What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Huge thanks must go to the Secretary of State and all involved. This is the right decision, consulted on in the right way. Tech companies have had more than enough time, but have chosen to engineer for addiction and profit. Will she work across Government to ensure that parents and schools have the support that they need during the transition, alongside investment in the arts, music, drama, creative subjects and youth services, so that children can be children?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Brain cancer is one of the most devastating diseases facing families across our country, and it kills more people under the age of 40 than any other cancer. I want to highlight the experience of one of my constituents, Ellen. Her husband Jason, an Army veteran from Mansfield and a father of two, was diagnosed with a brain tumour. Ellen told me that when they received the diagnosis, their “world completely fell apart”. Since then Jason has relied on private treatment, including treatment overseas, at a significant cost to the family, and has struggled to access clinical trials despite wanting to take part in them. Their experience raises an important question: are we doing enough to ensure that brain tumour patients can access every possible treatment opportunity? I would welcome an update from the Minister on what can be done to improve access to clinical trials for brain tumour patients. I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Brain Tumour Research centre of excellence at the University of Nottingham; through advanced imaging, genomics and innovative new approaches, it is helping to drive progress in the fight against this terrible disease. For families like Jason’s and Ellen’s, this is not an abstract policy issue, but a daily reality. We owe it to them and to all those affected by brain cancer to support research, improve diagnosis and give this disease the urgency it deserves.
I associate myself with Mr Speaker’s comments about Lord Hattersley. I gently remind the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) that the Liberal Democrats had many years in government with the Conservatives in which they chose austerity. That speeded up the decline of our high streets, but this Government are committed to rejuvenating our high streets. Later this year, we will introduce a comprehensive high streets strategy, backed by £300 million of support, to transform the high streets that are most in need. That funding will be used to support the creation of high street innovation partnerships to reimagine and revive the country’s most struggling high streets.
Speaking as a former publisher, I am very committed to the success of bookshops, and I congratulate the bookshop in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency on its many years of service to the public. This Government are bringing in long-overdue reform to rebalance the business rates system, which should support independent bookshops, and creating certainty by replacing a temporary relief with permanently lower taxes. We are looking to support such independent shops, because they are the kinds of businesses that give high streets identity and that local residents like.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her very well-deserved recognition. She raises an extremely important issue, which I am sure is of concern to Members right across the House. That is why it will be welcomed on all sides of the House that the Home Office has announced a high street organised crime unit to tackle organised crime where it is operating through high street shops and bringing down the high streets that residents want to see returned to vibrancy, as places that symbolise the life and heart of the communities they are part of.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the work he has done in his constituency on this issue, as well as those residents who have been advocating for the banking hub. Many businesses—particularly smaller businesses—and many older people who prefer not to access banking services digitally need a physical bank where they can go to hand in the money they are making or to take money out. We need banking hubs, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the work he has led.
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, and indeed we do meet regularly. I am happy to continue doing that. We want to see high streets everywhere succeed. Pride in Place is a highly targeted programme, but we need to make an offer for high streets everywhere. I am sure he will welcome, as I do, the high street rental auctions programme that we are bringing in, backed by Government funding, to support communities to buy and use empty units. In that way, they can be put to purposes that the community wants to see, rather than lying empty as a blight on high streets.
The shadow Minister will be aware, as I am, that high streets went into steep decline under the previous Conservative Government. It is this Labour Government who are having to support those businesses and communities that want to fix them. We are carrying out long-overdue reform to rebalance the business rates system, and we have replaced the temporary relief that they offered with permanently lower tax rates that will support high streets to succeed into the future. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), the high street rental auctions scheme, which includes Government funding, will support communities to bring empty units back into use so that they can be valuable places where communities can gather and meet, bringing footfall and therefore life back to our high streets.
The Government expect all developers to build high-quality homes, delivered in line with their planning consent, and to treat customers fairly. The Government are actively considering mandatory standards of warranties for all new build homes, and we are committed to introducing a statutory new homes ombudsman to improve redress when things go wrong.
