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

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

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Harriet Cross

   Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

   Oil and gas workers are fed up with the Government skirting around this. Some 25,000 linked oil and gas jobs have been lost since the general election. The Government know that new fields support jobs—they said that last week—and they know that UK production supports UK businesses. Last month, they signed off on new oil in the Falklands, but are too squeamish to do it in UK waters. The Secretary of State knows more is needed. When are the Government going to wake up to the damage they are doing to our crucial oil and gas industry?

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

   Steel Industry

   The present Foreign Secretary’s ridiculous policy on oil and gas has now been overturned, so will the Minister, in a similar vein, ensure that the right hon. Gentleman’s equally absurd refusal to allow localised electricity pricing can also be overturned, so that businesses, such as those in steel in Scotland, can enjoy the competitive energy prices that the considerable generation in that country deserves?

   Hansard source
3. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   The hon. Lady is making a typically powerful speech, but, in my 21 years in the House, I have normally found that the person who holds her position gives a somewhat less partisan critique of the Budget, recognising that the primary role of all of us as Back Benchers is to hold the Executive—the Government of the day—to account, rather than just playing to our party political base.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   I received a card from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation yesterday—I do not know whether my right hon. Friend also received one—suggesting that every family in Beverley and Holderness will be at least £440 a year worse off at the end of this Parliament. But today, on top of the points that he has already made, we are going to see not only disposable income being constrained, but debt going up in each of the next five years by more than was previously suggested.

   Hansard source
5. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman just said about the need to focus on growth. The question is: how do we get it? It seems that too many on the Labour Benches believe that it is by Government intervention rather than reducing the taxes that create disincentives for business. Is he as alarmed as I am at the more than £2.2 billion increase in taxes on business today—from writing down allowances to company distributions and business asset disposal relief, as well as the probable more than £6 billion reduction in lending that will result from the £1.5 billion bank tax?

   Hansard source
6. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   We have had devolution since the Blair Government, and Wales has become one of the poorest parts of the whole of Europe, although it has had serious and real fiscal devolution. If it has been so spectacularly painful for the residents of Wales to have such devolution, why does the hon. Lady think it will be so marvellous for people in other parts of the United Kingdom?

   Hansard source
7. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   It is a pleasure to take part in this Budget debate and to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). Like him, I tend to think that this Budget reflects the seriousness and the vision of the Chancellor, but unlike him, I do not conclude from that that the Chancellor has a deep and serious vision of the future for this country. On the contrary, he, alongside the Prime Minister, has come up with a whole series of small measures. In fact, there are more measures in this Budget than in any previous Budget, and their average value is lower than in any previous Budget. In other words, the Chancellor is fiddling. He is playing with little gifts that he can highlight and say, “We are doing this for business. Look, we are we are taking 70,000 businesses out of business rates.” Of course I welcome that, but it is inadequate in a high street that is falling and losing. The Conservatives have a leader and a shadow Chancellor with a vision, and that is why our policy would take 250,000 high street companies out of business rates so that we can have the shops, the cafés, the pubs and all the other businesses that give chances to young people and give them that first job so that they can learn how to talk to a boss, how to engage with customers, and how to understand tills and money. That first job gives them a chance, whether it is a Saturday job or whatever. I know that Labour Members did not mean to do it, but that door has been slammed in young people’s faces by this Labour Government. That is why we have seen youth unemployment go up.

