5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Historical Forced Adoption

   To all the mothers and your stolen children who have wrongly carried grief and shame for so long, you were denied the love that you deserved and tortured by a state—and the silence only revictimized you. We are sorry. It is shameful that Barnardo’s and the Salvation Army have yet to apologise and face up to the role that they played in this. My father was haunted by the way in which Barnardo’s played a role and he would tell me of his horror, which he carried for life, of seeing the laundries as he walked around the streets of Dublin. In addition to those who were cruelly and forcibly adopted, hundreds of babies died—frankly, they were killed—as their mothers were tortured, and they were buried in unmarked graves. Will the Prime Minister, as he continues with his important work on this, put in place an effort to find those graves and to force the opening up of those records so that the mothers who were denied a lifetime of memories with their children can at least now bury them and have time at those graves with them?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Historical Forced Adoption

   I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for coming to the House to deliver the statement himself. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, we welcome what he has said and agree that whenever the state makes grave errors, it has a deep responsibility to apologise for what it did to those it has wronged. One hundred and eighty-five thousand children grew up in Britain without their mothers because of bad decisions and fundamentally flawed beliefs that treated unmarried mothers with a shame and stigma that is mercifully alien to us today. Those decisions and beliefs left a permanent mark on each and every one of those lives: on children separated from their mothers, and on the mothers whose children were taken away. As the Prime Minister said, this is a stain on our history. Bonds between mothers and children are the foundation of security and identity; indeed, perhaps the foundation of all we have. While I know from much experience that the act of adopting a child is among the greatest kindness one person can show another, and that many of those children will have gone on to be raised by loving families, there can be no doubt that they will also have carried a great grief across many years. One cannot help but be moved by the powerful testimonies that some have given. I will mention just one mother’s experience: the journey back from the hospital “was the longest I held my daughter—it was two hours—and it was like everything suddenly made sense. I just felt like this was absolutely right, and I wouldn’t let go of her…a woman appeared and said, ‘It’s time’…and she was taken from my arms and handed over. And she howled—I assume I did…and the following week they sent me back to school.” Thousands upon thousands of such experiences happened every day in every corner of our country over many years. Thankfully, in the years since, a huge amount has been done to ensure that such things cannot happen again in our country; change in adoption law and modern courts and legislation make a repeat of these injustices much less likely. We welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has outlined today and the fact that the Education Secretary is writing to local authorities and agencies setting the expectation that requests for records should be swiftly responded to. I am glad that that builds on the steps the previous Government tried to take to improve access to adoption records, offer post-adoption counselling and improve the complaints procedure for agencies. We hope that all these steps will make a difference to some whose experiences lie in the past, and to many in the future. I would like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. The Education Committee called for an assessment of international redress schemes. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the Government are considering that? I welcome his announcement of support groups for mothers and adopted adults. Who will be responsible for establishing this service and what budget will be set aside for it? I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement and repeat what he has said to those affected: the shame was never yours.

   Hansard source
3. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

   I will address directly the matter of settlements in a moment, but I want to make a broader point first. Diplomacy is about rolling up our sleeves and putting in the hard yards, not just issuing condemnatory statements. I believe that if the Minister wants to have real sway with the Government of Israel, there has to be meaningful dialogue, but at the moment there is no dialogue between this Labour Government and Israel, despite the obvious importance of the bilateral relationship to Britain across so many domains. That is because of the decisions that Labour has made—from suspending export licences when Israel was burying murdered hostages to cancelling trade talks and recognising a Palestinian state when hostages were still being held in terrorist captivity. By deliberately keeping relations with Israel in a deep freeze, Labour is cutting off its ability to influence situations on the ground. None the less, settlement expansion in the west bank is not helpful for achieving the long-term peace that we all want to see. [Interruption.] That has long been my party’s position. We would also like to see Israel use its legal system to bear down on settler violence. We on the Conservative Benches do support a two-state solution: one that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Will the Minister tell us whether he has spoken to his Israeli counterparts directly on the E1 situation? Are the Government doing anything at all to help the Abraham accords expand or to unblock issues holding up a broader regional peace? Finally, will he update us on his assessment of the Palestinian Authority’s plan to hold elections in November and whether he is concerned by the PA’s lack of progress on the total overhaul of curricula and welfare policy, which is so clearly needed?

