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

1. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

   Local Government Reform

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on his success in securing this important debate. He has set out how this is the answer to a question that no one asked. Whatever anyone thinks about local government reform, the Government have made it clear that they will impose it, and if we and councils do not engage with it, it will simply be done to us. I was very clear from the outset that if the Government were fixed on local government reorganisation and reform, there were certain conditions that, at a very minimum, had to be met. I made it very clear that what emerged should not move local services further away from local communities or local accountability, and that as part of the process there should be a genuine listening exercise not just with upper-tier and lower-tier authorities, but with parish councils and, most importantly, local representatives and residents of affected areas. Similar to my hon. Friend, there are very real concerns among my constituents and genuine anger about what may happen. I have a few questions for the Minister. I know her of old, and she is extremely diligent. I know she will do her best to answer the questions, in anticipation of which I am grateful. Will the Minister confirm that when she, or the Secretary of State on her advice, makes a decision, it will be based on the proposals that have been presented, not on a proposal that was never presented or on a merging of proposals by civil servants in her Department? There are three different proposals before her, from the borough and district councils, from the county council and from the mayor and city of Leicester. The mayor’s proposal does not, at this stage, take in all the areas of my patch that are very worried about it. There are very real concerns in places like Syston, Thurmaston and the villages. Notwithstanding that, the Minister’s officials could still recommend that a line be drawn on a map to expand the city of Leicester to take in those villages and towns. Councillors Poland, Bradshaw, Seaton, Jackson, Braker and Lowe have been campaigning very hard to make sure that local voices are heard. My constituents in those areas are strongly opposed to a land grab by the mayor that would take into the city areas that are, historically and in every sense of their identity, communities and economy, very much of the county. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out their concerns very clearly. They know they would end up paying more if they were absorbed into the city. They worry that reform is simply a reason to enable the mayor to build on greenfield sites outside the city boundaries that do not want that extra burden. They are already taking an awful lot more housing, and the communities I have just mentioned have taken an incredible amount of development in recent years. The communities worry about their sense of identity. The Minister knows that every community, even a village community, has a very strong sense of identity compared with the next village, let alone of being a county village as opposed to being part of the city. My worry is that the pillars on which the Mayor of Leicester is pushing and advocating for an expansion of the city no longer stand up to scrutiny. First, the idea that the city needs to expand to be able to absorb more housing to meet its unmet housing targets is already being dealt with by agreement between the city and the boroughs and districts, which are already voluntarily taking a chunk of the housing that the mayor seems incapable of delivering within the city boundaries. That is already being addressed. Secondly, the mayor has previously argued that the city’s finances need to be more sustainable and that it can come only from an expansion of the city boundaries, which he bases on the city’s previous financial position. We saw quite a generous local government finance settlement for the city of Leicester, and I am sure those in the city will be very grateful to the Minister. It was a little less generous for the county of Leicestershire, but the city now has its finances in a more sustainable place. I would argue that the city needs to do a lot more to spend that money wisely and efficiently, but the Minister has, to a degree, addressed that problem for it, too. I worry that the arguments no longer hold water. I also worry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out so ably, that the ideology of “bigger is better” sadly does not reflect the reality of service delivery. I have known the Minister a very long time, and I know she is very diligent and genuinely cares both about her brief and about communities up and down this country. Will she please listen to the people who have responded to the consultation, and to Members of Parliament today? Do not impose what people do not want by endorsing a city land grab of our counties, towns and villages. Please do not change the rules of the game midway through by adopting a proposal that was not consulted on and was not included in the initial consultation, and please instead focus on what works and delivers for local people to improve local services.

   Hansard source
2. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

   Local Government Reform

   Can the Minister confirm that only the three proposals for Leicestershire—from the boroughs and districts, the county and the city—will be considered, and that no new fourth proposal that has not been put forward locally will emerge from officials?

