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

1. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

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

   I know that the Minister is winding up, and that she has spoken about Ministers going to summits and collaboration, but she spoke about the importance of implementation. I asked specifically about what the Government will do to liaise with key stakeholders in the area, such as the cable sector, marine scientists, merchant navies and so on. The UK has a global footprint, so it is important that this Government take the baton that the Conservatives passed to them and work closely with stakeholders. Can she reassure the Committee that the Government will work closely with stakeholders on the frontline?

   Hansard source
2. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Waiting Lists: Unreported Removals

   Last month, the Health Service Journal reported that the elective waiting list target was met largely—largely—because a record number of patients were removed from waiting lists in March without receiving treatment. Can the Minister tell the House how many patients were removed in March and what happened to them, and whether she is satisfied that they definitely did not need treatment?

   Hansard source
3. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Waiting Lists: Unreported Removals

   It is not just the Conservatives who are raising this issue; it is patients and the Health Service Journal. The answer is that 350,000 people—a city the size of Coventry—were wiped off the waiting list with no treatment, and that is 100,000 more than the month before. If there is genuinely nothing to hide, the Government should not worry about putting out the figures. Will the Minister commit to a review to find out what has happened to those 350,000 patients, or does she believe that waiting list targets should be met by removing patients from the figures rather than actually treating them?

   Hansard source
4. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Primary Care: Non-digital Access

   2. What steps he is taking to maintain non-digital access to primary care.

   Hansard source
5. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Primary Care: Non-digital Access

   I understand why making use of the NHS app and online appointments is sensible and works well for many patients, but I cannot be the only MP to have heard from constituents—you may even have heard from your constituents, Mr Speaker—who struggle with that. They may not have a smartphone. I have met many elderly patients who simply cannot make use of online forms and too often GP practices do not make it easy for them to make appointments by telephone or by walking in. It is important that the Government make it crystal clear to all our GP providers, who I know are doing their best, that no matter how far we go with digital innovation, our patients must always be able to access primary care through traditional routes, such as making an appointment by telephone or by walking in.

   Hansard source
6. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Inequalities

   Does the Secretary of State agree that state-funded healthcare should be provided to all children based on clinical need, not economic or educational status?

   Hansard source
7. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Inequalities

   I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he therefore share my concern at reports that some children are being turned away from state-funded healthcare because they are not attending a state school? Will he look into those reports and ensure that he makes provision for children who are not attending state schools to receive the healthcare they need?

   Hansard source
8. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Middle East

   Can the Foreign Secretary explain the “multi” bit of the multinational maritime mission, because so far all I see are contributions from France and the UK? In particular, she said that she had spoken to her interlocutors last week in China and India. One is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the other is a member of the G20, and both of them stand to suffer far more than the UK and France do from a cessation of trade in oil, gas and fertiliser. What assets will China and India be providing to this multinational maritime mission?

   Hansard source
9. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Health Services for Men

   7. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of health services for men.

   Hansard source
10. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Health Services for Men

    The NHS itself says that prostate cancer often has no symptoms at first, and Prostate Cancer UK says most men with early prostate cancer have no symptoms at all. The Government’s TRANSFORM trial exists because current detection methods are recognised as inadequate. Why does Government messaging still point men towards early symptoms that they are unlikely to have, while cancers that could be cured are becoming cancers that cannot?

    Hansard source
11. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Road Safety in Werrington

    A few weeks ago, I met leaders from Moorside high school and Werrington primary school in the villages of Werrington and Cellarhead, which are both suffering with real road safety concerns. They are located on the A52, which is one of the main arterial roads into Stoke-on-Trent. Traffic moves quickly down those roads, yet there are simply no safety measures. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the local authority and relevant agencies to facilitate urgent action including the installation of safe pedestrian crossings, the introduction of stronger parking restrictions, the provision of a school crossing patrol officer, the review and reduction of speed limits, and increased enforcement and monitoring. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands, Declares that local people have urgent concerns about the safety of roads around Moorside High School, Werrington Primary School, and residential streets more widely in Werrington; and further declares that high traffic volume, excessive vehicle speeds, unsafe parking, a lack of safe crossing points, and insufficient enforcement and supervision pose a serious risk to the safety and wellbeing of the community, particularly for young people and those with additional needs. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the local authority and relevant agencies to facilitate urgent action including the installation of safe pedestrian crossings, the introduction of stronger parking restrictions, the provision of a school crossing patrol officer, the review and reduction of speed limits, and increased enforcement and monitoring. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003204]

