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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim Dickson

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   I believe that the same case is being made strongly to Ministers on exactly that point by Members of all parties, not least Members on the Labour Benches—I have heard it being made myself. That really underscores how important devolution is. Every part of the country needs local powers and the ability to invest, which a foundation authority or a mayoral strategic authority gives. I wish the hon. Gentleman good luck with that, and I hope that it is made available to Gloucestershire as soon as possible. Devolution remains the right thing to do from both an economic and a democratic perspective, bringing decisions closer to people and giving our regions—Kent, in my case, but there are others across the House—more power over our future. I believe that residents in Dartford will welcome the measures in this Budget, not only for the short-term relief that they bring, but for the promises to keep our economy growing in a sustainable way into the future.

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

   Higher Education Funding

   I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the real challenges that our higher education institutions face. Does she agree that the difficult financial position universities are in is causing them to oversubscribe their courses, putting unsustainable pressures on their workforce, reducing the student experience and increasing financial instability as a result of that boom and bust?

   Hansard source
3. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

   Higher Education Funding

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate. Access to higher education can be life changing for young people. However, this opportunity is already harder to grasp for young people in Cornwall. Students face the high costs of travelling from remote, disconnected areas or, if they stay local, the high costs of private renting in a tourism-heavy region. Students across the south-west face the second highest monthly living costs in the UK, at £1,212 per month, which is only £114 less than London. These financial barriers directly impact whether young people pursue higher education. While the 2025 UK-wide entry rate for 18-year-olds was 36.3%, the rate in the south-west was joint lowest at 30%, and in Truro and Falmouth it was 27.2%, which is the lowest rate on record since 2016. Having universities close by with a variety of courses and offerings is key for young people in Cornwall to be able to access the higher education opportunities. HE is an investment in place, and nowhere more so than in Cornwall. It leads to economic growth, productivity and innovation, including higher wages, skills and regional development. There are ongoing funding concerns in relation to higher education institutions in Cornwall, and it is integral that support for these vital institutions is considered. Losing higher education opportunities there, especially with the campus that is across the border in the constituency <span id="147WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="147WH"></span>of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), means that Cornish students risk losing out on these opportunities. Falmouth University, which began in my constituency, offers traditional creative arts alongside technical and entrepreneurial courses and produces nearly 7,000 highly-skilled graduates each year. Tuition fee income does not meet the costs of delivering these degrees, particularly in creative and technical universities like Falmouth. That leaves universities with a difficult choice: sacrifice their core academic delivery for research investment or engage with more corporates. Government funding is cost-intensive to obtain and competitive, and frequent changes to Government funding models make it very hard to plan effectively. Specialist institutions like Falmouth are unevenly affected by those higher costs to secure fewer grants. Funding for these integral institutions cannot fall by the wayside. They offer local employment opportunities, produce wider economic benefits and give young people in Cornwall a tangible place to pin their aspirations. I welcome the Government’s reintroduction of funding for higher education through targeted, means-tested maintenance grants, which will support low-income students from deprived areas to access and excel in higher education. We need to ensure that funding for a diverse range of courses that allow young people to gain skills and access to new experiences is accessible, realistic and enables the higher education sector to continue to foster ambition in Truro and Falmouth, Cornwall, the south-west and across the UK.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

   Higher Education Funding

   Will the hon. Lady give way?

   Hansard source
5. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

   Higher Education Funding

   It is important to note that in the 1980s, only about 10% of people went to university. The Blair Government opened that up to 50% of the population, and that is worth putting on the record.

   Hansard source
6. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Janet Daby

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   Unlike the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), I commend and welcome today’s Budget. My contribution will be around cost of living support, care leavers’ support and NHS funding, in particular funding for sickle cell emergency bypass units. I put it on the record that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sickle cell and thalassaemia. I welcome that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have prioritised the cost of living. Since Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget, my constituents have faced high prices and rising interest rates. In 2023, an estimated 11.5% of my constituents were in fuel poverty, over 2% higher than the London average. As fuel costs rise, that figure can only increase. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s confirmation today that he is temporarily removing VAT on electricity bills this in winter. Further, the announcement of the £100 discount for council tax bands A to D means that most of my vulnerable constituents—in fact, over 45,000 of them—will benefit from that funding to help them stay warmer this winter. I also welcome the Chancellor’s help to make bills fairer by scrapping fees added to gas bills. That will all help people to maintain a decent standard of living.<span id="394" class="column-number" data-column-number="394"></span> That leads me on to care leavers, who are some of our nation’s most vulnerable young people. Some of them face life’s highest barriers. The Nuffield Foundation found that 40% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were NEETs, compared with 30% among the same age group in the general population. The Children’s Commissioner found that 25% of care leavers experienced homeless in the first two years of leaving care. I ask the Treasury to consider care leavers aged 18 to 24 living independently, who receive the same benefit rate as other people aged under 25. Most under-25s live at home, yet both groups receive the same rate of benefit. I ask the Chancellor to work with the Department for Work and Pensions to consider paying care leavers the rate of benefits for the over-25s to support them with their independent living. The other issue is that care leavers who are in work often experience in-work poverty because of the rent and bills that they have to pay. The information from the Chancellor today helps care leavers, but there is still more to do. I cannot but mention the Bakerloo line, which I was pleasantly surprised to hear mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech. I thank the Chancellor for backing the Bakerloo line coming to south-east London. His announcement will allow the Mayor of London to retain income tax receipts, which will allow him to invest in this vital infrastructure project in Lewisham and south-east London to improve transport links. That will have a positive impact on our economy. I also welcome the £37 billion spend on our NHS. The Chancellor spoke of spending £37 billion more on health next year compared with the last year of the last Conservative Government, and I applaud that. We need to do more to bring down NHS A&amp;E waiting lists and get rid of corridor care, to name a few things, but I wish to focus on the benefits of funding for specialised health services—namely, sickle cell bypass units. There are currently seven such units in total in London and in the north of England, one of which is at my local hospital in Lewisham. I have spoken to the amazing staff and seen the provision of care there. Sickle cell disorder is the fastest growing genetic condition in the UK. Around 19,000 people live with it, and roughly 250 babies are born with it each year. It causes sudden and excruciating pain. More needs to be done to ensure that we fund the right provisions and units to ensure that that provision continues for people who have sickle cell disorder. I ask the Government to carry on working to ensure that sickle cell bypass units continue to be provided in those seven places and are more spread out across the country.

