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

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torcuil Crichton

   Engagements

   Q8. In bad weather—and sometimes we do have it in the Hebrides—one in six landings at the isle of Barra airport and 40% at Stornaway airport are turned away due to the lack of low-visibility radar, known as EGNOS. The European geostationary navigation overlay service is available to pilots at the touch of a button, but the Tories switched it off during Brexit. My constituents rely on flights not for holidays, but for health—for chemotherapy and for ordinary appointments that they should have at home. The Prime Minister has a summit with European leaders next month, so will he put EGNOS on the radar and on his agenda so that, at the very least, my constituents can get to their hospital appointments?

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tahir Ali

   Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

   I have previously spoken quite vociferously on the issue. Tougher sentences have to happen, with the revocation of licences for a very long period. Two lives were lost in my constituency: two months ago, we lost a 60-year-old man, and on the same stretch last year, we lost a 56-year-old. We have to look at the causes. If that includes people taking balloons, we have to restrict them from taking and being high on the gases in the balloons, but we also have to implement safety measures that would prevent cars doing 89 mph in a 20-mph zone.

   Hansard source
3. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tahir Ali

   Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

   I agree with the hon. Lady that we welcome the target of 65% by 2035, but by 2035 we could have had at least two general elections if not more. This is not fair on the families who have lost loved ones. We need to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries more quickly—more urgently—than 2035. If that target is set, perhaps it needs to be brought forward, into this Parliament, so that we can make a significant start on achieving that objective.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Steve Yemm

   Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

   This week marks a year since the death of Abigail Eggleston, the girlfriend of one of my constituents, in similar circumstances. She was killed by Liam Bowes in a hit-and-run incident. I am sure that the thoughts of all of us will be with her family and her partner, William Payne. Bowes was sentenced to 12 years in prison for causing death by dangerous driving. Does my hon. Friend agree that justice has to be delivered for victims of crimes like this, and does she welcome the Government’s commitment that those convicted of this crime, this offence, will not be eligible for early release, which would otherwise have effectively halved the time that Bowes would serve in prison?

   Hansard source
5. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Steve Race

   Engagements

   Q2. I commend the Prime Minister’s commitment to ending rough sleeping and for hosting the first No. 10 rough sleeping summit on Monday. I have fantastic organisations such as St Petrock’s and CoLab in Exeter that help people who end up on the street but who have very complex needs that require wraparound services such as addiction treatment and trauma support. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, alongside a roof over their heads, we need to rebuild the wraparound support system for people that were so dismantled under the previous Government?

   Hansard source
6. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026 No. 1071). It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stringer, and to be with the members of the Committee. The regulations revoke and re-enact with expanded purposes and designations criteria the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020. This statutory instrument was laid on 13 October under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in the instrument are subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament. They entered into force on 15 October. Since coming to office, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we will be stronger in our values, bolder in our action and relentless in pursuing alliances with partners in human rights efforts across the world. Sanctions are, of course, a powerful lever that we have to advance our foreign policy goals. When we impose sanctions, we do so to isolate those responsible for violations, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behaviour. We do it to send a clear message, far beyond those whom we target, about the values that the UK will stand up for, and wherever possible we try to do that alongside partners to maximise the impact of any sanctions that we impose. I often talk about the three Ds: deter, disrupt and demonstrate. Those are the principles at the heart of any of our sanctions regimes and of our individual designations under those regimes. The global human rights sanctions regime, now the global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions regime, is particularly vital in that endeavour. Since the regime began in 2020, the UK has delivered more than 180 designations, and this Government have used the global human rights sanctions regime to tackle issues from forced labour in south-east Asian scam centres to extremist settlers violently attacking Palestinians in the west bank and those responsible for the violent crackdown on protesters in Georgia. The global human rights sanctions regime is not our only tool. We make extensive use of our range of geographic sanctions regimes. For example, on Monday we announced the designation of 15 commanders on both sides of the conflict in Sudan who are suspected of perpetrating or inciting heinous atrocities against civilians, in particular conflict-related sexual violence. As we mark the anniversary of the horror that we saw after the fall of El Fasher, those designations remind perpetrators of atrocities that the international community is watching and that their actions will have consequences. There is no impunity. Those recent designations were only possible, however, because our Sudan sanctions regime, our geographic regime, permits designations on the grounds of violations of international humanitarian law. Before we laid this instrument before the House, the Government did not have the flexibility to respond in this fashion to similar atrocities and situations taking place in countries for which we did not happen to have a geographic sanctions regime. Now we do. As the Minister with responsibility for sanctions for the past two and a bit years, it has been a frustration at times that when we have wanted to take action in different places, we have not had the powers to do so. We now have those powers. That was a commitment that the Government made. These things take time to put into practice, as I am sure the Committee understands, but we now have the powers. They will allow us to act in a wider range of circumstances to have that impact of deterring, disrupting and demonstrating. The new instrument expands our ability to stand up for our values and to tackle injustice and suffering around the world in other ways. The expanded regime addresses a broader range of human rights abuses and violations by adding the right to security of liberty and person, and it gives the Government powers to respond with sanctions when aid, for example, has been deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations. With your indulgence, Mr Stringer, I will now turn to each measure in the regulations in more detail. To be clear, first, this is a strong enhancement of our existing powers. The global human rights sanctions regime gave us the ability to use sanctions where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations or abuse of the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery and not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. I assure the Committee that the amended regulations allow all pre-existing sanctions imposed under the powers that we had to remain in force, and they give a powerful set of levers to respond to a broader range of situations. The expanded sanctions regime now allows designations to be made in the first case where there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of international humanitarian law. This will strengthen the United Kingdom’s ability to respond to serious conduct that arises during armed conflicts, such as the targeting or mistreatment of civilians, where international humanitarian law provides the most relevant legal framework. As the Foreign Secretary set out to Parliament on 8 September, when he committed to laying the regulations, this legislation gives the UK powers to target those constructing illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank, for example, and those who are participating in the E1 settlement. Of course, this allows us to act in a wide range of circumstances. Secondly, on the right to liberty and security of person, the previous version of the regime permitted designations where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations to the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery and not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. The regulations now add the right to liberty and security of person to that list, ensuring that under this regime we have the powers to act and better address issues such as arbitrary detention and related conduct, which I am sure the Committee will agree is an important power for us to take. The next area where we have expanded the powers is in relation to the obstruction of humanitarian assistance. The new sanctions regime adds a new ground of the obstruction of the delivery or distribution of, or access to, humanitarian assistance. In addition, it reflects the serious humanitarian consequences that can result when aid is deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations. I am sure we can think of many horrendous examples of this in a whole range of current situations, including those that Members of this House—indeed, Members present for this Committee—regularly raise with me and other Ministers. The regulations give us that new power. Lastly, the amended regime adds the power to designate by description, meaning that the UK can designate where a specific name is not available and capture all members of a specific group or organisation, allowing greater flexibility and reach under the regime. This provision allows us to target a greater range of actors who may be responsible for these violations and to take action against them.

