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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

   Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. It is not the first time I have done so as part of a Committee to discuss planning regulations—I am sure, Ms Jardine, that you look forward to debating these as much as I do. The Liberal Democrats are sympathetic to the need for strategic planning and welcome its being rolled out for strategic authorities; we made that point during the passage of the Bill. However, we also made the point that we should not load this requirement on to hard-pressed unitary authorities. For example, my local authority in Somerset is struggling to begin an enormous and expensive local plan exercise, under which it would be required to find a 46% increase in the number of housing plots in Somerset, which is 75,000 plots all together. It is not reasonable to, at the same time, expect county councils or unitary authorities, acting on their own, to begin work on a spatial development strategy. I understand that in the regulations there is a provision for authorities to combine to achieve that—indeed, Somerset council is trying to combine. It is part of the Wessex partnership, but the partnership’s bid for mayoral status was pushed back by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, so it is unable to form a mayoral strategic authority. Therefore, Somerset council, like many other county councils and unitary authorities around the country, will be expected to undertake the work. Although we support the spirit of there being spatial development strategies for strategic authorities, we are unable to support the regulations, given the huge extra burden on county councils and unitary authorities, as we raised during the passage of the Bill. In addition, we do not feel that the regulations have a sufficiently “brownfield first” approach. During the passage of the Bill, we also highlighted the lack of any statutory right to be heard in the plan-making process. The SDS gives us further cause for concern about the implementation of that aspect of the Planning and Infrastructure Act.

   Hansard source
2. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

   Mental Health: Parity of Esteem

   On wraparound care, we have a fantastic initiative in Winchester where Citizens Advice spends time with patients at Melbury Lodge, the in-patient unit, to help them deal with all their life admin, such as debt issues and money issues. It has been shown that those who receive that service have a shorter stay in hospital, are significantly less likely to be readmitted and are more likely to engage with social services once they have been discharged. Is the Minister willing to meet me and the team to discuss that initiative? For every £1 spent on it, £14.08 is saved in cost avoidance for the NHS.

   Hansard source
3. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Cost of Living

   A few months ago I met farmers in Merthyr Cynog, in Brecon and Radnorshire, who warned me about the growing pressures that they were facing. Since then, Trump’s reckless war with Iran has sent fertiliser prices soaring by up to 45% and red diesel prices by up to 30%. Does the Secretary of State accept that unless urgent action is taken, higher costs for Welsh farmers will ultimately mean higher food prices for families across Wales and the UK?

   Hansard source
4. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Engagements

   May I associate myself and my party with the Deputy Prime Minister’s tribute to Jo Cox? We extend our condolences to her friends and family, and to those of Roy Hattersley as well. I also join the Deputy Prime Minister in remembering the horrific tragedy of Grenfell, and that the families still await justice. I congratulate all those named in the King’s birthday honours list, congratulate Scotland and wish good luck to England this evening. The right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) is respected across the House. When he says that he was forced to make decisions that could make the country less safe, we should all take heed. It is now becoming clear that the Treasury’s refusal to consider new ways of funding defence is undermining our national security, so will the Deputy Prime Minister join with us to make the case in Government for new defence bonds, which could raise £20 billion over two years to defend our country?

   Hansard source
5. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

   Engagements

   We are pleased to hear that the Government are looking at that, but they need to act far quicker. It is now more than five years since the Prime Minister originally set out his famous red lines on Europe when he was in opposition: no customs union and no single market. But since then, the world has changed. Putin has launched a war on our continent, an unreliable Donald Trump has returned to the White House and, here at home, the cost of living has got worse and worse, so does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Government should rip up those red lines now—or is that just another job to be left to the next Prime Minister?

   Hansard source
6. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

   Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this debate. The Lamb Inn in Iron Acton was built in 1690. It is believed that Mary and William of Orange stayed there. It is a real community pub that has been run by Tracey and Brendan Byrne for the last 20 years, but the Byrnes tell me they have a long list of burdens bearing down on them, including employer national insurance contributions, business rates, VAT and alcohol duty, all of which are under the direct control of this Government. That is the reality facing rural pubs across Thornbury and Yate, and indeed the country. These are not simply places to drink; they are community anchors, spaces for the lonely, meeting points for neighbours and outlets for local breweries and farmers. Pubs in villages and hamlets without the footfall that town centre pubs enjoy, which often have higher energy costs, cannot absorb pressure the way larger operators might. When they close, nothing replaces them—the loss is permanent. Greg and James at the Swan at Nibley have also been hit by National Highways closing a road for three years. They are looking forward to trade improving from this weekend, when the closure ends, but they say that a cut in VAT for hospitality would make a big difference to them and all pubs in our area. The employer national insurance rises have forced publicans to make brutal choices about staffing. Those hit hardest are young people looking for their first job—the kind of formative, confidence-building experience that hospitality provides. Previously, pubs were able to employ 10 to 15 young people, working a few hours a week; now they struggle to employ three. That is a dozen NEETs for every pub lost, in more than one way.