    Hansard source
12. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    Yesterday we discussed amendments in which we sought to rein in some of the unfettered powers that the Secretary of State is taking for himself in this legislation. Today’s amendments are about trying to rein in the unfettered liability and financial risk that this legislation puts on the taxpayer. For example, amendment 20 would allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the National Audit Office has concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers. The amendment is obviously about making it clear that these powers are not a blank cheque, that they must be constrained, justified and used only when strictly necessary. We cannot have industrial improvisation when the British taxpayer is being asked to pick up the bill. It is not fair that hard-working taxpayers should be forced to pay for a potential failure of Ministers who think they are able to defy the realities of this market. Amendment 22 would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over a five-year period. It would also fix the employee count at the point that support begins, with “employee” being defined by section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendment would ensure that financial assistance is targeted, proportionate and provides value for money. If the Government believe in this intervention, as they clearly do, they should be willing to set limits on it, because without such a cap we are simply asking taxpayers to sign up to an unlimited liability.

    Hansard source
13. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I take issue with where the hon. Member is coming from on that, because by putting a sensible and finite limit on the amount per employee—and I will speak later to another amendment where we propose an overall limit—we are talking about the amount that has been set by the Chancellor through the spending review envelope. I do not think she really wants to say to the Committee that there should be completely unlimited budgets for this intervention. She herself would know that in any intervention we ought to go in with a wise idea about what is a reasonable spending limit. Amendments 10 and 11 would increase the frequency with which Parliament is told about the amount that has been spent. Currently, as it is framed in the legislation, the Secretary of State must make a report to Parliament only every 12 months. We are suggesting in these amendments that reports about financial assistance should come every three months. We are talking about substantial and significant sums of public money, so we do not think that annual reporting would be sufficient. Quarterly reporting would ensure that Parliament can properly scrutinise how much money is being spent and how much is being done in closer to real time. It is essential that financial exposure is monitored closely and transparently. We do not want costs to escalate without people being able to notice them, and we want Ministers to remain accountable for public spending.

    Hansard source
14. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know the Minister to be an extremely reasonable man, so I am sure he will agree with our amendment. New clause 12 would place a firm cap on the total financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill, limiting it to £2.5 billion. As I am sure the hon. Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash) and other Members know, that is the limit that has been set for the steel strategy, so to reach that limit would mean that this intervention used up the entire amount allocated to the overall steel strategy. The new clause would set the limit up to a specific date in 2029. As our explanatory statement makes clear, the purpose is simple: to limit the total financial exposure under the Bill. At the moment, the way the Bill is phrased means that it is a completely open-ended financial commitment. We think that a cap of this nature, which would ensure that Ministers had to prioritise their spending decisions rather than continue to inject funds without clear limits or outcomes, is a very sensible thing to do, and I urge everyone to support it.

    Hansard source
15. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    We are looking at a Bill that the Government’s own impact assessment says might have a bit of a “chilling effect” on inward investment into the sector. We should all want to have inward investment into our economy. If someone who we regard as an excellent owner of this business should come in and make an offer that is attractive to the Government, I absolutely think the Government should be prepared to take that seriously. We do not want this to be a permanent state of affairs; we want it to be a journey to a thriving steel sector, which may well involve investors coming in from overseas.

    Hansard source
16. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    The hon. Gentleman seems to be conflating two issues. Last year, when the emergency legislation was introduced and Parliament was recalled on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, we did not stand in its way, but what we are asking for in the new clause is for Parliament to be kept informed. Let us agree that we all want to be kept informed about how the discussions are going and to find out what the Government are thinking about their exit plan. I made the point yesterday about the public interest test that it is very unclear whether, once the Secretary of State determines that it is in the public interest for this particular site to be owned by the taxpayer, there will ever be the potential for it to change to different state.

