What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The Secretary of State has said that no child subject to safeguarding concerns will be considered for participation in the trial. Can he confirm, therefore, that no already vulnerable children currently in the care system will be accepted on to the trial?
The Deputy Prime Minister has just said that we are all in the Prime Minister’s debt. Well, that would be the £300 billion of debt that he has racked up. Of all the G7 countries, we now pay the highest borrowing costs. Given that Labour was elected on an express pledge not to raise taxes and not to borrow beyond our means, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if the right hon. Member for Makerfield wants to hike taxes even more and max out our national credit card, he should call a general election?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This motion is antisemitic in its very motivation and at its core. As such, we should utterly reject it. Hon. Members have spoken brilliantly and passionately about that, but we can turn that terrible negative into a positive. The motion asks us to talk about the influence of Israel on democracy. Democracy thrives when citizens are healthy, so maybe we should celebrate the incredible brilliance and influence of Israeli scientists, entrepreneurs and those specialising in medical research and artificial intelligence applications. Their work and innovations, whether they live in the state of Israel or somewhere else such as London, have an incredibly positive influence on the success and health of us all. We should say that we want more of that success and brilliance—more of that innovation and more partnerships with brilliant Israeli scientists who can share their knowledge and understanding. I want more entrepreneurs from Israel listing their companies on joint listings, preferably on the UK stock exchange rather than somewhere else. I want more AI experts from Israel sharing that best practice and knowledge for the benefit of all of us.
The use of AI across society, and its applications in all industries, are changing rapidly, but I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the best way to guarantee peace is to prepare for war so that our opponents respect us. To conclude, Israel has so much to offer as the only democracy in the middle east and we should work closely with it. As other hon. Members have said, there is a massive difference between criticising politicians who may be elected in a democracy—whether in Israel or elsewhere—which is completely legitimate, and criticising a state. I want to celebrate the influence of incredible entrepreneurs, scientists, technicians and cyber-security specialists in Israel, from the Jewish community, and in our great nation—and I want to have more of that, not less.
Now that we have debated this appalling motion, is there a minimum timeframe before we have to debate it again?
There is a reason why this request is actually fair and just. My hon. Friend talks so evocatively about the dangers undertaken by coalminers going underground, and in today’s world, that is almost impossible to imagine. That is the key difference. This was one of the most dangerous occupations in the country, but it literally kept the lights on and kept industry moving. For that reason, above all, justice and fairness must surely prevail.
First, I would like to declare an interest: I am a former coal miner and a member of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. In the 1950s, there were over 700,000 men working in the pits in this country—people like my grandads, great grandad, dad and uncles—in fact, I cannot remember any male member of my family not working down the pit in the 1950s and 1960s. When I went underground for the first time in the 1980s, there were still around 170,000 men working in the coal mine. Now we have probably about 112,000 former miners still living. There are around 38,000 members in the BCSSS, and of course many of them will be women—women who worked in the industry, or widows of men who did. I am no spring chicken—I am getting on a bit—but I am one of the youngest members in the scheme, the average age of a member being about 78 years. One of the questions that we must ask ourselves is: how many members of the scheme will be left in 10 years’ time? I reckon there will be half as many as there are today, because members of both schemes—the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the BCSSS—are dying every single day. All we are asking for is one simple thing: fairness in the surplus sharing arrangements. It is hard to explain what it was like to work down a coalmine—there is one other hon. Member in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who knows what it was like—but it is like nothing else. I worked at four different pits in my time as a coalminer. I started off at Sutton colliery and ended up at Welbeck colliery in north Notts. I did not need an alarm clock to get up to go to work on a day shift—I could hear my dad’s alarm clock going off. He would wake up and he would get me up, and he would take me to Sutton colliery, where we would do a shift together. Most sons are proud to follow their dads into the workplace, and it was no different for me. I was very proud to follow my dad into the coalmine. I grew up in