   Hansard source
3. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

   Water Supply in Kent

   It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing and opening this debate. We have heard powerful contributions from across Kent, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale). I congratulate him on his urgent question last week about important planning issues. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) talked about water use and resilience. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke about the impacts on people and, indeed, on animals—I will touch on that. I congratulate her on her water survey and communication with her constituents on these issues. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) highlighted the failures of the water company. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) set out the detail of the outages and highlighted the importance of local knowledge in the response to such situations. Over recent weeks, the House has heard a series of testimonies during debates in which many colleagues will have taken part, including on various urgent questions. Taken together, they show that the South East Water issues affecting our constituents are unacceptable, and they make clear—I know that the Minister has been all over this, as we have heard in powerful testimony—our persistent frustration about that company’s failures. As we have heard, Kent is served primarily by two main water suppliers: South East Water and Southern Water. The county relies heavily on chalk aquifers and bulk-treated water supplies from Southern Water, which, in turn, provides bulk transfers to South East Water. That has caused issues, as the dependency creates its own vulnerabilities. The Government must consider that moving forward. Kent experiences unusually dry conditions. The Environment Agency’s April 2026 report noted that Kent and south London faced exceptionally low rainfall, with the area receiving just 4 mm of rain in April—equivalent to just 10% of the long-term average—and decreases in soil moisture, average river flows and groundwater levels. I welcome the fact that the Government are moving forward and talking about reservoirs—a reservoir will be built in Broad Oak near Canterbury, although we are concerned about the time it will take to build it—but I hope that they are considering short-term resilience, too. South East Water supplies drinking water to 2.3 million people across the south-east, but the recent outages have caused deep and widespread frustration and distress. Many customers have experienced low-pressure water or no water at all during the outages, followed by a boil water notice when supplies were finally restored. The consequences—Members will be all over this—have been severe: thousands of homes left without water, schools and libraries forced to close, hospitality businesses shutting their doors, farmers and horse owners worried about their livestock and even hospital appointments moved online. Water companies have repeatedly claimed that they have no duty to provide water for animals, but a 500 kg horse needs around 25 litres a day, while a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres—and more in hot weather. The outages have created human and animal welfare issues. During South East Water’s most recent supply failures, residents were queuing in hot conditions at bottled water stations. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what measures are in place to protect elderly and vulnerable people during such events. What assessment has been made of the mental health impacts of recurring outages, which are becoming distressingly frequent? The Minister will be aware that the Drinking Water Inspectorate launched an investigation and found that the failure was the result of “long-standing weaknesses and failures in process control, monitoring, maintenance and operational management.” The chair and chief executive of South East Water have resigned, but what customers really want is change and improvements now and in future. How will the Minister ensure that the new leadership of South East Water works at pace to deliver the upgrades required to prevent outages? Does the Minister agree that this must be a turning point for the company? A report from the Consumer Council for Water found that fewer than one in 10 South East Water customers were satisfied with how the company handled the supply issues in late 2025, and I am sure that the figure is probably worse now. Over half of customers in vulnerable circumstances who registered for priority services did not receive the support that they expected. Given the focus of the Cunliffe review on long-term water security, will the Government confirm which recommendations they will take forward to address those structural issues and restore public confidence? As we have heard, unlike for broadband or other utilities, customers cannot switch water supplier. They have no choice over who provides their water, so there must not be a postcode lottery when it comes to reliable supply. Companies that fail their customers must be held to account, so can the Minister confirm when the clean water Bill will be coming down the track with new checks and inspections, and whether the new regulator will have the powers it needs to hold water companies to account? My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich talked about the importance of planning issues. Are the Government considering whether water companies should become statutory consultees, given that we have thousands of homes planned in counties around the country, including in Kent and my own county of Essex? We need to know that both water supply and wastage are adequate moving forward. Reliable and safe water supply and disposal is an issue that unites Members from across the House. We all want our constituents to have not only a reliable water supply but a safe, predictable and dependable one that meets the basic standards necessary for them to live their lives and for businesses to go about their business. Public institutions such as hospitals and schools depend on it, private businesses depend on it and people very much depend on it. Will the Government hold the water companies to account so that we get that right?

   Hansard source
4. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Draft Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026

   I just have a couple of questions. I have read about magnesium L-threonate: it is supposed to promote relaxation, unlock true cognitive potential, improve sleep, mood and overall wellbeing, and enhance mental clarity, memory and focus, so I was thinking I might get some of that. However, if I were to recommend it as a supplement, there are a couple of things I would need to know. What would the dosing be? Can the Minister confirm whether the plan is to set the dosing of magnesium in line with other types of magnesium supplements and in line with the EU, or has that not been decided? Will that be decided on a different day? My other question is how, when we look at supplements, we can be sure they contain what it says on the tin. The Food Standards Agency regulates that, but how many reports has it had of concerns about the content of supplements, and how many products does it test? I looked at its retail survey for 2025, which found that 83% of caffeine supplements failed because they had the wrong amount of caffeine, there were allergens not described on the labels, or they contained substances that should not have been there. How often should we expect the supplements to be tested? What sort of programmes are in place to ensure that the huge variety of supplements that people can choose from in shops these days are safe and that they contain what they say they do? Other than that, I am happy with the regulations.

   Hansard source
5. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Railways Bill

   I rise to speak to new clauses 29 to 32 and amendments 65 to 67, tabled in my name. My mission is to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Rail and transport are important to us: we are situated within the London commuter belt, one 10th of the M25 runs through my constituency, along with the M3, and Egham is five miles from Heathrow. The constituency has companies that were established there because of our transport connections, but also those that deliver services linked to transport, such as logistics. I have tabled a series of amendments with a view to improving services and transport, not only in my constituency but across the country, as we have heard from colleagues—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for referring to my amendments in their speeches. If the amendments are not pushed to a vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope at the very least that the Minister will be minded to support them, not least in the spirit of improving the rail service across the country, and perhaps to stop having to listen to me rattle on about the level crossings in Egham and other problems in my constituency. A key strength of the Bill is that, as several Ministers have said, the buck stops with them. I believe the Secretary of State said that the buck stops with her, and when I met Lord Hendy, he said that the buck stops with him. That is a key improvement on the previous system, in which South Western Railway and Network Rail were separate, because we now have a clear person and organisation to go to in order to raise issues or problems about the rail infrastructure in our constituencies. New clause 29 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption. It does not make sense to have railway engineering works at the same time as local motorways or arterial roads are closed, or to have multiple pockets of utility works around Chertsey, where I live, all taking place at the same time. We need better co-ordination among all bodies to ensure, first, that such works do not all happen at the same time, and secondly, that if a utility company excavates a road to work on the water supply, for example, necessary work to fix the gas or electricity supply or to install broadband takes place at the same time. New clause 30 relates to an accessible rail strategy. Accessibility issues affect many stations across the country and, frankly, it is scandalous that we have such accessibility problems. In my constituency, there is a focus on the Weybridge lifts, which I have been going on about for many years, as they frequently break down, affecting many passengers across Weybridge. I would like to give a shout-out to Tim Blanchard, a wheelchair user who has led a campaign to try to improve the Weybridge lifts. I am promised that they will be replaced this summer, which will finally see an end to the Weybridge lift saga, but we need more, and I hope the accessible rail strategy will prevent colleagues from having the same problems that we have had locally.