   Hansard source
7. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   I can give the hon. Gentleman a very specific example, although—for the sake of argument—it is one that could actually be done under the existing powers. It is one that colleagues may perhaps be less familiar with, but it is very important and has had a very significant impact. The example is the actions taken in relation to south-east Asian scam centres, which is an issue that has a direct impact on the streets of this country, with people being defrauded and having money taken off them. People are also effectively being held in servitude in these centres in south-east Asia. Not only did we disrupt these networks through the designation, but we actually deterred further action. We also encouraged other countries involved to take domestic action with their own legal processes. That is a very clear example of the two purposes that the hon. Gentleman asked about. To conclude, the regulations provide the Government vital new powers with which to stand up for British values and respond to serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law around the globe. At this stage, we are not making specific designations, which will come in due course. As Members will know, I do not comment on future designations or when they may come about, but we clearly take powers for the purpose of using them. These regulations give us a new set of tools and levers in our armoury to respond, in a range of contexts, to some of the worst atrocities and violations of the principles that we stand up for in this country, which it is important to emphasise. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

   Hansard source
8. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   I certainly would, Mr Stringer. I thank Members for their support for these regulations and for their powerful and passionate speeches, in which they set out a wide range of concerns and issues about how the sanctions regimes can be used effectively and about the circumstances in which we may choose to use them. I never tire of saying that we do not comment on future designations, but I assure Members that I have heard clearly the themes and examples that they raised. They should always feel free—as should other organisations—to make representations and provide evidence and information. I am not able to say how we will use it, but it will be gratefully received. It is hugely impactful when the Government are deciding which designations to make and which will have the biggest impact. Ultimately, that is what we are trying to do. I think we have a reasonable amount of time, so I will respond to as many of the comments as I can. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East for his comments, and I am grateful that the Opposition will not oppose these regulations. He asked a number of questions about the way in which we decide a designation and how we ensure that the process is fair and proportionate, and that it follows due process and so on. I assure him that the process is incredibly rigorous—it has to be, because the designations and regulations have to be able to withstand challenge, both in this place and in the courts. It is reassuring that our sanction regimes, which are broad and encompass many thousands of designations, have survived the challenge that they have rightly been subjected to through due process in the courts. That is a reflection of the effort that is put into ensuring the lawfulness, proportionality and accuracy of the evidence. There are a number of processes. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East asked about review and how we ensure that things are done in the right way. We have a ministerial review process and reviews by officials—most designations go to Ministers. We do occasionally revoke or vary designations if it is found that we have made a mistake or if there is evidence of a significant change of behaviour, and therefore the regulation is not needed. It is also important that we look at compliance and enforcement. I took on that issue substantially when I became the Minister in 2024, and I have worked with colleagues across Government. Multiple Departments are responsible for ensuring good compliance and enforcement. Part of that is working with businesses, the legal sector and those who might be impacted by sanctions. Ultimately, they are responsible for complying with the law, but we want to ensure that they have the right information.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   There are two points. First, we already have in place action to improve how we do enforcement and work across Departments, which came in as a result of the review. Those are now being taken forward and are having a significant and successful impact on the information we give externally on how people can report breaches and the information we provide to businesses, legal advisers and others to ensure compliance. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East asked more broadly about consistency across topics and geographies. The existing regime had already been used for south-east Asia, Sri Lanka, the west bank, the designation of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, Georgia—there are many examples. Of course, this is one part of our overall sanctions regulations. I am conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East was involved in the previous legislation. There are many different regimes—geographic and thematic—under that legislation. They are all tools in the armoury and we are using them in a wide range of geographic and thematic contexts. Should the hon. Member or any other colleagues want more detailed briefings with officials on how the process is working, I am very happy at any point to arrange that. I have greatly valued the cross-party input on these issues. We have had a number of sessions with our detailed technical teams. The hon. Member also asked a question about the new power on designation by description and how that is used effectively. It provides additional flexibility in circumstances where we cannot possibly identify every relevant person individually by name. Similar powers exist elsewhere in the sanctions architecture, but of course any use of the power would have to meet the requirements in the legislation; it does not remove the need for designations to satisfy statutory tests. That is absolutely right and is how we maintain the legitimacy and functioning of the overall sanctions regime. Colleagues have made many helpful comments. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who raised an important issue on the detention of children. She has rightfully spoken out about many harrowing cases, which I am also aware of. We are horrified by the reports of mistreatment or abuse of children in detention, many reportedly without charge for months. Children must always be protected—I am sure we would all absolutely agree—and we have called repeatedly on the Israeli authorities to investigate urgently. I cannot comment on future designations, but my hon. Friend can be assured that this is an issue that we take incredibly seriously. I am very happy to discuss that further with her and other colleagues, a number of whom also raised the issue. My hon. Friend also asked about how we use evidence. She will appreciate that I cannot always go into the process—she will understand why—but I assure her that evidence is considered absolutely rigorously. We have to satisfy through our own tests, because ultimately it is evidence that has to satisfy courts if necessary, if designations are challenged. It is an incredibly rigorous process. I will be quite honest: I know there is sometimes frustration about the speed of these processes, but it is the question of balancing speed against the solidity of our designations and our regimes, and ensuring that they stand the test of time and the test of the courts. We will keep Parliament informed, as we do regularly, on specific designations that we choose to make under these new expanded powers. We will, of course, keep colleagues informed. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked a range of questions and made very passionate points about the situation in Palestine, including why we did not include some of these powers in the original legislation, given the much wider range of abuses that we are aware of. The original regime was introduced under a previous Government, but my understanding is that, as we were developing our new sanctions regime after Brexit from scratch, it had not yet been tested by the courts and we wanted to make sure that what we did was effective and was going to stand up; that is why some of the original powers were perhaps narrower than we all wanted to see. I am really pleased with how they have been welcomed, and we are now expanding, taking more powers and encompassing a wider range of issues.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

