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 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The hon. Gentleman is doing what he does best, which is to fire up the grievance machine rather than look at all the enormous opportunities that could be coming to Scotland. Perhaps he could tell us what his own party’s policy is on Jackdaw and on energy. When will we see an energy strategy for Scotland? It has been more than five years, and we are still waiting.
Once again, a typical display from the hon. Gentleman—firing up the accusations of betrayal before he has even heard the Budget. I understand that he called for standing charges to be removed from gas bills some time ago, so I look forward to hearing him welcome some of the measures in the forthcoming Budget.
The Prime Minister has been clear about our shared ambition with business to drive investment, create jobs and grow the economy. We are cutting red tape and striking new trade deals around the world to drive up exports, and boosting the role of Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises in sectors such as defence and energy. Our industrial strategy sets out a 10-year road map for the UK economy, backing Scotland’s strengths and providing business with the certainty it needs.
I was glad to meet representatives from the fishing sector across Scotland recently, and this matter will be on the agenda for the EU summit taking place at the end of next month. The Prime Minister has also rightly said that it is time for us to have an honest conversation with the country about our broader relationship with Europe. That stands to benefit Scotland in many ways, and I wish the hon. Member’s party would get behind that. Moreover, it is an interesting day to hear about measures that would benefit the economy from the Conservatives, given that Liz Truss has been talking about her mini-Budget, saying that she was right. Let us remember that the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), was one of the architects of that Budget, which torched our economy.
My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate for the people of West Dunbartonshire, and I am delighted that it will benefit from a new youth hub opening this week. This Government’s investment in a generation of young people includes the expansion of youth hubs across the UK. There are now 12 youth hubs open in Scotland, with a further 27 planned across our nation. Each will provide a range of services to our brilliant young people, helping them to earn, learn and live the fullest possible lives.
This Government are committed to supporting a competitive and sustainable steel sector across the United Kingdom, with Scotland a vital part of that. The UK’s first-ever steel strategy, published in March, sets out an ambitious long-term plan to rebuild the sector, return domestic market share to around 50%, attract new investment and position the UK as a world leader in clean, modern steel production. The significance of Scotland’s steel industry to local communities, jobs and supply chains is beyond doubt.
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for those she represents, and I know she discussed the situation at Dalzell works with the Prime Minister when he was in Motherwell recently. Liberty’s failure to pay its workforce on time is a huge worry to her community. It is intolerable, as she says, and we share that concern. The UK Government want to see the Dalzell site operational once more, and we are looking at the situation closely. We will continue to work with her.
It is astonishing to get lectures on energy policy from the Conservatives. The reason that the Jackdaw decision took longer than it otherwise might have taken was that they messed it up. The right hon. Gentleman’s party would do well to remember that clean, green, home-grown power is the only way to bring down bills in the long run, and that is what our Government are focused on doing.
Q5. Having lived my whole life in Easterhouse, one of Scotland’s most deprived communities, I know the challenges that our young people face, but also their enormous potential. I was therefore encouraged to hear the Prime Minister commit to the Easterhouse principle, inspired by the work of Ian Montague and the charity FARE Scotland’s “names not numbers” approach. Will the Prime Minister accept my invitation to return to FARE with the Work and Pensions Secretary to discuss making that principle a guide for supporting young people across Britain?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment. On 13 November, we published an implementation road map setting out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases. The first phase, which entailed the introduction of the new tenancy regime, was implemented on 1 May this year. We are now progressing with the second phase of our reforms. That entails establishing a landlord ombudsman for the PRS to improve dispute resolution, settling issues between tenants and landlords without costly court proceedings, and introducing our innovative database of PRS properties to bring together key information for landlords, tenants and councils. The regulations we are considering today concern the latter. They set out the registration framework for the database and are essential to enabling its roll-out, which will commence regionally from 15 December. The database will record information about private landlords and privately let properties in England. It will help landlords understand their obligations, give tenants better information before entering into a tenancy and support local authorities with enforcement. The service will be known publicly as the “Register your rental property” service, but I will refer to it as the database for the purposes of the Committee. The regulations determine how registering for the database will work in practice. They cover who can make entries, what information must be provided and how the database can be kept accurate over time and up to date. Landlords will be required to make a landlord entry, which will include their name and contact information. Entries for organisational landlords will include information about the organisation and its management. Joint landlords will share the dwelling entry for the property, but each will need their own landlord entry. Landlords will be required to make a dwelling entry for each property, which will contain information including its address, ownership, property type, rent level and relevant management details. Once occupied, it must include tenancy and health and safety information, including uploaded certificates and information relating to gas, electrical and energy performance information. Landlords will be legally responsible for registration, payment, renewal and compliance. Under regulations, they may, however, delegate the supply of certain information to an agent or property manager to reduce administrative burden. The regulations also allow entries to be made, updated or renewed by certain third parties in discrete circumstances—for example, where a landlord lacks capacity or where a possession restriction is in place when a mortgage provider requires a court order possession of an unregistered property. Entries will need to be kept up to date for an entry to be deemed active. Recorded information will be treated as out of date where details no longer reflect the landlord, property, tenancy or relevant compliance position. It must generally be updated within 28 days. Regulations give the database operator the ability to correct errors and remove entries that do not meet the requirements for inclusion. We will issue guidance on the operational detail, including on the verification of entries by local authorities. The regulations require landlords to pay a fee to make or renew a dwelling entry. The instrument does not set the fee, but it does delegate that to the database operator. The operator is required to set the fee by reference to the relevant costs as specified in the Renters’ Rights Act. We have separately announced the fee of £65 per property per year, pro-rated during