   Hansard source
6. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Railways Bill

   I hope we will hear from the Minister about why he may or may not accept the new clause—I hope he ends up doing so. Under the previous Government, the Weybridge lifts were notorious in the Department for Transport because of the problems we had—[Interruption.] I see some of my hon. Friends are nodding in agreement. I hope the lifts will lose their notoriety as they are replaced. New clause 31 sets out requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives, and following communication with stakeholders. The new clause relates to an issue in the summer of 2025, when quiet off-peak services—including services from Chertsey between 7.30 am and 9.30 am—were cut during the summer holidays, impacting people’s ability to get to work. Feedback from stakeholders is important because, after all, it is a service for our citizens. New clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to review the provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved. The third runway at Heathrow, which I oppose, looks like it will go ahead. If it does, we need to make sure that we have improvements to our local rail infrastructure, which is already creaking, and particularly to surface-access transport. That brings me nicely to amendments 65 and 67—which I know we have all been awaiting for—on level crossings. Egham is punished day in, day out by the excessively long down times of its level crossings. This is unacceptable and it needs to change. We need one, if not more, of the level crossings to be removed so that we can get Egham moving. If the third runway goes ahead, that work could be linked to the funding coming out of Heathrow. I am grateful for the minor improvements that will be made by SWR, and for SWR’s engagement on the issue, but I ask the Minister to please help me to get Egham and Runnymede and Weybridge moving.

   Hansard source
7. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Local Government Reform

   Colleagues will note the number of Members who are interested in speaking and the time available. I will call the Front Benchers from 10.30 am, so please do the maths.

   Hansard source
8. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Child Contact Arrangements

   I will call Alison Hume to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister.

   Hansard source
9. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Belfast: Violent Disorder

   Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. The Minister said to criminals—who are criminals, Minister, not thugs—“Do not do it.” With respect, that will not cut it. It suggests that the Government are simply a passive, pearl-clutching observer rather than an active participant. I accept that operational matters are for the PSNI, not the Minister, but will he say what the Government are doing to try to fix the fundamentals that underpin the dreadful situation in Belfast?

   Hansard source
10. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Defence Investment Plan

    At a recent defence industry dinner, the Minister informed diners that the definition of “British” for the purposes of assigning support from the Government to the British defence industry would be an address in the British Isles, which of course is a complete nonsense. Will the upcoming—and much-awaited and much-anticipated—defence investment plan clarify what is meant by a “British firm” for the purposes of Government support and advantaging British defence industry?

    Hansard source
11. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Local Government Reform

    I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also share my congratulations with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing today’s debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on his appointment as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department. We all know that he has been a champion for local government and we all recognise that his constituents—like mine—benefited from an enormous vote of confidence in their local Conservative council at the recent elections. I am sure that he will be once again sharing the insights of benefiting from that in his role at the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all shared valuable insights about the impact that the local government reorganisation process is having on the communities that they represent. A lot of those frustrations reflect the simple fact that at the start of this process, the Government—perhaps because it was not in their manifesto—did not ask what, in their view, local government is for. Essentially, this is an instruction to do what is being done at the moment, but a bit less of it, at lower quality and at a higher rate of tax. That is certainly something borne out in the local government reorganisations in places like Somerset, which a number of Members used as a reference point for the concerns that their constituents have. As a country we already have the fewest elected representatives for our constituents of any major democracy. Our constituents have less elected representation in the decisions that affect their lives than their counterparts in the United States, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Yet we have a Government bent on a path of reducing that local democratic voice even further. Just last week the Government announced that, in a planning system where 98% of decisions are already made under delegated powers, even fewer of those decisions will hear the community’s voice, whether local councillors, planning committees or a public forum where people can express concerns—as Members have proudly expressed today—about the impact on towns of overspill and concreting over green spaces. They will further lose the opportunity to share those concerns. That is based on a policy that is underpinned by no independent financial analysis. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report commissioned by the County Councils Network to support its case for county-based devolution. That was an entirely reasonable exercise to undertake. One would expect that central Government would then say, “If that is the case being made by one side, let’s see what the case is for unitarisation, for district-based and for reorganisation along some other lines.” None of that has happened, which is perhaps why there is a high level of concern in places such as Leicestershire that the impact will be higher taxes, poorer quality of services and less ability for local people to share their concerns. In a moment I will put specific questions that I know the Minister will want to consider, but let us reflect on where we are. The streets of Belfast are on fire and last week there was a massive rise in community tension in Southampton. Last year, my local authority of Hillingdon had to deal with a murder on the street of a local individual walking his dog, by an asylum seeker housed in the local area. The ability of credible local leadership to respond to those challenges is critical at such moments. We are all learning the significance of that. This is not purely about the administrative convenience of Whitehall. This is not, in the words of a former Local Government Minister, about councils as a delivery mechanism for central Government policy. It is about the leaders of those communities and neighbourhoods having a powerful and credible voice locally and the ability genuinely to affect the decisions that make a difference in that area. By failing to ask what local councils are for, the Government are setting up the new authorities to fail. As a number of Members highlighted, housing is one of the most obvious examples. The Government have set a target of 1.5 million new homes to be delivered over the course of the Parliament. Those 1.5 million new homes already have planning permission. Local authorities have been granting those consents over many years. In Broxbourne, Leicester and South West Hertfordshire there are sites ready to go. They have been designed, laid out, and discussions have been had with utility companies. Yet the economic conditions created by the Government mean that that development is simply not happening. Rather than addressing those economic conditions, the focus is on removing a bit more local democracy from the planning system. That risks a situation, highlighted by the impact of the expansion of Leicester and Southampton, where many treasured green fields will have planning permission for unbuilt homes, while old mills in city centres remain undeveloped. That is due to a failure of leadership by a local Labour city mayor and a Government not creating the economic conditions for housing development to happen. When there are so many challenges, to which local government delivering on average 800 different services to local residents could be the answer, whether in public health, education, housing, transport and the environment, the fact that we have what is essentially a reductive exercise about how can we do this, but a bit worse at a higher cost, is simply not the answer. I will conclude with these questions. At the heart of much of this debate has been the fact that elections were promised and cancelled, and mayors committed to and their elections deferred. It would certainly help us all to understand the decision making in the Department if the Government were willing to release the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the local authorities about the cancellation of elections. That has been the subject of freedom of information requests and questions in the House. The Minister, who I know is committed to local democracy, will understand that it would build confidence if the Government were willing to share how the Secretary of State gave local government leaders a steer in that controversial process. Secondly, will the Minister commit to a full and independent financial analysis of the impact of the reorganisation process? That analysis should not simply rely on something written specifically to support reorganisation, but should be independent and say what is in the interests of the whole country. Will she tell us why it is not appropriate, in her view, for local residents to have a say at any point in the process? There will be debate about whether this is a matter for referendum, local election or mayoral election—there are various ways for it to happen—but a number of Members have shared the sense of frustration felt by local people about the absence of a route by which they can have their say.