   Hansard source
8. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am sure that, when he meets young people in his constituency, he is exactly the same as me. I am sure he meets more and more young people who feel a sense of hopelessness. They feel that they are further than ever before from getting on the housing market, and some of them cannot even look that far because they are struggling to get that first job—that first opportunity. Today’s Budget shows that this Government still do not get it, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does. Perhaps we can finally hear a non-partisan Labour intervention from someone who takes deeply seriously the need to get business going in this country.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   I think—I am not an expert on this, let alone on all those jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s region—that most are already outside of that system and are therefore not being lifted out. UKHospitality has suggested that as few as 10% of these businesses will be affected by the measure. That is my point to the hon. Gentleman, who I know is sincere and wants to properly reflect the serious challenges facing his constituents and his part of the country. This Government do not get it. Instead of the bold measure we should have had—250,000 businesses being brought out to bring life, dynamism and hope back to his high street and mine—we have a timid Government playing on the margins. That of course is the central problem of today’s Budget, as was laid out far more eloquently and—as Labour colleagues would doubtless say—more reasonably than I ever could by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). The Leader of the Opposition said that the Chancellor had received a hospital pass on inheriting the economic situation from his predecessor, but I remember someone once saying to me, “Do you know what the best thing you can ever have in life is, Graham?” I said, “No, I don’t. What is it?” They said, “A lousy predecessor.” On that measure, the Chancellor has been quite fortunate. And yet he comes forward with something this timid, this pallid and this lacking in inspiration, and gives a speech that entirely aligns with those qualities, and he is met with a near rapturous reception from Labour Members who have had to put up with the two previous Budgets, with their disastrous impact on the UK economy. Why were those Budgets so disastrous? I can tell the House: it is because growth and wealth, which the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), spoke about so eloquently earlier, come from the private sector. They do not come from a mission-led Government having a tight deadline to go and help rearrange governmental boards and improve the quality of people on them—that is peripheral. It is private business that creates them, but what did the former Chancellor do? She raised taxes on business by £60 billion. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> More than £60 billion, I am told. The small businesses that I meet in Beverley, Hedon, Skirlaugh, Withernsea and across my constituency really want to grow and have customers who want to come in, but the tax position has meant that they cannot offer jobs to the young people I also meet outside those shops, standing around listlessly, who want those jobs. That gap has been widened by the £60 billion in taxes. According to Government Members today, that gap has been narrowed because of this business rates reduction for 70,000 businesses. But that is not telling the whole story, is it? It is a sleight-of-hand Budget as well, which is why I think it is a disappointment. Business taxes have not gone up by another £60 billion—praise the Lord—but they have gone up by over £2 billion through fiddly measures. On top of that, there is the ever-popular call of, “Let’s attack the banks to feed the Labour Back Benchers,” who are so divorced from economic reality. The banks will be paying £1.6 billion in 15 months—that is if we believe that in 15 months, the Chancellor will say to this particular set of Back-Bench Labour MPs, “Oh, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s look forward to the day we take the tax off the banks.” I rather fear that the <span id="368" class="column-number" data-column-number="368"></span>15 months will be extended because of those people who have done so much damage before by leaning on their Front Benchers. Anyway, let us assume that it is real and it only lasts 15 months: £1.5 billion or £1.6 billion will be taken out of the banks. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, being a long-standing and experienced Member of this House, that the capital of banks has a big multiplier attached to it. When the Government take £1.5 billion or £1.6 billion away from the banks, they are not hitting the rich and helping the poor; they are actually massively reducing the pool of funding available for the very businesses that, if only the Government started to get some of their policies right, might get to a position, as they profoundly want to, where they can offer a job to that young person outside who cannot get one today.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I am delighted. Only one thing is worse than fat, greedy, complacent, lazy banks—if that is how the hon. Member wants to characterise them—and that is broke ones, because once we have a bust banking system, the whole of society is stuffed. People cannot get on the housing ladder, start a small shop or get anywhere. That is why I plead with Labour Members, who I know have had little to do with private businesses—they have come from their charities, social work and trade unions, and have no understanding of business. It seems a populist thing to do to attack the banks, but in fact it hurts ordinary people and means that that small shop on the high street cannot take on the unemployed youngster outside.

    Hansard source
11. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will not give way if the hon. Member will allow me. What is happening to business investment next year? According to the Government’s own figures, it is falling. What is happening to the debt of the nation as a result of today’s Budget, compared with the position earlier in the year? It goes up in every year of the forecast—five years of additional debt, and it was already scary. Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), whom I respect a great deal, and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) have been trying to say that this is a great Budget for entrepreneurs, but it is not. It is a Budget that allows a listing ship of state and the economy of this country to drift ever closer to the rocks. Year by year we will see debt going up, taxes going up and incentives going down, and without those incentives, those businesses in Beverley, Withernsea, Hedon and Skirlaugh, or wherever they are in my constituency, just cannot offer that job to that person. To look at the specifics of the Budget, how is some of this being funded? The Chancellor skated over it as best he could, but he is going to tax amusement arcades. As if coastal towns such as Withernsea and Hornsea up the coast are not hurting enough, he is going put up tax on the entertainment of ordinary people going to the amusement arcade. He is an enemy of fun.

    Hansard source
12. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Coastal communities are losing out, and savers are being hit by a £500 million increase in tax—again, I do not think that has come through clearly. Some Members talk about this being good for pensioners, but it is not. Those who have saved and put money away for the future are going to be taxed again and again. We will see tax reach a new peak of 37.9% next year, and according to the Government what is going to happen? It is going to go up again. We will have sky-high borrowing and sky-high tax. One would have thought that the central challenge for this Chancellor would have been to ensure we had a firm plan for defence spending to reach 3% by 2030. Did he deliver that? No he did not, which suggests that he resigned more to get the job than to do the right thing by defence.