the initial roll-out to ensure that costs remain fair and that those registering first are not paying more. This is the first of two statutory instruments needed to implement the database. Following parliamentary approval of this first instrument, roll-out of the database will commence on 15 December. Each region will be rolled out in one-month intervals. When a region’s registration window goes live, landlords will have three months to register properties in the region. We have issued guidance showing the order and timings for that. All relevant entries are required to be made by the end of 14 November 2027. A second statutory instrument will cover the public-facing side of the database, the addition of specified breaches and offences committed by landlords, and further data sharing. We will commence that as soon as possible following completion of the initial roll-out. It will concern what information is made visible to the public and wider data-sharing arrangements. Those matters are not in the scope of these regulations. To conclude, these regulations put in place the operational requirements needed to begin the roll-out of the PRS database. They are a critical step toward a more transparent and enforceable PRS system, supporting compliance while giving tenants better information about the homes they rent. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
I think it is the first time in this Parliament that I have seen the Liberal Democrats and Conservative party in unison. [Interruption.] But if they will let me finish, given that His Majesty’s Opposition opposed the Act outright, I am not surprised by their opposition to this measure, although I am somewhat surprised by the Liberal Democrats’ opposition. I take the challenges on the various points in good faith, however, so let me try and reassure hon. Members about what we are trying to achieve here. First, on how the data is uploaded, I will make it clear that it is not the case that each landlord needs to log on and upload the same information each year starting from scratch. They need to update the information only if the information they have already entered has changed. Once the initial information has been uploaded, they will not need to change it if it remains unchanged. We have explored options for enabling bulk uploads—something I have pushed officials on. I started from the same position that Opposition Members did: “Can’t we just allow bulk uploads?” We have concluded, after looking into the issue in some detail, with quite a significant amount of sector engagement, that due to significant challenges with data validation and error handling, traditional solutions such as uploading Excel files—one of the options put to us—would add complexity for the user. We are designing the service to be as straightforward as possible for landlords, including those with larger portfolios. To meet their needs, we will enable organisations to add multiple employees to their accounts, enabling easier administration. We are looking at how to make it easier for landlords, particularly those managing large portfolios, to connect their existing property management systems directly with the service and to create some efficiencies in that respect. We will look to provide a secure digital connection that landlords and their technology providers can choose to integrate with, reducing the need to enter the information manually to register their properties. We will continue to explore opportunities to improve functionality and reduce burdens as the service develops. I hope that that has answered some of the points about bulk data entry.
Well, we are going to look to integrate the management systems of large portfolio holders. I was asked, “Does each large portfolio holder have to sit there and add in each entry every year?” That is not the case. I am trying to clarify some of the misconceptions that have been put to me. On selective licensing, as we debated at length through the passage of the Act, selective licensing and the database have different purposes. The database will not duplicate or replace selective licensing. We recognise the important role that licensing can continue to play where it is used appropriately. The national database will provide consistent information about private landlords and rental properties across England, supporting transparency, compliance and local authority enforcement. We will, however, continue to review how selective licensing and the national service interact as implementation progresses, with a specific view to reducing duplication. I very much agree that, in terms of the information currently held when a selective licensing scheme is put in place, there are ways to reduce the amount of that required once the database is in place. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked why letting agents cannot register on behalf of landlords. One of the key goals of the database is to improve landlord awareness and capability. Responsibility for ensuring that registration requirements are met will remain with the landlord throughout. Letting and property agents will not have a mandatory role in registration and will not be separately registered through the service. Requiring landlords to initiate registration ensures that they engage with their legal responsibilities from the outset. We do, however, recognise that letting and property agents play an important role in supporting landlords to meet these responsibilities. To reflect that, agents will be able to support landlords by providing certain information once the landlord has started the registration process. Again, I come back to the importance of the initial registration in this first phase of the roll-out. Where an agent agrees, the landlord will be able to delegate the provision of specific tenancy and health and safety information to them. A series of points were put to me about the fee. The fee is set at £65 to fund a national service. It is fair, sustainable and capable of supporting effective enforcement. I think the shadow Minister has put to me on several occasions, as has the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, the need to properly fund local authority enforcement in the private rented sector—here we are with the means to do so. Every landlord is required to pay the annual £65 fee for each property they register on the database. As the fee is charged per property, landlords must pay each time they register a different property. The fee has been set in that way to balance fairness and sustainability for landlords with the cost of operating the service and tackling non-compliance in the private rented sector. The shadow Minister is absolutely right that the NRLA and other organisations support the database in principle, because it will allow us to bear down on the unscrupulous landlords in the market who do much to colour the reputation of the good landlords out there.
I do not think we need to think again, because we are already thinking about this issue. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that we are exploring how we can make it easier for landlords, particularly those managing large portfolios, to connect their existing management systems directly with the service and integrate them.
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head at me, but if landlords have a way of integrating their service and of providing that faster upload, that is precisely what we are trying to look at already.
We are not going to pause—I say this to the shadow Minister quite plainly—because we want the database in place. It has benefits for landlords in understanding their legal responsibility, and it has benefits for tenants. This is the first of two statutory instruments, as I have made clear. We think we can do that work, working with the sector to understand how we might integrate their management systems.
I will give way, and then I am going to make some progress, because the same points continue to be raised.
We have thought through the timetable and the implementation, and we are confident that we can proceed as we intend to.