   Hansard source
7. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

   Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

   I agree. The Swan has been taking on apprentices, but many pubs are unable to do so because of the challenges. There is often a lack of opportunities in our villages and, with transport issues, it can be difficult to travel to places where they can be found. On business rates, Liberal Democrats have consistently called for a fair and more proportionate system. The Government’s partial climbdown—a 15% reduction on a planned hike, after sustained pressure from the House—was welcome but it went nowhere near far enough.

   Hansard source
8. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

   Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

   I absolutely agree. I could also highlight many other anomalies that affect the wider hospitality and attraction industry. At the Horseshoe in Chipping Sodbury, I met Matthew Lewis of the Independent Pub Alliance. The ask from the pub trade is not complicated: stability, fairness and a Government who understand that these businesses are part of the community infrastructure. I urge the Minister to meet the alliance to better understand its ask, and I would be delighted to bring Matthew to meet him. My constituents value their rural pubs, as do I and my party. Will the Government show that they do, too?

   Hansard source
9. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Christine Jardine

   Engagements

   Earlier this week, in Westminster Hall, we had a debate on brain tumours, brain cancer, and the inequity of the service across the United Kingdom. The issue has been highlighted by my constituent Archie Goodburn, a Commonwealth swimmer who will compete in Glasgow next month. He got the treatment he needed only after I approached the Government and they supported him. Will the Government look at how we ensure that people in all parts of the United Kingdom, regardless of devolution, get the best possible treatment for cancers?

   Hansard source
10. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlotte Cane

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing this debate. Ely and East Cambridgeshire is a very rural area, and in many of my villages the pub is the only place left for local people to gather, meet and socialise. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, we have lost or are at risk of losing 609 pubs since January this year, and 60 of those are definitely lost forever because they have been demolished or converted. My village of Reach nearly lost its pub back in 1999. The villagers bought it, and it is now run as a fully commercial business on a long lease, with the freehold belonging to the parish council. It sits at one end of Devil’s Dyke, so it has been renamed the Dyke’s End. It remains a very successful and popular pub. I regularly meet my publican network and the local CAMRA group, and they tell me about what pubs do to support community events and social interaction, combat loneliness and help with mental health, as well as providing young people with their first job and training them in communication and hospitality skills. But they are really struggling financially. National insurance, business rates and energy costs come up over and over again, which is why the Lib Dems are calling for a 5% cut on VAT for pubs, action to reduce their energy costs and the replacement of business rates. All of our communities and publicans deserve better support, but I would like to highlight two in my constituency. The Carpenters Arms in Soham was voted CAMRA’s rural pub of the year in 2024. It has an amazing array of real ales, a beautiful garden out the back and community events. It is a real part of that market town in my constituency. More recently, the Black Horse in Rampton has been voted CAMRA’s East Anglia cider pub of the year 2026. It has a whole wall full of different ciders. Hon. Members would have to visit regularly to try them all. One of them is Foxhay cider, which is made in Rampton using local apples, so the pub supports small local businesses as well. As we have heard, these small, rural pubs are also supporting the wonderful micro and small breweries, which need people who can take small amounts and get through it quickly before it goes off, as it has a shorter life than commercial beers. Our pubs really are the hubs of our communities, but if we continue to over-tax them, we will continue to lose them, with all the impact that will have on our local communities. Will the Minister commit to asking the Government to reduce those taxes and allow our pubs to thrive?

    Hansard source
11. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlie Maynard

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this important debate and I thank all my colleagues who gave such excellent speeches, which set out not only how much they love their pubs, but the struggles that they face. That is the important thing. I do not want to talk about how much those pubs matter to our communities or how much fun I have had in pubs over the years, because the thing that we must focus on is the big screaming problem. We need to take it seriously. Warm words go only so far right now. We have a huge problem that is hitting pubs every day, and we have to do something about it. I will set out how big the problem is. In the first half of last year, more than 200 pubs closed in six months. That is eight a week. A year on, things are even worse. The British Beer and Pub Association said that 161 pubs closed in the first three months of this year alone in England, Scotland and Wales. That is about 2,400 jobs. Those in rural and coastal constituencies have been among the hardest hit, and according to UKHospitality, running costs for pubs have risen by an estimated 43% since 2019. One third of hospitality businesses are operating at a loss, six in 10 have cut jobs and 63% have reduced staff hours. That is bad. Anyone knows that pubs are much more expensive than they used to be. That is hurting customers, as fewer people can afford an evening out. When a plate of fish and chips costs 15 quid, that is hardly surprising. It is obviously not because pubs are raking it in. Sadly, quite the opposite is true. Pubs are facing many of the same pressures that are hammering small local businesses across the board: spiralling food prices, high rents, sharp business rate increases, soaring energy bills, increased employer national insurance contributions and rising wages. As an entrepreneur who spent 24 years building a business, the overall situation scares the daylights out of me. I am not envious of them in that position. I am grateful to Nick at the Old Crown in Faringdon and Tommy and Mike at the Three Horseshoes in Witney, who sat me down and talked through just how tough it is to run these businesses. The Minister is smiling at me because he is a Witney boy, so he understands.

