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

1. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Progression of Bills through Parliament

   It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), my colleague on the Petitions Committee, for introducing the debate on behalf of the Committee and the petitioner. I thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the e-petition. Whatever view Members take on the arguments advanced in the petition, the number of signatures demonstrates the strength of feeling on this issue and the importance of Parliament’s engaging seriously with those concerns. I also thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. We have heard thoughtful and strongly held views from across the House, reflecting both the significance of the legislation that prompted the petition and the wider constitutional questions now before us. It is important to recognise that the petition arose from concerns about the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a private member’s Bill. However, today’s debate ultimately is not about the merits of assisted dying; it is about parliamentary process. Specifically, it is about whether Parliament should change the way that it approaches legislation where a private Member’s Bill has secured support from MPs. The petition argues, in essence, that where a private Member’s Bill has support from MPs and the public, the Government should do everything within their power to ensure that it has sufficient time to complete all its parliamentary stages. It is sometimes overlooked that that is not simply a request for more parliamentary time. It is effectively a request for a new constitutional principle: that where the concepts underlying a private Member’s Bill have secured sufficient public support and a Commons majority, the Government should take active steps to ensure the Bill’s passage despite significant unresolved issues. That would represent a significant departure from our existing constitutional arrangements, under which scrutiny, amendment and even failure remain possible outcomes of the legislative process. I do not believe that public support, however significant—particularly as measured by polls, rather than at the ballot box—can be a substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament’s role is not simply to facilitate legislation but to examine it, challenge it and improve it before it becomes law. The petition also raises questions about the role of the House of Lords. It is important that we approach those questions accurately. Some have suggested that the Lords somehow acted improperly by failing to return the Bill Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to the Commons. That assertion is not supported by the constitutional authorities.

   Hansard source
2. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Progression of Bills through Parliament

   I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s insight from his many years of experience in this place. We are not a unicameral system. As the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) stated in her powerful speech, Parliament consists of three separate parts: the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Crown. The House of Lords is independent and shares the task of making and shaping laws. The House of Lords Constitution Committee made it clear that it was constitutionally appropriate for the Lords to scrutinise, amend or reject the Bill, and the Hansard Society similarly confirmed that the Lords “has the authority to reject, delay, or otherwise block” legislation of its kind.

   Hansard source
3. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Progression of Bills through Parliament

   I am grateful for that point but, as other hon. Members have made clear in this debate, the House of Lords did not vote because that is part of its process of scrutinising. The Lords was performing the role that it is constitutionally required to perform. The Bill in question was not a Government Bill and not a manifesto commitment. A deliberate choice was made by the Prime Minister to take an approach that did not put the policy, or even the promise of a free vote, before the electorate. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Salisbury-Addison convention reflects the principle that the House of Lords should not frustrate legislation that gives effect to commitments on which the electorate have conferred a democratic mandate. As Viscount Cranborne spelled out at the time, “it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has so recently expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals which have been definitely put before the electorate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 August 1945; Vol. 137, c. 47.]

   Hansard source
4. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Progression of Bills through Parliament

   The House of Commons expressed its view. The Bill then went to the House of Lords for further consideration. I know from conversations with a number of MP colleagues that they supported the principle of the Bill to allow it to progress, so that the House of Lords could look at it further and in the hope that improvements would be made. I reflect on what happened in the Scottish Parliament, where a similar Bill achieved the support of MSPs at the first stage. After it received further scrutiny and further amendments, it went back to the Scottish Parliament, and it was rejected—[Interruption.]

   Hansard source
5. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Progression of Bills through Parliament