a coalmining community, where lads followed their dads into the pit—that was the norm. It was the best education I ever had, to be honest—better than any school or college—because it taught me how working-class people think. Those tough, hard men who worked down the pit were products of where they were born. If they had been born in a village like mine 60, 70, 80 or 90 years ago, there was a high chance that they would end up in a coalmine. Those men did incredibly dangerous jobs to put food on the table, pay the rent or a mortgage, and maybe, if they were lucky, get a week in a caravan in Skegness once a year. That was our life. Mining was more than just a job. The miners did not stop turning coal once they left the pit, had a bath and went home—they would still be talking about it in the miners’ welfare at night-time, or at a football match on a Saturday. It was just a way of life that was bred into the mining communities. There will be ex-miners watching the debate who will know exactly what I am talking about when I say that the experience of working at a pit was different from working in any other industry. There was the smell of the pit head bath, which I can still smell now; the sound of laughter in the bath as hundreds of men stood there naked, washing each other’s backs to scrub away the coaldust, the dirt and the grime; and the feeling of your ears popping as you went through the air doors to reach shaft side, before you went underground. What ex-miners really remember is the danger, the noise and the heat, and the sense of unity they had with their fellow working miners. It is the sort of unity we see now among the ex-miners who are still here, fighting for a fairer deal under both pension schemes. I started in the pit a year after the miners’ strike of 1984-85. My dad had been a striking miner. He was on strike because he knew that closing the pits would kill communities. He was right, and 40 years later, we are still recovering. It was the fault of politicians and union leaders that communities were divided. They killed an industry that had served us well in this country. Some men, like my dad, went on strike and others worked. Looking back, I have no problem with either group. I knew men in South Yorkshire who wanted to work but were too scared to go to work, and likewise I knew men in Nottinghamshire who wanted to go on strike, but they thought it was pointless—and it was pointless. Communities of decent, hard-working miners were ripped apart because they were being used by people in high places, who had personal scores to settle. Well, we have politicians and people in high places now who have the chance to make amends for this injustice.
It is heart-warming to know that former miners are living out their final years in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He is quite right; they need to live in dignity, and a fairer surplus sharing agreement would allow them to live a more comfortable life. Let us not forget that once they get the extra money, they will spend it in the local community. I have to give credit to the Government for the investment reserve fund for both schemes. They made a promise, and they stuck to it—fair play. But we must battle on to get more justice for the miners, because they deserve it for the service that they have given to our great country.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his wisdom, and he is quite right. I am sure that many of the ex-miners watching this debate will be very encouraged by his intervention. I have two questions for the Minister. Will he commit to working with the scheme’s trustees to ensure that 100% of any surplus is shared with any members and their spouses?
Justice and fairness are the two key words in this debate.
Those are very wise words. It is very encouraging to hear that whoever becomes the next PM will treat this issue seriously. Let me go back to my original request. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the scheme can share 100% of any future surplus with all members and their spouses from its next valuation? I think that will be in March 2027. Will that be announced in the autumn Budget? That is my first ask. The trustees have asked if they can be given total control over future surpluses. The scheme has £7.8 billion in assets. That is a lot of money—our money, and we want it back. We are not asking for much.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Members of both schemes need the justice that they deserve. I live in a coalmining community; I was born there, and I have lived there all my life. I feel incredibly proud of the contribution that my community has made to this country, but I feel incredibly sad when I look at what has happened since all the pits closed in the ’80s and ’90s. As I said, that is because of union leaders and politicians in this place who destroyed our industry, and they will never be forgiven for doing that. However, politicians in this place now have a chance to make some amends and give the miners the justice that they deserve.
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree 100% with the point he has made. I thank all Members who have turned up tonight—I would have expected a few more, because there are probably 200 coalfield constituencies in this country. Please, Minister, give justice for the miners.