   Hansard source
4. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Engagements

   Q11. Through omission or insufficient advice, injured veterans may fail to place their compensation in a trust within the one year allowed by universal credit. Can discretion be had in compassionate cases?

   Hansard source
5. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate and introducing it so very well. In Burnham-on-Sea, we have a fantastic coastguard team and rescue officers. They are dedicated volunteers who respond to incidents along one of the most challenging stretches of coastline in the country. The Bristol channel has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, and the risks are very real. When people get into difficulty, it is these volunteers who respond, often within minutes. Following the recent court ruling and changes to policy, many of those volunteers now face losing the limited financial compensation that they receive in return for their valuable efforts. I have spoken to members of the Burnham-on-Sea coastguard team, who are deeply concerned about what that means for their future involvement.

   Hansard source
6. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

   I agree with the hon. Lady: I think those volunteers have been poorly treated. The payments were never a salary, but they made it possible for people to continue volunteering. One officer of many years, who shared his thoughts with me, said: “Call Outs never come at a ‘convenient’ time. The money we earn would never replace the time lost, but it does soften the blow.” It is often said that rescue officers do not volunteer for financial reward but out of a strong sense of duty and community spirit. However, the modest compensation recognised the very real costs involved: travel, time away from work and the disruption to family life. I understand that the MCA must operate within the law, and that the Court of Appeal ruling has created a complex situation. It is, though, sad to see these committed volunteers penalised as they have been. I urge the Government to look at what they can do to continue supporting our volunteer coastguards and would be grateful if the Minister addressed these questions when he sums up. What assessment has been made of the impact on recruitment and retention? In constituencies such as mine, a reduction in volunteer numbers would have a direct impact on public safety. Is the Minister satisfied with the MCA’s engagement with volunteer coastguard teams? I end by thanking the coastguard volunteers in Burnham-on-Sea and across the country.

   Hansard source
7. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Fishing Industry: Government Support

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this important debate. Fishing is not just an industry; to many it is a way of life, passed from one generation to the next. It is why so many people in our fishing communities looked to the Government’s UK-EU summit in May 2025 with disbelief. At that summit, the Government agreed to grant the European Union full access to UK fishing waters until 2038—a 12-year extension of the existing arrangements. The Government said that it would be in return for British participation in the Security Action for Europe defence fund. Despite repeated questions, however, it remains unclear exactly when or indeed if they will achieve that. That is because the talks collapsed when the EU demanded billions of pounds from Britain as a condition for joining. You might think, Sir Alec, that the Government would have thought about that possibility before signing away important fishing rights. They seem to have got nothing in return. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government will renegotiate with the EU and return the fishing rights to our fishermen and women, now it is clear that the talks have failed? Or was our fishing industry just used as a bargaining chip in pursuit of the Prime Minister’s broader political objective? This House deserves answers, and so do the communities whose futures depend on those decisions. I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to the fishing and coastal growth fund and will claim that it demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the sector, but fishermen across the country feel very differently. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has raised serious concerns about the Government’s approach in relation to this fund. It found that Ministers had not clearly explained why the figure of £360 million was chosen, why the fund should run for 12 years or why this support is best delivered through a single integrated scheme. Crucially, the Committee also concluded that the fund lacks clear objectives against which success can be measured. That is a remarkable criticism, and I hope the Minister will address it. I ask him these questions directly. What are the objectives of this fund? How will he measure its success? What outcomes will demonstrate to fishing communities that this money has delivered meaningful change? And what happens if those objectives are not met? The previous Conservative Government had a clear record of backing our fishing industry. We secured increased fishing opportunities, allocated substantial support for the long-term future of the sector, developed new fisheries such as bluefin tuna, and began replacing the hated common fisheries policy with a bespoke framework designed around the interests of UK fisheries. On this side of the House, we support investment in fishing and coastal communities. Many stakeholders have rightly highlighted the need for better port infrastructure, improved training opportunities and investment in skills, scientific research and fleet modernisation. By contrast, this Government’s headline achievement has been to lock in EU access to UK waters for another 12 years while offering a fund that, to many, looks to be little more than a sticking plaster. Additionally, “Economic outcomes of annual negotiations for UK fishing opportunities in 2026”, published earlier this year, shows that there has been a decrease in this year’s quota of 135,000 tonnes compared with last year’s quota. That will cost the British fishing industry £136 million. At the same time, spatial squeeze is forcing fishermen out of their traditional fishing areas, and new rules have been imposed governing trawl mesh sizes. The Iran war pushed up fuel prices, but the Chancellor’s May statement on support during the Iran war did not help fishers at all. The fishing industry is vital for our food security and deserves proper support from the Government to address the financial pressures and uncertainty that many fishing communities now face. The Conservatives will always stand up for the rights of access to our own waters and Britain’s rights as an independent, sovereign coastal state. I urge the Government to do the same.