   That was because amendments could not be secured to satisfy people's concerns. This was a private Member’s Bill. In such circumstances, there was no constitutional obligation on the Lords—as I stated earlier in relation to the Salisbury convention—to ensure that it completed its passage through Parliament. Indeed, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of private Member’s Bills do not become law. That is not a constitutional failure; it is a long-standing feature of our parliamentary system. Similarly, scrutiny should not be confused with obstruction. One reason why many peers believed that further scrutiny was necessary was that significant issues remained unresolved after the Bill left the House of Commons. More than 500 amendments had been tabled during Public Bill Committee, but only a small proportion not supported by the sponsor were accepted. On Report, 88 amendments were deemed in order, but only seven were selected for debate and decision by the House as a whole. That was the wrong approach to take. The breadth of concerns, underpinned by expert testimony, should have prompted deep reflection on what more needed to be amended. The Cabinet Office’s guide to making legislation is very clear: if a private Member’s Bill is to make it on to the statute books, “As far as possible, amendments should be made at Committee Stage in the first House.” It is therefore hardly surprising that many peers concluded that further scrutiny was required. Indeed, several Members indicated during proceedings in the Commons that they expected the Lords to undertake detailed scrutiny and improve the legislation where necessary. The Lords therefore performed precisely the role that many MPs expected it to perform. It is also important to recognise that the nature of the concerns that were raised. This was not simply a handful of peers attempting to delay legislation; more than 140 peers expressed opposition to, or serious concerns about, the Bill. Those concerns came from individuals with substantial expertise, including former leaders of the medical profession, senior NHS figures, specialists in psychiatry and palliative care, legal experts and representatives of vulnerable groups. Whether one agreed with their conclusions or not, those concerns deserved careful consideration. That is exactly what parliamentary scrutiny is intended to achieve. Some supporters of the petition have pointed to opinion polling as evidence that Parliament should ensure legislation progresses. Public opinion is, of course, important, and Members of this House are elected to represent the people who send us here, but our constitutional system has never operated on the basis that polling alone determines whether legislation becomes law. Parliament is a representative democracy, not a system of government by opinion survey. Members of both Houses are expected to exercise judgment, consider evidence, scrutinise proposals and weigh consequences. If legislation were to acquire a special constitutional status simply because it polled well, we would fundamentally alter the balance between public opinion and parliamentary scrutiny. That would be a profound constitutional change, and it should not be undertaken lightly.

   Hansard source
6. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Progression of Bills through Parliament

   I am short on time, so I will not take any more interventions. I thank again those who signed the petition and all those who have contributed to today’s debate. Although there will undoubtedly remain differences of opinion on the specific legislation that gave rise to this petition, I hope there can be broad agreement on one fundamental point: democratic legitimacy and parliamentary scrutiny are not competing principles—they are complementary principles. Public support and votes in Parliament matter, but scrutiny matters too. The lesson we should draw from this debate is not that scrutiny prevented democracy from working, but that scrutiny is democracy working. The House of Lords acted within its constitutional role. The concerns of experts were heard, amendments were tested and evidence was examined. Whether one supported or opposed the legislation itself, that is exactly how Parliament is supposed to function. Parliament best serves the public not when it rushes legislation through, but when it takes seriously its duty to examine, improve and—where necessary—challenge legislation before it becomes law. That is how we protect the integrity of our legislative process, preserve public confidence in Parliament, and ultimately make better laws for the people who we are elected to serve.

   Hansard source
7. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Topical Questions

   T5.   Immigration, especiallynon-EU migration, remains too high. Many of my constituents across the Scottish Borders want to see a cap on the number of people who can come into the United Kingdom. Will the Home Secretary introduce a binding cap, set by Parliament, to bring down immigration once and for all?

   Hansard source
8. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

   Progression of Bills through Parliament

   It is a pleasure to serve under the iron grip of your chairmanship, Sir Edward. We are here not to relitigate the substance of the assisted dying Bill, but to consider a profound change to the way we in this place carry out our duties as legislators. The petitioners seek, in short, for a failed Bill to be smashed through, as though it had not been subject to proper procedure, and for us to accept that it fell through procedural malfeasance. It is not so: this Bill failed because a gamble was taken to proceed down the private Member’s Bill route. It is well known that such Bills can run out of road due to time constraints. The emotive nature of the subject of the Bill is obvious, but just as the Commons debate was dominated by deeply moving yet ultimately anecdotal accounts of painful deaths, we cannot decide here on emotion. Bad cases do not make good laws. We must decide on cold, hard facts. It is a fact that this Bill carried a major flaw at its heart, in that it was not part of the Labour manifesto on which this Government were elected. It is also a fact that the Lords’ scrutiny role is designed to prevent the passage of poor legislation. This was flawed legislation, replete with issues unresolved at Committee, and passed to the Lords in a situation that Cabinet Office guidance warned would “likely kill the Bill”. I have seen all too often the result of a paucity of scrutiny when legislation has passed through the Scottish Parliament. Holyrood lacks a revising Chamber entirely, with its Committees expected to do the hard work of line-by-line consideration. This petition is couched in terms of fairness and democracy, but it is neither fair nor democratic to usurp our system for reasons of dogma. No matter the subject of a Bill, if it lacks a manifesto heritage, staggers through Committee amidst a welter of chops and changes, and ultimately fails on contact with the Lords, we have no place attempting to resurrect it because we admire its aims or because it is popular.