    Hansard source
12. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlie Maynard

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    Well, there you are. It is a wonderful pub, and we need to keep it open. This is all doubly tough for rural pubs. City pubs have a much larger catchment of potential customers who are within walking distance and not car-dependent, which matters with drink driving. Rural pubs are likely to rely on oil, liquefied petroleum gas or electric heating rather than the gas grid, and they have a small labour pool from which to hire. On top of all those hurdles, pubs in the countryside are much more significant to their communities, as they are typically the only pub in the village and a key hub in village life, as so many Members have pointed out. In west Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse, we have fought really hard to enforce making pubs assets of community value, so that everyone understands that they cannot make a quick buck from buying a pub, turning it into a house and selling it—the cost to the community is far too great. But being a community asset alone does not pay the bills. We have to make those pubs into survivable businesses. The changes announced in last year’s autumn Budget—the business rates revaluation and the removal of reductions that dated from the covid pandemic—led to extreme distress for publicans. While I recognise that the Government have subsequently acknowledged the crisis facing Britain’s pubs, the package of support that they announced at the start of the year, including the 15% cut to pubs’ business rates bills from April and a two-year real-terms freeze, was only a partial U-turn, and it will still leave many pubs facing a business rates increase on top of the other cost pressures that I have listed.

    Hansard source
13. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlie Maynard

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Business rates feel so unjust—so arbitrary and out of control, and appeals are virtually impossible. We all beg the Minister to put doing something about that at the top of his list, because they are so grossly unfair and really rip the heart out of running a business. We need to pick those problems apart and work out what can be done. As announced just an hour ago by our mighty Lib Dem leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), getting back inside the EU’s single market would help in a number of ways. Food costs would go down if we were back inside the single market, both in pubs and on supermarket shelves. That matters: it would allow food to be sold for less, making pubs more affordable and getting more people through the door. It would also help with recruitment, as we would not need to spend thousands and waste months on visas for key staff, many of whom are from outside the UK. Being back inside the European single market for electricity would reduce energy bills, because we would be able to buy and sell electricity when the UK or the EU had surplus energy. I am not pretending that the move would solve everything, but those outcomes would materially help. However, there are plenty more problems that we would still need to deal with.

    Hansard source
14. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlie Maynard

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) points out from a sedentary position, I am not suggesting that we rejoin the European Union. Employer national insurance contributions are the single biggest nightmare. It is a tax before getting out of bed, before generating any revenue and before making any profit. It is a huge mistake by Labour, and a direct result of Labour Members straitjacketing themselves into foolish promises about not touching any of the big three taxes. It needs to be unwound. Equally, we have strongly opposed the Government’s changes to employer NICs at every opportunity, and we have called on them to reverse the tax rise in full. We are also calling for a consultation on a new NICs band of £5,000 to £9,100, with a lower rate to better support part-time workers, on whom the hospitality industry heavily relies. I have already covered business rates, so I will not go into them further. On energy costs, the crisis in Iran has obviously made many costs, not least fuel prices, worse rather than better in the last few months. That is causing enormous pain. We would remove the main renewables levy from household energy bills, putting £270 back into people’s pockets over 18 months. That would be funded by a new windfall tax on big commercial banks, targeting the windfall interest payments they receive from the quantitative easing-related reserves they hold at the Bank of England.

    Hansard source
15. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlie Maynard

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    Absolutely. I will finish by saying that we need to look in the round at the massive cost pressures and changing consumer habits, from lower footfall to falling discretionary spending power, which combine to put pressure on pubs. A one-off package of business rates support is one thing, but we need to get back into the single market, fix NICs, reform business rates properly, fix energy costs and give pubs and hospitality a 5% VAT break. If we do not do those things, pubs in my constituency—the land of your birth, Minister —will keep going bust. We want to avoid that.

    Hansard source
16. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Calum Miller