I am sure many Members across the House recognise the situation the hon. Member describes. One of the reasons building control in local authorities became so weak is that so many of them were underfunded for so long. Following the fair funding review, councils have funding in line with levels of deprivation, so local authorities have additional resources to beef up their building control functions and take action against the kind of organisations he refers to. Longer term, we are bringing in a new homes ombudsman, which will be a better and a fast way for people to seek redress in those circumstances.
My hon. Friend raises incredibly important issues, and it is incredibly difficult for people buying their first home to find themselves in those circumstances. She will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing refer to changes in leasehold, including a consultation due to end within weeks, which for the first time will allow for far greater transparency in charges for leaseholders. We have also changed the regulations under the national planning policy framework, which will change the way that some of the problems she has mentioned can be dealt with; and the new homes ombudsman, when that comes on line, will provide a new form of much faster redress for her constituents in those circumstances.
I am very disappointed to hear the Liberal Democrat spokesperson arguing the case for nimbys, because in other circumstances I have heard Liberal Democrats recognise that we have a housing crisis, recognise that the number of families in temporary accommodation doubled under the previous Government, and recognise that the number of people left sleeping on our streets doubled under the previous Government and that young people cannot find anywhere they can afford to rent or buy. We fix that by getting a fair balance between the rights of people who need a home to buy and the rights of local people over their local area. They need local plan proposals to give local people the framework within which they can express their views, but we have to speed up the slowest planning system in the western world if we want to get people the homes they deserve and have a right to live in.
Just to be clear, I was not calling people who care about the green belt nimbys; I was calling the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches nimbys. We have retained protections for the green belt, but we need to get new homes built. I am sorry if the Liberal Democrats want to deprive young people of the chance to find somewhere they can afford to rent and deprive young people who want somewhere to buy to get that vital first foot on the housing ladder. They used to support aspiration; now they are slamming the door shut in the faces of young people who want to get on in their lives.
Yesterday marked the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire—a day for remembrance and for sombre reflection. The 72 residents who so tragically lost their lives will never be forgotten. My thoughts are with the survivors, bereaved families and all those affected, and I know that they have the deepest sympathies of the whole House. We accepted the inquiry’s findings last year, and we will take forward action on all 58 recommendations. We are determined that nothing like this will ever happen again.
The Government are very interested indeed in increasing participation in elections, and I know from personal experience that the biggest way to do that is to increase campaigning, because that increases turnout. Beyond that, the Government have already piloted flexible voting pilots at the May 2026 elections; we tested early voting, and the use of non-traditional places to vote. Also, the Democratic Engagement Fund is providing £2.5 million to support local projects that encourage more people to vote. Of course, we want to look at all proposals for getting people voting, because that is central to the efficiency and effectiveness of our democracy.
I am not sure about the right hon. Gentleman’s last point; I think the laughter across the Chamber probably answers that one for him. Of course, 16 and 17-year-olds were able to vote in some elections in parts of the United Kingdom while he was in government. If he had really felt that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be able to vote anywhere, he would have done something about it. It is only right that we standardise the system, so that people of that age can vote in all elections across the country. I, for one, welcome the increase in the franchise, and the encouragement of more people to participate. It is their country too, and they deserve a say. I hope that young people under the age of 18 see the Conservatives who are trying to deny them the vote, and will remember that at the ballot box in the future.
That is exactly what the Government are doing. We are looking at how we can tackle those developers who go ahead and build and then seek planning consent retrospectively. It is not acceptable. We have put more money into councils, so that they can fund building control functions, which were severely underfunded by the Government when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. That gives councils more power to take precisely the action that he is calling for. He had 14 years to do this, but he did not—so we are doing it for him.