   Hansard source
9. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

   Progression of Bills through Parliament

   I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this Bill has huge difficulties, and its popularity does not capture those. The Salisbury-Addison convention that the Lords will not seek to prevent the Government from implementing manifesto pledges simply does not apply. In this case, it has not been breached. The Government made repeated declarations that they were neutral on the Bill—that it was a private Member’s Bill—and so the convention does not arise. We cannot let the emotional baggage of the assisted dying Bill override proper parliamentary procedure.

   Hansard source
10. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    I will finish. Of course, the legislation approving abortion in this country came through the private Member’s Bill route, but that was backed by the then Labour Government, who appointed a medical advisory committee that also supported its passage. That was a gold standard, against which this Bill is mere base metal. It fell—and fallen it should remain.

    Hansard source
11. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Water Companies

    Southern Water is preparing to dump sewage on a beach in Bembridge, on the Isle of Wight, in a new location. The Environment Agency says that that is okay because there is an old combined sewer overflow pipe there, notwithstanding the fact that it has not been used in decades. Does the Minister agree that that is unacceptable? If she does, what assistance can she and her Government provide to stop this from happening?

    Hansard source
12. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Topical Questions

    My constituents hate seeing organised shoplifting taking place with apparent impunity. Norfolk police recognises this and has identified suspects in more than a third of all cases, but what is the point when the Government’s assumption is that any sentence shorter than 12 months will automatically be suspended? What are the Government going to do about it?

    Hansard source
13. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Indefinite Leave to Remain: Proposed Changes

    6. When she plans to implement her proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain.

    Hansard source
14. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Indefinite Leave to Remain: Proposed Changes

    In January 2025, I urged the Government to act on indefinite leave to remain, to prevent the fiscal calamity of locking in the Boriswave. I thank the Ministers for their movement in that regard. It is important that we are transparent with the public about who is using visas as a route to a life on benefits, so can the Minister provide an estimate of the number and proportion of individuals holding ILR who are currently in receipt of universal credit?

    Hansard source
15. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Identity Fraud

    At my constituency surgery on Friday, Mr De Mesquita spoke to me about his concerns that Report Fraud was not passing on to local police forces information about victims of identity fraud. Given that those victims are often vulnerable and likely to be victims of other crimes, will the Minister let us know what he is doing to ensure that Report Fraud is passing on to local police forces the details of victims of such crimes?

    Hansard source
16. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Topical Questions

    As if the Government’s announcement on watering down the provisions of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 were not disappointing enough, the secondary legislation to enact what is left of it still has not been tabled. Where is it?

    Hansard source
17. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Digital Safety: Children

    I am genuinely pleased that the Government have at least come to the table on preventing harms to children from social media and online content, but it strikes me that it is rather piecemeal. Listening to voices on the Conservative Benches, other parties in opposition and the Government’s own Back Benchers, it seems everything is pointing in the same direction: we need an outright ban on social media for under-16s. This House has proven in the past that when we want to act quickly, we can. Before any more children are harmed, will the Minister bring forward legislation?

    Hansard source
18. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Water Companies

    I have many criticisms of the operating practices of Thames Water, but further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), I am very concerned about the total dysfunctionality in how the planning system interacts with water companies. This is a problem now, even before Buckinghamshire is wrongly asked by this Government to build 95,000 homes. We have seen a lot of development in recent years—in the village of Ickford, for example, the wagon to pump sewage out and take it away by road has already become the norm. Does the Minister agree that if the Government are determined to build all these homes, water companies should get statutory consultee status for all planning applications? Otherwise, they are going to be chasing their tails rather than fixing the problems we already have.

    Hansard source
19. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I am trying to understand how constraining Government powers in the three areas of concern would in any way lead to a delay. I do not think that any constraints imposed would stand in the way of this undertaking. In what way would there be a delay? I may not have sufficiently understood the linkage between such constraints on Government powers in other undertakings and how on earth those would impact this particular one.