    Hansard source
13. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Touché.

    Hansard source
14. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    It is not that we do not wish to see a better deal with the EU. After we left, every day in government was about trying to get the EU to be more reasonable, and that is always a good endeavour. I think the fear—the hon. Gentleman would probably recognise this—is that we have a Government who thought it was a good idea to negotiate the giving away of British sovereign territory somewhere far away and then pay <span id="376" class="column-number" data-column-number="376"></span>tens of billions of pounds for the privilege. They are not the people we want representing us in Brussels, are they?

    Hansard source
15. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·George Freeman

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Like me, my right hon. Friend represents a very rural constituency. Was he shocked to hear the lack of any relief for rural areas, which are being hammered by disproportionately high energy costs? The Treasury’s own figures show that the risk of fuel poverty in rural areas is 150% higher than in cities. We heard about money for cities, but nothing for our rural areas and rural businesses, which are being hammered, and where we are seeing stagflation and inflation and taxes and interest rates going up. There was nothing for rural areas.

    Hansard source
16. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart—in this case, I think it is my first time. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made in this debate. I also welcome this opportunity to address the regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. A fair, honest and accountable private rented sector is important for landlords, agents and tenants alike—I think there is no dispute on that. Indeed, any system concerning <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>people’s homes and property must be transparent. From what I have heard, providers in the private rented sector are broadly united in agreement on that point. The National Residential Landlords Association said, “If designed well, the Database should make it easy for landlords to demonstrate compliance with their obligations…whilst empowering tenants to distinguish between the responsible majority and the rogue and criminal minority of landlords.” The Large Agents Representation Group said: “With the correct design, it would make compliance easier to demonstrate for landlords and their agents…give tenants greater confidence about the homes they rent and provide local authorities with better information to target enforcement against those who fail to meet the required standards.” However, the NRLA has described these regulations as “a costly mess”. The idea of a national register is not in itself disagreeable, but the proposed implementation and structure of this database is alien to any common-sense approach. First, and most strikingly, the Government have designed the database with barely a fifth of the providers in mind. Landlords with a single property are responsible for just 21% of tenancies in England, according to the 2024 English private landlord survey. The other roughly four fifths of tenancies are managed by landlords with more than one property, including some with thousands. Indeed, around one in five landlords hold nearly half of all tenancies. It is 2026. Advanced technology is available, yet the Government’s proposals envisage the manual uploading of each individual property. The regulations as they stand make no provision for bulk uploads, forcing landlords to upload properties one by one—Noah processed more animals on to the ark at a time than that. Each property requires around 70 data points, so that is an awful lot of admin with huge time implications, and much of the information required is already submitted to councils through existing licensing schemes. The Large Agents Representation Group, which represents some of the largest portfolios in the country through clients such as Chestertons, Hamptons, Knight Frank, Savills and Foxtons, calculates that if it takes 10 minutes to register an individual property, as the Government’s estimate apparently shows, that means over 1,600 staff hours for a 10,000 property portfolio—or about 3,300 hours for the 20 minutes it actually expects it to take. On that point, larger providers disagree with the Government’s estimate of the time it will take to upload data, so the associated costs of uploading per property could be even higher. Assuming that it takes 30 minutes per property and there are seven productive working hours in a day, that amounts to 214 working days for a 3,000 property portfolio and 714 days for a 10,000 property portfolio. That is a long way from being the only problem with the proposed database. The regulations stipulate that landlords must start and end the registration themselves, and agents can supply only certain information. That directly contradicts the Government’s impact assessment, which assumed that agents would register on the landlord’s behalf. Then there is the lack of an audit trail. Because of the system favoured by the Government, landlords have no ability to verify and validate data on a portfolio basis. They have no access controls nor an audit trail for data uploads, changes or deletions. The consequence of that <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>is obvious: a heightened risk of exposure to administrative errors, consequent fines, which can range from £7,000 to £40,000, and a host of compliance and audit risks. Then we come to the subject of cost. The Renters’ Rights Act included in its impact assessment an estimated data registration fee of £28.85 per property every three years. Now the Government have confirmed a fee of £65 per property every single year, as the regulations require entries to be renewed every 12 months. For the 80% of landlords in the market who care for more than one property, that represents a significant and unplanned recurring cost, and no one in the sector knows where the £65 figure came from nor how it can be justified. Perhaps the Minister can provide a clear explanation in his closing remarks of how that £65 has been calculated. Although the providers in the private rented sector are in broad agreement with the concept of a database, they are also united in viewing the approach of this Government as a total disaster. None of the concerns that I have outlined should come as news to the Government, because they have all been raised directly with Government officials by industry representatives. Many of those who I have spoken to thought that the Government had heard their concerns and were making adjustments, only to discover later that they had been ignored entirely. How do the Government expect to earn or maintain the trust of the whole sector when they ignore its concerns and blindside it with extra financial and labour costs? The Large Agents Representation Group has summed up the Government’s proposals: “Instead of making best use of data already held across Government and other established systems…the proposed approach required landlords and agents to manually and repeatedly input and maintain information that in most cases is already available elsewhere…creating unnecessary duplication, administrative burden and risk of inaccuracy for all stakeholders. The decisions being made now about its underlying architecture risk embedding unnecessary bureaucracy and practical problems from the outset. This is concerning when significant fees are being imposed and non-compliance carries substantial and lasting penalties.” The significant additional costs and administrative burdens imposed by this approach are likely to have damaging repercussions. Voices in the build-to-rent sector, a sector vital to assisting in the delivery of new homes, have said “This will inevitably deter much-needed investment in new homes…particularly at this time of ‘viability crisis.’” These are just a few of the significant issues shared with me by industry. The database, as proposed by the Government, is not fit for purpose. It is not good enough to impose something that everyone knows is not going to work just so that the Government can claim that they are taking action. The regulations represent the very worst of a Government hellbent on regulating first and worrying about the consequences later. Empty promises of continuing improvements do not cut the mustard. The sector, already saddled by over-regulation and tax hikes, needs efficiencies, not even more constraints. I implore the Minister to pause the impending roll-out of the regulations, which are due for implementation in just a couple of weeks’ time, scrap the current proposals and produce new ones after proper consultation with industry. I say that more in hope than expectation, so the Opposition will seek to divide and vote against the measures.<span id="7" class="column-number" data-column-number="7"></span>