    The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

    This point was made by a number of hon. Members. I assure them that our position on settlements is very clear: they are all unlawful, they are all illegal and the occupation is unlawful. That will guide our approach. I will not get into the specifics, but my hon. Friend can be assured that our view is about all settlements. There is obviously a particular challenge, which a number of Members raised and which we accept, about the E1 project and the expansion and particular actions that are going on at the moment. Again, I thank her for her work on the Britain-Palestine APPG. A number of Members asked why we have not yet announced any designations to prevent the development of E1. We have tried to move as fast as we can with these new powers. Members will note that we set out on 8 September that we will be introducing a specific settlement and a trade-related regime; that will take longer, but it is important to get these powers in place now. Hopefully, with the permission of this Committee and the other place, we will have the powers secure and in place. I will not comment on when we might choose to use them or how, but I am conscious of the specific things that are going on. I want to assure colleagues that we are building designations and we will ensure that they are effective as part of a wider strategy that is aimed at isolating, restricting and changing behaviour of those targeting, and sending a clear message about our position on this. I can also assure colleagues that the fact that we have announced these measures is already impacting on behaviour. I say this very sincerely: I hope it is focusing the minds of those who might consider being involved in the expansion of these illegal settlements, particularly the E1 project. We—the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and I—have sent a clear message. Businesses and others, including those in the provision of services, should hear that message and heed it, because we will not be hesitating to act. I also want to assure colleagues that although the Foreign Secretary was very clear that the wider sanctions regime may take six to nine months, we will be seeking every opportunity to accelerate that while ensuring that it is properly viable and has a very strong legal basis. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, again for her contribution, for welcoming the legislation, and for her passion but also her challenge. We welcome that scrutiny; it is good to be able to work cross-party on these regulations. I already commended my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East for her work on SAML Bill, and she rightly pointed out others who have stood up on a range of regimes—Sir Bill Browder, Baron Benyon and others. Across the House there have been many strong advocates for powers to act in a wide range of circumstances, and I am glad that we are taking more powers. I thank her for welcoming the measures we announced in relation to El Fasher. The Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), spoke passionately yesterday about some of the testimony she heard about the horrors that were seen in El Fasher. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East that we are resolutely focused on preventing a further deterioration of the situation in Sudan. She rightly mentioned South Sudan as well, and we will be looking at every single way in which we can do that, including through sanctions and designation regimes. She quite rightly pointed out a way in which our regime has already had an impact on a particular individual. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire asked a particular question about citizens. I will make sure we write to with a technical answer to that. He asked when the sanctions will happen, but I am afraid that I cannot reveal that in the Committee today. I assure him that we do not take powers without intending to use them, and a range of measures will be laid before the House in due course, and I hope that Members will be reassured when they see them. They will apply to a wide range of contexts, a number of which have been mentioned today. I appreciate that those who provide information or raise concerns want an explanation why things are decided or not and about consistency; the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we do not normally put forward legal advice, individual circumstances and why we make a decision. I can tell him that we are always looking, within the constraints of resource and legal capacity, and there is a huge amount invested in this in the Department. We have ensured that that is protected and further invested in. We also want to have the biggest impact. There are many thousands of people I want to take sanctions action on every single day, but I want to have the biggest impact that disrupts, deters and changes the behaviour of the actors that we are seeking to influence. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for welcoming these regulations and for referencing the Government’s wider policies on settler violence and terrorism in the west bank. I assure him that it will not just be sanctions; we are taking every action we can, including raising concerns directly with the Israeli Government. We have been very clear that the settlements are unlawful, and so is the occupation. We also made it clear that we will be taking action on services and on those obstructing aid, and that action can apply in a wide range of contexts. I have already referred to the detention issues that I think horrify Committee members. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) asked specifically what counts as a serious violation of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict to protect people who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities, which colleagues will know, and to limit the methods and means of warfare. The principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity are central to IHL. Those familiar with the Geneva conventions and other parts of international humanitarian law will know that well. The expanded regime allows us to take action where we have reasonable grounds to suspect that serious violations of international humanitarian law have taken place. A designation can be made where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that—that is the key point here. Obviously, this is a lower standard than would be applied in a civil or criminal court, and that gives us the necessary latitude to act robustly, where we have very clear evidence that that is taking place. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend. I think that I have answered my hon. Friend’s questions about settlements and obstruction. He also asked about resources. I want to praise the fantastic teams in the FCDO who work on these issues; they are incredible. They work night and day to ensure not only that we can respond to developing situations and challenges, but that the designations we make are evidence-based, proportional and lawful and can stand the test of scrutiny. That requires an immense amount of very detailed, technical work, which colleagues will appreciate. I thank them every day for their work and the genuinely very substantial impact that it has. I can scarcely believe that it has been 14 years since my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and I first came into this place—the anniversary is in a couple of weeks’ time. He has been an assiduous champion of these issues throughout his time in this House, and I thank him for his work on the Britain-Palestine APPG. He shared and reflected on powerful testimony from non-governmental and humanitarian organisations, and he spoke of issues relating to delays in medical supplies, diagnostics and so on. I absolutely assure him that all that evidence is the sort of thing that informs who we choose to act on. He also raised the issue of services, and we have made it clear that we will take action on that. I am very confident that the fact we have announced the measures is already having a deterrent effect, but people should be in no doubt that we will seek to act against specific individuals and organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) spoke with great passion and raised specific issues around charities. He will know that regulation of charities is for the Charity Commission, but we do look at these matters very seriously, and he will be aware of a number of ongoing investigations and processes. I thank all colleagues for their comprehensive contributions. It is incredibly helpful for the Government to have heard them and to have that genuine scrutiny and challenge; it helps us to effectively develop and expand these regimes. We are acting on the basis of our values and because we want to see impact. I assure colleagues that further measures will be laid before the House in due course. I again thank all Committee members, and I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026 No. 1071).

    Hansard source
11. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Rugby League Clubs

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this debate. He is a constituency neighbour of mine, and, as a fellow Yorkshire MP, I know how important rugby league is to his area. He is such a champion for the sport, both in this place—as he has shown this morning—and beyond. For over 130 years, rugby league has made a huge contribution to our society. Week in, week out, local people come together to support their clubs, their children’s teams and the players. Rugby league clubs are places where thousands of people play sport and get active every week. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about the impact of rugby league in post-industrial towns such as those we represent. He was right to say that I am very proud to represent Barnsley South in Parliament. We have fantastic grassroots teams in Barnsley, such as the Dearne Valley Bulldogs and the Dodworth Miners. This week, the Dodworth Miners under-12s became the first junior rugby league team ever from Barnsley to win a league and cup double, and I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating them. We see such teams all across the north of England, and the vital role that they play is reflected in the interest in today’s debate. We know that community sport, and especially sports such as rugby league, can play a major role in building confidence and teamwork, supporting the life skills of future generations and improving community cohesion. The social value generated by community sport and physical activity is vast—in excess of £122 billion a year—and every £1 spent on sport by rugby league community clubs generates a social return of more than £4. Such figures underscore the vital role that sports such as rugby league can play in driving positive public health and societal outcomes. That is why the Government believe that someone’s access to sport should never be determined by their postcode, background or gender.

    Hansard source
12. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    Rugby League Clubs