    Hansard source
20. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    The hon. Gentleman makes the point about the need for speed in these circumstances, but perhaps he could explain to the House why the endless resetting of a sunset clause, contradicting the whole purpose of a sunset clause, plays into the need for urgent action right now? Or does he agree that it is something that should be looked at again and does not need to delay any of the effective action for which he is calling?

    Hansard source
21. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the funds put in place by Government—£2.5 billion for the steel plan—are completely inadequate to match the enthusiasm of Members across the House for nationalisations? The National Audit Office suggests there would be £1.5 billion in losses from running the Scunthorpe plant alone, without any investment and without any compensation for Jingye, so the £2.5 billion would be rapidly gone. The truth is that this House and this Government are unable to put in place the sums of money that would allow Scunthorpe sensibly to be supported and invested in, let alone the long string of 16 sites in Wales that the hon. Lady so bravely speaks up for today.

    Hansard source
22. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech and showing great expertise. Is he confident, as so many critics of the steel plan were not, that the £2.5 billion that has been found by the Treasury is sufficient to allow the interventions that he so enthusiastically supports? If it is not, is there not a danger that we will not invest in things, but just bleed out public cash on facilities that continue to be uncompetitive and do not get renewed? If we do not put the right resource in, as France and other countries have arguably done, we will be losing out and not winning.

    Hansard source
23. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    To help the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), I do not think I said anything about subsidising. What I am looking for, and what I think all of us across this Committee would like to see, is the continuation of steel, especially in a dangerous world. I was questioning whether we have a coherent strategy and sufficient funding to take the steel industry—the specific site in Scunthorpe and others—on the journey that the Minister set out, which requires intervention to take it back to being a thriving industry. I worry that there is not such a pathway or sufficient resource, so we could be in the worst of all possible worlds, where we just bleed public money without it leading to the restitution of a healthy steel industry in this country. That is what I am looking for an answer to.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Topical Questions

    T7.   In the last three years, the number of Metropolitan police officers has fallen by 3,000, and it is now at a lower level than it was in May 2016, when Sadiq Khan became Mayor of London. Overall crime in London has increased by 26% and knife crime is up by 27%. It is true that policing in London is partially devolved, but over 70% of the funding to the Metropolitan police comes from the Home Office, and that makes the Home Secretary a key player. What is she doing to reverse the dismal decline that we have seen in Sadiq Khan’s decade of failure?

    Hansard source
25. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Topical Questions

    I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), but the reality is that every day shopkeepers are facing abuse and threats and being stolen from. A direct consequence of the presumption in the Sentencing Act 2026 that those with a sentence of 12 months or less will not face prison is that there is no deterrent. Can the Minister genuinely say that our streets are safer as a result?

    Hansard source
26. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Water Companies

    Labour came into government promising major reform of England’s water sector, but progress so far has been slow. The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was largely a rebadging of many Conservative reforms. During its passage, we tabled many sensible amendments, including ones to ringfence funding from enforcement fines to a bespoke water restoration fund; to guarantee that companies fixed the environmental damage they caused locally; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its remuneration and governance rules; to reduce consumer bills if companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies did not leverage too much debt. Sadly, the Government failed to support those amendments and missed the opportunity to increase accountability. We on the Conservative Benches have been clear: no one wants to see water companies such as Thames Water collapse. Although water supply would continue, failure would expose taxpayers to billions of pounds of liabilities and drive customer water bills sharply upwards, without addressing the underlying issues. Yet we have seen the third party in this place lead legal action that could have pushed Thames Water to the brink, and both they and Reform appear relaxed about the consequences for consumers and the public purse. Government have to be prepared to step in if a company fails, but that should be a last resort, so can the Minister update the House on the current situation at Thames Water? Last week, this House again debated further unacceptable water outages from South East Water. With further hot weather expected, what action are the Government taking to ensure that water supplies are not disrupted again and that people, businesses, schools, hospitals and livestock owners will have sufficient water? Turning to the wider systemic issues in the water sector, can the Minister update the House on progress towards delivering new reservoirs and other strategic water infrastructure? Finally, can the Minister explain how the Government are tracking investment commitments across the sector?

    Hansard source
27. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Cuba: Humanitarian Situation

    In trying to understand what America has been doing in its own backyard, what assessment has the Minister made of Cuba as one of the largest foreign contributors to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine? What are the Government doing to better understand the position of Cuba as a potential hub for hybrid warfare in the area, inspired by Russia and as Russia’s entry point for its malign activities in the wider Hispanic region?