    Hansard source
17. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

    Would it not, then, be better for the Minister to pause these regulations now, explore that fully and come back once he has adapted the system, so that that can be incorporated? This comes back to the point I was making about regulating now and trying to fiddle with it later. It is not going to work, as large landlords are telling the Minister. Why not pause, work it out and then come back?

    Hansard source
18. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing the debate, and for the way in which he spoke about his constituent Sian and her daughter Keely; he made their case powerfully. Preparing for the debate has given me the opportunity to read more <span id="182WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="182WH"></span>about Sian and her campaign, and about Keely. As the hon. Member described, Keely was just 15 years old when she was killed in May 2023, struck by a car while crossing the road. The driver was convicted of causing her death by careless driving and of causing death while uninsured. He was sentenced to 16 months in prison. In my work with victims and campaigners, I have got to know that until we speak to a person individually, we do not always know the ins and outs of a case, and I would not want to say anything incorrect. However, I can say confidently that a 15-year-old girl died, a family have been changed forever and the sentence was measured in months, not years. I know how I would feel if my similarly aged niece was killed in the same circumstances, given the criminal background of the individual concerned. I want to speak out for Sian and the way in which she has campaigned. More than 11,800 people have signed her petition calling for tougher sentences and for changes in the way such cases are handled. As other hon. Members have said, under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, introduced by the last Government, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving and for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs was raised from 14 years to life imprisonment. I know that those were not the exact same charges involved in Keely’s case, but that penalty demonstrates an attempt to recognise such offences and the impact they have. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described, maximum sentences are one thing and what judges give is another. I will talk about a family with whom I have worked directly and about whom I can speak more confidently. Glenn and Rebecca Youens lost their daughter, Violet-Grace, in March 2017 when she was four years old. She was walking with her grandmother in St Helens when a stolen car driven at 83 mph in a 30 mph zone hit them. Violet-Grace died and her grandmother was left with life-changing injuries. The driver fled the scene. He was later sentenced to nine years and four months, but because he pleaded guilty he received a reduction and was released after around four and a half years. As Glenn powerfully described, the driver spent less time in prison than his daughter was alive. I have been proud to support Glenn and his family. They are part of a group called Justice for Victims. In what I hope will be an inspiration to Sian, they also launched a petition and campaigned vociferously in their daughter’s memory, and they were a big part of why the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was increased. I also mention them because, like so many of those mentioned today, they really understand what it is to not get justice: they cared deeply and loved someone deeply, and they live in a country where they expected that if you do the right thing and someone does the wrong thing to you, the system will deliver justice for you. You cannot bring somebody back, but you do not want revenge; you want justice. The concerns in these and many other cases demonstrate that, for many decades—this is not about one Government or another—the justice system in this country has not been delivering justice anywhere near as often as it should have been, particularly for serious offences and serious offenders who commit crimes again and again. During our time in government, we took some steps to try to address that. We did so in a major way by rolling <span id="183WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="183WH"></span>back the automatic release point from halfway to two thirds of a sentence for some offenders. We have talked today about sentences, but we have to remember that the time someone spends in prison can be very different from the sentence that was passed down in court. Prior to that change, essentially everybody except those serving a life sentence served only half their sentence, so that was an important step. Since then, this Government have taken a sledgehammer to victims’ ability to get justice by introducing even earlier release, at the one-third point of a sentence, for offenders sent to prison for most crimes. Prior to the later changes that we managed to help secure, offenders just like the person who killed Sian’s daughter would have been asked to spend only a third of their sentence in prison. That was disgraceful, and the Government’s aim was to make the release point even earlier, not just for those responsible for causing death by dangerous driving, but for those committed of rape and a whole series of other very serious crimes—this Government attempted to let them out of prison earlier, too. The hon. Member for Cardiff West talked about whether Parliament listens enough. Very many MPs from different parties did listen to what people said about that and attempted to stop the Government doing it.