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing this important debate. I will begin by mentioning two people I represent. Becky runs the Red Lion in Eynsham. She met the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), at my invitation earlier this year. That followed a question in the House, so some Members present, including the Minister, who is smiling, may already know Becky’s story. Her turnover is up, but her profits have vanished. She said that there is “no living to be made any more” from her rural pub. Think about what that means: the customers are still spending, yet she is squeezed to the point of asking herself whether to carry on at all. Donna runs the Oxfordshire Yeoman in Freeland. She has faced the uncontrollable in the last few months: a washout summer, when summer trade is the very thing that a rural pub banks on to survive the winter. Stacked on top of that, she has faced the entirely controllable: a 50p minimum wage rise, soaring energy bills and rising water bills, all landing at once. When landlords are counting every penny and customers are counting every penny on the same evening, that is not a market finding its level but a trade being hollowed out from underneath. Consider the scale of the loss: 161 pubs closed across England, Scotland and Wales in the first quarter of this year alone, which is more than two a day. Those closures took roughly 2,400 jobs with them. There is a huge difference between losing a pub in a city and losing one in a village. When an urban pub closes, a community loses an option, but when a rural pub closes, a community loses its social space, which almost never comes back. The rural pub sits alongside the church and the village hall as part of the fabric of some of our smaller communities. Such closures represent a loss of identity and cohesion in communities such as mine. We should ask, “Why is the rural pub more exposed?” They tend to have lower footfall, they tend to face higher energy and supply costs, and it is far harder for them to diversify their income. Running costs across hospitality are up around 43% since 2019, and one third of those businesses are operating at a loss. I would like to turn to what might actually help. First, there is VAT and energy. Becky’s case is one of simple fairness. Why should British hospitality pay roughly double the VAT of comparable European countries? The Liberal Democrats would cut VAT on hospitality by 5% until April 2027 now—not after yet another review—and remove the main renewable levy from energy bills, taking more than £90 a year off the typical bill, funded by a windfall tax on the banks. Taken together, that is £270 back in the pockets of the average household over 18 months, allowing them more opportunity to buy a pint or a meal in their local pub. Secondly, there is the issue of business rates. In January, the Government discounted 15% of the planned rate hikes for pubs, but Becky’s rateable value was hiked phenomenally before the freeze arrived, locking the damage in. The relief does nothing for shops, restaurants, cafés and the wider high street. Our ask is straightforward: the Government must deliver the full 20p discount promised to all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. In the interim, they should keep the 75% relief and freeze the small business multiplier. Before I end my remarks, I wish to refer briefly to the role of small breweries in our communities, such as Tap Social Movement in Kidlington, Little Ox in Freeland or Twisted Tree in Tusmore. Those small and medium-sized enterprises in the community combine a passion for independent brewing with a commitment to creating local jobs. However, in addition to the impact of pub company ties on landlords, the large brewers are locking small breweries out of our village pubs. Fewer than 40% of local pubs are open to small, independent breweries. Will the Minister encourage Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade to consider that barrier to market access? As part of the current pubs code review, will they consider a guest beer arrangement in England and Wales similar to that in Scotland?

    Hansard source
17. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Calum Miller

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    Further to the comments from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the Minister will be aware of the way in which the pub industry is dominated by major pub companies, which often own tied pubs. That has a major bearing on the leasable value of many of these properties. Many publicans in my area tell me that that drives up their rates, even though they do not have full control over that, just as they do not have full control over their purchasing. Is the Minister working with the Department for Business and Trade to review that, and is he talking to the Competition and Markets Authority to review whether the pubco structure in our country is fit for purpose?

    Hansard source
18. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Brian Mathew

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this valuable debate. Rural pubs and breweries across the country are suffering under an excessive tax burden that is stifling investment and employment opportunities. Melksham and Devizes is home to Wadworth, a fantastic local company, which has been brewing beer in Devizes since 1875. In a recent meeting with Toby, Wadworth’s managing director, the severity of the financial situation facing the hospitality industry was made clear. The reduction of the threshold for employer national insurance contributions will cost £750,000 a year across the business, which includes 129 tenanted pubs. Yesterday, my team spoke to the landlady of one such pub, Sarah of the Three Magpies in Seend, who said that, because of the increase in the minimum wage, rising national insurance contributions and higher training costs, she had to cut back on the number of local youngsters that the pub employs during the busy summer season. To put that in perspective, last year there were 20 members of staff at the Three Magpies over the summer; this year there will be just nine. That is 11 young people missing out on an invaluable opportunity to gain the skills, knowledge and experience to set them up for future careers. We all saw the Milburn review’s stark warning that one in six young people could be classed as NEET within five years if no action is taken. We urgently need to review the impact of the burden on the hospitality industry on youth employment and ensure that we are not taxing future generations out of employment opportunities. In addition to the national insurance challenges, UK alcohol duties are the second highest in Europe, pushing up prices for consumers and reducing profit margins for landlords. The Treasury’s current trajectory will suffocate Britain’s proud pub culture, with more choosing to purchase alcohol from the supermarket and drink it at home. That poses increased health risks, because at-home consumption lacks the natural boundaries of a pub setting. At a time when the cost of utilities has skyrocketed, the Government should surely be doing far more to support the UK hospitality industry, not adding to its woes. Both Toby and Sarah told us that one of the simplest ways to support our pubs would be a VAT reduction for the industry. It would free up capital to invest in either new staff or the business itself. Similarly, duty on alcohol should be reviewed, with the duty paid on a UK pint amounting to 10 times the amount paid in Germany. We have to recognise the important role that rural pubs play. Socially, they are the beating heart of villages and help to regulate consumption, keeping evenings merry. Economically, they can be engines of growth for rural communities, providing a springboard into employment for many young people and investing in the local area. It is time the Treasury recognised that fact and significantly increased its offering of support to ensure that we can all continue to enjoy a pint down the local.