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a really important point. That is why, as Sports Minister, I have set up the women’s sport taskforce. I will say more about women’s sport later in my speech. The single biggest thing most likely to get a child active in sport is watching it live. If kids cannot watch their rugby heroes, they are far less likely to pick up a rugby ball. My hon. Friend is a huge champion for his local club, Featherstone Rovers. Featherstone Rovers has been at the heart of its local community for many years, and the uncertainty since it entered administration has hit the town hard. I commend the collective efforts of my hon. Friend, the local community and the RFL to revive the club. Indeed, I met my hon. Friend to discuss this issue earlier in the year. As he mentioned, I understand that Wakefield council has set out proposals to provide £500,000 of emergency funding, match-funded by the RFL’s resilience fund, in a bid to get the team back on the field by 2027. Under those proposals, the likely scenario is that the RFL will take control of the ground and lease it to an ownership group. On Pride in Place funding, power is being put in local hands through the resident-led Featherstone neighbourhood board, which is working with the local council and, of course, the constituency MP, my hon. Friend. Although spending choices rest locally with that board, I am fully supportive of local communities choosing to use the funding to protect and revitalise vital sporting institutions such as Featherstone Rovers, and I will raise that with the relevant Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I have seen at first hand the importance and impact of rugby league, having taken part in the Yorkshire versus Lancashire match at the Labour party conference at Everton stadium. I was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), who is in attendance today, and I am pleased to report a Yorkshire win. It was a great opportunity to showcase the sport and to learn more about its work with Community Integrated Care, a registered charity that supports people with learning disabilities, autism, mental health needs and dementia. It was a great opportunity to talk to the RFL, and I look forward to meeting members again soon. Sport England has committed £15.7 million to rugby league up to 2029. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth, that support is already delivering on the ground, funding new facilities at Hemsworth Dragons and pitch maintenance at Rycroft Hammers. Nationally, we are directing £400 million into upgrading grassroots sports facilities, deliberately prioritising the areas with the highest levels of deprivation and inactivity. My hon. Friend highlighted the RFL’s bid for funding the sport, facilities and community programme. I cannot make spending commitments today, but I would be happy to discuss that further with him and the RFL. My hon. Friend made an important point about broadcasting, and I have heard his concerns. Under the listed events regime, the Challenge cup final remains protected on free-to-air television, but I acknowledge the concerns raised before the world cup. The Secretary of State expressed that she was disappointed. There was a last-minute agreement that the BBC would carry highlights, but I appreciate concerns that that did not go anywhere near far enough. We must help sports rights holders to strike the right balance between broadcasting revenue that keeps clubs solvent and ensuring that matches remain accessible to the public. On the subject of watching England play, this time last year I was pleased to be cheering on England at Wembley as they played in the Ashes. The team are now down under to compete in the world cup. I wish them all the very best as they prepare for their final pool game in two days’ time. The value of rugby league goes well beyond the 80 minutes on the pitch. Through our £330,000 investment in Rugby League Cares, current and former players are in our schools and towns having open and honest conversations with young men about mental health, isolation and loneliness. My hon. Friend was right to mention the social impact of the sport. Over the summer, I was delighted to go to the home of the Castleford Tigers to meet Rugby League Cares and Men in Sheds, seeing at first hand the powerful role that sport, including rugby league, plays in tackling social isolation and loneliness. I have heard my hon. Friend’s concerns about honours, which he has put on the record. I know that the Secretary of State is on the record as sharing those concerns. We have all witnessed the extraordinary bond between the late, great Rob Burrow and Sir Kevin Sinfield—a reminder of the loyalty, courage and compassion that define the rugby league family. We are seeing the same spirit drive the growth of the women’s game, through initiatives such as RugBees and the inspiring expansion of the wheelchair super league. Just a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State visited Leigh Sports Village to support Sinfield during a leg of his “7 in 7” endurance challenge, in which he ran seven ultramarathons in seven days. Sinfield’s runs raise awareness and funds for motor neurone disease in honour of his former teammate and close friend, Rob Burrow. I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate and for standing up so effectively for his community and his sport. I look forward to working closely with him and the RFL in our coming meeting to ensure that rugby league gets the fair treatment, support and long-term investment it so richly deserves. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
13. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Seema Malhotra

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    It is a pleasure, I think, to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), but may I challenge a couple of his points? He talked about the risk of higher mortgages. I might remind him that there have been six interest rate cuts since 2024, which will have supported his constituents by bringing down their mortgage bills. He also mentioned productivity. I remind him that the upgraded growth forecast from the OBR is due to productivity gains from investment in AI. There is positive news, and I am sorry that he has missed it so far, but he may want to spend a bit more time looking. I welcome today’s Budget, because in these tough times we need to put in place the foundations to build the base for a competitive future and prosperity for all. I was surprised by the rather extraordinary response from the Leader of the Opposition, who almost denied the impact of the Liz Truss mini-Budget. Perhaps it may be worth reminding the House that the unfunded £45 billion of tax cuts led to bond prices plunging, sterling falling and the Bank of England having to intervene to prevent a financial stability crisis. It is important that we recognise what happened. That, alongside the fact that the welfare bill rose by £33 billion in the years to 2024, might help bring some honesty to the debate. Let me speak about today’s Budget from the point of view of three key tests, because it needs to be a Budget for stability, growth and easing the cost of living. The Budget comes amidst unprecedented economic shocks, with conflict in the middle east and Europe, which has disrupted international energy and commodity supplies. The Bank of England identified the energy shock from the middle east as a major source of uncertainty in July 2026, so I welcome the Budget and, in particular, the Chancellor’s determination to combine fiscal discipline with a relentless focus on growth and tackling the cost of living. Fiscal discipline matters. It is not simply about an accounting exercise at the Treasury; it is about credibility and national economic security. Indeed, the bond markets matter. In 2022 we saw what happens when investors lose confidence in the sustainability of public finances. However, fiscal discipline and growth are not competing objectives. Ultimately, having sustained economic growth, higher productivity, higher investment and more people in good employment is the surest foundation for sustainable public finances. I am pleased that the UK economy has shown resilience, for which I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and to the stewardship of the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). It is important not to talk Britain down, because we were the joint fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year, alongside the US. Borrowing last year fell to the lowest level for six years, the IMF has upgraded our growth to 1.3% for this year, and the IMF’s chief economist has said that we “stand out” on deficit reduction. I know that the Opposition may be disappointed by the OBR’s revision of the forecast. I welcome the Government’s commitment as a priority to get energy costs down not just today, but for the future. I would welcome more clarity from the Government on whether they are reconsidering the expansion of the British industrialisation competitiveness scheme, which I believe may be coming forward in the 10-year plan. However, with global headwinds from the conflict in the middle east impacting us here and economies throughout the world, it is vital that we have our own plan for growth and for tackling the cost of living. On growth, I will briefly speak about fiscal devolution and entrepreneurship. Business and industry must be at the heart of our plans for growth. It is important that we have a plan for building the principles of stability, partnership and innovation, with unleashing potential in every corner of the economy in the UK at the heart of our plans. That is why I was pleased to welcome the fiscal devolution road map, which is bold, ambitious and game changing. It recognises that we need to deal with the challenges of today and address the structural challenges to achieve higher growth tomorrow. For too long Britain has been one of the most centralised major economies in the developed world, with only 5% to 6% of total tax revenue raised locally, while the OECD average is closer to 11%. However, fiscal devolution means more than devolving spending decisions; it is about enabling greater responsibility and stronger incentives to expand local economies and tax bases.

    Hansard source
14. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Seema Malhotra

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I think there is an important debate to be had about how we make sure that fiscal devolution is successful and what the enabling factors are, but it has been successful elsewhere. As the right hon. Member will recognise, I was pleased as a London MP to see today’s commitments to establish a successor to the Elizabeth line business rate supplement and to support transport infrastructure in the future through some of the new mechanisms. It is important that we look at how fiscal devolution can accelerate projects that will unlock homes, create jobs and generate economic growth not just in the capital, but across the UK. As we devolve—and I am putting this to the Treasury team—it will be important to confront another economic challenge, which is co-ordination. Economies do not stop at administrative boundaries; there are cross-regional economic spillovers. If we do not design institutions to take account of them, ensure appropriate accountability and evaluation, and help successful innovations in one region spread to others, what appears optimal for each region individually may not be optimal for Britain collectively. I look to the Treasury team to update the House on what can be learned from elsewhere about having co-ordination as well as devolution. I was extremely pleased to see the measures supporting young entrepreneurs and also women entrepreneurs. I championed that in my previous work as chair of the APPG for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is oddly absent from debates about youth unemployment. We celebrate success when people have an initial public offering or attract a big investment, but we do not talk about the preceding journey or the inequality that often characterises it. So I am looking forward to the Government’s measures having an impact in encouraging entrepreneurship among young people across the country. Let me say a few words on opportunity and the cost of living. I believe that the Your First Home scheme will make a huge difference not just to my constituents in Feltham and Heston, but also across the country. It is vital to have measures such as the 20% equity loan scheme to help first-time buyers, with a minimum deposit requirement of just 2.5%, to ensure the scheme is accessible to those who have a regular income, but have been unable to save for a large deposit. The council tax rebate, removing VAT from domestic electricity bills and the reforms to standing charges, alongside the first rail fare freeze in 30 years that was announced earlier this year and the freeze in prescription charges, are all important measures. In conclusion, this is a Budget for stability and growth, and one that eases the cost of living. It is designed to raise Britain’s productivity and investment, and to spread opportunity to every part of our country by investing to save and investing to grow. Taken together, fiscal credibility, empowered regions, effective co-ordination and investment in human potential will lead to better growth that is productive, inclusive and sustainable. This is the time and the challenge that we as a nation must rise to.