No, I will make some progress. Fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the reforms in the Renters’ Rights Act. The funding will support councils, ensuring that they have the staff and skills required to identify and tackle non-compliance and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. Fees will be pro-rated during the initial roll-out, ensuring that landlords in regions required to register early are treated fairly. To go back to my opening remarks, we will roll-out the measure on a regional basis from December. I think I have answered all the points put to me.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. The Government have looked into the practicality of bulk uploads, and we do not think it is, in the terms he has put it to me, a workable solution. As I have tried to make clear at several points, we are looking at how we can integrate the management systems of larger landlords into the database in a way that does not require them to manually input each of their properties, as has been put to me in this debate. We are looking for those efficiencies—why would we not look for those efficiencies? On the hon. Gentleman’s point about fees, to be clear, it is not the Government’s intention to use the fees to fund wider costs that are not connected to the private rented sector, but some of the fees will go towards local authority enforcement. As we have debated previously, it is incredibly important that local authorities have the resources to properly enforce the Act. To conclude, the regulations set out the practical steps required to deliver the PRS database, and set the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will follow. In commencing the roll-out of the database, the regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement and give tenants better information about the homes that they rent. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), though I disagree with the vast majority, if not all, of what he said. As we have seen, growth is running at about 2.1%. We have not seen that economic performance for about 10 years, with the exception of 2022, as we emerged from the pandemic. In the 2024 general election, we promised that we would fix the foundations; that cannot be done overnight. We said that we would produce the highest growth rate in the G7 and we have done that. I am proud of the Government’s record, as, I am sure, are all my colleagues on the Labour Benches. That is not just about what we have heard today; it is about what has happened over the last few years. I want to place on record my thanks to the last Labour Prime Minister and his Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), for their stewardship, because they delivered fiscal discipline, bold economic reforms and good growth. We face the impacts of global events at home when doing the weekly food shop or filling up at the pumps, with Trump and Netanyahu’s war in Iran set to cost each household £2,500 by the end of 2027. Listening to the Chancellor, today’s Budget looks to build on the fiscal foundations and I welcome the measures laid out. It will give families the breathing room they need by extending the VAT on electricity bills this winter and spring into July next year, taking £50 off; cutting standing charges on gas bills, saving £45 for the average household; knocking green levies off bills; and providing a council tax rebate of £100 to help 20 million households with their energy bills—that will help almost 40,000 households in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington. Today’s Budget cannot fix the cost of living overnight. Between 2010 and 2024, real weekly average wages rose by just £16, but if we had matched the wage growth seen in Germany, our earnings would be £3,600 a year higher. The extension of the 5p tax cuts on fuel duty to July is welcome, as is holding down red diesel. I congratulate the Chancellor for helping motorists, particularly business users, with the higher mileage rate increasing from 25p to 35p. That will make a significant difference. The average house price in my constituency 30 years ago was five times the average annual salary. Today, it is 10 times the average annual salary. That is why I welcome the Government’s announcement; it is critical to increase supply to help young people to stay in their areas and to help key workers to locate themselves near their work. That is particularly relevant not just to the businesses in my constituency but to Warwick hospital. When it comes to the delivery of affordable housing and council homes, extending the discounts on the local authority borrowing rate is important, and the introduction of the £4.7 billion Your First Home programme is welcome. I am delighted to see the Chancellor backing UK businesses by taking more of them out of paying business rates. The raising of the small business rate relief threshold means that 52% of all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will pay no business rates at all, and the real-terms business rates freeze for eligible businesses will benefit 535 properties in my constituency. The Chancellor also mentioned the relief for family businesses, and the relief for entrepreneurs and founders, which is particularly welcome and innovative. I commend him on that. On the reindustrialisation programme, the additional investment announced, totalling £20 billion and supporting 100,000 jobs in sectors such as AI, defence and green energy, will strengthen our economic resilience. In Warwick and Leamington, we are very well positioned to take advantage of that, in particular through our advanced manufacturing, automative and defence businesses. Let me highlight just one company, given that we have been talking about innovation and have heard that are no £1 billion businesses in the UK. A company just down the road in Oxford—a spin-out of a PhD project at Oxford University—had zero money in 2009, but by 2019, just 10 years later, it was worth £100 million and was subsequently bought by Mercedes. To build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) about pensions, ISAs and encouraging greater investment in the United Kingdom, I believe that there is a lot of money in this country as liquid assets and we have to use much more of those assets, such as those in ISAs, to invest in the United Kingdom. I would like to see more encouragement and more fiscal incentive for individuals to use their savings to invest in the United Kingdom or in the UK’s defence sector. On devolution, it is welcome that there is transitional growth funding. I agree with the combining of powers—for Warwickshire, Coventry or the west midlands, whichever way we end up—and believe that it is important. I really do hope, though, that areas such as mine will not lose out just because of the mistakes made with local government reform back in the 1970s, when Coventry was hived off from the rest of Warwickshire. I welcome the long-term thinking that the Prime Minister is bringing to his role and how he sees Government. Working with countries such as Vietnam, we will see the benefits of a long-term plan and the strategy for delivering permanent growth and long-term prosperity for communities. We must have AI sovereignty, either through strategic leverage of the AI stack or through a sovereign frontier AI model, so I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement on a sovereign AI unit. I welcome the measures in the Budget, particularly what has been done to help households through this incredibly tough time—a tough time brought on by external events, whether it be the war in Ukraine or the unnecessary war in Iran brought about by Trump and Netanyahu, which has seen energy prices spike dramatically during the past 10 months. These are significant headwinds, and there is only so much a Government can do to battle them, but I really appreciate the measures that this Government and this Chancellor have introduced to address them. I agree with my colleagues that this Budget has been delivered by a Chancellor who is renowned for his steadfastness, durability and seriousness. He brings all his personal qualities to the role of Chancellor, and his first Budget underlines his vision and the seriousness with which he wants to steer our country through a very difficult time. I look forward to supporting the Budget.