   Hansard source
8. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Fishing Industry: Government Support

   The Minister is drawing to the end of his time allocation, but could he explain to fishermen the benefits, as he sees them, of his Government signing away to the EU 12 years of access to our fishing waters?

   Hansard source
9. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

   I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and for our recent conversations about flooding in Somerset. Flooding is a huge challenge for areas across the country. Some 6.3 million properties in England are currently located in areas that are at risk of flooding, including many in my constituency. When floods occur, the Environment Agency, local volunteer groups and farmers work to help people quickly, often in difficult circumstances. I was humbled and deeply proud to see the way the community pulled together in affected areas during the flooding earlier this year, particularly in Moorland and Fordgate. The Minister knows how seriously I take flooding, and has engaged with me following my requests for stronger national support, clearer local responsibilities, more dredging and improved pumping capacity. The previous Conservative Government took real action to prevent flooding and protect homes and businesses, ensuring that over 600,000 properties were better protected from flooding and coastal erosion. Between 2015 and 2024, over 900,000 acres of farmland were also protected. In 2020 the previous Government announced a doubling of capital funding for flood defences in England, which rose to £5.6 billion from 2021 to 2027. Flood Re was set up under the former Conservative Government, and it remains an important scheme to promote the availability and affordability of flood insurance for eligible homes. Its recent accounts report contains serious warnings for Ministers. Flood Re is clear that “the external environment has changed materially, with higher climate-driven loss volatility, tighter global reinsurance capacity and greater pressure on affordability.” It says that the scheme is now retaining higher levels of risk and facing “increased liability exposure”. At the same time, Flood Re warns that the scheme is under structural pressure. Its board has said that improved flood mapping has led to “more properties being classified as high risk…including a growing number of higher-value homes”, and that without change, the scheme risks being asked to carry “unsustainable levels of exposure and cost.” As such, will the Minister please explain what steps she is taking to ensure that Flood Re’s growing pressures do not result in additional costs for households through higher insurance bills? Will Ministers bring forward a credible, long-term flood resilience plan? Do the Government have plans to include businesses in Flood Re? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of these changes on households that are asset-rich but income-poor, including pensioners living in higher-band homes in flood risk areas? In her statement, the Minister said that Flood Re would reform its premium model across council tax bands and regions. Will she publish the modelling behind those changes, including regional impacts, so that households can see what this means for them? Flood performance certificates may help households understand risk, but will the Minister confirm who will pay for them? Will they be mandatory, and will they affect mortgage availability? Flood Re has done valuable work, but households continue to need affordable insurance. They also need a Government who are serious about flood prevention, resilient homes, and long-term protection for communities. Conservative Members will always work with the Government to ensure that every person living in a property that is vulnerable to flooding gets the support they need.