Some 10 years on from the Brexit referendum, the Government want to align more closely with the European Union, but does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise as a statement of fact that in the sectors from which the growth of the future is coming—life sciences, agritech, defence tech and, most of all, artificial intelligence—the UK far outstrips the EU, and it would not do so if we had spent the past five years in the EU’s regulation regime. Whenever the EU summit happens, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that we need to maintain absolute sovereignty and regulatory divergence in those vital areas?
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland). I start by stating, on behalf of my party, our support for this Bill and its important provisions, not simply because it extends the legal basis of our armed forces, but because of the very important new provisions that it introduces. We very much support the extension, which the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, of the armed forces covenant to more policy areas. We also support the expansion of recall for reservists; it would be good if we could actually recruit more reservists, full stop, but it is very welcome that we will be able to recall more of them. Most of all, I support the principle of better housing for veterans and forces families. I think I represent more forces families and veterans than any other MP; the area that I represent covers part of Salisbury plain, Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill, and despite what it says outside Aldershot, we are the true home of the British Army—I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) will allow me to make that claim—and I am very keen to ensure that our forces and their families are properly accommodated. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor that what really matters is the leadership of housing organisations. However, I want to express my concern about a measure that will create a new quango responsible for forces families. I instead support the official Opposition proposal that we create a dedicated housing association for that purpose. I will turn now to the amendments tabled by other Members and parties that we support. It is important that the budget for the new housing organisation is properly reflected in the defence investment plan, when it comes out. I would also very much like a commitment from the Government that we will see in due course the effect of this long, unacceptable and unaccountable delay to the defence investment plan. What effect will the delay have on our procurement and military readiness?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the SDR, because I was about to do so myself. It is not a strategy. For starters, it is a defence review. The point I was just making is that the strategy we need is upstream of defence. We need a proper national security strategy that considers, in the round, all the different levers of national power and places defence in its proper place in the hierarchy, which is downstream of the crucial strategic questions about the role that the United Kingdom will play in the world. The SDR was published over a year ago; we have seen none of its recommendations implemented, and the money that is required for it still has not been delivered.
My point is that arguing loudly for a bigger armed forces, praising our troops, as we all do, or speaking up for our allies, as we should, are not a strategy. Publishing a strategic defence review or even a defence investment plan do not count either.
The word “strategy” can be put on all sorts of things. I am talking about what a strategy actually is. It is a plan of action that proceeds from an objective and a doctrine about how to achieve that objective. That is what we lack as a country. We have not done grand strategy in this country for decades.
I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman is an academic in this space. The point that I am making is that we need an overall vision for our country, a doctrine of how to achieve it and then a set of actions—working together, which I understand to be a strategy, how we deploy different assets, the different policies we have, and the different means to the ends that we have identified in pursuit of our overall objective. I do not think that any of us in this House can accurately define what that is for our country, and that is a source of great regret. I applaud everything that the Government are trying to do to improve conditions for our armed forces. It would be great if the money were to be forthcoming as well, but there is something bigger and more profound than the questions about specific posture, kit or even deployments. It is: what are we trying to do as a country? I want to finish by suggesting a strategy. It might sound bold and simplistic, but it is only bold because we are so weak and diminished as a country. Our strategy should be to rejoin—not the EU—the club of great powers. Currently, the great powers are the United States and China, of course, but also Russia, India and Japan. Those are the countries that recognise each other in those terms. They are great powers not because they are good—very obviously China and Russia are very bad—but because they make the weather in the world, and Britain does not, despite our country’s most incredible assets, opportunities and strengths. The reason for setting out this objective to be a great power is not just for national pride or self-esteem but for a simple reason: a country that is not a great power is subject to those that are. Sovereignty and capability are vital in the age of tech, a high demand for energy, rare earths and high-tech skills. That is what a country needs in this age. What does great power status look like? I do not want to join the EU. I think that would be a disaster economically and pointless from a security perspective.
I will not. Instead, I would like the United Kingdom to lead European defence by leading a partnership of other countries that have a capable military—most obviously France, Germany, Poland and the Baltics—to defend the Euro-Atlantic from Russia, China and Iran. That is the best role we can play in partnership with our friends in the United States.