indicated dissent.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) and for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate. When we came into office, we inherited an appalling situation not just in dentistry but right across my primary, community and social care portfolio. The last Government tinkered at the edges—for example, taxpayers footed the bill for their new patient premium to the tune of £126 million, but it had no impact on patients, so we cancelled it as a total waste of time and money. What is more, the previous Government utterly failed to reform the contract, to set up any new training schools or to expand any training places. I am afraid that the end result is this Dickensian state of affairs, where people have been resorting to DIY dentistry and tooth decay is the No. 1 cause of hospital admission for children aged five to nine. Once again, it therefore falls to a Labour Government to fix the problem, and our job is twofold: to get NHS dentistry back on its feet and to make it fit for the future. We will continue the shift to prevention by backing supervised tooth brushing, water fluoridation, and healthy food and drink for children. We will be consulting on long-term reforms to the dental contract. We have been cracking on with our plan for change to end the misery faced by hundreds of thousands of people unable to get urgent care. To start with, we are on track to have delivered more than 2.5 million additional dental treatments compared with the same period before the general election. Those have been delivered thanks to our work on cutting the underspend; in July 2024, we inherited shocking annual underspends in dentistry—money that the previous Government could not even get out of the door due to their sheer incompetence.
Somerset is an outlier. There are significant problems in Somerset due to access to dentistry, for all the reasons we have talked about in this debate, which are particularly acute in Somerset. I have had calls with a senior official from the ICB there to try to figure out what is going on, because it is an outlier. We have seen a reduction in the underspend of more than 90%, because under this Government, every penny allocated for NHS dentistry is being invested in NHS dentistry. We are committed to reforming the dental contract within this Parliament, with a focus on matching resources to need, improving access, promoting prevention, rewarding dentists fairly and ensuring that we use the skills of the whole dentistry family. We will publicly consult on future proposals. There is no such thing as a perfect payment model. We are not rushing these changes, because the dental system is complex and we have to get this right.
I thank the hon. Member for that. As I have said, the contract will be reformed within this Parliament. I would be happy to receive a letter or representations from him with a suggestion along the lines he just set out. In the meantime, while we are working on long-term reform, our 2026 reform package includes a range of elements, but here are the three highlights. First, we have embedded urgent dental care into NHS practices, making it easier for patients to get support when they need it most. Secondly, dentists can now receive higher payments for treating patients who need urgent care. That means they have extra incentives to provide urgent care on the NHS for issues such as severe pain, infections or dental trauma. Thirdly, from this month, those requiring complex care, such as treatment for severe gum disease or decay in multiple teeth, will be able to schedule a single, planned package of treatment and pay one patient charge for that, rather than having several courses of treatment. That could save them up to £200 a year—that is money going straight back into the pockets of working people.
I suspect that the entire country blames the situation far more on the 14 years of neglect and incompetence from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. We are absolutely committed to delivering a domestic pipeline of dentists. That is vital, but we know that it will take time, so to address the immediate workforce challenge, we have reformed the General Dental Council’s exam process for fully qualified dentists from overseas, so that they can register to practice in the UK. Thanks to the action we have taken, over 2,000 extra dentists per year will be registered every year from 2028. They are generally already living here and waiting for the opportunity to get accredited and start practising; they are being blocked only by the uselessness of the previous Government. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we are training for the future. That is why we have announced the accreditation of two new dental schools, at Portsmouth and the University of East Anglia, and I am delighted to say that each has been allocated 25 new places per year from 2027. This is the first sustained expansion of new dental school places in nearly 20 years, driven forward by this Government and backed by £11 million per annum. There will be a new generation of dentists, training in state-of-the-art facilities. While I was on my visit to Portsmouth, I told students that this Government would back them once they graduated. Our proposals from December will see better support for staff, with improved access to discretionary payments such as long-term sick pay, funding for annual appraisals, support for career development, and clearer guidance about their benefits and contracts. At the same time, we will now make it a requirement for newly qualified dentists to practice in the NHS for a minimum period, intended to be at least three years. We are laying the foundations of dentistry recovery. We have put a floor under the decline that began in 2010.