I warmly welcome the Budget. It offers breathing space for both families and businesses, and, crucially, hope for the future. Although this is a time of really quite severe international headwinds, as we are all very aware, there are real signs of growth in the British economy. We are jointly leading the G7 in terms of growth, and the IMF is welcoming the Government’s measures to reduce debt and deficit. Let me deal briefly with the key measures that will offer breathing space and support to families and businesses, before moving on to some of the longer-term measures. Many of my constituents live in older properties, in Victorian houses or possibly houses built in the 1930s, and I was delighted to note that they will benefit from a host of measures to reduce their energy bills in what will be a very hard winter for them. That shows a real understanding of the pressures on families at this difficult time. I particularly thank the Chancellor for his offer of £100 paid directly to residents, which I consider very sensible. That, and a range of other measures, will help to reduce the current severe pressure on family finances. The measures to support small businesses, particularly those in our high streets, will also be welcomed in Reading and many other towns and cities. Moreover, 47% of small hospitality, leisure and retail businesses in the south-east will now not pay business rates. In the time available to me, I want to say something about the longer-term measures, particularly those relating to improved devolution to help businesses and development and regeneration, along with a series of other measures to support businesses and homeowners. When it comes to regeneration, the new mayoralties that have been announced present some real opportunities. I warmly welcome the Thames Valley mayoralty of Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, and, in particular, the scope for mayors to free up land near railway stations. As many Members on both sides of the House have seen, a huge pool of land is available. On one side of the railway in my own town of Reading, a £1 billion regeneration project is bringing jobs, growth and new housing to the town centre. On the other side, where there are a series of small, fractured sites where developers are not working with one another, there is no regeneration. One of the significant advances is that bringing in mayors allows the creation of a mayoral development corporation, which can bring together those disparate sites and make them much more attractive to developers. I look forward to hearing more from the Chancellor and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about that type of work as the whole mayoral scheme moves forward in the new year. The support for home ownership, and the support for new council houses, is warmly welcome in my area. We have high house prices, and many people are struggling to get on the housing ladder. The growth of businesses in the Thames valley is partly due to the inward movement of people from across the rest of the UK and around the world, so housing is needed, and these are two important measures to support home ownership and ensure that there are homes for people to rent. Finally, I warmly welcome the measures to support entrepreneurship, which I hope will significantly support our tech entrepreneurs. Some 300,000 people in Berkshire work in tech or telecoms, and they are driving growth in our county, across southern England and, indeed, across the country as a whole. We have benefited from a number of key infrastructure projects, particularly the Elizabeth line. I look forward to many others in the future, including the western rail link to Heathrow, but the help to support entrepreneurs is important. I warmly welcome that and commend the Treasury for its work. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been a pleasure to speak today.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s point about Pride in Place. I commend his efforts with the Pride in Place board. I have done something similar in my constituency. Our Pride in Place Farnley East board is giving money to Farnley Falcons. The club is at the heart of our community, bringing in young people from across the constituency and further afield. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging all those with Pride in Place boards to give some money to local rugby league clubs?
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s experience, and the tone in which he is delivering his speech. However, on the point of credibility, I would gently ask him this question. In April 2024, the Conservative Government committed to a target for defence spending in 2030—that target was, of course, 2.5%. A month earlier, they cut national insurance, and they committed to a further cut in national insurance in the manifesto. Will he reflect a little harder on the credibility of the Conservatives on this issue, given their failure to commit to 3% mere months before their party said that defence spending should be 3%, and with no real means to pay for it?
5. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support Scotland’s contribution to UK energy independence.
Having met apprentices and engineers at Hunterston, including many from my own constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, I have seen at first hand the world-class nuclear talent that we have in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP’s continued opposition to nuclear energy not only weakens our energy security but risks driving our skilled young Scots to seek opportunities south of the border, when Scotland should be creating those opportunities to keep them, their futures and their careers in Scotland?
Well, I am going to start by commending the Chancellor for what I thought was a Budget that is going to leave our country richer, fairer, stronger and safer. It has been my privilege to know the Chancellor for many years, and over the course of those years, he has been a modest man. The truth, though, on the basis of the numbers that he set out to the House today, is that he has nothing to be modest about. He has been able to tell the House today that we have delivered the joint highest growth in the G7. We have had the second biggest uplift to growth in the G7. Whole-of-economy investment is now at the highest rate since 1990. Productivity growth has been upgraded again and is now back in line not just with the growth rate but with the growth achieved by our competitors. One million more people are forecast to be in work between now and the end of the forecast period—that is 550 people back in work every single day. Economic expansion of £200 billion has been forecast for this Parliament—that is twice the level achieved under the last Parliament. GDP growth per capita is forecast to rise by £2,500 over the course of this Parliament—that is 36 times more than was achieved under the last Government.