    Hansard source
19. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Alex Brewer

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine has beautiful countryside pubs but they are struggling. Pub owners have told me that this year is worse than the covid years. They face closure, despite being the only place for communities to meet in rural areas, as in many others. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must overhaul the entire business rate system to give pubs the support they need to thrive, not just barely survive?

    Hansard source
20. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

    The concerns about taxes that the hon. Member is raising have really affected Jack, the owner of the Ye Olde Poppe Inn in Tatworth, and Buddy, the owner of the Flying Fish. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to lower VAT for pubs?

    Hansard source
21. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Mental Health: Parity of Esteem

    Tragically, my constituent’s husband, John, took his own life in 2021 after a mental health crisis while in the care of NHS mental health services. Does the hon. Member agree that we need more Government support and funding for access to quality mental health services in rural areas? If we were losing people in this way to physical conditions, it would be a national scandal.

    Hansard source
22. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Mental Health: Parity of Esteem

    Some residents in rural Somerset have said to me that they are waiting 18 months to receive talking therapies. That is just not good enough.

    Hansard source
23. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Abuse of Customer-facing Workers

    The staff at St Michael’s Co-operative in Yeovil have reported to the police more than 100 incidents of shoplifting a week, but the police presence still is not forthcoming. Do you agree that rural police forces need a lot more funding?

    Hansard source
24. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Steel Tariffs

    From Yeovil’s cutting-edge defence manufacturers to Thorn Wood Forge, which makes hand-crafted tools in Hinton Saint George, businesses in my constituency need steel that is currently not produced here. A 50% tariff would be disastrous. Will the Minister commit himself to exemptions for specialised steel grades that are not made in this country at the scale and spec needed by businesses in Yeovil?

    Hansard source
25. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    On oversight, will the Secretary of State confirm that proposed new section 33G of the National Security Act 2023, which would be added by clause 3, is not intended to limit access to justice, or prevent challenges through the courts to future decisions made under human rights principles? That seems to me to be a measure that her Government would not want to bequeath to future Governments, who might misuse the legislation.

    Hansard source
26. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    Steel Tariffs

    The real reason for the rise in the steel problem is the energy price—the input price. Has the Minister had any challenging conversations with his colleague the Secretary of State, and will he consider exemptions for the defence industry as well? As he knows, the new Defence Secretary is now trying to balance a very difficult budget, and I am sure he would be happy to do what he can to help.

    Hansard source
27. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    The right hon. Lady has already spoken powerfully about attacks on politicians, and the Prime Minister’s home was recently attacked. One point she has not raised, but hopefully will come to, is the nature of the media engagement that follows attacks. Lies and distortions have been used to suggest all number of different abuses by the Prime Minister—all of them false—when this was simply a Russian-paid attack on his home. Does she agree that it is not just Russia that is doing this? PressTV and anybody who has taken money from it have been active participants in the hate-filled propaganda that we see spreading, online and offline, in our country, encouraging murder and attacks on Jewish people, and attacks on our entire democracy.

    Hansard source
28. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    The internet outage in Iran knocked out a large percentage—5% or 10%, depending on who we believe—of Scottish separatist sites on social media. Do we genuinely believe that Iran is the only country seeking to weaponise social media? On one account, for example, someone claimed to be a nurse from Glasgow, but was fluent in Persian. Is it not likely that China and North Korea are doing exactly the same thing?

    Hansard source
29. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    The hon. Member is making an extremely powerful speech—I do not find a word I disagree with—and I am very grateful to him for making it. However, this again shows why it would have been rather helpful to have a bit longer on this, because a small amendment around the use of slogans or the wearing of varieties of designated military insignia—IRGC or Hezbollah insignia in this case, but different things in other cases—would have been useful. Sadly, the way this is being rushed through makes that almost impossible. Would he agree?

    Hansard source
30. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real concern, particularly given what is going on in the Persian gulf at the moment, that when the Iranian Government were last given access to vast amounts of cash about 10 years ago, they used that money to murder Syrians, Iraqis, Yemenis and, in fact, anybody else they could get their hands on, and to boost their propaganda arms? That did enormous harm not just to the Jewish community—he is quite right to highlight the Jewish community—but to the UK and the whole of western civilisation, including the French, the Germans and many others. Does he not agree with me that the suggestion that billions of dollars may be handed over to the Iranian regime raises concerns that it will be equipped for a new round?