It is because we have to work out, particularly with employment lawyers, exactly how the modalities of a three-year tie-in would work. It does impinge on employment law, so careful thought and consultation is required; it will kick in for the 2027-28 academic year. We cannot repair 14 years of neglect and incompetence overnight, but this Government have begun the process of rebuilding NHS dentistry, including through reforms to the dental contract that prioritise patients with the greatest needs. We are taking important steps towards improving access in dental deserts and rural areas, and delivering a better deal for dentists. We are bolstering the workforce with thousands more dentists, delivering more dental school places in underserved areas, and reinvesting nearly £400 million back into NHS dentistry, thanks to our work on the underspend. We are also on the path to delivering 2.5 million additional courses of treatment compared with the same period before the general election. None of this happens by magic. It is thanks to the decisive action and hard work of this Government. And this is just the beginning. As I have stated many times at this Dispatch Box, I am personally committed to consulting on and delivering fundamental reform of the dental contract by the end of this Parliament, but I make no apology for taking time to get this right. The issues are complex and there is no consensus on the perfect approach. I will continue to work with the sector to understand its concerns, and to listen to patients, and I will ensure that the contract reforms we have introduced this year are just the start of building an NHS dental system of which we can all be proud.
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. These regulations amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Before I begin, I want to place on the record—I am sure this is shared by all colleagues—our utter horror at the attacks meted out by Russia in Ukraine yet again, in the past 24 hours. The attack on the monastery in Kyiv was particularly despicable, as were the deaths of civilians across Ukraine. Those appallingly barbarous actions show the whole House and the whole world again what Russia continues to be capable of. This morning, I was able to convey that horror and our solidarity and support to the Chairman of the Rada, Ruslan Stefanchuk, who was here as a guest of Mr Speaker and has been meeting right hon. and hon. Members across the House. We all stand united with Ukraine in this Committee, and our thoughts are with all those affected by those terrible actions. This statutory instrument was laid on 19 May under the powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018; its measures, subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, entered into force on 20 May. Since coming to power, the Government have been clear that Russia must not be allowed to succeed in its illegal war, and we have been steadfast in our support of Ukraine. Russia represents a threat not just to Ukraine, but to the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom and our allies. As part of our response to Russia’s illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine, the United Kingdom has sanctioned more than 3,300 individuals and entities under the Russian sanctions regime, with more than 1,300 of those delivered under this Government. Only last month, we introduced a new package that sanctioned 18 individuals and entities under the UK’s Russia sanctions regulations, including cryptocurrency exchanges active in Russia, and entities and individuals that we suspect are linked to the UK-sanctioned A7 network, which has embedded itself in the Kyrgyz financial sector. This instrument marks a further step in the UK’s sustained effort to erode Russia’s ability to fund its illegal, full-scale invasion, ramping up pressure on Putin’s war chest. It is yet another set of measures from this Government, who continue the work of the previous Government; when I sat on the Opposition Benches, I welcomed and supported such measures, while also providing robust scrutiny. The sanctions are having a real impact. Last month, Russia slashed its economic growth forecast for 2026 from 1.3% to just 0.4%; Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister ascribed the downgrade to the impact of sanctions, among other factors. Indeed, Putin himself admitted that Russian GDP contracted by 1.8% in January and February, with a decline in areas critical to Russia’s war efforts, including industrial production. It is clear that our sanctions are having an impact and that they have bite, which is why we will not cease them. I will not comment on further measures, but we will not cease to explore all opportunities to raise the pressure and degrade Russia’s war machine for its actions in Ukraine, and to look at all the methods it uses to evade such regimes. To phase in the implementation of the measures, we have issued two targeted licences, intended as a temporary measure—I make that very clear, as we have done in response to the many questions and debates we have had about this issue. The licences are subject to ongoing review, with fortnightly checkpoints. They may be amended, suspended or revoked, as appropriate. The first licence is for the new liquefied natural gas maritime services ban. It temporarily authorises spot-market trade from Russian LNG projects Sakhalin II and Yamal until 1 January 2027. The second licence applies to the refined oil import ban and to authorised imports of diesel and jet fuel refined in third countries from Russian crude oil. As with the LNG licence—I must reiterate this to the Committee—the