I am not giving way. Crucially, the OBR says today that GDP growth is now structural, therefore raising the potential for output growth over the course of years to come. Of course, that is helping the Chancellor to deliver the fastest fiscal consolidation in the G20. I want to use the time I have to make three quick points about the virtue of predictability, about small businesses—a particular interest of our Committee—and about AI. The Chancellor has been able to deliver, and, despite the challenges posed by the war in the strait of Hormuz, he has managed to keep to the fiscal rules. Now, I am old enough to remember when the fiscal rules used to change every couple of years, depending on which faction was uppermost in the Conservative party. We used to zig-zag here and there, and the markets had no predictability. However, the response of the gilt markets this afternoon has been positive; they have respected the buffer that the Chancellor has been able to leave, but above all they have welcomed the fact that, where we have made changes to deliver real help now to the people we come to this House to serve, we have also stepped up and made the difficult decisions about how we are going to pay for those changes. We have not tried to borrow it on the never-never, as the Conservatives sought to do in the past, and that is exactly why we are retaining the confidence of the bond markets. For Labour, growth in and of itself is never enough, and that is why growth in every postcode is an important political priority for this Administration. But if we want growth in every postcode, then we need enterprise in every postcode, and if we want enterprise in every postcode, then we are going to need surge finance into every postcode. We have got to step further and faster ahead of the proposals the Chancellor has laid out today to back those little engine rooms of growth in each of our constituencies: they are the people who work out of white vans—where I started my working career; they are the people on market stalls, on high streets and in every business park; they are the wealth creators in this economy—the visible economy that employs millions of our constituents. I welcome the statement from UK Private Capital today that said that the Chancellor delivered “pro-investment” measures that should “make the UK a more attractive place to invest in and grow a business.” That is a really important judgment. The Startup Coalition has said that today’s Budget delivered the best news for start-ups and scale-ups that has come out of a Government in years. Those are important credentials. Of course I would have liked to have seen the Chancellor go further. Today, I am publishing our Committee’s analysis, setting out where we would like to see the Chancellor do more, including further changing the business rate structure; changing VAT thresholds for small business; ensuring there is real accountability to drive Government procurement into the bank accounts of small business; going further to tackle the peril of late payments—not just tackling rogue traders, but tackling rogue customers who do not pay on time; and getting much tougher on high street crime by tackling bogus self-employment that undercuts good and honest traders on the high street. These are all important things that will help our small businesses to grow. Crucially, as a nation, we have got to crack the challenge of investing in ourselves. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who is no longer in his place, made some important changes with the Mansion House accord, but the reality is that our country is not short of long-term savings—we have £3 trillion of long-term savings. Our problem is that we invest the lion’s share in other countries rather than in ourselves. Eighty per cent of the long-term savings that we channel into equity investment goes abroad rather than here, yet the Mansion House accord is proceeding so slowly that we are going to miss our target by a decade. That is not good enough. I would like to see the Chancellor go further and faster on repatriating pension fund investment. The £25 billion that has been announced today for the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank is incredibly important, but that now has to be used to leverage in more of our long-term savings in order to expand enterprise in every postcode. We heard evidence at our Committee yesterday that underlines that the enterprise rate in our country is now at the highest level it has ever been. We have doubled the entrepreneurship rate since 1999, but too few of those businesses are surviving for the long term because we are not investing in ourselves. Let us rebuild regional banking, let us put business banking back on the high street and let us couple that with stronger, sharper incentives for our angel investors and venture capitalists. We are making some progress, but it needs to be much faster. We are not short of long-term savings or of genius, but what we have got to do is match the money to the ideas and the entrepreneurs at a completely different scale for the years to come. My final point is about artificial intelligence. The Chancellor made some very important announcements about investing in artificial intelligence, and in artificial intelligence safety and security for the future. That builds on a number of initiatives started under the last Government, in particular by the former Prime Minister. Again, we have to grasp the fact that the way that we are going to reindustrialise our country is by marrying AI to HI—human ingenuity, the British genius that we have in such abundance on these isles of wonder. This is the home of the scientific revolution. This is the home of the industrial revolution. We have been inventing the future and making history for 300 to 400 years in this country, but if we are to reindustrialise in the way that the Prime Minister has set out, we have to marry artificial intelligence, traditional engineering and cyber-engineering on a completely new level for the years to come. The IS-8—industrial strategy 8—needs to become the AI-8. Crucially, we have to recognise that we are not going to spread artificial intelligence through our economy unless people trust it. That means that we will need new regulation to keep it safe and secure for the future, and we will have to ensure that there is a just transition for workers as they go through this new industrial revolution. The Committee will announce important recommendations on statutory safety legislation, which we think is needed in the here and now, and we will have a report out before Christmas about how we think workers should be supported and reskilled for the future. We have a tremendous future ahead of us if we get this right, but if we pretend that we can somehow leave it to the market to decide, rather than building a strategic partnership between the public and private sectors for the future, I am afraid that we will miss the opportunity that lies before us. This is a Budget that, by and large, will be welcomed by business. More and further reform is needed, which I hope our Committee will influence in the 10-year plan and the CSR next year. The Chancellor should take some pride in having delivered a Budget statement today that leaves our country stronger and fitter for the future.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this debate and I congratulate Members from across the Chamber on their contributions. It should not be said that issues facing our universities are the preserve of MPs from big cities or the leafy suburbs. As Sunderland Central’s MP, I want to highlight the importance of the University of Sunderland to my city. This is as much a red wall issue as it is anywhere else in the country. I want to mention the university’s educational and economic impact, and what the higher education funding environment means for our city. The university comes from the proudest of polytechnic traditions. It is rooted in the city, with a mission to be open to anyone who can benefit from higher education. It is shaped by what local employers and professions need. Nowhere is that clearer than in health. Sunderland trains the nurses, pharmacists, paramedics and doctors whom our NHS rely on. Its medical school was explicitly set up to bring more working class and local students into medicine. It is now moving into dental education, in a region where too many people struggle to see NHS dentists. When it was named university of the year for social inclusion, more than six in 10 of its students were the first in their family to go to university. If I may, I will associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on the intergenerational and social mobility missions of our universities. That is crucial in Sunderland, as it is elsewhere. This is what widening participation looks like in practice: young people from Pallion, Hendon or Southwick in my constituency having the chance to get a degree and, by living at home, de-risking some of the financial issues facing students that we have talked about. The university, as we have heard, also brings people to the north-east from across the country and, as successive Governments’ international strategies have encouraged, from around the world. On its economic impact, independent analysis found that the University of Sunderland adds around £250 million a year to our city’s economy and supports more than 4,000 jobs in the city. It is one of our biggest employers. The university, however, is under real financial pressure, which has serious consequences for the city as a whole. Home tuition income has fallen behind costs, and the visa landscape for international students has changed rapidly and unpredictably. As a result, the university has had to set out plans to save £40 million over the next two years, and staff are understandably worried about their jobs. That pressure did not come from nowhere. For years, the previous Government froze tuition fees while costs kept rising, with no long-term plan. As others have said, the Government now expect to fund just 16p in every pound of home student funding. Universities that do the most to open doors, like Sunderland, are left the most exposed. I know the Government are working with significant fiscal constraints. I know they have taken steps to set stable expectations for future fee income so that proper financial planning can happen. I, of course, welcome the return of targeted maintenance grants. But in previous responses the Government have been keen to highlight that universities have always been autonomous institutions. I understand that. In my experience, they take the responsibility to be financially sustainable seriously, even when that means making deeply painful and locally unpopular decisions such as the withdrawal of funding from our National Glass Centre in Sunderland. But we cannot treat them as autonomous institutions and assume that they will always be there as anchors in communities like Sunderland and across the country. I hope we will hear more about the Government’s long-term strategy.