   Hansard source
10. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to catch my eye. Colleagues can see how many people are bobbing. We will go to the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm. I intend to start with a three-minute limit to try to get in one speaker from each of the parties. That may not be possible, but I will try to achieve that.

    Hansard source
11. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    Order. I am going to break with convention ever so slightly. The next speaker will be the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, as she is one of our new colleagues and I want to give her three minutes. After that, returning to convention, I will call Lloyd Hatton, at which point we will have a two-minute limit.

    Hansard source
12. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    I do want to let everybody have a chance to put something on the record but, due to interventions, I have to cut to one minute. Any further interventions on speeches will reduce that further.

    Hansard source
13. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    Order. I am about to suspend the sitting due to Divisions in the House. I will aim to come back earlier than 10 minutes after the last Division starts. If the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the shadow Minister, the Minister and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland are here, we will start as quickly as we can, but it will be no later than 10 minutes after the last Division. I remind Members that if they have spoken, they need to come back to the Chamber. If I start slightly earlier, I will give some leeway, but I expect everybody who has spoken to be back in the Chamber 10 minutes after the start of the last Division.

    Hansard source
14. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

    Order. Mr Carmichael, you have been a Member of this House an exceptionally long time. You know that you are not allowed to wear clothing with slogans on it. Please fasten your jacket.

    Hansard source
15. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Early Years Funding: Hampshire

    Alex Brewer will move the motion, and then the Minister will respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

    Hansard source
16. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Fishing Industry: Government Support

    Order. I gently remind the hon. Member, first, that we do not use the word “you”—I am not responsible for any of this. You speak through the Chair so that we can maintain calmness in the Chamber. Secondly, you are not allowed to use aids and props. You may describe the aid or prop, but please do not hold it up as if it will be recognised.

    Hansard source
17. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Online Safety: Children

    Parents, teachers and young people across North Dorset welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement last month, as do I. This is clearly a fast-moving area of communication. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that this will be an iterative and evolutionary process, with Government deploying the resources so that we are well placed to meet new challenges and our young people are safe and protected?

    Hansard source
18. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for his urgent question. I was on the trip to Israel with him the other week, and we saw all too clearly and depressingly the very clear strategy of the Israeli Government; for them, E1 is a way of effectively blowing out of the water any delivery of a two-state solution. May I gently make this point to the Minister? The quiet, gentle Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office approach of taking a watching brief—looking at events to see how they unfold—needs a bit of gumption and muscle behind it. President Trump recently reminded Israel that without America, it would not exist. That should send a chill up the spine of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Ministers. As well as the Minister trying to talk to his Israeli counterparts, what conversation is he having with the Americans, who provide a massive amount of military support to Israel, to try to get the Netanyahu Government to rein it in, when it comes to E1?

    Hansard source
19. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

    I think this is an important moment for us to remind all our constituents to check their insurance policies and make sure that they have sufficient cover, but on a practical note, may I ask whether the Minister expects the flood protection certificates to have the same status as energy performance certificates? Obviously that encourages improvement, but there may be a problem of stranded assets. I just want to be sure that we have thought about the impacts on the housing market and on social mobility.

    Hansard source
20. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    I agree with the principles put forward in the regulations, but I am a little concerned about the regulations allowing overseas beneficial owners to suppress their residential address. Could the Minister reassure us on how the Government will prevent dirty money from flowing into the UK?

    Hansard source
21. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026

    What impact assessment has been done to look at the Welsh Government’s ability to service the additional borrowing?

    Hansard source
22. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

    I appreciate the hon. Lady giving way so early in her speech, because I have to run to a Delegated Legislation Committee. I agree with all the points she is making, but would she talk later about the impact on the pub trade? This policy will hit the pub trade by about £50 million—it is going to do some real damage to a very important industry.