   Hansard source
7. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

   Higher Education Funding

   My hon. Friend will be aware of there being around 600 job cuts at the University of Nottingham. There have been alternative proposals from staff—120 in total—but the impact will be significant. What has been noticeable in my conversations with the university is the emphasis on commercial elements, whether that is covenants, 30 days’ access to cash or access to a revolving credit facility. Does she agree that that emphasis has gone too far? We have forgotten what the public benefit of universities is, and the Government and universities need to reflect on that.

   Hansard source
8. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

   Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing this incredibly important debate and raising these issues, both in the Chamber and outside of it with me and others in the weeks preceding the debate. I start, as many have, by paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent Sian, who is here today. She has shown extraordinary courage in fighting to make sure that the death of her daughter, Keely, was not in vain, and to make changes to improve the country for others. We should applaud her for that. It is not easy, and it is hugely admirable. I want to apologise Sian, too, because she wrote to me, through her Member of Parliament, and did not receive a prompt response. There has been an error in my office. That is unacceptable, and I am <span id="185WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="185WH"></span>getting to the bottom of it. I look forward to meeting her later today, hopefully to talk about the substantive issue, but also to apologise to her personally. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean). I met him and the Watermans, and it is good to see Derek and Sue here again today. After that meeting, I committed to raise the specific issues of their campaign and the tragic death of Jess with the then Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I did so in writing and then met her, her officials and her special advisers, who are political appointees in the Department for Transport, to make sure that those issues are really high on the agenda as the Government’s strategy on road safety comes into force. There is more that we can do; this is work in progress. The Roads Minister has changed since then, but I have also met the current Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders)—indeed, because of the debate today, I wrote to him again this morning—to make sure that the campaigns and issues we are talking about are right at the top of his agenda. I am not trying to duck the issues raised during the debate, but some of them are for the Department for Transport. I will try to address as many of them as possible and, of course, to deal with the sentencing aspects, but if I cannot address an issue, I will make sure that the Member who raised it gets a written response from the Roads Minister, who deals with some of the road safety issues.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

   Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

   Critically, it is not for my Department to consider it, but the Department for Transport is certainly looking at it and is alive to the international evidence that has been raised by a number of Members. I cannot get ahead of what the Roads Minister will set out, but I will make sure that he has heard the contributions to this debate. I thank hon. Members from all parties for raising difficult cases, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). I was not aware of the work that Debbie has done around Lillie’s tragic death, so it was very moving to hear about that, and particularly about the café, which so many people will enjoy in her memory. I am very happy to meet Debbie if that would be helpful to her—or, indeed, I will get the Roads Minister to meet her if that would be more beneficial.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    I look forward to Debbie marching into my office. Victims do not want to meet with a conveyor belt of Ministers from all different Departments. It is important that we have those meetings, because it is important that victims are heard and it is important for us to understand that behind every statistic in every paper we get to read in our ministerial boxes is a human life and a human tragedy, and I look forward to meeting her in due course, but what victims want is action. I hope that as I develop my speech, she will be reassured that we are taking these issues seriously and taking action. Many other Members, some of whom made interventions and are longer here, raised important cases. It struck me, having been a Member of Parliament for only just over two years, that MPs get exposed to aspects of our country that normal citizens perhaps do not, and one of them is the prevalence and tragedy of road deaths. MPs are often notified if there has been an accident or if a criminal offence committed on our roads has led to a serious injury or death, and that happens far too regularly in our country. When you meet the families, as I have done in my Rother Valley constituency, it stays with you. I am determined to play my role to try to bring about safer roads. I turn to the sentencing framework, because there has been some conflation of death by careless driving and death by dangerous driving. I am certainly not trying to educate Members, but it is my responsibility to set out the regime as it is today. Hon. Members know that sentencing within the framework that is set out in legislation is rightly a matter for the independent courts. Judges consider the facts of each case, weigh up any aggravating and mitigating factors, and follow relevant Sentencing Council guidelines before arriving at a sentence that is just and proportionate. Some of the issues that have emerged in this debate are perhaps less about sentencing—although some certainly are about sentencing—than about the charging decision. I discussed this with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford and the Watermans. The CPS charging decision—the decision about what offence a defendant is charged with—is, and obviously should be, made independently of the Government, but the victims need to be involved in that decision. I am not saying that the CPS should do what they say, but it should involve them and communicate and engage with them. Too often, I meet victims of road traffic offences and other offences who simply have not been engaged with at all. I am talking to the Victims Minister to ensure that the CPS, where it can and where it is appropriate, is communicating with victims to make sure that the charging decision is the right one. The law must reflect both the harm caused and how responsible the offender was for causing it, because while two drivers can cause the same terrible outcome, they may have done so through very different actions. That does not, of course, make one family’s loss any less than another’s, but the law has to distinguish between those different levels of blame. Let me turn to the offences themselves. The most serious driving offence is causing death by dangerous driving. That is where someone’s driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and where the danger should have been obvious. We are talking here about things such as excessive speed, racing and dangerous overtaking. For offences committed since <span id="187WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="187WH"></span>June 2022, as mentioned by the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is now life imprisonment. There is also a minimum five-year driving disqualification and a compulsory extended driving test before an offender can return to the road. Those are tough penalties, and rightly so. They give judges the power to impose the most serious punishment in the very worst cases. There is also the offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. That covers driving that falls below the expected standard but does not reach the higher threshold for dangerous driving. The maximum sentence is a five-year imprisonment, alongside a minimum 12-month driving ban. I raise the issue of the CPS because, of course, what the defendant is charged with is what the judge and the court can deal with. The charging decision is often just as important to get right for victims, families and wider society as the final sentencing, which then may not seem fair or sufficient to victims. The distinction between dangerous and careless driving is really important in our law, although of course I recognise that it is difficult for grieving families to accept that when, clearly, the loss they have suffered is exactly the same. I want to deal with some of the specifics that have been raised in the debate, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, about driving disqualification and whether there should be automatic disqualification—I think the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) also raised that. That is part of live discussions that I have had with the Department for Transport. It strikes me—I am very happy to put this on the record—that I have come across too many cases where driving disqualification is not taken seriously as part of the punishment. Often, a ban runs concurrently with a prison sentence, so there is the absurd situation that someone obviously cannot drive while they are in prison, and then they get out and they have never had any disqualification from driving at all. I raised this issue in a meeting with the chair of the Sentencing Council; perhaps it was after the meeting with the Watermans that I raised it personally with the chair. I am not breaching any state secrets when I say that she was not persuaded, but I have asked the Sentencing Council to look again. The DFT is looking at the evidence to ensure that we have evidence-based policy, and I will continue pushing to see how we can ensure the judiciary use driving disqualification in a more muscular fashion. The judiciary has the power to act. In this case, there is an issue about automating, but the judiciary has the power to implement lifelong driving bans, yet too often they seem not to be considered. I am not criticising our independent judges—I would never do that—but we must consider what we need to do as a Government and as a Parliament, while also considering the Sentencing Council’s role, in pushing this issue forward.