As the MP for Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, right in the heart of Staffordshire, I too welcome the devolution announcement today. It means that, in contrast to the chaos we are seeing at Reform county council level—we are on to our fourth leader this week, if anyone is keeping count—residents in Stafford will be able to access that devolution funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that putting the power into community’s hands to direct their own future is central to making sure that we have good growth in every postcode?
To many hon. Members, it will not come as a surprise that I want to talk about town centres. Stafford, the constituency I represent, is a market town—the clue is in the name—but since 2024, Stafford has not had an actual market. It is really hard to think of a more powerful symbol of what has happened to towns like mine over the last decade and a half. Towns such as Stafford are full of hard-working people who really want to get on. They want a good job, a warm home and a safe community—and it is not a lot to ask for. Under the last Conservative Government, they watched as the foundations of their community life were stripped away. Youth centres disappeared, we had the third worst youth service cuts in the country, important buildings were left to decay and eventually the market closed. The damage that such neglect does to a town is more than financial; it starts to chip away at the heart of a place and changes how people feel about their home. Stafford has a vibrant, independent business scene. People can get unbelievable hot chocolates in the Monk & Smuggler, bestsellers from That Little Bookshop or incredible vinyls from Double Double records, plus much more. These businesses are investing their own time, money and energy in our town, and they have told me many times that they need their market back. They want Stafford to be a destination once again, and so do I—a place that people choose to visit, to spend time in, to spend money in and to build a future in. That is why I am so proud that this Government have committed £10 million to a brand-new, all-day market hall and events centre in Stafford, which I have been working on for a good while now, as my hon. Friends can attest. This investment says that towns matter, and that my town matters. It is an investment that will support businesses, create opportunities and help breathe life back into our high street. This debate is obviously about something bigger than one town and one project. It is about who gets the power to shape people’s future, because if we are serious about growth, opportunity and rebuilding Britain, we cannot continue to run every important decision through Whitehall. The truth is that the people who know Staffordshire best are the people who live and work there. That is why the case for a mayoral strategic authority in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent is so strong. We have already seen the difference investment can make in Stafford over the last couple of years. We have seen growth and confidence start to return and investment at a scale not seen for many years. Of course, there is so much more to do, but this commitment is a clear sign that this Government care about towns like ours, believe in their future and are prepared to back that with action. I look forward to working with Members across the House to make this vision a reality, and to ensure that Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent have the powers, the investment—my hon. Friends have talked about that—and the opportunities they need to thrive for generations to come.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. Road safety is a key issue in my constituency, and he is absolutely right to say that the sentences should reflect these hideous crimes. Does he also agree that we must look at prevention? As part of that, will he encourage the Government to look at the introduction of graduated driving licences, which are a way of preventing these horrendous incidents from taking place? There is much international evidence that they save lives.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I welcome the expanded sanctions framework and in particular the introduction of the new sanctions ground relating to the deprivation of liberty. It is right that serious arbitrary detention, unlawful imprisonment and the denial of basic legal protections can now form the basis of sanctions designations. Will the Minister therefore set out how the new ground will be applied in practice to evidence concerning the detention of Palestinian children? For many years, human rights organisations and international bodies have raised concerns about the arbitrary or unlawful detention of Palestinian children, including prolonged detention without charge or trial, military detention, and the systemic denial of due process and legal protections. As we know, Israel is the only country in the world that systematically and automatically tries children through military courts. Such courts have a conviction rate of 99% for Palestinian defendants. Of course, we are all alarmed by the introduction of the death penalty in Israel, which has been criticised by human rights groups and the UN as applying de facto exclusively to Palestinians. The separation of legal systems based on the race and nationality of defendants has led leading human rights organisations, including B’Tselem and Human Rights Watch, to declare Israel an apartheid regime. If the Government receive evidence that such practices meet the threshold established under the regulations, will Ministers actively consider designations under the new liberty ground? Furthermore, when assessing responsibility, will the Government look not only at those directly responsible for detention but at those who enable and sustain such practices, including officials, Ministers and private actors who provide services that facilitate places of detention where serious violations are alleged to occur? Finally, how does the Minister intend to keep Parliament informed on the use of the new sanctions power, given the significance of the liberty ground? It is important that Members understand how evidence is being assessed and whether potential cases, including the detention of children, are being actively considered. The creation of this new sanctions ground is welcome. The test will be whether it is applied consistently and robustly wherever credible evidence of arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of liberty exists.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) for securing this debate and for her well-informed and considered set of proposals about a contract of which I am aware. I will try to address most of her points. The contract was signed just after the general election, but it was on my radar before then, partly as a local MP. As I think the hon. Lady said, there are staff here today, and I am conscious that this remains a concern for staff and some of the trade unions—not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) has kept it on my radar. I am absolutely aware of the genesis of the process by which this contract came forward, and I want to make sure that people know that. I will not rehearse it, however; we are where we are now. As I think the hon. Lady said, now we need to make sure that what was promised is delivered. That is what we all want to see for the people of her community and across the wider ICB. I want to be clear on our general expectations of community services: they are really vital to the left shift, particularly in rural areas. A wide range of services is delivered under that umbrella—from district nurses to services provided by allied health professionals, such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy—for adults and children where they live, in local communities. They also provide really good local jobs. Those services are vital to supporting our ambitions for neighbourhood health, which is why we set out clear ambitions for them in our medium-term planning framework. For the first time, we have set a target for systems to reduce long waits for community health services: by 2028-29, at least 80% of activity delivered by community health services should take place within 18 weeks, bringing community health services in line with targets for elective care. We have also published guidance outlining the core components of community health services for children, young people and adults that ICBs should provide. That guidance is hugely important for many of the issues that the hon. Member for Chippenham has raised today. We know that there is variation in the services available across the country, and that people are waiting too long to access community health services. That is why this Government are taking action to reduce unwarranted variation, cut waits and improve access to high-quality community services. That is where we want to get to. Moving on to HCRG Care Group’s performance, as we know, it has taken on the contract to bring together more than 130 community health and care services across the ICB area. It is a large-scale “transformation” programme, as it is called. Since the contract was awarded, the ICB has obviously had to work very closely with it. The ICB is responsible for managing the contract, and I met it in advance of this debate to hear from it as well. As I understand it, the ICB has arrangements in place—the hon. Lady alluded to how many there are—to oversee quality, safety and performance across all those commissioned services, and performance is regularly monitored. I recognise the concerns about delays, callbacks and referrals across the teams, and about getting people through the single point of access. Single points of access have been worked on for many years under many different contracts. Generally, they should do what they say on the tin and actually help people move forward, so HCRG does need to make its work. I understand that, as a result of some of the issues that have been raised, the ICB is increasing its oversight, bringing together the provider and the system to support improvement. It is really important that that work also brings together patients, carers, the local community, staff and other stakeholders as it develops. The ICB assures me that it remains committed to engaging openly with those communities, with MPs and with Healthwatch throughout the delivery and development of those community services.
