime seeks to give young people the best start in life, to stop those who are at risk of turning to knife crime from doing so, and to ensure that perpetrators are caught and brought to justice. I have been out with a number of community groups over the last few weeks to see that work in action. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is good to see the numbers beginning to fall, but there is more work to do over the coming months and years.
I thank my hon. and dear Friend for her campaigning on this issue. We met the families and were hugely moved by their stories. There was a sense that they felt very let down by the previous Governments and Lord Chancellors whom they had met. For that reason, I think this move is the right thing to do, and I am very grateful to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) for continuing to press on this issue behind the scenes.
Of course, I recognise that this will be an issue for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. It is right that these matters are dealt with by the Probation Service. We are investing a lot of money in the Probation Service over this period to make sure that we reduce caseloads, so that such cases can be managed properly, but I will investigate and get back to him as soon as possible.
We are two years in, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will come forward with announcements in that area shortly.
As the father of a daughter, I pay tribute to the constituents mentioned for their doughty campaign over many years, in which they have been fighting for this moment. There will be women out there now whose lives will be saved as a result of the sentence that perpetrators of this terrible crime face.
When I moved to this Department, I was pleased to see the work on digital and artificial intelligence. The Department is a Whitehall leader; for example, we are freeing up probation staff for the frontline, rather than them having to go through lots of bureaucracy. I am particularly excited by the work that is going on in our courts.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to buy British and create British jobs. When he produces his further strategy on procurement in the autumn, will he try to get a joined-up approach to procurement across Government, as that is important to our industrial strategy? The MOD is investing £1 billion-plus in Sheffield Forgemasters to create the capacity to build nuclear reactors for our submarines, yet at the same time, Rolls-Royce is purchasing the same sorts of nuclear reactors in South Korea to go into civil nuclear plant. Do we not need to get that sorted out, right across Government, to make sure that we are doing British industry proud and buying British products to create British jobs?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I particularly look forward to learning more about the uncrewed systems taskforce. When it comes to the Welsh defence industry, though, can he confirm that today’s defence investment plan will work in tandem with commitments that are already in train—such as the Wales defence growth deal—to nurture and develop the Welsh defence industry?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for introducing this important debate. I am fortunate to have had a positive relationship with the small but perfectly formed Jewish community in Northamptonshire for many years. The Northampton Hebrew congregation is a welcoming, open and very hard-working group. Through the work of Michael Necus and the trustees, Jewish students at the University of Northampton have a safe place to pray, to be part of our community and to connect with others. Although antisemitic hate and crime is very low in my county and at my university, the experiences of those at my nearest JSoc at the University of Warwick have been very different. The stories I hear bring home how challenging it can be to be Jewish and attend a UK university and that we must continue to take every step possible to make sure our universities are safe for all students, no matter their religion. Through these stories, I have also heard how universities such as the University of Warwick and the University of Northampton are working hard to create inclusive spaces for all students. In my contribution to this valuable debate, I will focus on the role of universities, because what we are seeing on campuses is not just down to bad actors but to how universities respond. At Warwick, there have been some clear examples of best practice. In the days after the 7 October attacks, several individuals infiltrated the freshers WhatsApp group of Warwick Jewish society and sent a stream of abusive antisemitic messages. At a time when members of the society were trying to get to know each other at a social gathering, they watched this unfold on their phones in real time. It was frightening. Jacob Lederman, the society’s treasurer, told the BBC and other media outlets that, alongside the immediate impact on students, it has put long-term safety and security pressures on the society that other societies at the university simply do not have to face. The positive is that the incident did not slow the society down. It is still running weekly events with security in attendance, and the society praised the campus security team, saying that it could not be more grateful for the support it was given. Thankfully, the police were able to find the individuals responsible, who were not students. They were arrested and rightly prosecuted. That is an example of the kind of incident that universities have to deal with, and it shows the importance of a serious response, working with the police, acting decisively and treating the issue with the gravity it deserves. Unfortunately, that is not the only experience of antisemitism that Warwick students have faced. In the summer of 2020, four members of the University of Warwick Conservative association were filmed singing and dancing to a Nazi propaganda song. That is completely unacceptable. The society was suspended, and disciplinary action was taken. Again, that is what a good response should look like: clear action, visible consequences and a message sent that such behaviour has no place on campuses. That is the reality: it is not just enough to say the right things and put policies and procedures in place; universities have to act, and those actions have to be applied consistently. When they do not act, the consequences can be quite serious.