    Hansard source
11. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Parliament could pass a law to introduce an automatic driving ban, but I think he was referring to a ban after conviction for dangerous driving. Automating such a ban before conviction would be more complex. There is a general principle. As a Government, like Governments before us, we try to allow judicial discretion. Every case is different. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point; I am not trying to hide from the argument. The judges have the power. We need to get and understand the evidence on how often they use it and why they are not using it. Legislating to force judges’ hands can lead to further absurdities and injustices in very different ways. We allow judicial discretion because every case is different, but as I say, I accept the point.

    Hansard source
12. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    The hon. Lady is right to raise the duration of the period before trial or conviction; too often, it is far too long, but solving this problem is not as straightforward as potentially suspending someone immediately after the event. As she is no doubt aware, often very complex investigations have to take place. Of course, suspension can be a bail condition, and I am trying to assess why in too many cases it is not used. I remember a case raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), in which someone had been bailed for causing death by dangerous driving—I think that is correct. They immediately got in a car and were convicted of drunk driving just a few hours later. That is absurd. More generally, we have to start taking driving offences, whether they are low level or high level, more seriously. The road safety strategy seeks to do that, and we want to get on with it. I am pushing the Roads Minister to work with me to make sure that seriousness of these offences is reflected in sentencing guidelines as much as possible. As well as sentencing, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West spoke about graduated driving licensing. I hope I have dealt with that issue; it is on the agenda. It is very much a DFT issue, so I do not want to comment too much on it. On sentencing guidelines, I am in a constitutional dialogue with the Sentencing Council on lots of issues and that is one of them. I will be careful what else I say about it, but I am very much alive to it. I am also very alive to the ULS scheme. The Law Commission is working on the ULS scheme, as my hon. Friend no doubt knows from his time working with the Law Officers. We need to assess whether death by <span id="189WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="189WH"></span>careless driving should be added to the list of offences that can be considered under the scheme. I can commit today to doing that.

    Hansard source
13. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    I am happy to write to the Law Commission to ask whether to consider that specific issue. I am going to consider it anyway. I want the Law Commission to do it—evidence would be helpful—but we will work with the Attorney General’s office to do that none the less. There will no doubt be some effects to that, but let us see what we can do. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked last about prevention. Again, at its heart the road safety strategy tries to reach its 65% reduction target by through prevention. There is a serious amount of investment. This is the first road safety strategy in a decade, and it is backed with, I think, £18 million in prevention work, which is not an insignificant sum. We would like to do more, but I know that my hon. Friend the Roads Minister will work hard. In terms of other questions from Members about the road safety strategy more generally, it is not my strategy, so it is difficult for me to comment on timings and when that will be. I will ask my hon. Friend the Roads Minister to write to Members who have raised specific questions and make sure that my office gets in touch with him on that.

    Hansard source
14. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    The hon. Lady raises a wider point about defendant conduct during a criminal investigation and how that should be taken into account in the sentencing. There are mechanisms by which that is done already. The judge considers a large number of factors, including whether the defendant has taken responsibility for their actions. If they have undertaken a “no comment” interview consistently, and simply not engaged with the criminal investigation process, that should be taken into account in sentencing.

    Hansard source
15. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    I think the Lord Chancellor announced last week further action on getting defendants to face up to their actions as much as is possible. Frankly, that is what we are talking about. We cannot force a defendant to give answers if they do not want to, but that can <span id="190WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="190WH"></span>certainly be reflected in the sentencing regime, and it is reflected in the sentencing regime. If there are any other suggestions about how we can go further, I would be more than happy to hear from the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, as a member of the Justice Committee. She always gives me the signal that she will write to me, and I look forward to responding to her in due course.