    Hansard source
28. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. There are many arguments of principle and technical detail regarding the merits or otherwise of the change to the voting system proposed by the Government under this draft legislation, but the Committee is not the place to debate those; they have been considered in Committee previously. I will be clear that the Opposition remain opposed to the change, which reverses a change that we made in government. We remain committed to the elegance and simplicity of first past the post as a means of carrying out elections, rather than any of the other many complex systems that are available around the world. For that reason, we will seek a Division, but I have no questions to put to the Minister.

    Hansard source
29. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Water Companies

    The Minister will know from our conversations that sewage pollution is a regular problem in Exmouth and Exeter East. However, the Lib Dems on East Devon district council propose to build tens of thousands of new homes, and I do not have faith that South West Water will keep pace with all the new development. We have been bitten before: a new town was built in Cranbrook, and the corresponding sewage treatment network was never built. Will she work with me and the Housing Minister to ensure that we apply a magnifying glass to any plans and push back strongly if South West Water cannot keep pace with delivery?

    Hansard source
30. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Illegal High Street Trading

    The Home Secretary will be aware of the inquiry that the Committee is conducting on the role that organised criminality plays in the crime we see on our high streets. We heard compelling evidence recently about counterfeit goods, the role they play, and the role that forced labour plays throughout that supply chain. Can the Home Secretary explain what she is doing to combat forced labour? I look forward to putting more questions to her when she appears before my Committee before the summer recess.

    Hansard source
31. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I beg to move amendment 21, page 1, line 6, leave out “of or including” and insert “predominantly of”. This amendment would narrow the definition of a steel undertaking so that it had to be a business consisting predominantly of the manufacture or processing of steel, or iron for the purposes or in connection with the manufacture of steel.

    Hansard source
32. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    If I may, I would also like to speak to the other amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and, before I do that, approach the Bill with the serious concern it deserves. Today’s amendments reflect some of the points the Opposition made on Second Reading: that the Bill is a chaotic, unplanned intervention that risks landing taxpayers with an open-ended and potentially unlimited bill. Without addressing those issues as we make this legislation, we need to really focus on the things that are currently making the domestic production of steel unprofitable, such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies. Before I turn to the amendments in detail, I put on record how much I respect the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), and his real-life expertise in the steel business. He is truly a rare example on the Government Benches of someone who has deep private-sector experience and really knows his subject—I salute that. My own private-sector expertise is as an investor, so most of the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends are trying to protect the taxpayer from some of the financial risks the Bill lands them with. The fact is that nobody wanted to nationalise British Steel. The Government told us last year, when they brought in emergency legislation—and brought Members back on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war—that they did not want to nationalise British Steel. They may now claim to their Back Benchers and union backers that this is something to celebrate as true socialism, but the reality is that it is an outcome that the Government wanted to avoid. The Government failed to negotiate a good outcome with the Chinese owners of British Steel. The Prime Minister and the Business Secretary went all the way to China and failed to get a deal. Whenever this Government negotiate, the taxpayer loses out. The Conservatives do not think that the Government should nationalise British Steel, because we do not think politicians should be running businesses. Since the Government intervened last year, it has cost taxpayers over £1.3 million every day. The Bill is deeply flawed, and it is in a spirit of goodwill that I offer the Government the chance to adopt the Opposition’s amendments. I am sure that they will want to agree to them, as they are all sensible.

    Hansard source
33. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    As a west midlands MP, I absolutely recognise that. In fact, I was with a constituent in Worcester on Friday, Mr Michael Outwin of Industrial & Tractor Ltd, who is going to have to pay a 50% tariff. I tried to table some amendments on the tariff regime, but unfortunately, they were not orderly, so I will limit myself to agreeing with my right hon. Friend. There are many types of steel that will be affected by the tariffs that do not seem to be made in the UK. I would like the Minister to clarify how he expects people to continue manufacturing from the steel that they have been importing for some time, once the tariffs are in place. On the Opposition amendments, I am sure that everyone in the Committee agrees that the Bill as it stands exposes the taxpayer to unlimited liability for an unlimited length of time. The Bill expropriates businesses, and that will deter inward investment into our country. You do not have to take my word for it, Dame Caroline, as it is also in the Government’s impact assessment that one of the Bill’s potential impacts is that it chills the investment environment in this sector. That is why we have tabled the amendments the Committee is considering today.