    Hansard source
15. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sam Carling

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    May I draw the right hon. Member’s attention to page 22 of the Red Book, which states: “The IMF also forecasts that the UK will deliver the biggest reduction in borrowing in the G20 between 2025 and 2031 and will have the second lowest government debt in the G7 by 2031”?

    Hansard source
16. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sally Jameson

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As hon. Members have identified, I am not the Minister for Housing. He is in another Committee as we speak, but I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government and I will make sure that the strength of feeling and the questions that have been raised today are fed back.

    Hansard source
17. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sally Jameson

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    I will ensure that that request is fed back to the Minister for Housing, as well as the strength of feeling behind it. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing today’s important debate, as well as hon. Members for their contributions on the subject. The modernisation of planning committees, as many will know, is a big part of the housing and infrastructure delivery that the Government intend. Our reforms are about creating a level playing field across the country to give certainty to communities and developers about the process their applications will follow. We recognise the vital role that planning committees play in providing local democratic oversight for important development decisions in their area. Our reforms were a key measure in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and are intended to support planning committees in this crucial role so that they can be effective as possible.

    Hansard source
18. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sally Jameson

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    I do not agree with that. Extensive consultation was done around this policy before it was brought in—in fact, I believe there were three rounds of consultation. The national scheme of delegation, which will come into force this Sunday, will allow committees to focus on the larger and more complex development proposals that really require member input. The applications that matter most to communities are those that will deliver the kind of development that local people desperately want to see. We also want to ensure that skilled planning officers in councils are trusted and empowered to make decisions on more applications more quickly to ensure that development is brought forward in the right place at the right time. The national scheme of delegation will mean that officers will spend less time and resource preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications, speeding up decision-making processes more broadly and freeing up time to focus on larger and more complex applications. It will also provide greater clarity and consistency across the country about who in a local planning authority will determine applications. Irrespective of whether a decision is made by an officer or a planning committee, the important thing is that both are working to serve the interests of their community. I want to thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who praised his council’s record on planning, and I hear the concerns he has raised. As I have said, I will make sure that they are fed back.

    Hansard source
19. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sally Jameson

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    I will come to that later in my speech, but I will canter through, as I am conscious of time. During the many consultations and parliamentary debates on the planning committee reforms, the Government have been clear that they are not in any way intended to be an attack on local democracy. We recognise that councillors and communities are central to deciding what development is right for their area, but the Government believe that the best way for them to do that is at the beginning of the process, when the local plan is being developed. The national scheme of delegation will support the plan-led system. It will allow planning committees to operate as effectively as possible. For example, they will not need to revisit the same decisions that have already been considered through the local plan process; instead, they will be able to focus on those applications that really require member input. I must also stress that decision makers, whether they are members or officers, must determine applications in accordance with the local plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Having an up-to-date local plan will have the biggest bearing on the outcome of a robust decision. Importantly, we are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications. Local residents and elected councillors will still be able to make their views known on individual applications. Regardless of who the decision maker is, where those representations relate to the planning merits of the development, they will continue to be taken into account in reaching decisions. On transparency and reporting, it is clearly important that local communities know about decisions that are being made on their behalf. That includes decisions on the referral of schedule 2 applications to the committee. We have set out requirements for that in the statutory guidance to which local authorities must have regard. As a minimum, we expect local authorities to keep a record of the cases that the nominated officer and nominated member have considered for referral to committee, the outcome of their consideration and the reasons for their decision. That should be reported to the planning committee on a regular basis and made available on the authority’s website. A couple of points were made on HMOs. A strong local plan, particularly featuring HMOs, should be able to guide planning officers, but I will ask the Minister for Housing and Planning to write to hon. Members who raised that and provide further information. I will also feed back about websites and the council advertising campaign. On devolution and powers of strategic authorities, I am, as it happens, the Minister responsible for the devolution strategy and the rewiring the state plan. We will set that out later this year as part of the Government’s 10-year plan. Hon. Members will see that this Government are serious about putting power back in communities. Part of that is having a strengthened local government system. I can give an example: in my own strategic authority, we announced this week that we will reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport, which will have a massive impact on the local community for jobs and growth. That is a prime example of how rewiring the state can bring the power and prosperity mentioned by Members today. On mandatory training for members, the Government’s priority has been getting the national scheme of delegation in place. Now that that is complete, we will resume work on member training. Further stakeholder engagement is needed on how we will make that a credible and cost-effective system. I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning will work with local government and hon. Members to ensure that that is robust. On the approach to the size of the committees, planning committees need to be the right size to inform decision making. There have been examples of sprawling committees having unruly debates and not getting anywhere. The intention behind introducing the cap was to ensure that they are more focused and of better quality. I think that initially, the planning committees were going to have 11 members, but that has been increased to 13, as a number of political parties are represented in some councils. That changed as a direct feedback from consultation. On the national scheme of delegation, it is something new. We recognise the need to ensure that it works on the ground as intended. That is why, following the consultation on the draft regulations earlier this year, we inserted a further provision into the regulations to require that they are reviewed within two years of coming into force. That will give an opportunity to monitor the implementation of the regulations. I will feed back the request that that be looked at before the two-year mark to the Minister for Housing and Planning and ask him to come back on that, even if it is with some kind of interim or informal assessment of how that has been going. Once again, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing this debate and for the contributions from other colleagues on this important issue. I recognise that not all questions may have been answered, but I will ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning comes back to hon. Members where I have not had the time to do so. I close by reiterating that the reforms to planning committees, including the national scheme of delegation, are intended to support, not undermine, committees. We want them to be as effective as they possibly can be, so that they serve the best interests of our communities.