    Hansard source
16. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    No. Too often, families feel let down by the justice system in lots of different ways, whether by the final sentence, by the way they were treated, or, in the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West raises, by misinformation being given about options at the end. That can cause huge damage. I am not criticising the individuals in that case; they are hard-working individuals and it is a complex area of law. We just need to get some of the basics right to make the system as amenable as humanly possible for victims when they are navigating the most traumatic time in their lives. Too often it is not. I accept that point in relation to sentences as well. We are in a complex constitutional relationship. I am not going to criticise independent judges or the sentences given in any individual case—it would be wrong of me to do so—but I accept that too often victims feel that justice has not been done. When I knock on doors in my constituency, road safety is top of my constituents’ priority list, and that is the case in so many places, especially in rural villages, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West said. There is a real disconnect between the prioritisation of road safety and how often we talk about it in this place. If we can all do our bit to raise these issues—with me, but also across Government—we will be doing a service to the country and even more so to victims. I thank everyone here today, particularly those in the Public Gallery. I look forward to continuing this discussion and to taking action in the coming weeks and months.

    Hansard source
17. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Imran Hussain

    The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Like other colleagues, I welcome these important regulations. They strengthen our firm commitment to international humanitarian law and make it clear that there will be consequences for those who breach those laws. I also welcome the wider change in direction announced by the Foreign Secretary recently. However, as has been made clear, the regulations are only enabling powers. They do not in themselves sanction a single individual or company. The real test will be how effectively Ministers use the regulations. The predecessor regulations were used very effectively, and continue to be, with widespread sanctions against Russia. We must now see these regulations, with their widened scope, used for widespread sanctions against Israel for its war crimes and breach of international humanitarian law. Again, I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged the unlawful occupation, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the west bank by settler terrorists, and the increasing evidence of war crimes in Gaza. We must now act to stop the war crimes. It is clear that we cannot continue to allow the people, companies and institutions sustaining them to retain access to British finance and markets without consequences. To be clear, we cannot stop at a handful of sanctions against violent settlers or apply them only to future expansions. The existing settlement system is unlawful and sustained by a wider machinery: Ministers and state bodies, banks, construction and property companies, and technology companies providing surveillance, used daily against Palestinians. I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister. Will he make it clear that these powers target those maintaining existing settlements, as well as those expanding them? The E1 bids can be opened from 19 November, yet no E1-related designations had been announced as of yesterday. Will he confirm that designation cases are being prepared by the Government and that the Government will act before the tender advances any further? Will he confirm that banks, contractors, technology companies and others involved in supporting the E1 project and the wider settlement enterprise will be included? Will the Minister also confirm that the new powers will be used against those responsible for and involved in obstructing humanitarian aid to Gaza? Will he confirm—this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson)—that the new powers will be used against those who are involved in the serious and arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention of Palestinian children? Can he also set out the timetable for all of the above? Once again, I am very grateful to you, Mr Stringer.

    Hansard source
18. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Lavery

    Rugby League Clubs

    I congratulate my hon. Friend for securing this important debate to Westminster Hall. My constituency, Blyth and Ashington, is well renowned for some world-class sportsmen—as it is commonly said, “You shout down the pit shaft, and world-class sportsmen will emerge.” Given my hon. Friend’s great wisdom and knowledge of rugby league, I wonder if he could say why, despite it being a traditionally working-class sport and despite the many opportunities, rugby league has not flourished areas such as mine in working-class Northumberland.

    Hansard source
19. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Byrne

    The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. First I want to pay tribute to Father Bashar, a Palestinian priest who spoke so movingly this afternoon about his experiences of settler violence in his town of Taybeh in the west bank. What he said about what people were living through was extremely moving. I welcome the Government’s regulations to extend our sanctions framework to serious violations of international humanitarian law. The Foreign Secretary rightly warned businesses on 19 October not to accept tenders relating to the expansion of illegal settlements in the E1 area of the west bank. Yet, as I understand it, the UK sanctions list shows no new designations connected to that warning since the regulations came into force. The warnings will only be as strong as the action that follows. The regulations we are discussing today give the Foreign Secretary the power to enforce his calls. I raise that in the context of charities. It has been reported that a UK charity gave around £5.7 million between 2017 and 2021 to a school in an illegal settlement in the occupied west bank. Further reporting has identified UK charitable funds reaching organisations that pursue settlement expansion. The British public give to charity in good faith and do not expect their generosity to finance the occupation of the west bank, which the British Government recognise as unlawful. I ask the Minister for three clear commitments. First, will the Government work with the Charity Commission to issue guidance so that trustees know what due diligence is expected, to avoid funding organisations or people directly or indirectly involved in enforcing the illegal occupation of the west bank? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that UK individuals, businesses and charities financing or supporting settlement activity can be considered for designation where the legal criteria are met? Thirdly, will he set out how the Government will investigate evidence of charitable funding supporting serious human rights violations, and will he act on that evidence and report back to Parliament? Every designation must meet the legal test, but under the standard procedure, the test is reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved. A criminal conviction is not required. We cannot condemn illegal settlements while failing to confront the money that sustains them. The Government have rightly strengthened their powers. What Parliament, charities, businesses and, above all, the Palestinian people now need to know is when the powers will be used.