    Hansard source
31. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I am grateful to be called. I welcome the Minister to her place. It is a great job—I enjoyed it, and I have no doubt that she will, too. Though she may have shorter fingernails at the end of the day than she started with, it is worth it for the opportunity to serve with some of the finest people in our Government. The intelligence services and the police that she will be working with are truly exceptional, and it is worth putting on the record the gratitude of the whole House for what they do. Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the death of my friend Jo Cox, and many of us have been wearing white roses in memory of her. When we last met, Jo and I were in one of the Committee rooms working on a report together entitled, “The Cost of Doing Nothing”. What we were talking about in that report was the action in Syria, the way in which the extremism in that country had torn it apart and how we had not acted in ways that we felt we should have done. I welcome very much what the Government are doing today, because they are demonstrating another response: they are not willing to stand aside and watch as the country gets torn apart in different ways. I will make criticisms in a moment, but I would first just like to place on the record my gratitude for the way in which the Government have approached this legislation. I agree with the broad sweep of it; I just wish they had given it a little bit more time, and I understand that the Minister will almost certainly agree with me. Unusually, I would like to praise the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). He made an absolutely outstanding speech and spoke brilliantly, not just for this whole House but for the country, on the threat to a particular community, which is actually a threat to us all. It is absolutely true that in too many ways the Jewish community are the canary in the coalmine of any society. When we see Jews under threat, when we see Jewish homes frightened, when we see Jewish sites vandalised—as sadly we are seeing too much—we know what is coming, and what is coming is not pretty. But let us get back to the Bill because, while it is welcome, it makes that tragic error that we often make in this place—I know we made this error in our time as well—which is to seek the rapid answer rather than the complete one. In doing so, the Bill misses very slightly the challenge that is bound to come, because I am afraid that we do know what will come. By the way, I will no doubt support the Minister when she decides to use the powers, because she will be well advised by the teams we both know so well, but we know that when an organisation is designated, it will lawyer up, go to court and challenge her, and we will find ourselves going around the houses. This is where I confess a failure of my own. One of the organisations that I sought to work on was the Islamic Centre of England. That organisation has the same connection to Islam that Christian organisations that claim the crusader cross, and that far-right baggage, have to the church of Christ. Let us be absolutely clear: it is a vile political organisation dressing itself up as a religious movement—there is nothing religious about it all—yet that organisation enjoys charitable status, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) identified, and sadly, despite irregularities in its business and the way that it operates, it is still able to operate. Let me list a couple more such organisations. Darul Hikma has praised Qasem Soleimani, the late head of the IRGC, whose death is certainly not mourned here, and it praised 7 October and the IRGC. The Abrar Islamic Foundation has praised Hezbollah and Hamas, and has run antisemitic and homophobic events. There are also the Ahl al-Bait Society Scotland—sadly, this reaches across the whole of the United Kingdom—Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission and Al-Ikhlas. They have all run, in various different ways, sessions praising the IRGC and supportive of Qasem Soleimani, which is entirely against not just the interests of the United Kingdom, but very particularly the interests of the Muslin community in the United Kingdom. Let us be absolutely clear about what the natural consequence of this will be: it will stir up sectarian and religious hatred. As the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley mentioned, we are first seeing the effect in the Jewish community—of course we are—but we all know where this will lead. There are those of us who value all communities in our society, as I know the Home Secretary does, and who want Islam treated exactly the same as any religion. I think we Catholics are the only ones who are still lawfully discriminated against, but given that that excludes us only from the monarchy, I think we can be pretty comfortable with our position. Those of us who want to see all religions treated equally know that we simply cannot have poison poured into a few ears and pretend that does not happen. I mentioned PressTV today, as well as the vile rumours being spread about the Prime Minister and others by Russia Today, among others, to show that we need to be conscious of what we are dealing with. Let us be quite clear: this is not a freedom of speech issue. This is no more a freedom of speech issue than the invasion of a hostile army is a right-to-roam issue. This is fundamentally about the deliberate actions of a state organisation—either the Russian, Chinese or Iranian state—to undermine us and tear us apart.