    Hansard source
17. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I actually think the hon. Gentleman is also agreeing with me on this point. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister and his expertise in this industry, but I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he too thinks that it will take business nous and investment into this business to bring it back to a state where it is making money. I also heard him say that he would therefore not object to hearing a report to Parliament every six months about the progress being made, so I look forward to him supporting this amendment in the Lobby later. We want our Ministers to actively work towards returning the business to private ownership, so we want to hear in Parliament about that ongoing progress and to be able to hold Ministers accountable and ask them questions on exactly that from time to time. New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament every six months on the impact that nationalising steel undertakings has had on inward investment into the UK. I mentioned earlier that the Government’s own impact assessment worries about the potential for a “chilling effect” where Government are taking assets into public ownership in the way that this Bill allows. During its history, the UK has very much relied on being seen as a stable and predictable environment for inward investment. Expropriating and nationalising private businesses sets a precedent that could deter future investors, not just in the steel sector but across the wider economy. The new clause would ensure that Parliament received a regular, transparent analysis of how these interventions were affecting investor confidence and capital flows into the UK economy. We all hope that they would not be adversely affected, but we would want Parliament to know, and this new clause would ensure that any damage to our reputation was identified, understood and addressed early. New clause 11 would prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers in the Bill to grant any selective advantages through state resources that could distort competition. It would ensure that nationalised steel undertakings were not unfairly advantaged over privately owned ones. Without this safeguard, there is a real risk that nationalised entities could receive preferential treatment, whether through subsidies, contracts or regulatory advantage, undermining fair competition within the domestic steel sector. If private firms believe they will be placed at a disadvantage compared with state-owned competitors, that risks deterring further investment in UK steel and related supply chains. To conclude, these amendments are about bringing discipline, transparency and balance to a Bill that, as drafted, risks being too broad, too costly and too unconstrained. They would ensure that any intervention was properly assessed, carefully limited and consistently scrutinised, while protecting taxpayers, competition and investor confidence. If the Government are serious about supporting the steel industry, they should also be serious about accountability, value for money and a credible long-term plan, and these amendments are designed to deliver exactly that.

    Hansard source
18. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I think it has been clear throughout these two days of debate that none of us in the House underestimates the importance of the steel industry to our national economy, to our industrial resilience, and to the communities whose livelihoods depend on it. We can all agree that steel matters, and that steel jobs matter. However, we also believe that the responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money matters, and despite the eloquent way in which the Secretary of State expressed his views on the Bill, we see it much more as a chaotic and unplanned intervention. It is not the product of a clear steel industrial strategy, but the product of a failure to negotiate a better outcome. The negotiated outcome was a possibility; the Secretary of State even went to China to try to achieve it. It is the failure to address the root causes of the industry’s difficulties that has brought us to where we are today. The Bill could also be described as the steel industry blank cheque Bill, because it fails to protect the public purse from potentially vast and open-ended liabilities. Nationalisation does not solve the underlying issue that is making domestic steel production unprofitable. The higher employment costs, higher energy costs, planning issues, carbon pricing, regulation and levies associated with the Government’s net zero policies continue to weigh heavily on the sector, and the Bill does nothing to resolve those pressures. Instead, it transfers them wholesale on to the taxpayer. We should reflect on how we came to this point. Not long ago, the Government told the House that they did not want to nationalise British Steel—indeed, that was presented as a last resort to be avoided—and yet here we are, because the Government have failed to negotiate an alternative. We see once again that when this Government negotiate, it is the taxpayer who picks up the bill. Since the intervention began last year, on that historic Saturday, the cost has already run to more than £1.3 million every single day. That is a bill for the taxpayer that will only become larger with this legislation. The Bill exposes the public finances to further liabilities—contingent liabilities, not only substantial but, alarmingly, potentially unlimited in terms of both their scale and their duration. This is a Government getting a blank cheque forever.

    Hansard source
19. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    Surely what the hon. Member should do is welcome the fact that our party is under new and outstanding leadership. We believe that politicians should not be in the business of running commercial enterprises, but I can see that that is the political position of the Reform party. The risks of inefficiency, political interference and poor capital allocation are very well known.