    Hansard source
20. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    Higher Education Funding

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this really <span id="155WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="155WH"></span>important debate. She is a passionate advocate for these issues: she has chaired the APPG on students and has regularly raised issues related to universities and students, and from her speech we heard how thoughtful and knowledgeable she is on these issues. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) for her characteristically thoughtful speech. She called for a wider debate, discussion and focus on these issues, and we have had a very important debate today. We have heard the range of expertise in the Chamber, from lecturers to others who have real experience of working in universities, and about the range of decades when everyone went to university—I cannot believe that anyone here looks old enough to have gone to university under Margaret Thatcher. We should rightly be proud of our world-class higher education sector, which remains, by any objective metric, one of our nation’s greatest exports and a global beacon of intellectual excellence. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) that the UK’s university sector includes four of the world’s top 10 universities, of which we can be very proud. It contributes more than £265 billion to the UK and supports more than 750,000 jobs. In my work as Schools Minister, I get to see directly the contribution that universities make to places and how integrated they are in local innovation, support and access. I have spent quite a bit of time in Sheffield and have seen the contribution that the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University make to the local area, whether through their pioneering work on opening up participation to university or some of their wider research: Sheffield Innovation Spine, the work that Sheffield Hallam University is doing on early years and Sheffield Children’s University, and the work that the University of Sheffield is doing on adult social care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) was talking, I was reflecting on being in Sunderland two weeks ago, where we are working on Mission North East, and the role that Sunderland University is playing in partnership to support better outcomes for children in the area. The Government are committed to maintaining a world-class higher education sector that delivers for students, our society and the economy. We of course recognise that the sector’s financial environment is challenging. The sector is rightly independent from Government, with providers managing their finances and ensuring that their business models provide long-term sustainability. However, I recognise the long-term challenges that many Members have raised and the strain that we saw over the last decade, including the legacy of seven years of frozen tuition fees. Universities have had to deal with the issues caused by that.

    Hansard source
21. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    Higher Education Funding

    Of course, I always support greater funding for education and young people, but I was just about to talk about some of the changes the Government are making to support sustainability. After they were frozen for eight years, we increased tuition fee caps in line with inflation for 2025-26. We will increase them once again in line with forecast inflation in 2026-27 and in 2027-28. We will then legislate when parliamentary time allows to increase tuition fee caps automatically for future academic years. Over the coming year, that is £6 billion-worth of safeguarded indexed increase in income underpinned by the Government, which will make a real difference. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central asked about the Government’s vision for universities. We have set out an ambitious programme of reform through the post-16 education and skills White Paper, with a clear vision for a more sustainable and collaborative higher education sector. We want providers to be clear about their distinctive roles but to be working in collaboration. My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of research. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) talked about the pioneering research on prostate cancer at East Anglia. Research is a critical role that universities play. The Government are investing a record £86 billion in R&amp;D from 2026-27 to 2029-30; as part of that, UK Research and Innovation will deliver an expected £38.6 billion of research investment, rising to nearly £10 billion per year by the end of that period. In the Department for Education, we are working closely with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to deliver the White Paper’s commitments, which include research funding reform and improvements to research grant cost recovery. We heard from almost all the Members who spoke in the debate about the importance of opening up access and ensuring that young people who want to go to university can always pursue that route. That is why we do not support the Conservatives’ proposals, which would pull up the drawbridge because they are about reducing the number of young people going to university. We know that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds will be the ones who do not get that opportunity.

    Hansard source
22. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    Higher Education Funding

    We want two thirds of young people to participate in higher-level learning, whether that is going to university, pursuing an apprenticeship or a technical route. We see all of those as deeply connected.

    Hansard source
23. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    Higher Education Funding

    I regularly talk to colleagues across the four nations, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Baroness Smith, does the same. It is very important that we have that spirit of learning. Those different routes are deeply connected. We think that the relationship between higher education and the Department is important, particularly on supporting outcomes for young people and as we think about how we respond to the changing nature of education, the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement and long-term flexible learning. We want people to have access to education throughout their lives.

    Hansard source
24. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    Higher Education Funding

    No, I must make progress. The lifelong learning entitlement will transform the student finance system, giving people flexible access to high-quality education throughout their working lives. From January 2027, for the first time learners will be able to use their entitlement to fund individual modules as well as full courses at levels 4 to 6 at colleges, universities and independent providers. A number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), raised the issue of international students and support for them. I want to be clear: international students are welcome in the UK. They enrich our campuses and communities, and are ambassadors for this country long after they graduate. They made a vital contribution of £12.7 billion in fee income in 2023-24—almost a quarter of the sector’s income, as other Members said. The new international education strategy confirms our commitment to welcoming students who meet the requirements to study here. A range of questions were asked about the international student levy. That is part of a wider package that also includes inflation-linked fee rises, and it is important to stress that every penny it raises will be reinvested in higher education and skills—including new maintenance grants for disadvantaged students, which many hon. Members raised, to remove some of the barriers around the cost of studying. We know how important those are. The levy is simple and proportionate: a flat £925 fee per international student per year from 2028-29, paid for by providers with an allowance of 220 students each. We listened to the sector; the flat fee is equivalent to around 4% of international fee income, down from the 6% first <span id="158WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="158WH"></span>provided. To answer the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) and others, we will publish an updated impact assessment ahead of the Finance Bill. I was asked a number of questions about the pressure that many students are facing, including from my friends from Cornwall, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). We know that cost of living pressures have hit students hard. The previous Government removed maintenance grants and the real-term value of loan support for students fell by almost 20% between 2020 and 2024. We are taking action to put that right. We are introducing a targeted maintenance grant from 2028-29 of up to £1,000 a year for disadvantaged students on top of their loan, putting cash in their pockets without adding to their debt. The new grants will support students from low-income households studying full-time courses, which is in line with the Government’s mission and industrial strategy. We are future-proofing maintenance loans by increasing them in line with forecast inflation every year, with the biggest cash increase going to students from the lowest-income families. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen raised the issue of student loans, and I want to address that in the time that remains to me. As we have heard from across the Chamber today, giving those who want it and have the ability the chance to study in higher education changes lives. We are determined to support students who want to go to university to fulfil their aspirations. We cannot lose sight of the value that student loans provide in enabling that and levelling the playing field at the point of access. They remove that upfront financial barrier to studying and enable students to repay when they are earning. We inherited a student loan system that is not working as fairly as it should, and we recognise that some students and graduates feel the impact of that. We are making the tough but necessary decisions to deliver a fairer and more sustainable system. We increased the plan 2 thresholds in 2025—its first increase since 2021—and we again raised the plan 2 repayment threshold in April, to £29,385. We have also capped interest rates for plan 2 and plan 3 loans at 6% for the academic year 2026-27. There are a whole range of very important discussions that came up today. I know that myself— <em>Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).</em>