    Hansard source
23. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    Order. I know that this is a very sensitive debate, so let us make sure that we keep our emotions in check.

    Hansard source
24. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    “You” and “your”—the best thing to do is always speak through the Chair. That prevents that mistake from happening.

    Hansard source
25. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    The hon. Member is an experienced parliamentarian and will know that I am not responsible for the Government’s policy position—if only I were. She will know that there are many ways in which this issue can be pursued with Ministers, and the Clerks and the Table Office are also available to advise her. No doubt those on the Treasury Front Bench will have heard her and will ensure that she gets a response in due course.

    Hansard source
26. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    All Members should be familiar with the convention that they should inform colleagues in advance whenever they intend to visit another Member’s constituency. As the guide to the rules of behaviour and courtesy states, “failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.” I hope that if colleagues fail to observe these courtesies an apology is forthcoming.

    Hansard source
27. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

    I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 323 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026, the Ayes were 318 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. [The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

    Hansard source
28. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    Can I associate myself and those on the Opposition Benches with the Prime Minister’s comments about Venezuela, and also about the Lib Dems? [Laughter.] But seriously, the Chief of the Defence Staff made it known that the armed forces needed a minimum of £28 billion more to defend the country. Can the Prime Minister tell us why he thinks half that amount is enough?

    Hansard source
29. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister did not say that it was enough, and that was a very long list of things that he is not yet paying for. It is not right and it is not fair—certainly not to our troops, who put their lives on the line for all of us every single day. Three weeks ago, the Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), resigned saying, “I am being forced to make decisions that would…increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.” Since that letter, the Prime Minister has increased spending by only 0.01%. We can count, the generals can count, and the Kremlin can count, and his plan does not add up. How can he possibly stand there and say that this is enough?

    Hansard source
30. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Chief of the Defence Staff is an honourable man, and what he and the NATO Secretary-General have done is welcome the fact that the plan has been published—just that it has been published. They have been waiting for more than a year. The strategic defence review was last year. The Chief of the Defence Staff is an honourable man who is having to make do with very little. The threat level has dramatically changed in the two years that the Prime Minister has been in office. Since he took office, Poland has increased its funding to 4.8% and Germany has increased its funding to 3.7%. This year, Russia will spend 10% of GDP on defence. Meanwhile, Britain is spending it all on welfare. Even the limited plan that the Prime Minister has announced has completely unravelled, because he has not found the money to pay for it. It is £5 billion short. We all know that he is leaving this mess to his successor. Can he confirm that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has agreed to fund the shortfall?

    Hansard source
31. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister says that he is delivering this outside the Budget. That is right: it should have been in the last Budget. The strategic defence review was published last year. It should have been in the last Budget, not the next Budget. According to the intelligence assessment that the Prime Minister himself has said we have, there could be an attack on NATO by 2030, but this plan does not deliver until after that. Not only is £5 billion missing from his plan, but it relies on £11 billion of unidentified savings. The plan has unravelled. It is a total dereliction of duty, and I am not the only one who thinks so. The Times said today that the Prime Minister’s “legacy”—[Interruption.] Well, why don’t we wait and see what The Times said? It said that the Prime Minister’s “legacy is betrayal, failure and vulnerability” —and that is one of the nicer headlines. I will ask again, because the Prime Minister did not answer the question. Did the right hon. Member for Makerfield know that he was going to have to find £5 billion for the Prime Minister’s plan?

    Hansard source
32. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    It does not sound as if the Prime Minister has told the right hon. Member for Makerfield to find £5 billion. He says that any Labour Prime Minister would stand behind this plan. Let me tell him what Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, said yesterday. He said that the Prime Minister had chosen the “cheap option”, and he called the plan “woefully inadequate”. Let me tell him what General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the authors of his own strategic defence review, said yesterday: “we are simply not going to be ready to defend this country properly.” That is what they are saying. The reason the Prime Minister is in this mess is that he was too weak to cut welfare when he had the chance. There are only three ways to find the missing £5 billion: increase borrowing, increase taxes, or cut welfare. Which one will the Prime Minister recommend to the right hon. Member for Makerfield?