    Hansard source
20. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ruth Jones

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    This is the right Budget at the right time. It delivers immediate relief, but also the long-term investment necessary to bring hope back to Britain. I welcome the further steps announced by the Chancellor to provide additional breathing room to households, which is essential. Energy bills will be cut, food tariffs will be slashed, the carer’s allowance cliff edge will be abolished, standing charges will be scrapped, parental pay will be expanded, and fuel duty will be frozen again, because Labour is on the side of working people. We recognise that times are tough, especially with the ongoing energy price spikes driven by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and, of course, the unnecessary US-Iran war. This Government’s ability to support hard-working families while continuing to provide up-front investment in our public services is testament to our careful economic management. Our careful stewardship has been commended by the IMF and has allowed us to enjoy the joint highest growth in the G7 while keeping public debt under control. The cost of living relief announced today by the Chancellor only builds on that already announced by the Prime Minister in his first 100 days—taking VAT off energy bills, a £2 bus fare cap, business rates relief, and tackling rogue tradespeople and repeat subscription scams. I am disappointed, though, that where this support relates only to England, the minority Plaid Cymru Welsh Government have not shown the same ambition or understanding of the everyday pressures facing households. We need to see that £2 cap on bus fares in Wales, as well as the extension of £1 fares for under-21s. I look forward to Plaid Ministers announcing how they will match the UK Labour Government’s reduction in bus fares—let us hope they do it quickly. Barnett consequentials on spending announcements are worth an additional £450 million to the Welsh Government, and I suggest that they spend it wisely, as people in Wales also want to benefit from this Budget for working people. With my constituency being home to the Welsh semiconductor cluster, and as the chair of the APPG for semiconductors, I am extremely proud of this Government’s commitment to manufacturing. I recognise the role that reindustrialisation can play in bringing well-paid jobs to every postcode, including the £20 million to support UK reindustrialisation and high-value jobs. That builds on the existing strengths of the semiconductor cluster in Newport West and Islwyn. Boosting manufacturing and the Prime Minister’s ambition to bring good growth to every postcode are particularly important in Wales, where we felt the impacts of 40 years of neo-liberalism at their hardest. Well-paid union jobs in our industrial heartland and coalfield communities disappeared and were never replaced. Despite the damage done by decades of Conservative Governments, Wales remains a proud manufacturing nation. The evidence is clear from my own constituency, with world-leading manufacturers choosing Wales for investment. Advanced manufacturing must be at the heart of a future Welsh economy. This Budget backs that ambition. This Budget is another big win for reversing 14 years of Tory under-investment in Welsh railways. Last year, we saw £445 million of funding for new stations, and now we have an additional £30 million for the Cardiff Parkway station site. As my constituency neighbours that site, I particularly welcome that announcement. It will provide meaningful alternatives for commuters and shoppers wanting to travel between Newport and Cardiff. I look forward to further announcements at the spending review on the delivery of this Government’s £14 billion commitment to transform Welsh rail infrastructure, including the additional five stations across Newport.

    Hansard source
21. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ruth Jones

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will carry on, because I am conscious that there are others who want to speak. Labour’s investment-led approach stands in stark contrast to that of the minority Plaid Government, who propose to close a number of the M4 junctions across Newport. That will improve traffic flow by just 3% but will have a massive impact on air and noise pollution for those living in my constituency. I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement today that tax-free mileage rates will now permanently be set at 55p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, which will go a long way to helping those who drive as part of their work, especially those providing domiciliary care. We need the Welsh Government to show the same ambition in making sure that when we push funding and powers from Westminster, it is not just hoarded in Cardiff Bay but is brought even closer to our communities. In my home city of Newport, we have a bold, ambitious Labour council led by Councillor Dimitri Batrouni that is ensuring that Newport is one of the fastest-growing areas of the UK. Think of what we could achieve by giving more powers and funding directly to local areas. This Budget marks another major step forward in delivering breathing space today and fresh hope for the future, and I support it.

    Hansard source
22. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Richard Burgon

    The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. These regulations are important in their potential and, of course, in their application. I very much welcome the Government’s recognition that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, in line with the International Court of Justice’s historic 2024 opinion. I also welcome the associated sanctions package, including the regulations before us today, as an important first step towards meeting our obligations under that ICJ ruling. These regulations add grounds for sanctions, including for serious violations of international humanitarian law, for serious breaches of liberty and security, and for aid obstruction. Used effectively and quickly, these powers can help to prevent further crimes and can help to ensure accountability for those crimes already committed. I have four key points for the Minister, and I would welcome a response. First, what counts as a serious violation of international humanitarian law? Will the Minister confirm that, as a minimum, the definition will follow that of the International Committee of the Red Cross? The ICRC’s role, under the Geneva conventions, makes it an authoritative voice on the rules of war. The ICRC states that “‘Serious violations of international humanitarian law’ are ‘war crimes.’ The two terms are…interchangeable”. Will these regulations apply when an occupying power transfers its civilians into occupied territory, forcibly transfers an occupied population or deliberately attacks civilians or civilian infrastructure? These are war crimes that Israel has repeatedly carried out. Will these powers cover international humanitarian law violations across all Israeli settlements, not just new ones, and be applicable to those financing such violations? Secondly, on aid, here—as with E1—urgent designations against those meeting the legal tests can make a real difference. Regulation 4(4) creates new grounds regarding aid obstruction. With winter approaching, aid is again being blocked when it comes to Gaza. Last week, Israeli political figures joined a blockade of aid trucks bound for Gaza. Without naming individuals here, will the Minister confirm that the Government are preparing sanctions against those obstructing or supporting the delivery of aid to Gaza this winter? Will the Minister confirm that these regulations can apply to officials, politicians and private entities, including UK charities responsible not only for physical blockades, but administrative obstruction of aid, including decisions on permits, crossings and those financing aid obstruction? Thirdly, these powers must apply to those funding and supporting violations. Regulation 8 makes it clear that an “involved person” includes those supporting IHL violations, as well as direct perpetrators. Back in March 2022, the Government targeted six banks in a package aimed at key industries supporting Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We need the same determination to stop money flowing from or through the UK to sustain illegal Israeli settlements or the wider unlawful occupation. Will the Minister make it clear today that banks, charities, financiers, contractors, insurers and technology companies supporting these international humanitarian law violations risk sanctions? Finally, these regulations will need to be accompanied by additional Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office resources to tackle Israeli war crimes. Will the Government provide the staff, the legal expertise and the resources on a scale matching their work on sanctions against Russia?

    Hansard source
23. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Kyle

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I notice that you are wearing a Sussex tie today, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is good to be called to speak by somebody wearing a Sussex tie. I am sure that you will be breaking the internet for another year running as a result—you have done so before. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who was so recently forced to leave shadow Cabinet. There may well be another grouping of Members in the Chamber, alongside that of the Select Committee Chairs; it is very good to be able to speak today from the Back Benches. The Chancellor’s Budget statement has made real, concrete progress in the areas of the economy that I care about the most and that have the most impact on the people who live and work around our country, including in my constituency. I was very animated by the areas of the speech that focused on growth and innovation, and those are what I will focus my contribution on today. The trading allowance, the entrepreneurship allowance, doubling funding for the British Business Bank, the entrepreneurship scheme for women, and, crucially, the founders’ relief are all measures that we should be extremely grateful for. They will have a direct impact on the growth of our economy, keep innovation here and allow it to scale here. Founders are quite unique people. They are able to commercialise innovation and tell stories about their products, and they act with such confidence that their charisma carries a lot of weight, which sometimes belies the amount of risk they take on and their hard work and determination on behalf of their company, their employees and our economy as a whole. The relief that has been offered to them is hard-earned.

    Hansard source
24. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Kyle

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I am always grateful to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, whose constituency is in the region that I also represent. He may not have heard amid the noise in the Chamber at the time, but the south-east benefited quite considerably. In our part of the country, 47% of businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors will no longer pay any business rates at all.