    Hansard source
25. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Thomas

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). Perhaps because of the time limit, he did not dwell on the dismal economic inheritance that the Government were left by the Conservatives, which we are still having to contend with—huge national debt, public services starved of investment, and dismal levels of productivity and growth. It is encouraging that we are the joint fastest-growing economy in the G7, according to the OECD; that the IMF has lauded this Government’s efforts to tackle the national debt; and that unemployment is down. But the Chancellor is right that, with the war between Iran and the US driving economic uncertainty and pushing up inflation, there is still much more to do to help family finances and tackle more of the long-term challenges our country faces. I welcome, in particular, the Budget’s focus on the cost of living and the support for families with their energy bills. One of the most pressing long-term challenges that our country faces is how ambitious we want to be in resetting our relationship with our European allies. Made in Europe is the canary in the coalmine—the warning that the more distant we get from Europe, the more vulnerable British jobs dependent on European export orders will become. In the European Union our voices would be louder, our reach would go further and our economic security would be more assured. I recognise that my constituents will want to know the costs as well as the benefits of rejoining, so I very much welcome the Government’s appetite to have that honest debate. This time, however, there should be a plan B. An “all or nothing” choice to go in or not would be even more irresponsible than the Cameroons’ failure to prepare for the possibility of exit a decade ago. So the reset must deliver more. Greater access to the single market, of the sort the Swiss have, and a uniquely British deal, but one recognisable to our allies in Europe, would bring substantial economic gains, albeit not the full benefits of rejoining. On some of the specific measures in the Budget, I welcome very much the focus on small businesses and the sensible measures that the Chancellor set out, but we need to go further: to offer better access to capital, to help small businesses find new export markets, and to explore offering tax relief to help SMEs hire those who are not in education, employment or training.<span id="391" class="column-number" data-column-number="391"></span> Securing affordable finance to grow a small business remains significantly difficult for many firms. It is a sustained market failure, with a gap of up to £4 billion holding back growth, and it is particularly acute for businesses outside the south-east, and for women, disabled and ethnic minority entrepreneurs. That market failure is made even more acute by high-cost credit firms offering easy-to-get loans without real affordability checks or clarity on annual interest rates, and often those who broker such loans are not open about the commission they charge. This is the payday lending scandal over again, with entrepreneurs and small-business owners being exploited. The further investment announced for the British Business Bank is welcome, but it needs to drive a sustained expansion of community banks, or community development finance institutions. They must build capacity jointly with big banks such as Santander, Barclays and HSBC, which invest in community banks in the US, but as yet not in the UK. There is a neglected sector of the business community that exists not to make a profit for shareholders but to serve a social purpose, and it is crucial to delivering sustainable growth in every postcode. Those co-operative and mutual businesses do not charge the highest prices and they often cannot secure traditional bank finance, but they exist to achieve social goals for the communities in which they operate.

    Hansard source
26. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Thomas

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point about the need to do more to expand credit unions. It is for such businesses, and the communities that would benefit from other co-operatives and mutuals, that Labour Members committed to put in place policies to double the size of the co-operative sector. We now need to see enacted the capital reforms drawn up by the Law Commission, which would unlock significant investment from capital markets, crucially without requiring a co-operative or mutual business to have to sell up and demutualise. We should look at using the corporate tax regime to encourage investment in those third sector businesses. Why cannot the bigger co-operative businesses be allowed to offset some of their corporation tax liabilities if they invest in co-op development funds that help bloody minded co-operative entrepreneurs to bring the hopes and ambitions of their communities to life? Finally, I welcome the investment in public services in my constituency that the Budget locks in. New investment in primary care in Harrow, for example at Alexandra Avenue clinic, will unlock another 100,000 face-to-face appointments with a GP, nurse or other health professional. A new state-of-the-art GP surgery and, over time, a neighbourhood health centre is coming at the White House in Harrow College in central Harrow. Work is under way to plan further investment in other local medical centres, and more than £27 million has been given by the Government to invest in new special needs <span id="392" class="column-number" data-column-number="392"></span>places across the borough. Vital funding for electrical and safety repairs has been invested at Rooks Heath high school, Whitefriars school, Nower Hill school, Bentley Wood high school, Hatch End high school and Earlsmead school. It is proof that this Government are delivering for the people of my constituency.

    Hansard source
27. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Snell

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Given that he raised the issue, could the hon. Gentleman set out by how much he thinks the minimum wage should be cut?

    Hansard source
28. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

    Economic Growth

    <Question HRSContentId="{8F5F1A6C-340E-4D02-9584-6A80E15C943D}">3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{6044B1F3-50D2-472B-BB00-82BB4C3CFAAB}">What steps he has taken with Cabinet colleagues to support economic growth in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
29. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

    Economic Growth

    I welcome my hon. Friend to her place on the Front Bench. To deliver good growth in my area, the reindustrialisation of the Grangemouth industrial cluster is essential. We must take steps to include Grangemouth in the strategic sites accelerator, unlock a final investment decision in the Acorn project and take concerted action to secure and reutilise the Syngenta site when the company withdraws next December. What action is my hon. Friend taking, alongside departmental colleagues, to enable the reindustrialisation of Grangemouth?

    Hansard source
30. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    I remind Members that they should not speak about any live or ongoing court cases or inquests.

    Hansard source
31. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    HCRG Care Group: Performance in the South-west

    I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. I call Sarah Gibson to move the motion.