    Hansard source
12. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Local Government Reform

    My experience, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, does not go as far back as the Redcliffe-Maud report, but what has been described over the years, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, is people’s frustration about things being done to rather than with them. This is not about local community leadership growing up from those neighbourhoods; it is about administrative convenience in Whitehall. I will finish with a question at the heart of building a sense of community confidence. Residents in Leicestershire and Hampshire feel that this is about enabling cities to dump their housing targets—which they have failed to achieve within their own boundaries—in the neighbouring area. We have seen that issue around the fringes of London, historically in south-west Hertfordshire in places such as St Albans. That has been the subject of legal action and Government intervention in the past. We need absolute transparency from the outset. What do the Government want the new councils to do? When they go to the ballot box, and when they engage in consultation and talk to their Members of Parliament, residents need to know that the new councils will exercise the functions that they are there for, and they need to know what it will cost them and what it will mean for their neighbourhood. It is not too late for the Government to pause the process, listen to the concerns that have been expressed powerfully today, including by the Minister’s own Back Benchers, and look at how lessons can be learned, so that we have a local government system fit for the future.

    Hansard source
13. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    National Resilience

    It is a privilege to lead this evening’s Adjournment debate on improving national resilience. I am also glad that the Security Minister is responding. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect. As we have both served in what is now the Special Forces Strike Group, albeit at different times, I know he is one of the few people in this House who has seen the sharp end of national insecurity at first hand. It has sadly become commonplace to say that we are living through unprecedented times. The international system we have all lived under has fractured, war has broken out across multiple continents and technological upheaval and a warming planet compound to create an increasingly volatile world. We hear repeatedly across this House that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. It is repeated so often that it risks becoming a platitude, but here is the hard question: are we actually living up to that duty here in the UK in 2026? This evening, I will set out why I believe we are falling short and, more importantly, what we might do about it and how we might build a country and citizenship resilient enough to meet the growing and interconnected number of threats to our homeland.

    Hansard source
14. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    National Resilience

    The hon. Member raises a serious points, which I will come on to, on interconnectedness. We saw how covid-19 affected so many different parts of society—it closed down industry and the economy. We have to start to think about these things cross-departmentally. The Government’s definition of national resilience is a society’s ability to anticipate, withstand, respond to and quickly recover from severe crises, whether natural disasters, pandemics, geopolitical shocks or deliberate attacks. It rests on a whole-of- society approach in which Government, business and the public work together to protect critical national infrastructure and maintain vital services. Last year’s strategic defence review made precisely that point. One of its central recommendations was a national conversation on defence and resilience built on that whole-of-society approach and premised on a simple idea: that defending the nation is no longer the job of the armed forces alone. A year on, however, I think it is fair to say that that conversation has barely begun. One critical central challenge, both to having that conversation with the British public and, more importantly, to making the preparations to be resilient, is that living memory of needing to be resilient in this country is fading. I often speak to my father about this. He was born in 1942 in Plymouth during the blitz. His generation is the last with a direct lived experience of national insecurity on home soil. The contrast is stark. To the young people I speak to about the risks we face, the idea that we might have to defend our homeland, our democracy and our way of life, remains abstract—something that happens to other people in other places. We are in a more vulnerable position still, however, because beyond the fading of that memory, resilience is no longer woven into our national story. In Taiwan or Finland, the people I speak to have a geographical proximity to the threat, which they feel in their bones: the Chinese dragon across the strait and the Russian bear across the border. Those threats are real and they are close, and that is precisely why those countries do resilience well: their people and their institutions understand in their core the need to be strong. A quotation that has stayed with me since my Royal Marines training puts that well: “You cannot dream yourself into a strong character: you must hammer and forge yourself into one.” As a country, we must wake from that dream, and it is incumbent on the Government to have the hard conversation with the public about how we fund our national resilience.