    Hansard source
19. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    Yes, I will go on to speak about that in detail. It is important for people watching and listening to the debate to know when the Minister gets up and gives us lots of warm words that he is the Minister who argued specifically to let people just like the gentleman involved in this case get out of prison after serving just a third of their sentence. It was only as a result of campaigners like Sian and the person that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned, who fought the Government and had to tell their stories again and again in public, which I am sure Members know is a deeply traumatic thing to have to do, that the Government were forced into U-turning. All this was based on a set of plans for an independent review that did absolutely nothing to engage with what victims actually want from sentencing policy when it comes to justice. As I said, this issue has gone on for decades. There was an opportunity to grapple with it properly and seek to understand why there is such a big gap and why we see these campaigns again and again, in relation to not just driving offences but a whole series of offences where victims feel so badly let down. Nothing was done to engage with what victims actually want from sentencing. Even today, the Government describe those early releases as “earned releases” when in fact they are automatic. These people automatically walk away from prison even earlier. Thank goodness that because of the campaigners, that does not apply to those more serious offences. I welcome that.<span id="184WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="184WH"></span> It is not only on this issue that Parliament sought to improve the situation. A new clause tabled during the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026 would have provided for automatic disqualification of those convicted of causing death by careless or dangerous driving. Hundreds of MPs clubbed together to defeat that amendment, including, I am afraid, some of those who have spoken in this debate in support of the people who have been affected by these sorts of cases. I understand that the hon. Member for Cardiff West actually did not oppose that measure and saw the sense in it that many other MPs saw. I congratulate him on that. The Minister has to answer some basic questions. Do the Government believe that the current sentencing framework and the way it has been applied properly reflect the seriousness of causing somebody’s death through dangerous or careless driving? If the answer is yes, the Minister must explain why so many families and members of the public believe otherwise; if the answer is no, he needs to tell us what the Government intend to do about it. Other Members have described things that the Government could do in the short term that we support. The ULS should absolutely be extended to those who cause death by careless driving—surely, if an offence was so serious that it led to the death of a person, it should be eligible. We continue to want to see automatic disqualification of those convicted of causing death by careless or dangerous driving. There is absolutely merit in providing the police, for example, with an opportunity to ensure that someone’s licence is temporarily revoked as they consider the facts on the ground. The police seek bail conditions to restrict what suspects can do prior to conviction all the time, and I see no reason why that should not also be applied in this case. There is a broader question that this Government and previous Governments have failed to grip and sort out. With these serious offences, there is a massive, yawning gap between the justice that the public, and victims and their family members, just like Sian, want to see, and the justice that they actually get in court. The Opposition have committed to seeking to address that if we get back into government, but whichever party is in government, we have to finally grip this—even if it is difficult or expensive—so that we do not see victims of serious crime deeply let down, again and again, by a system that they expect to be there for them.