    Hansard source
33. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    We understand it perfectly, and that is why—[Interruption.] Yes, we do. That is why the Prime Minister is leaving and so is his Chancellor. Labour Members are laughing and pretending, but if he was doing such a fabulous job, why did he resign? Defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. [Interruption.] Yes, it is the first duty of Government. I do not need to read again what General Sir Richard Barrons or Lord Richard Dannatt said. Maybe Labour Members did not hear it the first time—they can rewatch the clips—but defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. Britain is facing a moment of danger unlike anything in our lifetimes and unlike anything that we saw in government. We need a plan to fund our armed forces that meets this moment. They are the Government for now, not for 10 years ago, and the fact is that Labour’s plan is too weak, it is too little and it is too late. If the Prime Minister’s successor does not want to be complicit in this failure, he should come out and condemn this plan. The money must be found, and that money should come from cutting welfare—something that these Labour MPs will not do. If Labour cannot defend our country, what is the point of them?

    Hansard source
34. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Topical Questions

    T2. Good luck, England! May I welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a social media ban for under-16s, following repeated calls from Conservative Members? Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that the enforcement of such a ban is robust enough to prevent children from bypassing it through the use of mechanisms such as virtual private networks, which expose young people to additional risks?

    Hansard source
35. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Harris, and a privilege to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on a subject that could hardly be more timely and important. There are a few issues; I am conscious that I am delaying people on a warm afternoon, with football around the corner for some, but I think that they deserve our attention. It would be very easy for me to stand here this afternoon and dismiss any debate outright, and for hon. Members to just wave this order through without looking more broadly—although I am impressed with the Minister’s speed in opening this debate; it is clear she is going in one direction. Parliament’s responsibility is not simply to approve; it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill pointed out, to provide real scrutiny. Nobody disputes that Wales needs further investment on the ground, but after 27 years of Labour in the Senedd wasting money on schemes that have produced very little in the way of value or outcomes for communities, it is important that we question whether just increasing the Welsh Government’s borrowing limit is the right way to achieve change on the ground, and whether the case that has been brought forward is truly convincing. In my shadow ministerial role, I have the joy of travelling the length and breadth of Wales—as you know, Mrs Harris, because I am often in your constituency area—and that gives me the opportunity to meet people from across businesses, sectors and communities. It greatly pains me that despite more money, support and local devolution and decision making, there is a continuing sense of deprivation, dilapidation and deterioration, particularly around infrastructure, that is hitting communities too hard, and a sense that what has long been promised through investment and devolution into the Welsh Government has simply not landed on the ground. The Brynglas tunnels, for example, have descended into being a continued stranglehold on the economies of Newport, Monmouthshire, Cardiff and Swansea. How has the M4 been improved? It simply has not. Unemployment in Wales has hit the highest levels in the whole United Kingdom and is continuing to dash young people’s aspirations. It pains me that too many young people feel they need to leave Wales to find the opportunities that they want. Everyone, including me, knows somebody in Wales who is waiting in pain and in vain on never-ending Welsh NHS waiting lists. Despite ongoing promises of change and of better days ahead from the Senedd, that has not changed. Both Plaid and Labour have sounded like broken records in claiming that they do not have the money to fix Wales’s problems, but the truth is that the Welsh Government have benefited from substantial funding increases for years, so what has happened? In 2021 alone, the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), announced that the Welsh block grant would rise to around £18 billion a year—an increase of roughly £2.5 billion a year. That naturally raises three important questions, which are pertinent to think about this afternoon. First, if additional funding has been made available, why have so many structural problems remained unresolved since 1999? Secondly, before the Government agree to increase the level of borrowing, should Ministers in the Wales Office not ask how the previous resources have been prioritised? Thirdly, what have the actual outcomes been? For too long, the Welsh Government, who were aided and abetted by—let’s be honest—the Labour enablers Plaid Cymru, decided to prioritise the wrong thing. Under the then Labour Welsh Government, more than £100 million of taxpayers’ money was spent on expanding the size of the Senedd with 36 more politicians, and more than £150 million was spent on developing plans for building the M4 relief road, which was cancelled abruptly. Tens of millions were spent on imposing the 20 mph speed limit, which is increasing journey times and creating wider economic costs. Other previous wasteful spending projects at the Senedd include setting up embassies all over the world, the failed Circuit of Wales project and tree planting in Uganda—all of which have cost taxpayers money. If a decision is made today to increase the Welsh Government’s borrowing powers, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the money is not misappropriated again into pursuing Plaid Cymru’s ultimate goal of breaking up our country and setting up an independent country. At a time of wider geopolitical tensions, we need to be serious: we are better together. To attract more investment into Wales, I encourage the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government to heed the Conservative and Unionist party’s ideals: to get on and build the M4 relief road, to abolish business rates for small and medium-sized businesses, to scrap stamp duty in Wales and to scrap glass from the deposit return scheme. Those things, alongside public borrowing, will make a difference, but more public borrowing today is not an end in itself; it must be justified with a clear and credible plan. There are Committee members whose constituents will be directly affected by this measure, so we should be mindful of where the money is going and whether it is making a difference to the people of Wales. Devolution cannot be a one-way road. We cannot devolve powers and hand over more money only for it to be wasted on pointless schemes and for the people of Wales not to see change. We can no longer afford to devolve powers and increase borrowing while hoping for the best—hoping that the people of Wales will get more. They deserve so much more than that; it is about changing lives and supporting people. How did the Government come to the figure of a 10% increase? I think the Minister covered that to a degree in her opening speech. What will the change of Government and what is going on in the Senedd mean for this important capital funding—taxpayers’ money? What justification have the Welsh Government provided for increasing the grant, and how will they show the impact? I understand from the Minister’s speech that she is comfortable with this being devolved to the Senedd, but we should be holding those 96 politicians to account. I look forward to the Minister’s kind response. If there is anything that she cannot comment on this afternoon, I will be happy to see it in writing.