    Hansard source
20. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    It is a bit rich to be lectured on support for party leadership from someone on the Labour Benches, so I will move on swiftly. This Bill sets a precedent. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment says that expropriating assets in this way risks undermining the investor confidence that we need at this precise moment, when the UK needs to attract inward investment into strategic industries. Throughout our Committee considerations, we have sought to improve this legislation to introduce better transparency for Parliament, to limit liability and to ensure proper parliamentary oversight. I thank my team, the team of Clerks, the whipping team and you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Throughout this process, our amendments were responsible safeguards; they were designed to protect the taxpayer and to impose discipline on the Government. Their rejection only reinforces our concern that Ministers are unwilling to confront the full implications of their own policy. As we come to Third Reading, the choice is clear. This Bill risks enormous cost, offers insufficient answers, and sends troubling signals about the UK as a place to do business. We cannot support it in its current form. We will not vote against its Third Reading today, but for the sake of the taxpayer, the health of the steel sector and the credibility of industrial policy in this country, we cannot support it either.

    Hansard source
21. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    Order. Mr Stone, we are here to debate the steel industry, not new nuclear or the pros and cons of the Scottish Government. Perhaps it is better if we stay within the confines of this Bill.

    Hansard source
22. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    Order. I just want to make it clear that I did allow some latitude, but this is a debate on the nationalisation of the steel industry, not tariffs.

    Hansard source
23. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I am going to allow the Minister to respond, but I am not going to allow this to turn into a debate on tariffs and how they may or may not impact individual companies around the entire country, which I fear is where we are headed.

    Hansard source
24. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    Before we proceed to the next business, I have a short statement to make. I have received a report from the Tellers in the No Lobby on the Division that took place in Committee of the whole House at 8.27 pm yesterday on new clause 2 to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. The hon. Members for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) have informed me that the number of no votes was erroneously reported as 257, rather than 251. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly. The ayes were 65 and the noes were 251. —[Official Report, 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 111.] Third Reading

    Hansard source
25. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Business without Debate

    I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and indeed for notice of it. She obviously knows more about the contents of this Thursday’s business statement than I do. I understand that the Bill was published when it was presented, just after 3 pm, but that a technical problem meant it was not easy to access online. I understand that copies are now available in the Vote Office. It would have been courteous for Ministers to offer the hon. Lady advance briefing on the Bill—particularly if they intend to expedite its passage through the House—but I am afraid that I have no power to compel them to do so. Adjournment (Summer and Conference) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25), That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16 July 2026, do adjourn until Tuesday 1 September 2026; and at its rising on Tuesday 15 September 2026, do adjourn until Monday 12 October 2026.—(Gregor Poynton.) Question agreed to. Delegated Legislation (Committees) Church of England (General Synod) (Measures) Ordered, That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221), which was laid before this House on 3 June, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Gregor Poynton.)

    Hansard source
26. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Health Inequalities

    West Sussex county council’s health and adult social care scrutiny committee has concluded that the closure of Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington “constituted a significant variation” in services. Given the statutory requirements for consultation—promised, but never delivered—when can residents expect a decision on my call-in request?

    Hansard source
27. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Topical Questions

    T7. Thousands of people in West Sussex are unable to access an NHS dentist and many constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tell me that they have been unable to secure an appointment for years. What specific steps is the Secretary of State taking to increase NHS dental capacity in coastal communities, and when does he expect patients to see a measurable improvement?

    Hansard source
28. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Business without Debate

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I was left with no choice but to make a point of order on the Government’s refusal to give briefings to shadow Ministers on national security matters. Today, we are told that the Government wish to push through the National Security (State Threats) Bill next Wednesday in just one day. Once again, the Government failed to offer a briefing to the official Opposition, yet this morning—five hours before the Bill was laid in the House—the media had a one-hour briefing at the Home Office containing the detail. As a shadow Minister, I have now been invited to a one-hour briefing on Monday night—a day after amendment submissions close—with every other MP in the House. Can you kindly guide us on how the Opposition can get the briefings we need so that we can hold the Government to account, not least when they are seeking to rush legislation through the House?