I absolutely do not believe that we should form a European army, and we certainly should not join any sort of chain of command organised within the EU, but we can act with European partners, as we currently do—most obviously with the northern states in the joint expeditionary force, but also with our other allies in Europe, such as Italy, France, Poland and Germany. We should do that on the basis of a genuine, bespoke partnership for the purpose of defending Europe, particularly the Euro-Atlantic seaboard, where the United Kingdom has a special responsibility. My position is that we should preserve our national sovereignty, capability and independence, but that we can do that in partnership with other countries, in defence of our common interests. That feels to me to be completely consistent with national sovereignty.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am taking the opportunity of a defence debate to make the point that defence is downstream of grand strategy, and that is what is fundamentally lacking. Our defences are not going to be as strong as they could be, because they are not necessarily oriented towards the fundamental objectives that we need, which I am trying to set out in very broad terms. I am not suggesting that we need to create new structures and new alliances with new institutions—we can work within the ones that we have—but the purpose of the United Kingdom’s security strategy, and the fundamental objective we should have as a country, is to lead the defence of Europe with our partners, particularly the Euro-Atlantic seaboard. Let me conclude with this point. To lead the alliance that I suggest, we need real strength at home. More than anything, that means economic reform, liberating the inventors and entrepreneurs, particularly in the exciting new fields of defence tech. It means freeing up private capital that will ultimately fund our defence in addition to anything that the Government can find. It means driving forward on AI, which is the new, great frontline for everything. It also means securing the supply of energy, licensing new oil and gas exploration, and radically reforming our planning system. None of that is being done by the Government. That is why, although I absolutely support the objectives of the Bill—we will vote for it tonight if it goes to a Division—I still fear for our security as a country.
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Ten years on, Brexit has cost the Welsh economy £4 billion, raised the cost of living and narrowed the life chances of young people. If the next Labour Government are serious about change for the better, rebuilding relationships with European members of the G7 and with the EU must be front and centre. Given that the Brexit reset summit due to be held a month from now has been postponed, with no date, surely the definition of stability would be for the next Government to campaign to rejoin the single market and the customs union and to be up-front and forthright with the British people on the advantages of doing so.
I recently visited Ralph Allen school in my constituency and saw how students were leading the way in improving the standard of their food. They have created a vegetable bed in an empty space, and are now offering vegan and vegetarian choices. How will the Department support schools in pupil-led improvements to their food?
I thank the Secretary of State for the manner of his responses. Four years, three-and-a-half years, four years, six-and-a-half years, four years, three-and-a-half years, four-and-a-half years, five-and-a-half years, three years and nine months—those are the waits faced by young people in Dorset supported by Space Youth Project between their referral to the gender identity service and their very first appointment. None of them will qualify for this trial, and many will have gone into adulthood still waiting, despite commitments of more treatment and clinics. While I support the criteria for the trial as detailed in the statement, there is an inadequate capacity in the system, which is leading to even more distress for these children and their families. Will the Secretary of State update us on this issue? Most teenagers will be excluded from the trial, so they need to hear how they will be supported.
23. What steps her Department is taking to improve the SEND system.
I have been campaigning for a number of years to get the special school at Bilton Woodfield open. It was first set to open in September 2024, then it was delayed to September 2025, and we have now been told that it will open in September 2026. It beggars belief that a school that has had millions of pounds spent on building and funding it is sat empty when we have a SEND crisis in Harrogate and Knaresborough, and across the country. Will the Minister meet me, apply pressure to the school trust and the local authority, and ensure that no further delays are made to the opening of the special school so that we get it open on time in September and do not fail a further generation of SEND kids?