    Hansard source
36. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026

    I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous to us all. I just want to reiterate the point about accountability. Between the announcement of this measure in the autumn Budget, and its publication on 2 June and the Minister’s presenting it today, the process, group of people and focus in the Senedd have changed. People’s feelings about the lack of accountability and openness, and about the wanton spending of other people’s money, are very acute when they are finding the cost of living so challenging. I offer to work with her if these powers are granted—we will not divide the Committee today—to make sure that we all keep watch equally that they do change lives on the ground, and we are willing to roll up our sleeves if we see that the money is being used wastefully and lives are not changing.

    Hansard source
37. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate. This is a vital discussion that goes to the very heart of how our democracy functions, how our legislature connects with the public and how we maintain institutional integrity. Although we disagree with the prescription of a blanket ban, I certainly respect the sincerity with which the argument has been put forward. We all share the fundamental goal of protecting and restoring public trust in this House. There is no question that public support for MPs having second jobs has reduced drastically over recent years. The public rightly expect us to be working for them, rather than prioritising our own interests, and we must make sure that that is what we are doing. If we are considering a ban on second jobs, however, we ought to be clear as to why. Some have argued in this debate that the issue is the time spent on outside jobs, and that the time ought to be directed entirely to MPs’ parliamentary constituency work. I do not have an outside job, but before the general election I served as a Government Whip. It was a paid position, and it almost certainly took up more of the time that I was in Westminster each week than any outside job would. While those in Government posts—or for that matter House roles, such as Chairs of Select Committees—do necessary work for the proper functioning of Government and Parliament, I would struggle to argue that my constituents benefited directly from me having that additional job. The same would be even more true for many ministerial positions, but most Ministers of all parties are able to fulfil those demanding roles without their responsibilities as constituency MPs suffering. If we accept that a Minister can balance the immense, exhausting weight of working in a Government Department with their duty to the electorate, it is logically inconsistent to argue that a Back Bencher cannot do the same with a few hours a week of external professional practice. If the primary problem is not the time diverted from representing constituents, perhaps it is the money. But if we go down that route, there is a danger of us getting drawn into an argument over good jobs versus bad jobs. Few people would complain about the shadow Minister for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), continuing to work as a consultant paediatrician; I informed her in advance that I would mention her. It is necessary for my hon. Friend to continue to work so that she can maintain her professional qualification, and it adds immense real-world value to her shadow ministerial role. She also properly declares her interests during relevant debates. Similarly, Members across the House have often been rightly congratulated on their ongoing work as surgeons, GPs and nurses, but these medical jobs are no less time consuming and, in some cases, may be better remunerated than some of the other interests that are more often the focus.