    Hansard source
20. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    Just so the public can understand, there is a sentencing framework and judges have a role in applying that framework, but it would be totally within Parliament’s remit to make a ban mandatory—to make <span id="188WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="188WH"></span>it automatic. We could do that. Indeed, a number of MPs voted for that last year, but it was blocked by the Government.

    Hansard source
21. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    Will the Minister write to the Law Commission and ask it to ensure that it considers that issue as part of its review?

    Hansard source
22. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    On my central question, as does he, as a Justice Minister, think that the justice system is consistently delivering justice for victims of these and other serious offences?

    Hansard source
23. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Ben Spencer

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Sadly, this Budget does not tackle the critical national issues that we face. It does not have a plan to reduce spending on welfare. It does not have a plan to increase spending on defence. It does not have definitive interventions to improve growth, tackle our spiralling debt or deal with the record high taxes all of us currently face. What about locally? How does the Budget score for my constituents in Runnymede and Weybridge? Does it keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving? Well, there is nothing on level crossings and not much on rail or roads. On backing jobs and local businesses, it does not do anything about the catastrophic employer national insurance contributions. What about defending our green belt and our natural environment? There is nothing on the Environment Agency. On protection from flooding—I am glad that the Minister with responsibility flooding is on the Front Bench—there is no mention of the River Thames scheme in the Budget. The largest infrastructure scheme put forward by the Environment Agency is notably absent, which is deeply, deeply concerning. How about supporting children and families? Again, there is nothing on special educational needs and disabilities or on childcare. The scorecard from Runnymede and Weybridge on keeping my constituency moving is nil, nil, nil, nil, nil. Why is that? It is because this Budget is a tomorrow Budget. It is a future Budget, with all the key decisions left until after a review or until this Parliament is over. I have some news for those on the Government Benches and those on the Opposition Benches to the left of me. We know what that means. The fact that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister would rather have a non-Budget and call a general election than make the hard decisions today tells us everything we need to know about this Labour Government. There is another way with the Conservatives, and I am looking forward to it and so are my constituents. <em>Ordered</em>, That the debate be now adjourned.<em>—(Michael Wheeler.)</em> <em>Debate to be resumed tomorrow.</em>

    Hansard source
24. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Will the right hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
25. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Apropos the point that has already been rightly made, does the hon. Gentleman really believe that? The Red Book gives a very different story. What we are talking about is RDEL—the resource departmental expenditure limit or day-to-day spend on our armed forces. That means reserves—I am one—not getting their reserve training days, ships that cannot put to sea because of a lack of fuel, no bullets and no exercises. Is that what he wants? What does that say to the brave men and women who populate our armed forces?

    Hansard source
26. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I could not really make up my mind, when listening to the Chancellor, whether the Budget was a gathering note for an early general election or simply a wasted opportunity. Well, we have been told in the last few minutes that the Prime Minister has said to reporters: “I can rule out calling a general election in the next 12 months.” So that has sorted that one. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches will be heartily relieved.<span id="400" class="column-number" data-column-number="400"></span> We are left with a wasted opportunity: a Budget that contains no growth strategy worth the name; nothing on welfare, except for one or two small rises here and there; and nothing on reducing the size of the state. While countries in Europe are giving serious attention to reducing the size of the state following covid, this Government are doing very little indeed, to put it politely. The Netherlands is reducing the headcount in its civil service by 15%, except in the military and the police. If we were to do something even approaching that, it would be the thick end of a headcount of 100,000, freeing up resources for deficit reduction in the interests of generational fairness. I am particularly focused on good growth in the BA12, BA13 and BA14 postcodes, but my constituents are seeing none of it. What they did see, practically on day one of this Government two and a half years ago, was the cancellation of the A303 improvements. They saw the long-grassing of the north-south strategic study to link the south coast with the M4. That seems to have gone by the board, meaning no Westbury bypass after all these years. We see continuing fiscal encouragement for the much-loathed plan for an incinerator at Westbury. We have seen VAT and charitable rate relief changes for independent schools, which has closed a foreign languages college in my constituency that brought in a great deal of foreign investment. We have also seen the retrenchment of one independent school, and only yesterday we received news that a further school that is very close to my constituency is finally, after over 100 years, closing down as a direct result of Government policy. There is not much growth there. We have seen the family farm tax. We have seen the family business tax. We have seen the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which was included in the Finance Act 2025. It will come in on 1 January to add to farmers’ woes—something that I had thought the Government might mention in the Budget. It was said earlier that farmers have hardly featured at all in this Budget. Well, CBAM was an obvious thing to look at to reduce the cost of fertiliser. There are farmers in my constituency who are seriously considering not planting this year because of the cost of fertiliser. This was the opportunity to put that right. My constituency is very military. We heard a deafening silence on spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this decade, making a complete mockery of the now Chancellor’s resignation in June. Goodness me—his namesake, Denis Healey, must be turning in his grave. In 1969, he famously said that “once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled” —the grounds on which the current Chancellor resigned in June— “we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.”<span id="vol779_col551" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="551" data-volume-number="779">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]</span> Yet it is precisely this issue—the welfare of our defence personnel and our ability to protect the state—that the now Chancellor resigned over in June. I have to say that that is quite extraordinary. Now we find that RDEL will be cut in real terms over the next two years. In the time available to me, let me explain what that means. It means defence personnel’s accommodation will not be kept up to the extent that it should be. It means establishments will not be renovated. <span id="401" class="column-number" data-column-number="401"></span>It means there will be no fuel for ships at sea. It means dockyard workers will not get overtime, which means ships will be anchored off at a weekend rather than service people being able to get home to their families. It means no exercises. I speak as a reservist, and it means no reserve service days, which means demoralising our reserve. This is catastrophic, and it is no way to behave. It is certainly not indicative of a Government who are halfway serious about the defence of this country.