My hon. Friend picks up the next point I want to make. Unfortunately, there have been cases, including at Warwick, where complaints of antisemitism have not been handled well and where those raising concerns have felt unsupported, and that creates a wider culture in which people hesitate to speak up. It may not even be about major incidents; it can be the drip, drip, drip of smaller things and their cumulative effect. Lecturers crossing the line in terms of their professional boundaries, protests that blur into hostility, or a sense that standards and processes are not applied equally to Jewish students—all of that feeds into whether a campus feels inclusive. However, we should recognise what works. Warwick has developed a strong, outward-facing Jewish community, and perhaps it is not by accident that the newly elected president of the Union of Jewish Students, Raphi Leon, came through Warwick himself. His focus on building connections across campus, rather than retreating into isolation, is exactly the kind approach universities should be supporting. We know from experiences at Warwick and other places what good practice broadly looks like. It means regular engagement with students and staff. It means clear and accessible reporting systems. It means proper support for chaplaincy and campus groups. Crucially, it means acting consistently and quickly when things go wrong. It should not be complicated, and there is guidance out there, including UJS’s recent “Best Practice Guidance” and “A Good Practice Guide”, published by Lord Mann and the all-party taskforce on antisemitism in higher education, which is supported by the excellent Antisemitism Policy Trust. The expectations are clear: universities have a duty under equality law to provide a safe environment for all students and staff. The issue is not whether universities can get this right once; it is whether they get it right consistently. In the end, it comes down to leadership. Where leadership is clear, we see confidence and inclusion; where we do not have clear leadership, we see confusion and a loss of trust. Our universities, of all places, should not be environments where people feel like they have to hold back who they are.
I welcome Baroness Valerie Amos’s review, and I thank her and her team for their commitment to this vital work. Once again, this review confronts us with a very uncomfortable but real truth. The reality is that this inquiry and the Donna Ockenden inquiry did not come about because of a system, NHS England or a regulatory authority; it came about because families have to keep on speaking up, over and over again, about one of the most horrific and traumatic things ever to happen. All the while, there is a culture within of mutual protection, and a code of silence, which has enabled some staff to shield each other from consequences. I welcome the recommendation on the national maternity and neonatal commissioner—a strong, independent voice with the power to challenge—but we know that one appointment alone will not solve the problems. We need fundamental reform of the wider system of oversight and accountability. Regulators, NHS bodies and inspection regimes must change. Reviews do not save lives, but action does. We need strong leadership; big, bold decision making; and a determination to implement change, rather than simply to recommend it.
I welcome that this Government are prioritising the delivery of our nuclear deterrent, including investment in not only the current but the all-important future submarine programmes. The shadow Secretary of State said it was too little, too late. The price that the Liberal Democrats demanded for the coalition Government of 2010 was not renewing our nuclear deterrent, and the Conservatives were happy to pay that price so, yes, they are really bloody late! Part of the cost of that decision is being paid by our submariners, forced to remain at sea for over 200 days in an ageing fleet. We have to be honest with the people of Great Britain: our food supply chains are being tested, our energy infrastructure is being mapped—
Our MOD is under a cyber-attack every day. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we told the public the truth, they would be more willing to go along with those difficult decisions?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) not only for securing the debate but for all the conversations we have had. She should never fear repeating the same message; it is important. She does a great job championing her community in this place; she has always sought to do so, in all the meetings I have had with her. I might add that she has also sought to be constructive, as she reflected in her opening remarks. Her constituents are not against the move to clean power, and know how important it is, but they recognise that there are impacts locally. That is a really important place to be on this issue. Communities that host nationally significant infrastructure obviously experience disruption and change, and that comes with real consequences. I understand the challenges that such infrastructure places on communities at a local level, and it is right that we not only take account of those concerns when they are raised but do everything we can to provide those people with the community benefits. They are hosting infrastructure on behalf of the nation, and they should benefit from that. This important debate also comes to the heart of the broader question facing the country, and why we have, as a Government, decided to move even further and faster to deliver the infrastructure that not only delivers economic growth and energy security, but gets us off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Infrastructure does matter, and I am not going to shirk away from making the argument that after a long period of not building the infrastructure this country needs, we have to build it. But communities have to be at the heart of that decision as well. It is great to see that some young people have joined us for the debate, because at the heart of our reason for building this infrastructure is the future of our planet, as well as our energy security right now. For decades, we have not done enough to tackle the climate crisis, but neither have we done enough to safeguard ourselves from the volatility of fossil fuels, which has put all our bills up year after year. That is what this is all about, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal absolutely supports that point. It is also an economic opportunity. Just last week, we hit the huge milestone of £100 billion of investment in clean energy since this Government came to office almost exactly two years ago. That is creating jobs and boosting our energy security. As I have said, every wind turbine, every solar panel, every nuclear power station and every bit of transmission line that we build helps to create a more secure and resilient energy system now and in future. I do not say that lightly, as if building those projects does not come at any cost for people locally. New infrastructure does mean difficult decisions, and there will always be local impacts. I fully recognise that will bring concerns for local residents, just as much as it brings huge opportunities nationally. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal powerfully outlined some examples of the impact of Sizewell C, one of the most important energy projects that we are building. The last time we built a nuclear power station in this country, I was not even born, so it is really important that we push forward on those projects. However, I recognise that the scale of Sizewell C has an impact on roads and local businesses. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend again to talk specifically about that point; I would also be happy to set up a meeting with her and the team at Sizewell C, because I know that they are also seized of the importance of getting this right. I should also say that this is partly why we have a rigorous planning system. All nationally significant infrastructure projects have to address the cumulative impacts to which my hon. Friend referred, and there are many opportunities for communities to have their say. I recognise that communities do not always feel that that is taken into account, but I say genuinely that it is taken into account. Projects have to demonstrate that they have considered the cumulative impact of other NSIPs as part of their process through the system. I have said that communities providing a service to the country by hosting this infrastructure have to benefit from it. We have already taken decisive steps to ensure that they have tangible and lasting benefits. For the first time ever, we have announced community benefits from network infrastructure: direct bill discounts for consumers, so that those closest to transmission lines and substation upgrades feel the benefit in their energy bills, but also wider community benefits, so that communities can benefit from funding. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other hon. Members raised a point about long-term, sustainable and really impactful benefits. My constituency is close to some of the biggest onshore wind farms in Europe, and in truth we have not seen the long-lasting community benefits that we might have seen. This is about trying to shift that, so that there are real investments in communities.