    Hansard source
38. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

    I thank the hon. Member for making the point that I was about to move on to. Some of the jobs that I have mentioned are better remunerated, so it is incredibly difficult to know where a formal line should be drawn in explicit rules. If medical jobs are acceptable, why not the legal work that some Members have legally and properly been paid to do as Back-Bench MPs? If paid newspaper columns are allowed, which the Government’s current plans notably exempt, it becomes much harder to explain to the public why work advising a manufacturing business on global supply chains is completely unacceptable. The point that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) rightly made was that we must differentiate between work and influence. The real threat to public confidence has never been an MP spending a few hours a week doing genuine practical work in business, law or the media. The threat is and always has been paid advocacy and lobbying, which is why the rules were fundamentally overhauled. We have an absolute ban on paid advocacy and an explicit prohibition on MPs acting as paid parliamentary strategists, consultants or advisers. In July 2024, the new Opposition gladly supported the removal of exemptions regarding public policy advice.

    Hansard source
39. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

    Fundamentally, I think it comes down to the employment relationship. Obviously, as Members of Parliament, we are elected to represent constituents. It is then a question of judgment as to what activities conflict with that and prevent us doing that role as well as we need to. I think most people would agree that some of the cases highlighted today cross that line, but the question is whether a blanket ban is the most effective and proportionate way of dealing with what is clearly a genuine problem. The independent Committee on Standards launched a comprehensive inquiry on the issue in January 2025 to look at the exact benefits, risks and regulatory effectiveness of outside employment. That inquiry is still under way, so it would seem the height of legislative impatience if we were to go down the road of threatening blanket bans while that independent review is still gathering evidence on how a more balanced approach could operate. Trying to put together a rigid set of formal rules that allows the activities we happen to approve of while preventing those that we find unpalatable is a recipe for hypocrisy and administrative chaos. It risks leaving Parliament poorer rather than our constituents better served. Ultimately, the best people to judge whether an MP’s outside work prevents them from being an effective Member of Parliament are the voters in that MP’s constituency—if they have the full and proper information available. Let us ensure absolute transparency. Let us publish every hour and every pound in the register for the world to see. Then let us trust the British public to look at that record, weigh it against the service they receive and render their unappealable verdict at the ballot box.

    Hansard source
40. 1 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

    I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe that the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as that of an Israeli child. That is the foundation of all of my views on this. May I congratulate the Minister for the middle east, and indeed the Prime Minister, who is not in his place, on having the courage and the leadership to recognise the Palestinian state when they did so? I supported that and continue to do so. Indeed, this urgent question justifies that position last September, because at that point we were all concerned that the viability of a Palestinian state was reducing as the weeks went by. We have seen that the extant policy of the current Israeli Government is to continue those illegal occupations and expansion. Will the Minister tell the House the latest on his discussions with Washington about the board of peace and reconstructing Gaza, ensuring that there is a viable Palestinian state? Finally, what is his view on whether the current Israeli Government’s position is likely to pertain beyond this autumn?

    Hansard source