    Hansard source
32. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    HCRG Care Group: Performance in the South-west

    Order. Will the hon. Member refrain from shouting out, please?

    Hansard source
33. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    If possible, could our final two Back-Bench contributors keep to five minutes each, so that we can hear from the Front Benchers?

    Hansard source
34. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    I call Wendy Morton to sum up, if you can do it in a few seconds.

    Hansard source
35. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Resilience

    I will do my best to croak my way through the rest of the debate. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) for securing this really important debate. It was heartening that there was so much I found myself nodding along with as she was speaking. I know that the emotional and financial impact of flooding can be devastating on families and businesses. Like the hon. Lady, I have spoken to many people who have been affected by floods, including farmers whose crops have been damaged. I have also seen and heard from communities affected by flooding. It is not just about the economic impact, but about the impact on their mental health and wellbeing. The scars of flooding remain for a long time after the floodwaters recede. I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s points about climate change. The situation now is that 81% of the country in drought, but we saw some flooding just last week—and one area that is in drought had a flood as well. We are dealing with the impact of climate change, which is absolutely here and now. On a slightly different note, I find it frustrating that some parties in the House do not seem to accept that climate change is both real and here. Luckily, I can look around the Chamber and see that nobody in here currently does so, which is positive. As the hon. Lady said, this year may be especially challenging because we are expecting a strong El Niño, with an increased likelihood of wetter and stormier conditions across the UK during autumn and winter. We are better prepared this year than we were last, and last year we were better prepared than we were the year before. That is partly because of the number of flood defences we have been able to build successfully and partly because we have been able to restore and <span id="410" class="column-number" data-column-number="410"></span>maintain more of our flood defences. It is also because with the original floods taskforce, after each episode of flooding each winter, we wanted to do some honest lessons learned on what worked, what did not and what we could do better and set up that cycle of continuous improvement; the hon. Lady was right on that. I am therefore pleased that now, through the flood and drought resilience taskforce, we are thinking about this together. I fully agreed with the hon. Lady on how the things that help with drought help with flooding as well. If the soil can retain more moisture, that helps with drought in the summer—that helps with groundwater levels—but it will also absorb more water when there is a flood. It was interesting that the hon. Lady mentioned the Netherlands. Just last week, I met someone and talked to them about their regional planning and—exactly as the hon. Lady said—how they look at a region and decide what is the best intervention to take in that area. We are looking to introduce a regional approach for water in this country. That is what is on my mind—what is the best answer? Water pollution has not been mentioned in the debate, but we know that too much rainwater ending up in the system can create overflows. If we have areas where we can hold more water—this adds to why we should be doing this and why it is a good thing—that helps to decrease pollution. Of course, I have huge admiration for Flood Mary, who is a wonderful person; I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady on that. The flood recovery framework is run by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s remarks are heard by the relevant Minister. The existing flood resilience taskforce, which I have already mentioned, is all about how we prepare not only for more frequent periods of increased rainfall but frequent periods of low rainfall, looking at those two sides of the same coin. As the hon. Lady said, the eighth wettest winter in England since 1836 was followed in some parts of the country by the driest summer in a century. That brings the challenges together. My focus at the moment is how we take the rain as it falls, and when it falls, how we use it to fill up our reservoirs so we are in the best possible position for March. It is also about how we make it easier for farmers. I am interested in what the hon. Lady mentioned about the work that her farmers are doing in their area. There is a great scheme by a water abstraction group in another part of the country, and it is absolutely one way to go forward. We have brought more people into the taskforce than ever before, and as the hon. Lady mentioned, some of the action groups are taking away specific actions. I know the hon. Lady was on the Environmental Audit Committee, and one of the things that we have taken from the recommendations in the Committee’s report, which was a really good piece of work, was about how we create that one-stop shop for information. We have launched Flood Action online, which is about helping communities to understand their flood risk and to look for flood information. It would be so helpful if colleagues around the Chamber could help share that and get that information out. While I am asking everyone for favours, the Priority Services Register helps to identify people who are vulnerable and who would need water in <span id="411" class="column-number" data-column-number="411"></span>case of an outage, because flooding can cause problems with water supply—anything on that would be super helpful. We have changed the rules on investment. I know that the hon. Lady and I agree on our love of nature-based solutions and slowing the flow, which is a win for everybody. I was pleased to hear that there are some in her area as well. We are talking about a minimum level of investment, so the only thing I would correct my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on is that it is not just a small amount of money that is going in; it is a minimum amount. We set it as a minimum because we want to encourage people to use more nature-based solutions where possible. The pushback I get is that it is not always suitable. Of course, it is not always suitable everywhere, but I think where we can, let us let nature do what it does best. If that helps slow the flow and creates and supports biodiversity, surely we can all get behind it. While I have the Floor, and I am able to, I will talk a little bit about what we have been doing. After more than a decade of under-investment by the previous Government, we have invested £2.65 billion in our first two years, delivered real change, stabilised the condition of existing defences and done 250 flood defence projects, with new and improved defences coming online. The hon. Lady is right again: the money that we have put into that will prevent an estimated £10 billion in economic damage, provide communities with better protection, restore pride in our towns and defend valuable farmland from regular flooding. Earlier this year, we announced our 10-year flood and coastal erosion investment programme, which will benefit 200,000 properties over the next three years. The targets are ambitious, but I am proud to get behind them. The programme is forecast to generate more than £27 billion of avoided economic damage, so I think that is pretty good for an investment of £7.9 billion. I think I should have mentioned that earlier in front of the Chancellor, but I will keep mentioning it—almost £7 of benefit for every £1 invested. The Environment Agency continues to work with Herefordshire council and the River Lugg internal drainage board to reduce that risk faced by local communities. I am aware of the £276,000 investment in a new hydraulic model of the River Wye to improve the evidence base for future investment planning and development decisions along the river.<span id="412" class="column-number" data-column-number="412"></span> Turning to house building, although the hon. Lady knows that I am not directly responsible for it, I will reiterate the Government’s stance. The Government are committed to building the homes the country needs while ensuring they are resilient and safe from flooding, and a consultation on the new national planning policy framework concluded recently. The updated policy clarifies how key flood risk tests should be applied and strengthens policies relating to coastal risk. Policy remains clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas of highest risk. Where development is necessary in areas at risk of flooding, permission should be granted only if it can be demonstrated that the development will be safe for its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Additionally, the NPPF now requires sustainable drainage systems in new developments, designed to the national standards. I am pleased that the hon. Lady also mentioned property flood resilience, which is another of my favourite things. The “FloodReady” report was published in October last year, with 22 recommendations and 50 supporting actions across six themes. We are looking at how we can move this forward and keep meeting regularly with the leadership group to see where we can make this something that is considered more of a normal part of something people do every day. The chair now sits on the flood resilience groups, which is really positive as well. This Government are committed to strengthening resilience to flooding, not only to keep people safe but to support economic growth in rural and local communities across the country. By protecting businesses, reducing disruption and safeguarding jobs, these measures contribute to stability and growth in the face of increased climate change and flood risk. The Government’s record investment in flood defences will benefit communities across the country, and our reforms to the flood funding rules will ensure a more balanced system that strengthens rural resilience and delivers benefits for farming communities and the environment alike. This is a personal priority for me, and it is a privilege to be the Minister responsible for flooding. I remain determined to ensure that our approach to flood risk is effective and co-ordinated to support the public we all serve. <em>Question put and agreed </em><em>to</em><em>.</em>