    Hansard source
29. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

    I should say at the outset that I associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. Members about the terrible attack in north Belfast last night. Although there are still many details to emerge from the case, it is very clear that the PSNI responded quickly and very bravely to what was an incredibly dangerous situation. I am proud to say that the people of north Belfast responded very bravely in the face of lethal force. It is very appropriate, then, that we should find ourselves debating this motion tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). I congratulate him on securing this debate. I echo the remarks about the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s service not just to the people of Northern Ireland, but to the United Kingdom as a whole. PSNI has a national role in policing our land border, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, but it also has a central role in our national security apparatus. It is right that hon. Members from Northern Ireland and Opposition Front Benchers should be able to question Ministers on that national security element. I have some sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). It is clear that the devolutionary settlement has been failing the people of Northern Ireland in policing terms, not because of any failure of the PSNI, but because of short-term, misguided decisions by some politicians in Northern Ireland. It is wrong that citizens in NI should see their police service about 1,000 officers short of where it should be, in contravention of agreements that the Conservative party made in government with counterparts in Northern Ireland. It is unsettling to realise, when we see this situation, that there is really no lever at our disposal to right this wrong. As I have said on previous occasions, there is more of a role for central Government in ensuring that the national security and border elements of policing in particular are given appropriate resource in Northern Ireland. I have listened closely to the sensible remarks made by all hon. Members. I believe that there is a deal to be struck here. Part of the benefit will accrue to the people of Northern Ireland, and part of it will accrue to the people of the United Kingdom more widely. It is not in the Minister’s power to make a deal on his own, because it is a Treasury matter, but I am sure that, as a rising star within the Labour party, he has great friends in the Treasury and will use those friendships and connections to mark out what that arrangement might look like.

    Hansard source
30. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

    The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will turn to it in a moment.

    Hansard source
31. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

    As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely astute observation. I suggest that we perhaps try to find the time to have a full Westminster Hall debate on the Barnett consequentials and formula with particular regard to Northern Ireland, as there are a great many technicalities that we could go into. Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down, I simply mean something along the following lines: if the Treasury was minded to honour its 1998 obligation to provide a new training college, it would only be fair to require, in return, a very solemn undertaking by the Northern Ireland Executive that, within a short and fixed term, we would make up the current deficit of 1,000 officers. I think it would be quite wrong if a new facility were built at considerable cost—a necessary investment, in my opinion—but we were still here another 10 years down the line, with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and people across the United Kingdom, saying, “Why are the numbers in PSNI much lower than they should be?” If the Treasury chooses to enter into such negotiations, as I very much hope it will, there will need to be some reciprocal element from the Executive to ensure that any new facility is used to its maximum extent for the benefit of people not only in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom.

    Hansard source
32. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Cuba: Humanitarian Situation

    I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing the urgent question, and to the Minister for his response. The imposition of tariffs is a bilateral matter for the US and Cuba. We are appalled by Cuba’s record of abusing its civilians’ political, civil and human rights. The Cuban regime’s record is shameful, and we should be wary of narratives that seek to explain Cuba’s current difficulties solely through external factors. The reality is that the Cuban people have endured decades of economic stagnation, political repression and the denial of basic freedoms under a one-party communist system, and any assessment of the present situation must acknowledge the wider context. I turn to the Minister’s response. Can he tell the House what recent discussions Ministers have had with the US Administration regarding developments in Cuba and the actions of the United States? Can he set out what engagement the Government have had with the Cuban authorities? In those discussions, have Ministers raised concerns about human rights, political prisoners and democratic freedoms, alongside the humanitarian issues? Finally, are the Government considering a humanitarian response and, if so, how will they ensure that that assistance reaches the Cuban people directly and is not diverted for the benefit of a regime with such a poor record on human rights and civil liberties? The House would really benefit from a clearer statement of the Government’s overall policy towards Cuba at what is clearly a significant moment for the country and its people.

    Hansard source
33. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. The challenge this case brings up has been seen over and again in this place. It is not just about the legitimacy of the Commons. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said this is about not just parliamentary democracy, but constitutional reform. That is a perfectly acceptable position to hold, but it is not a matter specifically related to the assisted dying Bill. What the hon. Member is suggesting, and it is a perfectly legitimate point to make, is that, actually, our parliamentary system is completely broken, that no revision is possible from the second Chamber, and that the second Chamber should not have a voice on how those amendments are made. Again, that is a perfectly acceptable point to make, because if we are to have the system that we currently have, and if we are to use it in the way that we currently do, I am afraid the position that the Lords have taken is completely legitimate. What they have done—totally within their own rules and totally in the way that House works—is that they have listened to outside voices; they have heard from other sources, as well as from those that were heard in Committee or in the debate in our own Chamber; they have tabled some amendments, some of which have been accepted and others rejected by various people in the Lords; and they have come to a position.