    Hansard source
27. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    UK Energy Independence

    The Labour Government’s answer to energy independence was to create GB Energy, which we were told was going to create 1,000 jobs in Aberdeen. Two years in, it has just 132 employees, and only 86 of them are based in Scotland. The chairman and the chief exec are not based in Aberdeen—the people of Aberdeen were sold a lemon with GB Energy. Does the Secretary of State now accept that the best way to boost employment in Aberdeen is to get Britain drilling again?

    Hansard source
28. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Davis

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says—I have been a critic of some privatisation myself—but it does not explain why those same malaises did not apply during the Blair years.

    Hansard source
29. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
30. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Karen Bradley

    Draft Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Mrs Hobhouse. I have a message to the Whips: if they put the Chair of the relevant Select Committee on a Delegated Legislation Committee, they may find that it takes slightly longer than they were expecting—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I am fine for now, but the Whips might want to think about that. I want to take the opportunity put a few questions to the Minister. First, will this measure be used purely for immigration offences? When I was invited by the Metropolitan police to join the policing operation for Notting Hill carnival, I was very struck that the majority of the offenders who were picked up by the facial recognition technology being deployed were actually wanted for sexual and domestic abuse offences. I thought that such an event was a very good way to attract those offenders, as it is one where people are scantily clad and therefore might attract those who are <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>more inclined that way—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I can see Members’ looks of shock, but that is the point the police made to me. The Notting Hill carnival is an occasion that people want to attend purely for the opportunity to offend and sexually abuse those taking part, which is absolutely wrong. The facial recognition technology was picking up sexual offenders, not drug offenders or the other things that we might think of with Notting Hill carnival. This legislation could be used beyond just immigration enforcement—for violence against women and girls and other offences—and I hope the Minister can confirm that it will be. I am also curious to know whether “policing” will include immigration enforcement. Again, from the work we have done in the Select Committee I have been struck by the number of people who have arrived, claimed asylum and do not have the right to work but do continue to work, and immigration enforcement should be able to share information on trailers and other vehicles if people who are here without the right to work are trying to work, so that we can stop that and remove that incentive. My final point is wider. I wonder whether the Government are looking at extending the registration scheme to boat engines, perhaps in a Europe-wide scheme. If we had a Europe-wide register of boat engines, law enforcement across the continent might have more traceability of those boats that are trying to leave northern France, Belgium and other places. I wonder whether there may be scope to further the measure. 4.41 pm

    Hansard source
31. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bradley Thomas

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    <Question HRSContentId="{605C8BF0-44C9-42A3-9854-897BE37C0E05}">2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{0F1AD6CA-1805-47FE-86D0-7FD886D2D47D}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for jobs in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
32. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bradley Thomas

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    In 2024 the Scottish oil and gas industry supported 118,000 direct and indirect jobs, and after much dither and delay, thankfully the Government have approved Jackdaw, which will safeguard jobs that <span id="283" class="column-number" data-column-number="283"></span>otherwise would have been lost, and create more. The Government need to do more to support Scottish oil and gas, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking?