    Hansard source
15. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    National Resilience

    There must have been a leak, because I am going to come on to that paragraph straight away. Beyond the issue of funding, the obvious question that flows from this is who in Government should take the lead in having that conversation with the public about the panoply of threats that we face. That leads to the central argument of this debate: is the British state structured to deal effectively with them? I accept that the machinery of government is a surefire way to send those in this Chamber to sleep, but it is central to the direction of travel we must take. I was waiting with bated breath to see who the Government would send to respond to the debate this evening, because logic would dictate that the Minister responding should come from the Department that the Prime Minister has charged with leading the national conversation on resilience. Here lies the first problem. The Security Minister sits across both the Cabinet Office and the Home Office. His portfolio is broad, but it clearly does not cover anywhere near the full range of threats set out in the Government’s own definition of national resilience. The Cabinet Office has a resilience directorate, which does important work co-ordinating civil contingency planning, crisis management and emergency response across national and local levels. I would not diminish the work that it does for a moment, but let us consider its design: a directorate for preparedness and a Cobra unit for crisis response. Risk and response. Notice what is missing. There is machinery to assess the threat and machinery to manage the emergency, but nowhere is anyone charged with turning to the public and saying, “Here is the threat we face, here is your part in it, and here is what is being done in your name.” The national conversation that we need therefore finds no natural home. It does not emanate from the directorates whose remit is risk and response; nor has the Ministry of Defence acted on the strategic defence review’s own call for a national conversation on defence and resilience. The result is a system in which responsibility is spread so thinly that no single Minister owns the problem. The danger of that is not merely administrative tidiness but that when a crisis strikes, command and control will fracture at precisely the moment it must hold. For example, the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill—which hands the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology sweeping new powers to direct critical entities—illustrates the trend rather than reversing it. Individual Departments are accruing resilience powers of their own, with each cooking up policies to support their own patch. A whistle must be blown on this approach, because we risk spreading responsibility through legislation so thinly that no one truly understands where it lies. When I speak to civil servants—all of whom want to see a stronger and safer country—I notice that the word “resilience” has itself become something of a buzzword, a phrase to attach to a business case to secure a bigger departmental budget. That is a sign of a system without a clear centre of gravity, not of one that is working. That led me to research in depth how our near neighbours have approached this problem—countries with national stories like our own and populations whose memories of insecurity have faded, just as ours have. The clearest exemplar I found is Denmark. The Danes have grasped something that we have not yet acted upon: in an age of interconnected threats—where cyber-attacks become supply shocks become public-safety emergencies—danger no longer respects departmental boundaries. For decades they had run, as we still do, on a principle of sectoral responsibility—each Department minding risk in its own lane. They concluded that a system in which everyone is responsible is one in which, in practice, no one is. In August 2024, the Danes acted, creating a dedicated ministry of resilience and preparedness, the first of its kind in the region, with a Cabinet Minister in charge. Within months, they established a resilience agency beneath it, drawing scattered functions into one organisation—one ministry, one Cabinet Minister, one clear line of accountability. If truth be told, it is too early to say with certainty whether the model delivers the better outcomes that the Danes expect. The real test will come in the next crisis, not the last reorganisation. But the logic is sound because the alternative—broadly what we have—is a system where resilience is everyone’s second priority and nobody’s first. As someone who wants to see a smaller and sharper state, the answer is not a new layer of governance, but collapsing many duplicated ones into a single, accountable home. It is an idea that the Government should actively investigate. I have also been struck by how our Danish and Dutch friends have begun to share the responsibility for resilience with their citizens, reinforcing civic duty in a far more deliberate way than we do here in the UK. Both have started speaking plainly to their people about preparedness and, strikingly, they tell them much the same thing: “Be ready to look after yourself for three days, or 72 hours.” The Dutch Government now tell every household to hold enough to manage for 72 hours in the event of war, a cyber-attack or a major disaster—things such as water, food, medication, a battery radio, some cash and key documents. They did not merely issue advice; they delivered a printed survival guide to every door and published it online in dozens of languages. Its message was carefully chosen, and the aim, Ministers said, is not to frighten people but to prepare them, because those who think through the first 72 hours of a crisis feel safer, not more fearful. The campaign’s slogan is simple: “Think Ahead”. Denmark’s advice is almost identical, and the reasoning is the same: if ordinary people can get through the first three days, the authorities can concentrate on those who cannot. Denmark sent that guidance to every adult through its secure Government messaging system and placed 300,000 printed copies in libraries and public offices. It does not shy away from naming why, either. Its Defence Minister told Danes plainly that they and their allies face hybrid war and that each of us should prepare to be without power, water or shops for a short while. In both countries, the principle is the same: resilience is not something the state can simply hand to its people; it is a habit that the public must share in.

    Hansard source
16. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    National Resilience

    The hon. Member raises an important point. For anyone who understands the science and sees the effects globally, climate change is happening, the planet is warming up, and we will all feel the effects of a heating planet. What that does to our critical national infrastructure, to businesses and how they operate, and to our energy systems will be profound, and it is something that I do not think we talk about enough. We talked about it a great deal a few years ago, but it sort of slid off the agenda. However, I also understand the challenges that the Government are facing at the moment: there are international threats, which seem to be conjoining, and climate change seems to be a further away problem. I understand the issues, and I hope the Minister can draw that subject in to show the interconnection of threats and how we will deal with them. The uncomfortable part is that in terms of national messaging Britain has said and tried to do the same thing, but we say the words without a plan behind them, the public get alarmed, the moment passes, and nothing changes. Denmark and the Netherlands said those words and built them into the life of the nation, and that, in a sentence, is the difference between talking about resilience and doing it. Let me close with three concrete asks of the Government. First, will the Minister confirm whether any Department or Minister has been formally charged with delivering the national conversation on resilience called for by the strategic defence review? If not, that gap must be filled—I think we would all agree on that. Secondly, will the Government commission a review, led from the centre, into whether the current dispersal of resilience responsibilities across Whitehall is fit for purpose, with the Danish and Dutch models considered explicitly? Thirdly, will the Government speak plainly to the British public about the threats we face, and back those words with a sustained public preparedness campaign, not a single statement that fades within a week, but a message built into the life of the nation? I return to the statement that is made repeatedly in this House, which is that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. Meeting that duty requires a state that is structured to lead, and a public who are prepared to follow. We are not yet that country, but I have faith we can be.