licences have always been intended as a temporary measure. They are designed to mitigate and protect consumers and market stability here, and they are subject to fortnightly review. The process of review involves continually assessing the impact of licences on energy supplies, market conditions and other relevant considerations against our overarching objective, which is, I am sure, shared by all members of this Committee: of ramping up pressure on Russia through our sanctions regime and, in light of this assessment, determining what steps are appropriate at each review point. There was some misleading reporting and commentary around the time of these measures. We were not watering down existing measures—these are new measures that many across the House have called for, including me when I sat on the Opposition side, which toughen and tighten the pressure on Russia. As often happens with sanctions regimes, it is only appropriate that they be phased to allow for appropriate market stability; at the earliest possible opportunity, the bans will be introduced in full. As part of the review process that has been ongoing since the measures came into place, the Government have now set a clear end date for the refined oil licence of 1 January 2027, in line with the liquefied natural gas maritime services ban spot licence. That sets the timetable now for fully phasing in the ban and shutting down the remaining route for Russian oil. Regular reviews will continue to ensure that the licence is lifted at the earliest possible date, which of course could be before that date. I will turn to the details in a moment, but I want to say thank you for genuine and constructive scrutiny, particularly from Liberal Democrat counterparts and others, and for conversations with Members across the House to ensure that the measures are phased in correctly. On the basis of the review, the Government have been able to communicate how that is going to operate going forward; I hope these measures will enjoy the wholehearted support of the Committee today. They include a range of different measures, and it is important that all of those are able to go forward. The LNG and refined oil provisions were just part of the overall package. The regulations are a strong enhancement of our Russian sanctions regime. To reiterate what the Prime Minister and my colleague the Minister for Trade said on 20 May, we have not lifted or eased sanctions: our sanctions are now stronger than they were a month ago. I really underline that point to the Committee. The legislation is sanctioning previously unsanctioned goods and services, and that includes multiple measures targeting Russia’s energy sector and other key supplies. We have imposed further export restrictions that fall into the following four categories: first, items sanctioned by the EU already, including certain types of industrial chemicals, metals and machinery that have potential battlefield use; and goods recommended for sanctions by the Government of Ukraine, including additional forms of metals and articles of carbon fibre, which are frequently used in the manufacture of the drones that we have seen causing such devastating impact. I witnessed for myself where those drones had hit Lviv a few months ago, including again on a religious site in the city centre—absolutely appalling crimes. We need to choke off the supplies and matériel used for those drones. Restrictions also include a more expansive list of individual chemicals and chemical precursors that might be used in, for example, riot control agents found on the battlefield or goods for internal repression. Lastly, restrictions include goods related to emerging technologies, including quantum, semiconductor and engineering biology technologies, including new goods and those not already clearly subject to existing sanctions, to reduce the risk of circumvention. As I said, there are measures on refined oil. The legislation bans the import into the UK of oil products refined in third countries that have been made from Russian crude oil. There is a new maritime services ban on LNG that restricts Russia’s access to the UK’s world leading-maritime services, which has been rightly raised on numerous occasions by colleagues across the House. Certain existing long-term contracts are exempt from the provisions until the end of the year, in line with the EU’s LNG measure. We always attempt to work alongside our EU and other counterparts for appropriate effect. There is also a ban on the import of uranium consigned from Russia and uranium that originates in Russia, and UK involvement in the global trade of Russian uranium is restricted. Exceptions are in place to mitigate risks to energy security in third countries, including the supply of uranium to operational nuclear installations. Construction services is another area where this package takes action. The legislation introduces a prohibition on providing construction services to persons connected with Russia. That will complement the other restrictions in place on architecture and engineering, ensuring that UK construction businesses cannot support infrastructure and building projects that benefit Russia. We have also expanded the criteria for specifying ships. Members will have seen the robust and brave action that our armed forces and law enforcement personnel took over the weekend. We will not hesitate to enforce international law and take action when Russia is attempting to use a vessel or another means to circumvent restrictions that we are putting in place. I pay tribute to all those involved in that crucial operation but, as Members will understand, I will