I will come on to some of that, because it is also tied up with the Health Bill and the things that we are proposing to do for the future. The hon. Lady also touched on one of my favourite subjects: the accountability of local health systems. The hospital at home services are also important—as it says on the tin—to keep people out of hospital when they do not need to be there and to support early discharge. They remain an important part of the community services offer across Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire ICB. There have been changes to the service provision and I am assured by the ICB that there are no plans to reduce capacity or withdraw the hospital at home service—I am sure that the hon. Lady will correct me if that is wrong. The ICB is currently undertaking a review of the services following concerns raised, and will continue to monitor the impact of those changes to ensure that safe and effective care is maintained. Again, that is absolutely the direction of travel in that we want to see those services change and improve.
Industrial relations are also important. We cannot run a health and care service without good staff who are well supported, nor without maintaining good industrial relations at a local level. That is a matter primarily for the group, its employers and recognised trade unions. The ICB needs to continue to monitor that and go through those established processes for doing so. It needs to keep working with them and we certainly support that at a national level. On the wider issues about supporting ICB performance, I sympathise. I have spoken many times in Opposition and Government about the frustrations of local Members of Parliament in understanding the very fragmented system left under the Lansley reforms. I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying from her position in Chippenham, and that may be different from other positions—it is a large geographic area. That is one of the issues that we need to get right. We are working closely on it in the Health Bill, where we are devolving responsibility and accountability for commissioning and providing services at a local level. That is the right thing to do. We also need to get right the link to neighbourhoods and place through local authorities while strengthening health and wellbeing boards. That is the direction of travel in the Bill and what we are currently trying to make happen. ICBs are held to account nationally for delivering for patients. The oversight framework provides a transparent approach for assessing performance. Another thing that we have changed since coming into power is that from 2026-27 every ICB will be placed in a delivery segment based on national performance measures. That will help to identify when greater support, scrutiny or intervention is needed at the national level. That will be complemented by an annual assessment of how effectively each ICB is discharging its statutory functions. Where performance is falling short, oversight can be increased and support can be targeted at the areas of challenge and, where necessary, formal intervention powers are available. That brings ICBs into line with other providers. At the same time we are strengthening ICBs’ commissioning capability, partly through the Health Bill. We have the strategic commissioning framework setting out what effective strategic commissioning looks like, and the strategic commissioning development programme provides targeted support to strengthen those capabilities in local systems. We recognise that there is variability across the country. To be clear: ICBs are responsible for assuring the quality, effectiveness and value of the services that they commission, while NHS England oversees the performance of ICBs through the oversight framework, including consideration of how effectively they discharge those commissioning responsibilities. Finally, we have heard about issues with palliative and end-of-life care. Patients approaching the end of life and those important to them—their closest friends and family—should absolutely receive compassionate, dignified and personalised care in an appropriate environment. That is why the Government are committed to improving access to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care, and to shifting more care from hospitals into the community and, where appropriate, the home. NHS England requires ICBs to commission appropriate palliative and end-of-life care to meet the needs of their local populations. To support ICBs in that duty, NHS England has published statutory guidance and service specifications. In addition, we are developing a modern service framework for palliative and end-of-life care, which will be a clinically led, evidence-based framework to support sustained improvement in outcomes for patients and carers, including identifying, measuring and reducing health inequalities, and reducing unwarranted variation in access, experience and outcomes. We continue to work hard to strengthen community care services and shift care closer to home. As the hon. Lady said, what was promised to her population and the wider ICB area must be delivered. All too often, community health services do not get the attention that they deserve, and staff on the ground do not get the recognition that they deserve. This debate has raised some important questions about how we hold organisations delivering and commissioning services to account. The hon. Lady asked two questions about comparable data. If anyone has not read the transformation and opportunity packs that I sent all MPs last year about their local systems, I recommend that they do that. I will continue to get information on their local systems to them. The hon. Lady probably knows that we cannot compare like for like, but she should have that information; we are getting it on stream. I am happy to write to her with details of what is or might be made available. The hon. Lady asked about the CQC. As she knows, it is an independent regulator, but I will ensure we write to her about it. I thank her and other Members who contributed to the debate. Question put and agreed to.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. I have received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter. It is not a matter for the Chair, but Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order.