    Hansard source
17. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Local Government Reform

    It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate. It was also a pleasure to hear from everybody’s honourable friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is not the first time he has come here and said, “I know that Northern Ireland is not covered by this, Minister, but perhaps our experience can be instructive,” but boy was he right today. There are two key questions, and he highlighted the importance of the first: “Why do this at all?” With all the attention it needs, it will take away from other priorities, at a time, in particular, when we are about to have huge changes to the system for special educational needs and disability. There are also the costs involved. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) said, it is a question that literally no one was asking, and the answer was not in the Labour manifesto. Even if we accept that there can be reorganisation, we must ask: “On what basis?” In East Hampshire, this plan will break up communities, take away local identities and put people into new artifices. It will take the people of Horndean, Clanfield and Rowlands Castle and put them into a new super-council area centred on Portsmouth, with the rest of East Hampshire going to a vast area called the Mid Hampshire unitary authority, all for an uncertain and quite likely negative return. In plain English, that means that local people will end up paying more. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, the Government set out clear criteria for reorganisation, which included a focus on sustainability of high-quality services and a minimum scale of 500,000—that number did not come out of nowhere; it came from a serious piece of work by PricewaterhouseCoopers about the minimum scale needed to deliver services—and, crucially, that the building blocks of the new organisation should be existing districts and boroughs. It was on that basis that local leaders engaged in the process. They were not clamouring for it—leaders in Hampshire were not knocking down the door of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government saying, “Please reorganise us!”—but they engaged in good faith in the process. Nick Adams-King, the leader of Hampshire county council, set out a summary of conditions for change, including that any new structure must be sustainable financially, operationally and democratically. He said: “It must be capable of delivering high-quality services” and “resilient enough to manage demand in adult social care, children’s services and SEND.” Crucially, he said, it must have “a balanced tax base” and “reflect real communities”, and “not create winners and losers by stripping growth, infrastructure and income from area to shore up another.” I do not think I could put it any better than that, but that is not what has happened. There were three different options in Hampshire, with different rationales for them. In theory, the fewer the unitary councils, the bigger the cost savings, but Hampshire county council and my district council in East Hampshire preferred the middle option, which was to have four authorities—a balance between delivering savings and reducing risk. There has been a big disagreement about the analysis of those different options by different people looking at them. Crucially, we do not know the Government’s own analysis of the different options for carving up Hampshire and why they chose the one they did. We do know that, of the different local authorities, two on the mainland are smaller than the 500,000 minimum. Of course, the Isle of Wight is smaller again, although there are unique circumstances there. We know that there are substantial costs. Although there will be some economies of scale in things moving from district level to unitary level, there will also be diseconomies of scale in things moving from county level to unitary level, and those are the things with the biggest cost pressures in our system. People worry what this will mean for housing. All the local plan work was done on the basis of the existing district councils; now, that will not work. People worry about the loss of local knowledge. Parish councils are concerned about the implications for them. Crucially, there is the question of identity and cohesion. I already mentioned Horndean, Rowlands Castle and Clanfield being split off into Portsmouth, and this is also a concern, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said, for parts of the New Forest, for Test Valley and for Winchester. The Minister has spoken of how identities grow over time. These are entities that have been in place for at least 50 years, around which other organisations have organised themselves. Charities and other public sector organisations organise themselves around district and borough boundaries, and these changes will inconvenience them. If the Government insist on proceeding, the process will need time and sober assessment, and for local authorities to come together to find consensus on the way forward. This is not a trivial question; it is about some of the most important things in our lives, such as the care for our ageing mums and dads and for the children with the highest needs and vulnerabilities. It is a long-term decision. This will not have an effect for three or five years; it will have an effect for decades. We need to start by knowing on what basis the Government made their decision. We cannot very easily argue with it if we do not know what it is. The letter from the 16 council leaders mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) makes a very reasonable ask: that we should know the Department’s own analysis and feasibility assessment. I say to the Minister simply: please, show us your workings.

    Hansard source
18. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Belfast: Violent Disorder

    I join others in paying tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has once again acted without fear or favour and walked bravely into some of the most dangerous situations. To follow on from the previous question, I was struck by just how many young people were involved in the disorder yesterday, incited not only by what they have seen on social media but by gangmasters who have groomed them into committing violence day in, day out across Northern Ireland. Will the Home Office look into a review of the treatment of young people in Northern Ireland and how so many of them have been groomed? In effect, it is modern slavery.

    Hansard source
19. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Railways Bill

    My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. My constituents are utterly shocked by ticket prices. If they wanted to travel between London and Stoke-on-Trent by train today, it would cost a minimum of £160. We need local democracy and decision making, because these prices are outrageous.

    Hansard source
20. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Railways Bill

    My hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) and I have a hope, which is that parking at Worcestershire Parkway station can expand. We have been told by Great Western Railway that it can no longer do that, because it is now the responsibility of Great British Railways. Can the Secretary of State reassure my hon. Friend and me that the wonderful entity she is creating through this legislation will expand the parking, so that my constituents can hope for a parking place at Worcestershire Parkway?