    Hansard source
34. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    I will not be giving way on that. If the hon. Member for Sunderland Central does not like that position, or the way in which the Lords run their business, that, again, is a perfectly legitimate thing to say, but then he is asking for very fundamental constitutional reform. Again, that is completely okay, but to do it on the basis of a petition of 140,000 names strikes me as a somewhat ambitious reading of the settled will of the British people. We have somewhere between 60 million and 70 million people—I am not quite sure where the figure sits today—and 140,000 does not sit very high against that number; it sits pretty low, frankly.

    Hansard source
35. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    On the contrary, I think what the hon. Gentleman is arguing, although he may not think he is arguing it, and he is perfectly entitled to ignore what he is arguing—it happens all the time in this place, it is absolutely standard, for Members on our Benches to make one argument and mean another—[Laughter.] Members on all of our Benches. Come on! Let’s not have the hypocrisy; we all know it is true. It is absolutely true that we hear, on every side of the House, people making one argument and meaning another all the time. Today, the hon. Gentleman is making the argument for constitutional reform, but he actually means he is in favour of assisted dying. Again, that is a completely acceptable position, but it is not frank; it is not being straight with the House and it is not being straight with people. All I ask on this is that, when we look down at the questions that have been raised and when we hear, for example, the voices of the disability groups, the various different medical groups and all the royal colleges, all of which rejected this Bill, and we say to them, “Look, we really must legislate at speed because there is a pressing need to do so,”—the hon. Member is really making the Mark Zuckerberg argument. He is making the “move fast and break things” argument.

    Hansard source
36. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    I will not be giving way again. That is a perfectly acceptable argument for those who can afford to fail, but the problem is that the hon. Member is not dealing with the investment of a few people, which may or may not start a business or software company that fails or succeeds; he is playing with the lives of thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.

    Hansard source
37. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    I will not be giving way again. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central is instead saying that the role of democracy is to behave like the private interest group of a small cabal. I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the role of democracy is to measure, to weigh and to take matters slowly. If, on a matter of life and death, that is not the case, when are we supposed to be measured and take time? Before people say that we had a long time in Committee, they should never forget that we start working on Government Bills years before—not weeks, not months, but years. Any of us who have introduced a Bill in this place know exactly what I mean. A Bill starts as an idea. It takes two years, normally, before it even gets to the Leader of the House and his various Bill committees, where we test, adjust and play with the Bill with the different Ministers, and the write-round process. The argument that that period of expertise, from Government, civil servants, lawyers, medical experts and all the others, can be replaced with a brief hearing in Committee is, I am afraid, simply not true.

    Hansard source
38. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    The hon. Member may think it is long, but she really has no idea of time if that is her perception. The reality is that Government Bills take time because they have to be got right. This Bill is wrong. The only thing that stopped it was the Lords. If the hon. Member for Sunderland Central wants to abolish the Lords, that is fine, but if he could make that argument, I think we would all be a lot happier.

    Hansard source
39. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    The right hon. Gentleman is making the entirely valid point that democracy is not just what happens in either Chamber, whether it is the Lords or the Commons, and democracy cannot be reduced to a number, whether it is an electoral number at a general election or a number in the Chamber. Democracy is what we do between times. I keep hearing that we Conservatives had 14 years in government—I do not deny that, and I recognise many of the errors that we made. But is it not also true that there were 10 years between the first and second votes on this campaign? Much of the democratic process could have been done in those 10 years through public debate, engagement and lobbying, instead of its being reduced to the actions that happened in the Chamber? Frankly, that is reducing democracy to a game of mathematics.

    Hansard source
40. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Topical Questions

    Further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) earlier, Mohamed Fayed is beyond the reach of terrestrial justice, but many of the ladies he abused are still waiting for justice. The Metropolitan police has been conducting an inquiry into the activities of those who aided and abetted Fayed for many months. Will the Home Office ask the Met to expedite the inquiry so that those ladies can at last have justice?

    Hansard source