    Hansard source
36. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Elaine Stewart

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    It is fair to say that there was a muted response from the First Minister at the good news from the UK Government on Jackdaw. Will the Secretary of State help to inspire <span id="284" class="column-number" data-column-number="284"></span>and animate Mr Swinney by telling him more about the new energy wealth fund and how it will support jobs in Scotland?

    Hansard source
37. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Simon Opher

    Flood Resilience

    The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I would like to talk about natural flood management and how it sits naturally with district councils. In my constituency we have had more than 1,200 interventions over 12 years—I think we lead nationally on this. I want in particular to praise Chris Uttley, who works for the district council, and who does an absolutely fantastic job with natural flood management—he has saved hundreds of homes and businesses from a repeat of the terrible 2007 floods. Would the hon. Lady join me in urging the Government to make it as easy as possible for councils to access the £25 million funding that the Government have earmarked for natural flood management so that we can unlock this tremendous potential in local government?

    Hansard source
38. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Higher Education Funding

    It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for the way in which she introduced the debate. Sheffield University was the first place I visited outside Scotland; I think the Red Deer pub, which is right next to the university, was the first English pub I ever went into. Before I was elected to this place, I worked in the university sector for 20 years in Scotland. Our universities are among Scotland’s biggest assets. Across the sector, there is incredible innovation. Each year, our universities attract the very best staff and students from across the world. I always say that any country serious about its economy should be serious about its universities. It is great to see our Prime Minister putting universities at the heart of the triple helix model that he talks about so often. In a debate in Westminster Hall 18 months ago, I quoted the then president of NUS Scotland, who warned that Scotland’s education system was “crumbling”. At that time, I hoped our words would prompt the Scottish Government into action. Sadly, they did not, and Scotland’s sector has lurched from crisis to crisis. Undergraduate university education in Scotland is free, but the sector is grossly underfunded. Broadly speaking, funding per undergraduate student in Scotland is well over £2,000 less per student compared with universities in England. That means less money for facilities and staff wages. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of UCU and have an ongoing connection with Heriot-Watt University. Because of the huge stresses on the sector, there is industrial action at, I think, six universities in Scotland right now. Industrial <span id="140WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="140WH"></span>action at one university might suggest a local issue, but when it is happening across the country it suggests that the Government need to step up and do something about it. In my constituency, both Edinburgh Napier University and Heriot-Watt are internationally recognised institutions. They are home to dedicated staff, ambitious students and world-leading research, but both face serious challenges. In the past year, there has been talk of compulsory redundancies and course reductions. There are similar issues at Edinburgh University, which is outside my constituency, but quite a lot of staff and students are based in Edinburgh South West. This situation cannot continue. We need the Scottish Government to bring together universities, staff, students and trade unions to agree a way forward. I want to talk briefly about immigration. During my time at Heriot-Watt, I worked alongside fantastic academics from around the world. Next door to my office, on one side I had Professor Adebayo Adeloye from Nigeria, and on the other I had Benny Suryanto, who came from Indonesia. Our students are lucky that these people choose to come to the UK. I felt lucky that students came from around the world to spend time in Edinburgh and enjoy its education and the opportunities that provides. I am concerned that the Government are making it harder for both staff and students to come here. If we are serious about growing our economy, we have to recognise the benefits that universities provide, both nationally and locally in our towns and cities. It would be great to hear what is happening inside the Government to support universities and ensure that they can thrive. In Scotland, their funding is largely a matter for the Scottish Government, but I think the UK Government could do more to support the immigration status of students and staff.

    Hansard source
39. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Higher Education Funding

    I know I do not look it, but when I went to university, Margaret Thatcher was still our Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredible that funding for students’ day-to-day living costs was better then than it is today.?

    Hansard source
40. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Higher Education Funding

    The hon. Member is diagnosing the problem excellently and detailing all the issues. I do not want to go back too far, but we have to think about the role the Lib Dems played in the coalition Government and the decision to go back on their pledge not to raise fees but instead raise them to £9,000. The Budget this afternoon is not just about spending money; it is also about raising money to pay for policies. A range of policies—

    Hansard source