not go into further operational details today. I know that questions have been raised on the Floor of the House. In the new, expanded criteria, we have specified ships to include ships carrying liquefied natural gas that originated in Russia and ships carrying coal and coal products that originated in Russia. The aim of that is to make it easier to sanction ships for a wider range of activity. We have also strengthened the trade and shipping sanctions that can be applied to specified ships by introducing additional prohibitions. The new trade sanctions enable the Government to prohibit persons from providing and procuring certain maritime and financial services in relation to specified ships. Indeed, additional shipping sanctions in this package prohibit persons from operating or chartering specified ships, and require the UK ship registrar, who maintains the UK Ship Register, which is part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, to refuse to register specified ships. Lastly, the legislation will close a gap by prohibiting the acquisition and purported acquisition of a detained transport asset from or for the benefit of a designated person or person connected with Russia. That instrument amends the enforcement provisions of the 2019 regulations, as well as the Trade, Aircraft and Shipping Sanctions (Civil Enforcement) Regulations 2024, to provide for the enforcement of the new prohibitions introduced by these regulations. To conclude, this wide-ranging, impactful package shows that the Government take incredibly seriously our commitment to supporting Ukraine, to targeting Russia for its actions in prosecuting its illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine, and to combating Putin’s attempts to prolong the war and cause further damage, death and destruction, which we have seen him mete out so tragically in just the past 24 hours. Our sanctions have hit Putin hard. We will not let up, and we will continue to go further. I am grateful for the constructive and ongoing engagement with Parliament on the issue of licensing, including with those I have mentioned, as well as for the strong, unified support for sanctions on Russia and the steadfast backing of Ukraine from the vast majority of the House—although you will know, Sir Desmond, that in the past I have criticised some who have parroted Kremlin lines and have serious questions to answer on these matters. The Government welcome the shared determination of the Committee to maximise pressure on Putin’s war machine, and we recognise the concerns and genuine scrutiny that have been raised. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
I genuinely appreciate the scrutiny in the questions raised by hon. Members. I appreciate the wholehearted support for the package as a whole from the shadow Minister. He asked me about further operations, but he will understand that I will not get into those here. But let us be clear that we sent a strong signal with the action over the weekend—the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about the intent. We will act lawfully to take measures in relation to the shadow fleet, so that is a very clear signal. This is not the first time we have been involved in such operations; we have supported partners and allies on a range of vessels operating outwith international law in relation to sanctions evasion. But this was the first time when we were in the lead and took action in the channel. I gently caution the shadow Minister on his question about loopholes. There is not a loophole. There was a loophole, prior to our bringing in this legislation—that is why we have sought to introduce it. I have called for this for a very long time, as have many Members. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock, was right to point out his noble Friend Lord Purvis’s assiduous advocacy on the issue over many years. The situation did allow these products before and but they will not be allowed now. It is only right that this is phased in appropriately, and we have set out clearly how we intend to do that. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde, raised a point about wider energy supplies and went back to arguments used on the Floor of the House a few times about the North sea. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and others have been very clear: expanding drilling in the North sea will not lower bills or improve energy security. That short-sighted approach would leave the UK exposed to volatile global gas prices. Gas prices are set internationally, so having new North sea licences would not take a penny off of bills and would potentially make people more vulnerable. We are looking at making better use of existing North sea infrastructure, such as the range of measures we are taking around what are known as “tie-backs”. We will always act in the interests of British consumers, in relation to both the challenges of climate change and making sure that we have security of supply. The regulations are not one policy on their own, but sit within a range of different measures. The shadow Minister rightly pointed out the importance of investing in nuclear. That is exactly what the Government are doing, including, I am pleased to say, in Wales—my part of the United Kingdom. Announcements were made recently. We can also see the investment in the Hinkley plant, which will bring huge benefits. We are clear that investing in nuclear, renewables and a robust, resilient energy system that does not rely on the likes of Putin—or anybody else—is the way forward, and we work with partners on that. The hon. Gentleman asked about the other exemptions, saying that they are narrowly construed. I am happy to write to him with some more technical detail, but I assure him in general terms that we aim to make sure that none of those matters can be circumvented in an unreasonable way. He also asked about the shadow fleet. We intend to take further measures in this place, but we have had a steady drumbeat of designations and actions, each of which has to be evidenced and based on clear legal parameters. I absolutely assure him that we are closely across the practice of false flagging and re-flagging vessels, which is one of the tactics that Russia, as well as other countries, has used to avoid scrutiny. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock raised some important points. He asked whether I would deposit certain letters and correspondence in the Library. My understanding is that those were private, but I will certainly look at whether I can do that, given that the Government have now publicly announced the measures that I set out. On the end date, as I set out to his colleague, Lord Purvis, that will remain under constant review; if there is an earlier opportunity, we will seek to take it, subject to the four-month notification period provision set out in the original licence. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether notifications of people using the existing licence have been made. Some notifications have been made but the numbers are extremely low, which was one of the factors we took into consideration when looking at how the licence was operating. As he will understand, it would not be right for me to comment on individual companies, as there may be commercial confidentiality provisions. I assure him that we constantly look at and keep under review any UK nexuses, or any other way in which services are used, and that we work closely with other partners to do so. Alongside Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office teams, I met EU officials today to establish where we can unify efforts to have the maximum impact. Although the United Kingdom can have a huge impact, it is important to act with others as that will have the biggest hit to Putin’s war chest. On the topic of the EU, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim asked about the Windsor framework. I am happy to write to him on the technicalities, but I do not want to mislead him. All the sanctions regulations came in as a result of us leaving the EU sanctions regime as part of Brexit and our having wider obligations, so I suspect that the language in that paragraph is standard. I cannot think of specific obligations, but I will certainly write to him with the technical detail. I assure him that we aim for the sanctions to have the biggest impact, and that there are not loopholes or ways for anyone in any part of the United Kingdom to get around them. That is also true for our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, with which I work closely to ensure that their sanctions legislation is fit for purpose. We have strong working between different teams to make sure not only that we understand what we need to put in place legally but, crucially, that enforcement takes place. Having visited the port in my constituency, I know the work that goes on to check and make sure that vessels do not appear on lists of sanctioned vessels. I am sure that that is also the case in Northern Ireland, and across other EU partners.
Of course. As I said, I do not want to mislead the Committee: if there is something more technical in that language, but I will happily copy the hon. Gentleman into my correspondence. I assure him that we work closely with EU partners, including the Republic of Ireland, to establish whether anybody can use any routes around the measures. We co-operate closely with those authorities generally, including on the security of the waters around our islands, which is crucial. When we see Russian ships and other vessels attempting to transit, we need to ensure that that is being done lawfully. As colleagues will be aware, ships have the right to innocent passage under international maritime law, but where that is not adhered to we need to look for any possible loophole. The regulations are an important step forward and I hope the Committee will support them. I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Sadly, the recent closures of family-run businesses, such as Scent from Dudley, Black Star Ghanaian product and Family Bargains hardware in Dudley, are symptomatic of a wider trend of high street shopfronts closing. What steps is the Minister taking to speed up high street regeneration by bringing empty shops back into use, and will he visit Dudley town high street to see what else we can do?
I thank the Minister for his decision about the continued and ongoing failings by Cherwell district council regarding a major planning application. Given that Banbury has a huge and desperate housing need, will he agree to meet me to discuss how we can fix that, despite the council?
While our brave servicemen and women were defending our national interests over the weekend, today it has been reported by the BBC that Russian state operatives were linked with arson attacks on our Prime Minister. Just last week, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was meeting Errol Musk in Russia, and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has said that he would not block that same individual from joining his party. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no greater threat to our national security, nor anything more unpatriotic, than this dangerous rise in far-right politics across our country?