    Hansard source
33. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Draft Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the Minister for those detailed opening remarks. <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>The protection and enforcement of our laws protecting our borders must be an absolute priority for Government. Whether individuals are coming across the channel in small boats or concealed in trailers, we must do all we can to prevent and deter these dangerous journeys. Unfortunately, the tragic consequences of people smuggling in trailers are all too clear. It is right that the people who previously committed these crimes are now in prison, but that should not prevent us from remaining vigilant and taking steps to stop such tragedies from happening again. During the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, the Government received our support for the clauses that underpin the draft regulations. Therefore, they will continue to receive our support for them today. The specified purposes related to policing that are set out in the legislation are very sensible and will rightly enable the lawful sharing of trailer registration information held by the DVLA with policing bodies. Allowing the police and the Home Office to share that information where it is used for the same purposes is also an entirely appropriate measure. I hope the Government will utilise these powers effectively to identify and arrest anyone responsible for illegally bringing individuals into our country. Given the time available to scrutinise the Government’s approach to border security in the ongoing Immigration and Asylum Bill Committee, which the Minister and I are enjoying session after session, I will not belabour the broader issues with this approach. However, I hope the Government will acknowledge that if we are to stop illegal migration, which should be the overall aim, we must not only seek to smash the gangs, as this legislation aims to do, but deter all forms of illegal entry. Illegal entry to the UK is both incredibly dangerous and damaging to the British population, and we owe it to both parties to remove the incentives that encourage illegal migration. To overcome the failures that we have seen in tackling illegal migration, measures such as the draft regulations need to be accompanied by a message that anyone who comes to the UK illegally will not be allowed to remain in this country. I fear that without such changes, this well-meaning legislation, while an improvement, will prove unable to address the much broader problems.

    Hansard source
34. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Impact of Government Policies on Businesses

    <Question HRSContentId="{076C2A26-C521-4743-90BD-8BD81AA4E759}">6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A708560A-E18B-4B43-A895-E6F5FBE51163}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of Government policies on businesses in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
35. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Impact of Government Policies on Businesses

    Scotland’s fishing industry makes a vital contribution to coastal communities in every part of Scotland. Last year, Labour negotiated away 12 years of access to our seas to the EU in a disastrous deal for the UK. Can the Minister guarantee that our fisheries will not suffer in any way from the sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU or lose any of our remaining freedoms outside the common fisheries policy?

    Hansard source
36. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    <Question HRSContentId="{6EB45330-0EE4-4FF9-80D8-DC265ADB768D}">11. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{245B72DD-26B1-43CA-8E64-92B916A067D8}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on levels of employment in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
37. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    The Government are accelerating the decline of an industry that supports thousands of jobs across Scotland, while promising replacement jobs that are not materialising quickly enough. Scotland’s oil and gas workers are paying the price for the Government’s ideological opposition to the oil and gas sector. Will the Secretary of State confirm now whether he supports Labour’s ban on new licences?

    Hansard source
38. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Bowie

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for granting this point of order. I am seeking some clarity because both this week and last week, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero indicated that no decision had been taken on whether they were going to grant approval to the Rosebank oilfield. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” publication today states that the Government’s projected oil and gas receipts for the next year, which are now expected to raise £5.1 billion for the Treasury, include: “production from currently producing fields (including Jackdaw), and the NSTA’s estimate of production from development of new fields, which includes Rosebank, and from future discoveries.”<span id="403" class="column-number" data-column-number="403"></span> Madam Deputy Speaker, might you be able to offer some guidance on how this House and the country can get some clarity on whether or not the Rosebank oilfield has been granted approval or will be granted approval, and whether the OBR’s forecast can be trusted at all?

    Hansard source
39. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Warinder Juss

    Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

    My constituency was the proud of home of Banks’s Brewery for more than 150 years, until its closure last year saw production of its signature cask ales either moved elsewhere or discontinued. Those beers were part of our local cultural and historic identity, reflecting generations of skill and pride in our brewing heritage. Does my hon. Friend agree that that heritage deserves protection, and will he join me in supporting the work of organisations such as the Campaign for Real Ale to preserve that heritage for future generations?

    Hansard source
40. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Warinder Juss

    Palestine and Gaza

    <Question HRSContentId="{547E6E9B-4BED-48A4-B49D-ED9C632D25EB}">10. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{55E49BE6-518C-4252-9A03-721B22D23274}">What steps his Department is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Palestine and Gaza.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source