    Hansard source
34. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    It is wonderful to see so many people interested in following this debate until 10 pm, which when our scrutiny of the Bill ends today. I will make just a few remarks, if I may. Despite the fact that we still have another day tomorrow, there were a few things in today’s debate that I have not heard sufficiently answered. First, I pay tribute to the wise remarks from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I encourage the Minister to take on board his points about the wide scope of the powers the Minister is taking in this legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend is a former Attorney General, so his remarks should be heeded with a great deal of seriousness. I reiterate the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who sought assurances that the blast furnaces will continue. I am not sure we heard that on the record. When the Minister next gets to the Dispatch Box in these days of debate, will he clarify his intentions as far as that is concerned? Will the Minister provide clarity on the public interest test? Sensible remarks were made about the Regulatory Reform Committee and how the public interest test is too broadly defined. How can it ever be reversed once it has been invoked? I did not hear anything about limiting the contingent liabilities or the sunset clause, or the possible impact—mentioned in the impact report itself—on investor confidence in this country. The Minister mentioned that he was willing to meet Members who have concerns about the steel tariffs, which are a separate issue. May I urge him, over the next 24 hours, to try to find some time in his diary so that they can raise specific examples with him?

    Hansard source
35. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    Indeed; and, as we have heard, one of the suppliers is still in administration. I think that the Minister needs to rethink that deadline, and I hope he will find time in his diary, perhaps as early as tomorrow, to meet Members on both sides of the House to discuss the issue. With no more ado, Ms Ghani, I will now attempt to press as many of the amendments as you will allow, and we will test the view of the Committee. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 21. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 Sunset for exercise of principal transfer powers Amendment proposed: 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsections (3) to (5).—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.) This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State extending the sunset of the principal transfer powers. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
36. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Illegal Migration

    Nigerian illegal immigrant Gift Oladele was recently jailed for the brutal rape of a teenage girl. He dragged her into isolated woods, leaving her terrified, and she now has recurrent nightmares. Oladele had committed previous violent sexual offences, and the Home Office rightly tried to deport him, yet an immigration judge allowed him to stay because of Oladele’s human rights, and he went on to violently rape the teenage girl. I believe the rights of women and girls to be protected are more important than the supposed human rights of foreign rapists to stay here. Is it not time to leave the European convention on human rights, so that all criminals such as Oladele can be deported?

    Hansard source
37. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

    The “Police Anti-Racism Commitment”, a copy of which I have here, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, asks police to reverse engineer the same arrest rates for different ethnic groups, even though offending rates are different. It expressly calls for different racial groups to be treated differently, saying that people should not treat “everyone ‘the same’” or be “colour blind”. This is a formal policy requirement for two-tier policing. I have been raising this issue for over a year, and I have never had an answer, including from the Home Secretary last Tuesday. Let me try again: does she agree that this racist and dangerous policy document should be immediately withdrawn—yes or no?

    Hansard source
38. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

    The Home Secretary still gives no clear answer. We have repeatedly raised serious concerns with the Government’s Islamophobia definition. South Wales police has now instructed staff to record anything that goes beyond “legitimate discussion of Islam”, even if there is no crime. That could then be disclosed on someone’s Disclosure and Barring Service check. Police officers in south Wales will now have to decide what is or is not legitimate discussion of Islam. No other religion is treated that way in south Wales. That is completely wrong. Parliament has rightly repealed blasphemy laws, and criticising religion is part of free speech, so does the Home Secretary agree that the guidance is wrong and should be scrapped immediately? Let’s try a simple yes or no.

    Hansard source
39. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Digital Safety: Children

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The Minister will know that in the first instance statements should be made to the House. Today we have had an urgent question to address the issue. If there has been any inadvertent misleading of the House from the Minister’s use of language, I am sure that those on the Front Bench have heard that and will want to clarify the matter.