It is wonderful to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. There cannot be many areas of policy where campaigners are asking not for more money, but simply for money that has already been promised to be used. I really hope that the Minister can offer some good news today about the remaining £23 million to £25 million, because there are so many areas where it could make a big difference—and fast. There are doctors and scientists who can see this money but cannot reach it. It is an enormous waste of talent, goodwill and, importantly, hope. We are three years beyond the point at which all of the £40 million should have been awarded already, yet at the last indication not even half has been issued and spent. That must be beyond frustrating for so many families across the country. Colleagues will have heard me speak about my two amazing constituents Khuram and Yasmin. Their daughter Amani tragically passed away from a glioblastoma in February 2023 aged just 23. Before her death, the family organised Luton Walk of Hope. Amani spoke to those attending, and her words summarised the mission of so many cancer sufferers: “It might be too late for me, but I want to make a difference for others.” As Amani’s cancer progressed, her parents had to fundraise £100,000 for treatments. No one should have to fundraise to access a drug that could save their lives. Amani’s mum, Yasmin, is in the Public Gallery. She has said that all the fundraising they do is in the hope that brain tumour diagnosis will not have to be a life sentence for others. But brain tumour sufferers and their families need more than hope; they need concrete promises and actions that follow through. That means the dedicated money being spent, expert doctors being listened to, improved diagnosis, timelines for research being set—and, importantly, honoured—and clinical trials being massively expanded. The urgency felt by families needs to be mirrored by policymakers in Whitehall.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I pay tribute to all those who signed this petition and to Brain Cancer Justice. I have been invited to speak this evening by one of my constituents, Owen Sutton, who currently lives with a brain tumour. He was diagnosed at university and is now an ambassador for the Brain Tumour Charity. Some 13,000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour every year. When I counted earlier, there were 35 people in this room—that is equivalent to the number of people diagnosed every day. Research from the Brain Tumour Charity has also estimated that there are huge long-term costs associated with the low survival rates of brain cancer. Loss of earnings and long-term care costs amount to £18.7 billion, which is felt by both the economy and the NHS. Currently, brain tumours account for just 3.2% of the national cancer funding, despite being the biggest killer of adults under 40. Patient polling found that less than half of respondents had been informed of the option to participate in a clinical trial, with just 12% ultimately taking up that opportunity. I therefore support the national cancer strategy’s ambition to make the NHS the first choice venue for clinical trials, but I also advocate that perhaps a right to try option should be incorporated into that—something Owen wanted me to mention. In keeping with the universal values of the NHS, we hope that all those affected by brain tumours can have access to world-leading treatments, so I support calls to increase the funding and to spend the money that we know is already due to be spent. We must all carry the strength and inspiration of Owen’s story, choosing hope over fear and turning the terminal into the treatable.
My hon. Friend will be aware that response standards and resource decisions are set locally by fire and rescue authorities, which understand their risks and communities best. We will continue working with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service to support the delivery of improved services for Poole through national reform, stable funding and stronger co-ordination.
I recognise the very real concerns that my hon. Friend raises, including heathland fires, flooding and seasonal traffic. The variable nature of those risks is exactly why such judgments must be informed by local fire and rescue authorities, using local risk and operational evidence. As he set out, Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service has received an 11.8% increase in core spending power, giving local services a stronger foundation. The Government are committed to wider reform to improve outcomes for the public, but it is not for central Government to intervene in local operational decisions.
We are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to make sure the Building Safety Regulator aids the delivery of critical NHS infrastructure. That includes introducing a dedicated team within the BSR to focus specifically on hospitals, as well as producing targeted guidance for NHS trusts.
I am sorry to hear about the delays and problems in my right hon. Friend’s constituency and I want to reassure her that we are taking serious action on that particular matter. I will work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, as well as the BSR, to try to improve the situation for her.
We have introduced the Representation of the People Bill, which will close loopholes that could allow foreign money to enter UK politics and undermine trust. Alongside those measures, we are considering the Rycroft review’s recommendations, including on candidate donations, and we will set out our full response shortly.
The Government are clear that the integrity and transparency of our political system must be protected. The rules we have in place are designed to ensure that political donations come from legitimate sources and are properly declared. However, we recognise the need to ensure that our rules remain effective and address emerging risks. We are already delivering a package of reforms through the Representation of the People Bill; we will also consider the recommendations from the Rycroft review and work with the Electoral Commission and others to ensure that the system remains resilient for the future.
I know that my hon. Friend has been working hard to support his constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme on these important issues. I am happy to meet him, but let me also reassure him that work to improve the performance of the Building Safety Regulator is ongoing and is bearing fruit.
Buildings between 11 and 18 metres may be able to enter the cladding safety scheme, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further.
The Secretary of State knows that I have concerns about the enforceability of a platform-based ban, but I welcome the news about tackling infinite scrolling, which affects people of all ages. I am concerned about young LGBT people growing up in often unsupportive environments, who can find support online from others in similar circumstances—I know from personal experience how valuable that can be. Does the Secretary of State agree that such support is important, and if so, how will she ensure that it can continue?