    Hansard source
25. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Kyle

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will make some progress, because lots of Members want to speak, and I have not even got on to the main argument that I want to make. There are real benefits from this Budget. In my constituency, the council tax rebate will impact positively on 42,000 homes. The same will be true in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and in others around the country. The Chancellor also mentioned directly the defence dual use investment for companies doing dual-use innovations. When he was Defence Secretary and I was Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we worked together, and it was the first time that the Secretaries of State of those two Departments came together to work on the strategic challenges and opportunities faced in the defence industry. I am really pleased that we now have a Chancellor investing in dual use. It will be based on the conversations and workstreams that we set up when we were those two Secretaries of State. Those two roles should work together going forward. When Labour came to office in 2024, we inherited a growth emergency. Now we have taken solid steps forward, but we must still have the mindset that we are facing a growth emergency. It is my belief that we are on a motorway heading in the right direction but even now are only travelling at 30 mph. I believe that the challenge we face is a complacency that was set down in previous times, when we took growth for granted. From the 1997 Government onwards, for a decade before the financial crash, I think it is fair to say that we felt that growth was dependable—that there was a sense of inevitability about growth. We could focus on all the social issues we wanted to tackle based on the proceeds of that growth, but we did not pay enough attention to underpinning growth and making sure that it was sustainable into the very long term.

    Hansard source
26. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Kyle

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention was longer than my speech has been so far. When I find that I agree with every word that somebody is saying, I usually sit down and listen to a bit more of it rather than trying to challenge it. Perhaps the rest of my speech will answer the questions that he raises. In that decade, because of the predictability and certainty of growth, I think that growth policy was seen like any other policy. In other words, if there was a shelf with all the different policies of Government on it, growth would be one set of policies on that shelf. I know that there are a lot of analogies going around these days, and Liz Truss has blown a hole in analogy use as well as in our economy, but it is my belief that we now need to have the mindset that growth is the shelf itself. We cannot have successful social policies delivered in the way that all of us in this Chamber would like unless we have a solid, predictably-growing economy into the long term that provides security and prosperity and from which we can share investment fairly around the country. We must on both sides of the House be as animated about economic growth as we are about creating prosperity, spending it and challenging the social ills in our society. We must care as much about economic growth as we do about rough sleeping, social care and international development—I say that as someone who spent my early life in international development. Tackling those issues depends on economic growth itself. Public services are incredibly important. They are enablers of growth. We cannot have growth if people are arriving late to work, are too sick to work or are stuck on a Tory waiting list for treatment. We need to have the right skills in the right places. All of those things are absolutely essential, but we should not kid ourselves that such growth is not built on by private enterprise. Thanks to the Prime Minister deciding that I could have some time over the summer, I was able to write an essay—now that Tony Blair has brought them back into fashion. I know that many Members will have already read it, making some of my words today obsolete, but let me refresh their minds about what I focused on. I confined the essay to my experience in Government and how we can configure Government more assiduously and dependably to unlock the economic growth that our country needs so much—focusing on what Government themselves can deliver. That experience comes from leading two Departments as Secretary of State. I saw in both those Departments that civil servants can deliver boldly when they have the authority to and when incentives align. I will use one example—the automotive sector—to illustrate to Members the challenges that the Government face to unlock growth. Delivering support for the automotive sector means aligning energy, trade, regulation and all these different areas of policy. All are held by more than one Government Department, and each of those Departments has its own priorities. As Secretary of State in the Department for Business and Trade, at times I was prioritising the automotive sector and recognising how important it can be for growth. Let us bear in mind, when Jaguar Land Rover suffered its cyber-attack, 0.2% was taken off our GDP. When it was up and running six weeks later, 0.2% was returned to our GDP. The importance of industry is still fundamental. When the Prime Minister and the Chancellor talk about reindustrialisation, hon. Members should not underestimate its ability to deliver growth for our overall economy. We have another asset when it comes to the automotive sector in our country. When we talk about frontier technology—I am looking for the Minister for Artificial Intelligence, who was in his place a moment ago—we think about the AI labs, most of which are in California, with some in China, but we have a frontier industry here in the UK in the automotive sector, and it is Formula 1, because 11 of the 12 teams do all their research and development and all the deployment of their vehicles right here in the UK. No other country in the world has that asset, and that filters skills through our automotive sector. The ability to grow that sector is huge, but that needs Government to work in an aligned way. I discovered how different Departments with different priorities have oversight over things like automotive, and how sometimes they can slow down those priority areas. We need the structures and incentives in Government to be much better aligned, because we cannot have all these important sectors depending on Ministers’ ability to WhatsApp each other to sort out problems. We should have a system of Government that is already on the side of making pro-growth choices. I want to say a few brief words about defence, which has already been raised in the debate. I am grateful to the Chancellor for the statements he has made on this. We focus on the percentage of GDP allocated to defence, but the debate cannot just be about how big a share of our economy we spend on defence; it must also be about how big an economy we have. If we were to achieve five years of 3% annual growth, 3% of our national income on defence would deliver almost the same amount of money as moving to 3.5% in an economy of today’s size.

    Hansard source
27. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Kyle

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will continue. That is the difference that growth can make to our national security: it does not remove the need for difficult spending decisions today, but it can give us greater strength to sustain our defence into tomorrow.

    Hansard source
28. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Kyle

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I agree. I realise that in seeking to make an intervention we stop listening to what is being said, but I did say before I gave way to the hon. Member that that would not be instead. I am not proposing that we look to start investing five years down the line after five years of 3% growth—of course, we must move towards those NATO targets, just as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have promised—but if the debate is about getting cash into defence, this illustrates how there is more than one way of doing that. Immediately, yes, it is about increasing the percentage, but in the long term, on the back of economic growth of 3% and above, we could do so sustainably, and that would unleash enormous amounts of resource in addition to the reprioritisation that might need to happen. Of course, the difference is that when the spending comes from growth, other Government Departments’ budgets can grow as well, and working people right across the country will be feeling it in their pockets. That is why growth is one of the driving social justice issues of our time. It is my belief that government needs to become organised around growth, and that growth needs to become the organising principle of government. In the essay that I published, I give some practical suggestions based on my time in government for what I would do if I had the opportunity. First, the Government need to adopt a taskforce mentality when it comes to growth. The Prime Minister should back a 90-day plan to unblock investment. Of course, we need Cabinet accountability, but we have these great boards in government—experts on the Board of Trade and non-executives on Departments’ boards—and all sorts of different specialist groups and outside experts coming in and sitting on boards across Government. We should pick from those boards those people who are best placed because of their understanding of Government from the work they are already doing, and jump to a taskforce-based approach to looking at different Government Departments and the opportunities we have to act fast in Departments. They should identify areas that need legislative change, and for that we can introduce a growth Bill, if that were appropriate. I believe that it is.

    Hansard source
29. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Kyle

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Well, we should certainly legislate to remove the barriers to growth, because some barriers require legislation. Let me illustrate that with one point. When I was Secretary of State, I visited a fantastic company called Ocean Infinity down in Southampton, which is building and deploying globally—it is a global leader—autonomous marine vehicles. I was taken to see one of its vehicles, which was 36 metres long, being built. These are huge investments, with these vehicles doing extraordinary work autonomously for marine biology and drilling, going to remote marine places on Earth. I was taken one deck below on an autonomous vehicle and shown one room. I was asked, “What do you notice in there?” There was a washing machine and a tumble dryer—in an autonomous boat. Why? Because the law requires any boat more than 34 metres long to have a washing machine and a tumble dryer for its crew. Conservative Members may laugh at my suggestion of a growth Bill, but there are some things that need to change in the law to unlock the stupidity out there in how we regulate certain sectors simply because of the passage of time. I say to all hon. Members who worry deeply about deregulation or the modernisation of the regulatory landscape that there are absurdities out there that are holding businesses back. If we aggregate that one example of a tumble dryer and a washing machine across our economy, we can start to see the need for real positive action.