    Hansard source
40. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause stand part. Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out “includes (but is not limited to)” and insert “means”. This amendment would limit the public interest test to the areas set out in subsections (a) to (c). Amendment 23, page 1, line 20, at end insert— “(d) preventing the closure of, or the loss of jobs at, a steel undertaking in Wales.” This amendment includes the public interest in preventing the loss of jobs in Wales and the prevention of the closure of a steel undertaking in Wales in the meaning of public interest for the purposes of the Act. Amendment 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power unless they have laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament explaining their reasons for concluding that it is necessary to exercise the power in the public interest.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament explaining their reasons for concluding that it is necessary to exercise a principal transfer power in the national interest, before exercising that power. Amendment 15, page 2, line 20, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power unless he has commissioned an independent assessment of whether the exercise of the power is in the public interest, and that assessment has demonstrated that it is in the public interest. (2B) The Secretary of State may appoint such independent person as he thinks fit to carry out an independent assessment under subsection (2A) above, and may pay remuneration and allowances to that person.” This amendment would require an independent assessment of whether the public interest test had been met before the Secretary of State could exercise the principal transfer powers. Amendment 16, page 2, line 20, at end insert— “(2A) The exercise of a principal transfer power may only be considered to be in the public interest under subsection (1) if the Secretary of State has is satisfied that the exercise of the power would provide value for money for the taxpayer.” This amendment would require the NAO to have concluded that the exercise of the principal transfer power was good value for money before the Secretary of State could consider it to be in the public interest. Amendment 17, page 2, line 20, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power under subsection (1) unless they have laid a report before Parliament containing full details of the criteria used to assess whether the exercise of power would be in the public interest.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish full details of the criteria used to assess the public interest test before exercising the principal transfer power. Clause 2 stand part. Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsections (3) to (5). This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State extending the sunset of the principal transfer powers. Clause 3 stand part. Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 30, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”. This amendment changes the procedure for share transfer regulations from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. Clauses 4 to 14 stand part. Amendment 3, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”. This amendment changes the procedure for property transfer regulations from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. Clauses 15 to 38 stand part. Amendment 18, in clause 39, page 25, line 32, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”. This amendment would require regulations relating to continuity obligations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clauses 39 to 44 stand part. Amendment 19, in clause 45, page 28, line 37, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”. This amendment would require regulations related to enforcement to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clauses 45 to 51 stand part. New clause 2—Stakeholder Advisory Committee— “(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Stakeholder Advisory Committee to provide advice on the exercise of principal transfer powers under this Act (“the Committee”). (2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the membership of the Committee includes representation from stakeholders, including but not limited to— (a) industries that rely on the supply of steel, including the defence sector and critical national infrastructure, (b) representatives of the workforce of the steel undertaking, and (c) local authorities for the areas in which the steel undertaking operates. (3) The Secretary of State must consult, and have regard to the advice of, the Committee before making a determination that the exercise of a principal transfer power is necessary in the public interest under section 2.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a stakeholder advisory committee. The Secretary of State would be required to seek the committee's advice before making a determination that the exercise of a principal transfer power under the Act was in the public interest. New clause 3—Jobs and industrial transition strategy— “(1) Where the Secretary of State has exercised a principal transfer power in respect of a steel undertaking, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a jobs and industrial transition strategy. (2) A strategy under subsection (1) must explicitly set out how the Government's investment and transition plans for the specified steel undertaking will— (a) protect skilled employment, (b) provide and support reskilling and redeployment opportunities for the workforce, and (c) deliver tangible economic renewal and support economic resilience in the local communities dependent on the steel undertaking. (3) The strategy must be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on which the regulations exercising the principal transfer power take effect.” This new clause requires that the Secretary of State publishes a report on jobs and industrial transition strategy where it exercises a principal transfer power. New clause 5—Duty to report: 10-year strategy for nationalised steel undertakings— “(1) Within three months of exercising a principal transfer power in relation to a steel undertaking under this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing a 10-year strategy for the steel undertaking. (2) Any report published under subsection (1) must include— (a) a strategy for the operation of any blast furnaces which form part of the steel undertaking, (b) an investment plan for the steel undertaking, (c) a vision for the future of the site of the steel undertaking, and (d) consideration of the need for a steel procurement strategy which prioritises British steel to support the steel undertaking, for the following 10 years.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a 10-year strategy for any steel undertaking nationalised under this Act. New clause 8—Contingent liabilities— “(1) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power in relation to a steel undertaking unless they have made a statement to Parliament on the value of contingent liabilities associated with the use of the power. (2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include— (a) the value of any contingent liabilities to be acquired; and, (b) the steps the Secretary of State will take to seek to minimise taxpayer exposure to any contingent liabilities so acquired.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament on contingent liabilities acquired before they exercise a principal transfer power under this Act.

    Hansard source