    Hansard source
21. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Defence Investment Plan

    I just cannot understand how it is that the Government still have no idea how they are going to pay for the DIP. According to media reports this morning, the DIP is likely to be half the bare minimum the defence sector says it needs and even defence chiefs still have not seen it. I wonder if the Minister could comment on those media reports. That is against the backdrop of every corner of our armed forces currently being asked to find cuts right now. The pips are squeaking in our armed forces, and defence employers in my constituency are still in a state of limbo and uncertainty about the future. I have enormous respect for the Minister, as he knows, but even he must see that this feels like chaos.

    Hansard source
22. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Railways Bill

    I wonder whether I could give the hon. Lady an update from my own constituency. A year on from South Western Railway’s nationalisation, its performance metrics continue to fall. My constituents commuting to Portsmouth or Fareham can expect that one in every three journeys will be late. It is not a good sign for the Government’s nationalisation plans, especially as GBR is now marking its own homework. The trains are dirty and overcrowded, and passengers are lucky if they can find wi-fi that works. That is the lesson we have learned from the Government’s nationalisation so far.

    Hansard source
23. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Belfast: Violent Disorder

    Monday night’s attack was disgusting and barbaric. The victim suffered serious injuries to his neck and lost an eye. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with him. I thank the police and emergency services for responding and pay tribute to the members of the public who so bravely intervened. I commend the police for confirming the suspect’s identity swiftly, because full transparency is vital in these cases. Will the Minister confirm that the PSNI will have all the resources needed to deal with these issues? We have all seen the footage of the appalling attack, featuring a Sudanese illegal immigrant, but let me be clear: violence of any kind in protest is never justified. Innocent people should never be targeted and nobody should ever set fire to houses or cars. Speaking as a father, no one should ever feel unsafe in their homes. I hope that the police will bring the perpetrators swiftly to justice. I do understand, though, why people are angry. The suspect came into the UK illegally—he should never have been here in the first place. Mainstream politicians must now understand how angry the public are about mass illegal immigration. If mainstream politics does not stop this, the public will turn elsewhere. Since the election, 73,000 people have entered the country illegally via small boat, mostly young men, and many have committed serious crimes. I recently met the mother of Rhiannon Whyte, a young woman brutally murdered by a Sudanese small-boat migrant. There have been multiple rapes and sexual assaults, with victims as young as just 13. Over time, I have come to realise that there is ultimately only one way to end illegal immigration: by leaving the European convention on human rights so that we can deport all illegal migrants upon arrival. Illegal migration will then stop, and these appalling crimes with it.

    Hansard source
24. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Railways Bill

    To ensure I get all colleagues in, I am introducing an immediate four-minute time limit.

    Hansard source
25. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Defence Investment Plan

    We already know that the Defence Secretary is going to make an announcement in Swindon on Friday morning. Given that the Japanese Prime Minister is going to turn up on Saturday, I suggest that some of that announcement will probably relate to global combat air programme funding, given that the Defence Secretary is under significant pressure to guarantee that the funding in the international contract will be signed immediately. The issue here is that the announcement will not be the DIP, which is desperately needed. The Minister will know that I speak to defence companies all the time. Over the course of this week, I have been made well aware that the Government have cancelled tens of millions of pounds-worth of contracts in the past few weeks. He talks about signing 1,400 contracts. Will he explain how many of those contracts have either timed out or been cancelled since 1 April?

    Hansard source
26. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Scottish Independence

    I join the Secretary State in wishing Steve Clarke and the Scotland team all the best in the upcoming world cup. I look forward to them bringing football home to Scotland on 19 July. It might be obvious to most why the SNP might want to distract people from the news at the minute, but it does not excuse it wasting more of Scottish taxpayers’ money pushing its divisive separation agenda, which the majority of Scots do not want. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will recognise the wishes of the majority of Scots and say no to another needless referendum, and does he agree that the SNP should get on with the day job?

    Hansard source
27. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Oil and Gas Sector: Employment

    The list grows longer every week: BP, Hunting, Harbour, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, Ithaca, Xodus and EnerMech have all announced redundancies in Scotland’s oil and gas industry. For some unfathomable reason, this Labour Government seem to think that everything is fine, but is it not the truth that they are carrying out the wilful destruction of this country’s domestic oil and gas industry, sacrificing thousands of jobs and making the country poorer and less secure?

    Hansard source
28. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Oil and Gas Sector: Employment

    It is clear that Labour Members just do not get it—or worse, they just do not care. A week tomorrow, there will be a referendum on our oil and gas industry in Aberdeen, and the choice could not be clearer. Only one party is standing up for the granite city, for Scotland’s energy industry and for Britain’s energy security, and that is the Conservative and Unionist Party. The Secretary of State must agree that in Aberdeen next week the choice will be clear: vote to get Britain drilling with the Conservatives, or vote for decline and job losses with Labour or the SNP.

    Hansard source
29. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Oil and Gas Sector: Employment

    4. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on levels of employment in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.

    Hansard source
30. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Oil and Gas Sector: Employment

    Many businesses in my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency depend on contracts linked to the North sea energy sector. With this Labour Government driving disinvestment and deindustrialisation, skilled workers are fleeing the industry. Every Member in this House will have constituents whose employment relies on this wider supply chain. Does the Secretary of State understand the chilling effect that his Government’s policies are having on business confidence and investment in this vital industry?

    Hansard source
31. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Engagements

    Lindsay Foreman and her husband Craig have not eaten in 32 and 23 days respectively. They are being held hostage by the terrorist Government of Iran, but this Government’s weak words have abandoned them, so will the Prime Minister stop raising their case and start fighting for them? He can do that by declaring today in this House that they are being arbitrarily detained—something he has refused to do—and by referring their case to the International Court of Justice, so we get them home.