6. What steps she is taking to support small schools in rural communities. [R]
I was deeply saddened last week to receive from the Minister the news that Corpusty school will close from September. Across North Norfolk there are small rural schools just like Corpusty, and they are worried that they might be next to face closure. The Department for Education’s research and guidance about running a small rural school was conducted eight years ago and published in March 2019. That is about to be six Prime Ministers ago. Will the Minister commit to undertaking new research and publishing up-to-date guidance so that small rural primary schools can be protected in future?
9. What steps she is taking to recruit and retain teachers.
A Public Accounts Committee report published last summer found that the Department for Education not only lacked a plan for recruiting the additional teachers that Labour pledged in its manifesto, but did not understand why teachers are leaving the sector. Despite the Secretary of State’s saying that the Department is on track to meet an already revised and narrower target, this month’s DFE report found that there are 1,907 fewer teachers overall since Labour came to power. What further steps is the Secretary of State taking to recruit and retain our teachers?
16. What steps her Department is taking to improve the SEND system.
Like local authorities across the country, Buckinghamshire council submitted its SEND improvement plan on 19 June, but it will not receive a decision on deficit relief until 21 September, after the school year has started. With a cumulative deficit of over £45 million already on the books, it is being asked to plan blind. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what support will be available to councils like Buckinghamshire if such applications are rejected, and to discuss bringing forward the decision timeline?
T9. This week, temperatures in Somerset are forecast to exceed 35°C, and some classrooms are set to breach safe working thresholds by as much as 10°C, risking serious disruption to learning. What immediate steps is the Secretary of State taking to protect pupils and staff from this extreme heat, and what dedicated funding will be made available to schools to retrofit for heat resilience, to prevent repeated disruption to education in future heatwaves?
A week ago, the Prime Minister said that the UK would support the deal between the United States and Iran by standing up a “defensive, independent, multilateral mission”. At the planning stage, that was designed to restore freedom of navigation to the strait of Hormuz. In May, the UK was supposed to deploy drones, Typhoon fighter jets and HMS Dragon to such a future mission, whereas today the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of “immediate support for de-mining.” What will the deployment involve, and what might trigger it, please?
Tiverton high school has been on various lists for a rebuild since 1999. I am genuinely grateful to the Department for Education for the work that has gone on behind closed doors since my election in 2024. However, there is still a worrying lack of commitment in public from the Department. Will the Minister give a commitment in the House to have the Department write to me, to Mid Devon district council and to Devon county council with a full update on the specifics of the school rebuilding programme for Tiverton high school, to provide the certainty that my constituents require.
T2. On a recent visit to Stanford in the Vale pre-school, I saw the great service that it provides to children and parents. However, it faces rising demand without adequate funding and resources. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to support early years education providers in meeting demand for the free-hours childcare scheme?
May I start by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? I wholly associate myself with her remarks. Our thoughts have to be with the driver who lost his life and the many passengers who were injured, particularly those still in hospital, and all their families. From my past railway management experience, I know that the railway family as a whole will be in a state of shock. I pay tribute to the on-train staff, signalling centre staff and control centre staff in Network Rail and East Midlands Railway for their excellent initial response. That led to emergency services being on the scene within 10 minutes. I also pay tribute to the emergency services for their work and to investigatory staff, station staff, customer service personnel along the line of route, the community organisations and the Salvation Army, as the Secretary of State referenced. I do not have a question for the Secretary of State; I think her statement was spot on, and I just want to reiterate what she said. It is so important that we do not succumb to the temptation to speculate, however well-intentioned that may be. We must give the investigatory teams and the site recovery teams the time and space that they need. I never had to deal with anything as horrible as this in in my railway career, but I know from that time that speculation is the most unhelpful thing that can be done.
I congratulate the hon. Member on his speech. I join him in paying tribute to Jesy Nelson and her campaigning. I also pay tribute to the parents of little Charlie in my constituency. In the words of his mother, he was “very lucky to celebrate his first birthday last August.” He was treated with gene therapy after being diagnosed and following symptoms. He is now living his life, but in a wheelchair. Had he been screened at birth he might have had treatment sooner and he might be walking right now.
rose—