    Hansard source
32. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    My right hon. Friend, demonstrating why he leads the list of Security Ministers past and present, pre-empts me; I was coming to China. Here I declare various interests. I am a patron of United Against Nuclear Iran, an organisation that campaigns, just as the Government do, and as everybody does, against Iran having nuclear weapons. I am not sure that it is a contentious organisation to be a member of; I hope it is universally supported. Also, I am sanctioned by the Chinese, Russian and Iranian states. I want to highlight some of the issues that we are dealing with that have not quite come through in the debate so far. Let us be honest: this Bill is shaped around the IRGC. It is shaped around a state organisation—a part of the Iranian constitutional structure—that is behaving like a terrorist group, because it is the sponsor of terrorism around the world. However, it is not alone; for example, we know that the so-called little green men who operated in Crimea were actually part of the Russian armed forces. There are Russian groups, such as the Wagner Group, that act as state-sponsored terrorist organisations in countries such as Mali. I am looking at the Home Secretary, here: I hope that those groups will be encapsulated in the Bill. It certainly reads as though it will cover them. Let us look a little more directly at one question. There is an organisation that should be captured in this Bill but I suspect will not be: TikTok. The Home Secretary may wonder why I raise TikTok, so let me be quite clear. There are many social media platforms around the world, and I am not going to pretend that many of them are any better than a cesspit. They tend to encourage various forms of hatred. As an aside, when I meet people who have posted on those platforms in the flesh at constituency events, it turns out that they are absolutely charming people who would never be quite so rude to one’s face, but they are utterly vile online. That is quite remarkable, but there we go. I mention TikTok for this reason: other social media platforms respond to the triggers involved in advertising. Effectively, they respond to the interests of their shareholders. They may or may not like the product, but we know what they are doing. Unlike other platforms, which are edited for profit, TikTok is edited for effect. That is the difference. Let us look at the TikTok effect after 7 October, for example. It did not push a particular ideology. It did not try to tell us, as the Soviets did in the 1920s, that more tractors were being produced in Minsk than in Manchester, or wherever. It does not seek to tell us that something is better; it seeks to tell us that there is nothing there—that it is all about hatred and division. It seeks to promote a horrific outcome that some people want, which is effectively a destroyed, torn-apart state that is hostile to itself. I am afraid that is what TikTok is doing, and not by accident. Its algorithm is controlled by the Ministry of State Security, through the Chinese Communist party, in Shenzhen. It is not based anywhere else. That algorithm effectively acts as an editor—just as a newspaper editor would. It quite deliberately promotes not one side, but both sides. If one side is promoted, we may get persuasion, but we still get unity. If both sides are promoted, we get division, anger, hostility and rage. I do not think that the Bill touches on that issue, but I urge the Minister to have a look at it in months to come. There was a time, 20 or 30 years ago, when we would have said that a state-sponsored organisation was fundamentally human and needed people. It would have needed agents—someone to hire the car, rent the room or whatever it happened to be—but that is not true today. These organisations do not need to cross the border; they can write the code, programme the algorithm, watch the fire start, and shape it. Sadly, we have seen such division inspired in the Home Secretary’s own community, between Indian-origin and Pakistani-origin communities. We have seen the same fire being lit, not because China particularly sides with one side or the other—it does not—but because it just wants hostility in the UK, and this issue is a dividing line. When we look at the designation of organisations, we must remember that those organisations include businesses. I support this Bill, and I am very grateful to the Minister and the Home Secretary for bringing it to the House. I very much envy the Minister her place, and I am sure that she will enjoy her role.

    Hansard source
33. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    No one, I think, respects Jonathan Hall more than we do. He has done an exceptional job for this country in many different ways. He is a man of the highest integrity and the greatest intellect, and we are very lucky to have him. Given that it seems unlikely that the Home Secretary or the Minister will accept amendments today—I am sorry about that, but I heard their views—will the Minister engage in a conversation between now and the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords? There is a moment when we could introduce amendments that we feel would be of assistance to the Government and, in fact, would make us all stronger.

    Hansard source
34. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Oliver Dowden

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I pretty much wholeheartedly endorse everything said by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). Let me begin by declaring my interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including those relating to my role as the chair of the United Arab Emirates all-party parliamentary group. I will not restate the arguments for this legislation in the first place, as they have been made eloquently by many other Members. Suffice it to say that we have seen in our lifetimes the nature of the threats facing the United Kingdom evolve from being primarily state-based, to terrorist-based after 9/11 and 7/7, and to the hybrid of grey zone warfare that we are all familiar with. Many of us struggled with and sought to address that issue when we were in government, not least when I was the Deputy Prime Minister. I sought to co-ordinate across national resilience and security and international relations. I worked closely with Members of this House, including the former Security Minister, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). Given that this is a debate on Second Reading, I wish instead to use the limited time available to me to make three points in relation to the application of the powers under the Bill—and, indeed, the inability to use powers under the Bill. The first point relates to Iran and the IRGC. As Members will know, for many years this House has debated whether and how to deal with the IRGC. The essence of the problem has always been that it is not just a conventional non-state terrorist organisation; it is part of the Iranian state, but it also operates through military structures, intelligence functions, cyber-capabilities, proxy militia and criminal intermediaries. As I read this Bill, and as the Government have strongly indicated, I think that is precisely the sort of body or network of bodies that this legislation appears designed to address. This really does matter, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for North Durham. In Hertsmere, I have the privilege of representing one of the largest Jewish communities in the country. For that community, this is not just an abstract debate about legal architecture; it is real. It is about whether people feel safe at synagogue. It is about whether parents feel confident in sending their children to Jewish schools. It is about whether community centres, charities and places of worship can operate without fear. The Jewish community has long seen the malign role of Iran and its proxies. After the terrible spate of recent attacks, they live in a different world—one in which fear and intimidation have deepened and intensified near to breaking point. I therefore hope that the Government genuinely understand that fear and that they will use the powers granted by the legislation to act and to act fast. The second area I will touch on relates to the question of ideological movements that may intersect with state-threat activity. I urge the Government not to treat ideological extremism, particularly Islamist extremism and state-threat activity, as entirely separate worlds. We know that the hatred unleashed on the streets of this country often finds its source in Islamist extremists, who have nothing but contempt for the values of this country but who are adept at using our openness and our institutions to undermine us. In that way, a mutual interest is created between this hateful ideology and hostile states. We have foreign funding, ideological influence, proxy activity and hostile state interests overlapping. This Bill rightly targets foreign states and agents, but we must look at the broader ecosystem too.