    Hansard source
32. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Summit on Illicit Finance

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing a debate on an issue of significant importance to the UK’s national security and economic integrity. There is clearly broad agreement across the House that illicit finance fuels corruption, organised crime, hostile state activity and conflict around the world. Dirty money undermines the rule of law, weakens democratic institutions and threatens our security at home and abroad. The last Conservative Government took important steps to strengthen transparency, tackle economic crime and improve international co-operation, as my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) said. Under David Cameron’s leadership as both Prime Minister and latterly as Foreign Secretary, the UK was at the forefront of the global anti-corruption agenda, convening the first of its kind anti-corruption summit in 2016, and driving greater international focus on beneficial ownership, transparency and the recovery of stolen assets. I am proud that when in government my party strengthened sanctions enforcement following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We introduced the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and sought to close loopholes that allowed illicit finance to flow through international financial systems. Against that backdrop, I welcome the Government’s commitment to host the illicit finance summit later this year. The Government have said that the summit will focus on global enforcement, asset recovery, illicit gold trading, property-based money laundering and the misuse of cryptoassets. Those are important priorities and areas where international co-operation is absolutely essential. However, the success of any summit will ultimately be judged not simply by what is happening, but by the practical outcomes that it delivers. I have a number of the questions for the Minister. On Russia, what specific proposals will the Government bring forward to strengthen sanctions enforcement and close the remaining loopholes that enable sanction circumvention? What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of current enforcement mechanisms and what further action is being considered to target the networks and the intermediaries that continue to facilitate the movement of illicit Russian funds? It is in that context that I raise concerns that the Government, in recent weeks, have quietly issued a licence allowing imports of Russian oil refined in third countries. Can the Minister explain what rationale justifies that decision when the Ukraine sanctions commissioner has directly told us that the Government’s actions “may still generate additional revenues for Russia’s war machine”? On Iran, illicit finance remains central to the regime’s ability to fund destabilising activities across the middle east. What discussions will take place at the summit on disrupting Iranian financial networks and strengthening international co-operation against sanctions evasion by the Iranian regime and its proxies? The Government have rightly highlighted the importance of international partnerships. The Minister will know that the overseas territories play a vital role in supporting our economic interests and the global financial system. Can he update the House on the discussions that are taking place with the overseas territories’ Governments ahead of the summit? Can the Minister also explain how the recent restructuring in the FCDO affects the UK’s ability to tackle illicit finance internationally? What assessment has been made of whether the FCDO currently has the resources necessary to meet the ambitions his Government have set out for the summit? Finally, what legacy does he expect this summit to leave behind? I raise that question because the 2016 anti-corruption summit and the work that followed helped to establish a framework for international action that endured well beyond the event itself. It is important that this summit has a legacy, too. The Opposition support robust action against illicit finance and efforts to strengthen sanction enforcement, to combat corruption and protect the integrity of the international financial system. We want the UK to remain a global leader in this field, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister how his Government intend to translate the ambitions of the summit into meaningful and lasting action.

    Hansard source
33. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Topical Questions

    I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), to their places. The Secretary of State was in the Treasury when it imposed VAT on compassionate access medicine programmes, which provide some patients—especially children with cancer—with a vital last chance to access treatment. The policy has already led to the closure of one scheme. Will he now commit to abolishing this tax before any more follow suit?

    Hansard source
34. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Topical Questions

    I am sorry, but that was simply waffle. This matter needs decisive action now; these drugs are absolutely critical to some children. This cancer drugs tax has already closed one scheme, and companies are making real-time decisions now about whether to continue programmes in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State must urgently get the Treasury to exempt compassionate use medicines permanently, so that the patients in most need can get these vital drugs, which, in some cases, are simply their only hope.

    Hansard source
35. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026

    What is the maximum fine for a company that does not comply with this regulation?

    Hansard source
36. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026

    My reading last night suggested that it was just £50,000. It is interesting that the Minister does not know what the fine actually is. What does she think the cost of complying with the EIA requirement would be for a company?

    Hansard source
37. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026

    I fear that I may have read the legislation a little more closely than the Minister. Some media reports suggest what compliance with this regulation would involve for a company. We are talking about conducting an environmental impact assessment beyond national jurisdiction and significant further work. The cost of complying with the EIA requirement could run to a couple of million pounds. For me, the question is not the international ambition—of course everyone in the House wants our marine environment to be protected—but why the Minister is today introducing legislation the cost of compliance with which will be 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine for non-compliance.

    Hansard source
38. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026

    I thank the Minister for giving way. I will take your steer, Sir John, and make this my last intervention. The Minister has tempted me to intervene once more, because the exact justification that she gave for the cost of compliance being 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine relied on enforcement, but the reason why there have been only two licences granted in the period she cited is that there is so little enforcement because this is beyond national jurisdiction. The Marine Management Organisation has no vessels in the Pacific. There is no impact assessment with this regulation. How will it be enforced in areas beyond our jurisdiction if there is no impact assessment and no additional funding for that enforcement?

    Hansard source
39. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

    Mr Robinson, I know that due to duties in the Chamber you had, entirely properly, to arrive after the start of the debate; if you wish to speak, we can accommodate you.

    Hansard source
40. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

    Before we conclude, may I thank all hon. Members here for the tone of this debate and the courtesy with which it has been conducted? I only wish that more people saw the House behave like this, as it should. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college.

    Hansard source