Let me come to both of those points. First, we are potentially confusing two different things. Community benefits for transmission infrastructure are mandatory; we have separately consulted on whether community benefits for wider energy projects should be mandatory, and we will respond to that consultation soon, because I recognise many of the points that have been made. What we do not want to do, though, is create one-size-fits-all solutions in Whitehall that will work differently in different communities. As a Minister, I do not want to sit here and say: “This is how your community benefit will work in your community.” Instead, I want to empower communities to figure out how that works best in their local area. I have seen models of that in all the visits that I have made across the country. The minimum standards should be there to make sure that the process is transparent, with communities and not developers in the driving seat, and that there is long-term certainty. I do not think that we should say that play parks and cycle paths are bad things to invest in, but there should be some long-term investments alongside them. I have seen some good examples, just in the past few weeks, of that being done well. We need to separate out those two things. I have wrestled with the cost point as well. In principle, I would like to see communities having even more community benefits, but we have to recognise that the cost of them will be borne by bill payers right across the country. The balance that we are trying to strike, as a Government determined to tackle the cost of living, is to have communities benefiting as much as they possibly can but without putting up bills significantly for all bill payers across the country, which would be a disproportionate impact at a time when the affordability crisis is our No. 1 priority.
I totally accept the hon. Member’s point, although the point has been rightly raised that the impact of building these projects is often felt by a much wider community, which is why the community benefits are wider. I should also say that we have to separate questions of compensation from questions of community benefit. Compensation is paid, as part of a process, to those who have been significantly disrupted or whose land has been changed in whatever way: that is a contractual negotiation between a landowner or resident and a developer, and it is not for the Government to intervene in it. Community benefits are about a much wider view of how these projects benefit the wider community. I take the point about the design of the community, which is really important. With something like the Sea Link offshore cable, it is sometimes hard to look at what the community around it would look like. We have wrestled with how to define it: there is a danger that if we have too broad a definition, the community benefit funds will not get to the people who would benefit most. There is probably more that we can do on that, and I am very open-minded about contributions from hon. Members on that point. On the level of benefit—I know that these points have been raised before—the electricity bill discount will give the people living closest to the infrastructure money off their bills. We are seeking to remind people that the more of this infrastructure we build, the fewer constraints we have on the grid and the more we can get cheap, clean power into homes and businesses and bring down bills for everyone. There is an impact beyond the projects themselves.
I take that point, to an extent, although being off the gas grid does not mean being off grid from electricity, so those people will benefit from cheaper electricity bills. I think that electrification is the answer, to support households off heating oil wherever possible. I know that that is not possible in every case, but there will be a lot of households that we can move away from heating oil, which protects them in the long term. We have also provided support for people on heating oil in the ongoing middle east crisis. We have produced a working paper and a call for evidence on community benefits, which we are going through at the moment. We are also going further around shared ownership of low-carbon infrastructure. This Government do not see this issue as being just about community benefits. It is also about how we get communities either owning the entirety of the infrastructure themselves and holding the wealth that is generated in their community, or at least owning a share in it. To their credit, in the Infrastructure Act 2015 the previous Government—although I suspect that they may not have realised this when they passed the Act—created a power to allow shared ownership. It was never enacted. We are now seeking to work out how to enact it so that communities can genuinely own a share. We know the difference that it makes: ownership matters, because it puts communities right in the driving seat when it comes to what they spend that money on. Whether they choose to make long-term or shorter-term decisions would be in their hands. That makes a hugely important difference to communities, as I have seen on visits.