    Hansard source
30. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Kyle

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I am grateful for that constructive intervention. I am certainly in favour of looking at mechanisms for when we discover absurdities in the regulatory system. We know how long it takes to get legislation through the House or even introduced to the House as there are so many priorities, so we need to be able to act in the interim. We should look at that, and the House should give those powers where needed in such circumstances. Of course, national security is the No. 1 priority of any Government at any moment in time—it certainly should be.

    Hansard source
31. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Kyle

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will make some progress. We also need a tax growth test, with outside experts reviewing all investment, hiring, innovation, revenue and incentives from HM Treasury and judging those against a growth test. That does not mean we would not still redistribute, invest and use tax in ways that are not always conducive to growth, but we do need to know in aggregate form exactly how the incentive landscape and the policy landscape in HMT align with the need for growth. I am pleased that the Chancellor has made a lot of statements and some good progress on procurement. We should really be using that far more effectively to champion British innovation and support British scale-up companies. In procuring products and services, they have access to over £400 billion of spending, which eclipses investment we can make through Innovate UK, the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund or UK Research and Innovation. I could not understand this as Secretary of State, and I still cannot when looking on. We went through a period, with my encouragement, of taking equity stakes in scale-up companies as part of our scale-up plan. There was all the due diligence that goes into making those decisions and which lead to the British Business Bank, through the independent and thorough work of its investment committee, taking an equity stake. Yet once that is done, there is no preferential access to any other part of Government. That should change. The Regulatory Innovation Office should be upscaled and there should be local rewards for businesses that are growing fast. I have spoken—I will not speak in any more detail—about my frustration that this economy and the continent of Europe have never produced a $1 trillion company. Some of the wealth from those companies, when it is fairly distributed among their workforces and the communities in which they are sited, is an astonishing vehicle for levelling up. We need to ensure that we understand the reasons why our economy seems to have some kind of glass ceiling. It is a continental European challenge. Taiwan can produce a $1 trillion company that produces the wealth and power that goes alongside it, but there is nothing that Taiwan has that we do not have here in Britain. Social justice and growth are intertwined. I started by saying that we are on a motorway going in the right direction, but at 30 mph. Fairly distributed growth delivers security, freedom and prosperity. If that is what the destination looks like, why would we not we put our foot down and try and get there faster?

    Hansard source
32. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Dowd

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. There are 4,154 people still on the road who have 12-plus points on their licence but who are not disqualified, on the grounds that it would cause disproportionate suffering to a third party. But what about the disproportionate suffering to families? Does my hon. Friend agree that that get-out needs reviewing?

    Hansard source
33. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Patricia Ferguson

    Devolution

    It is estimated that decisions by the Scottish Government cost my city of Glasgow some £347 million last year. Does the Secretary of State agree that devolution should not just stop at Holyrood but should be pushed down to local government, cities and towns across Scotland, that it should be accompanied by money from the record settlement given by this Government to the Scottish Government, and that until that happens devolution in Scotland will not be complete?

    Hansard source
34. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pamela Nash

    Steel Industry

    8. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support the steel industry in Scotland.

    Hansard source
35. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pamela Nash

    Steel Industry

    I congratulate the Minister on a great performance at her first Scottish questions. She will know that yet again Dalzell’s staff in Motherwell were not paid on time this month by Liberty, despite pulling out all the stops to get the plant rolling steel again. It is simply intolerable for the team to live in this situation. They have been forced to find job security elsewhere, leaving a vital and unique piece of UK infrastructure in a potentially unsalvageable position. Will the Scotland Office work with me and colleagues to ensure that our Government take action imminently to ensure that the workforce are not left in this position again next month and to secure the future of the Dalzell plate mill permanently?

    Hansard source
36. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pam Cox

    Higher Education Funding

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate. I declare an interest as a member of the University and College Union and the all-party parliamentary university group. Everybody in this debate wants to see young people and lifelong learners succeed in their chosen path in life. Most would agree that the Government have done a great deal to invest in education and skills since 2024, and I want to pay tribute to that. We have seen that uplift in schools, special educational needs and disabilities provision, youth hubs, colleges and apprenticeships. This debate, however, is focused on the situation in higher education. My discussions with those who work in and represent that sector give me cause for concern, as I know is the case for other hon. Members present. Other south Essex MPs and I have spoken in this Chamber and elsewhere about the very significant challenges that my former colleagues at the University of Essex have faced over the past year. The university closed its Southend campus and made large numbers of staff redundant there and at its main Colchester campus. The University of Essex is not alone, as we have heard, in facing these painful challenges: many universities are closing departments and issuing redundancies. At least two other universities are considering campus withdrawals or closures. The University of Buckingham has withdrawn from its Crewe campus, to be replaced as the main operator by Apollo Education. The University of Brighton is closing its Eastbourne campus and is considering closing its Falmer campus. Other institutions are merging: the University of Kent with the University of Greenwich; City, University of London with St George’s; and King’s College London with Cranfield University. These new arrangements are the start of a new era in higher education. They raise the very thorny issue of how universities that were brought into being by the Privy Council via royal charters merge with those that were brought into being as companies limited by a guarantee. I suspect that this is a policy rug nobody really wants to lift. Other universities are being bought out or privatised. Lincoln Bishop University, for example, is now operated by Global University Systems, a global body with millions of students around the world. This new era of campus closures, redundancies, mergers and buy-outs comes at a time when many in the sector face huge financial challenges. The Education Committee has already been referenced. It recently reported: “The higher education sector in England is facing a financial crisis that now poses a real risk of institutional insolvency.” This situation requires our close attention. We need our universities to thrive in our rich research and teaching ecosystem—they are part of an ecosystem. Our industrial strategy depends on that, as does our ability to create sovereign innovations in every sector. Universities are very ready to adapt, and have adapted over the years, but they need us in this place to have more open conversations about how they can best do that. I ask the Minister to continue to champion our universities, but to support them by enabling more open conversations like this one about the scale of the challenges that they face.

    Hansard source
37. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Noah Law

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Would the right hon. Member care to ask that business owner about the potential impact of the reduction in business rates for nearly 70,000 small businesses?

    Hansard source
38. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Noah Law

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but does he appreciate that, in the south-west at least, 56% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will be lifted out of the business rates system entirely? Is that welcome news to him? I hope he has some welcome news in his own patch as well.

    Hansard source
39. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Noah Law

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    When the hon. Gentleman talks about debt to GDP ratios, does he not recognise that the significant mountain of debt built up under his Government, and that the debt to GDP ratio has remained relatively stable under this Government?

    Hansard source
40. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Noah Law

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    The right hon. Member says that nothing has been done to reverse the so-called assault on the return on risk. How about incentivising the risk takers—the founders—who will now benefit from very targeted, fiscally responsible benefits on capital gains?

    Hansard source