    Hansard source
35. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Oliver Dowden

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I totally agree, and it is dangerous for this country that there is a mutuality of interests among extremists who do not share our values and hostile states who are opposed to us. This Bill should seek to deal with that overlap. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood is in certain places backed by foreign states and has an equally subversive agenda here in the UK. Although its relationship with violence on our streets is often more subtle and obscured, the threat to our social cohesion and democratic fabric is no less severe. We have seen in recent months the United States Government designate various regional branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organisations, and an excellent article by Lord Godson highlighted today how many European states are taking steps to address this issue. The west is waking up to this reality and we in this country cannot afford to lag behind.

    Hansard source
36. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Oliver Dowden

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    My right hon. Friend is of course entirely correct. Members on the Labour Back Benches are, given their presence in the Chamber for this debate, at the more hawkish and national security end of the left-wing spectrum, but there are elements of the liberal left who succumb to that equivalence argument and it is profoundly dangerous. The 2015 review of the Muslim Brotherhood concluded that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered a possible indicator of extremism. A decade later, in the current far more dangerous geopolitical environment, we need to look again at that assessment. That is why I continue to believe that the Government should take up the opportunity to do so. Some of our closest allies have done so and indeed have taken a much more robust approach. For example, the United Arab Emirates has designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation. We should ask ourselves why a country such as the UAE has such concerns about the radicalisation of its own students in our mosques that they are restricting their study here. The test under this Bill is rightly a foreign powers threat test, and there may well be other avenues for addressing this issue, but none the less I make the point that where an ideological body or a body linked to an ideological movement is acting to the benefit of a hostile state, this regime, alongside others, should apply. Finally, I would like to address the future-proofing of this legislation, which has been touched on by some Members. Just as threat actors have evolved, so too have their methods, and foreign powers and their proxies no longer exclusively rely on the old-school methods of human surveillance, forged documents and so on. They can deploy bots that distort the democratic debate, as we have seen; ransomware to cripple business; cyber-attacks to disrupt public services; and deepfakes to impersonate trusted public figures. That list goes on, and AI will accelerate all of that—a point I made at the UN General Assembly ahead of the Bletchley Park AI safety summit. Cross-Government co-ordination to address this issue is more urgent than ever. In this country we cannot just look at state threats purely in a physical silo, detached from the digital domain. Hostile states will use AI to automate reconnaissance, scale spear phishing, identify vulnerabilities, and so on. A criminal who once needed specialist skills may increasingly be able to purchase or access those capabilities through AI-enabled tools, and hostile states that once needed sophisticated cyber-units may be able to outsource, automate or accelerate parts of that work. Many Members will be familiar with the concerns and indeed opportunities surrounding Claude Mythos and its advanced cyber-capable AI models. That is a warning to us, but it is a warning of much more to come in this space.

    Hansard source
37. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Oliver Dowden

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I totally agree with the hon. Member, and that is why we Opposition Members support the legislation. On AI, we can all see these challenges coming. We need to work cross-party and support the Government in finding ways to address them, because this is essentially the challenge of our age. Of course, AI will be able to strengthen our defences, but we should not be naive; the same tool that helps a defender to patch faster will of course also enable an attacker to breach faster. We have seen this with hostile states. Russia has already integrated cyber-sabotage, propaganda and deniable proxy activity into its campaign against the west. The same can be said for North Korea, which has not been touched on much in this debate, and Iran.

    Hansard source
38. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Oliver Dowden

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Separatism makes a country weaker, and there is no doubt that our enemies will encourage it. The example that he cited, which I also saw, is very telling of exactly that.

    Hansard source
39. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Oliver Dowden

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I have great respect for Elon Musk’s ingenuity when it comes to trying to send a man to Mars and set up a colony there. I am slightly more dubious about the activities in relation to X, but that platform should be subject to the same legislation as all others. As for this Bill, the question is whether the designation regime will be agile enough to deal with not only traditional organisations, but cyber-units, hackers for hire, front companies, AI-enabled threat and state-threat networks, and commercial entities that materially assist hostile state activity. This Bill will not solve the problem of state threats on its own, but it is an important and necessary addition, because the reality is that today’s threat is hybrid; state power, ideology, cyber-capability, organised crime and artificial intelligence are increasingly overlapping. That is the challenge before us all. The law must keep pace with this, and the Bill is an important step along the line.

    Hansard source
40. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Steel Tariffs

    The Minister says that the concerns about fabricated steel are being taken into account. Can he be a bit more specific about why other countries have protections for fabricated steel in their economies, but we do not yet have any in ours?

    Hansard source