Q10. Twenty-one years ago my constituent Paul Dadge helped survivors of the 7/7 bombings to safety. His phone was hacked, and so were the phones of family members of people who lost their lives that day. Press intrusion also affected victims of the Manchester Arena bombings and the Hillsborough families, who have described press regulation as the final piece of the jigsaw in their fight for justice. Fourteen years on from the Leveson inquiry, we still have major publications in control of the system that polices them. I know that this is an issue that the Prime Minister cares deeply about, so will his Government bring forward plans for the fair, independent press regulation that our constituents want to see?
Q7. Regional health inequalities are now so severe that a study this month found that death rates among 25 to 49-year-olds in the north of England are 42% higher than those in the south. The Prime Minister has promised us growth in every postcode. Can that be met by good health, too?
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing this important debate. Behind every road death is a family, a group of friends and loved ones who have been changed forever. Today, I want to speak about one such family from my constituency: the parents of Jess Waterman, who have joined us in the Gallery this afternoon, and whom the Minister kindly met earlier this year. On the evening of 19 February 2022, Jess’s partner—someone she knew and trusted—picked her up from the Watermans’ home in Bishop’s Stortford. He had never passed a theory test or practical driving test, and he took to the roads in full knowledge that he was not qualified to drive. He showed brazen disregard for Jess’s safety and the safety of other road users. He crashed that evening. When he fled the scene to avoid arrest, he left Jess behind, seriously injured. Tragically, Jess died the following day. She was three days short of her 21st birthday. The police acted to apprehend the driver, but the outcome of this case raises serious questions about whether the law properly reflects the choices people make before getting behind the wheel, and the devastation that can follow when that goes wrong. The driver responsible for Jess’s death was convicted of causing death by careless driving rather than causing death by dangerous driving, and that distinction matters. Dangerous driving will generally involve driving that falls far below the standard expected of a competent driver. Careless driving can cover errors of judgment or lapses in attention. Driving without a licence is not simply careless. This was not a split-second mistake; it was a conscious decision taken before the journey ever began. It required premeditation. The driver knew that he was unqualified and that he should not be behind the wheel, but he chose to get behind the wheel anyway, with Jess in the car. Jess’s death was treated in law as careless driving, in the same category as offences such as forgetting to get an MOT. As a result, in 2023 the man responsible for Jess’s death was sentenced to just four years in prison. Not only was he out of prison by early 2026 but, stunningly, he was caught driving again. Despite being handed a 10-year ban, he showed no remorse for the tragedy he brought upon the Watermans or regard for the one he might bring upon another family. He was rightly returned to prison. No parent expects to outlive their child, or to receive a phone call or visit from the police to tell them that their child is never coming home, but that is the reality that one driver’s actions have left the Waterman family living with every day. Out of their loss, the Watermans have campaigned for change, calling for death caused while driving without a licence to be treated automatically as dangerous, and for stronger deterrents. They have worked tirelessly to ensure that no other family has to experience what they have endured, and I promised them I would do all I can to support their campaign and ensure that their voices are heard in the House. As we consider these issues today, I ask colleagues to think about this: how can it be just that someone taking to the roads in the full knowledge that they are not qualified is not considered dangerous? How can we claim that there is a sufficient deterrent when Jess’s killer spent so little time in prison and immediately took to the roads again upon his release? We owe it to the Watermans, and to victims and their families, to ask in cases such as this whether sentencing powers properly reflect the profound harm that has been caused. I stand with the Watermans as they call for a change in the law, and I thank the Minister for meeting us earlier this year. I would be grateful if he could update us on what actions he has taken, and if he would commit in this debate to working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and across Government to review whether causing a death while knowingly driving without a licence should automatically be treated as dangerous driving. The law should better reflect the poor choices made before a tragedy occurs and the consequences that families must live with forever. I want to conclude by paying tribute to the Watermans. Out of grief, they have sought to make change and to protect others. I can honestly say that I cannot imagine showing the strength, determination and courage that they have shown, were I in their shoes. I am humbled by their commitment and their work, but they deserve more than just our admiration; they deserve our support. We must not fail to meet their call—for Sue, for Del, for their younger son, Jess’s brother, and, most importantly, for Jess.
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for rugby league clubs. It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I am sure that you will be very firm with us, but very fair as well. It is also a special privilege to see the Minister in her place. I know that Barnsley, which she is very proud to represent, has a strong rugby league tradition. I will start by explaining why this issue is so important and why it is such a great privilege to speak on this sport. As we know, there are two codes in rugby: rugby union, which is very familiar and offers great sporting spectacle, and rugby league, which also offers great moments of sporting prowess. I vividly remember attending probably the most iconic rugby league final ever in 1968 with my dad and granddad at Wembley. It felt like the whole of the north of England came down to invade London—quite rightly, bringing our civilisation to the south. It was one of those great days when the rain never stopped—it had not stopped for several days. The pitch was a mud bath, literally covered in mud and water. It was very exciting, and in the last two minutes it was 11-10 to Leeds. In those days, I was supporting Leeds, as somebody who was born there, against Wakefield, where I have proudly been an MP for 30 years. In the last minute, a penalty was given to Wakefield, right under the post. We would have expected it to be converted by the great rugby league player, Don Fox—who came from a great rugby league family and was born in my constituency—but the weather was atrocious. Everybody turned their back, because they could not bear to watch—Wakefield supporters hoping to hear the victory and Leeds supporters fearing what might happen. It was an amazing moment, and I will never forget it: he missed the penalty. That is not to show any disrespect to the Fox family, who were brilliant, but it meant that Leeds were victors. It is something that is fondly remembered. I am sure that I am the only Member of Parliament who was there at that great sporting event. Rugby league offers great spectacle, but it has been treated in a way that has not been fully appropriate, and I fear for the future unless we can correct things.