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

1. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

   Retail, Hospitality and Leisure: Business Rates

   I recently met Chris, the owner of Chapters Hair in Bromsgrove, who told me that current conditions are the most difficult he has faced in 25 years of trading, which he attributes directly to the decisions taken by the Chancellor. Why is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government across the board are riding roughshod over what business owners think—the people who know best how to run their businesses—and when will the Government get off their backs and get on their side?

   Hansard source
2. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   Select Committees

   I thank the Leader of the House for listening to the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee, and for bringing forward these long-overdue amendments. The Backbench Business Committee was inaugurated when I was first elected to this House in 2010, and the Government of the day refused to listen to those of us on the Back Benches who said, “Why does the Chair have to be elected every Session?” Unfortunately, what had happened was that—to put it politely—members of the awkward squad managed to get elected to the Committee and caused the Government of the day immense problems. However, I suspect that the current Government see that they have power through the parliamentary Labour party to control their Members who sit on the Backbench Business Committee, and elect them appropriately.

   Hansard source
3. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   Select Committees

   I regard the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend, and he sits on the Committee.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   Select Committees

   I thank all members of the Backbench Business Committee for the excellent work they have done over the last year and a half in bringing forward debates and ensuring that Members of all parties get the opportunity to debate the issues that they want to debate, rather than what the Government want to debate. We know that that can sometimes be embarrassing for the Government, but it is the will of the Committee. It has been a pleasure to oversee that work. We have made reforms so that Members who come in front of our Committee now face questioning from all members of the Committee—not just one or two, which was the case in previous years. That has been an important reform. I will point out the consequences of the changes that the Leader of the House is putting forward. Requests for Select Committee statements come to the Backbench Business Committee on a regular basis. Because of pressure on Chamber time, we have had to push some of them into Westminster Hall, which limits the amount of time given to debates in Westminster Hall. The changes will give the Committee flexibility on when it allocates Select Committee statements in the House, and I think that will be to the benefit of all Select Committees. It is something we recommended, and I warmly welcome it. The other issue is the election of the Committee. In the next Session, it is likely that there will be at least one day, and possibly more days, when the Government will have to put on general debates in the Chamber that have not been committed by the Backbench Business Committee, because we will not have been reconstituted in time. I have written to the Leader of the House with a list of debates that Members want to debate, so I hope he can choose from some of those to make sure that the will of Back Benchers is heard and that those who have been waiting for some time get an opportunity. The Backbench Business Committee is being brought in line with other Select Committees, so the Chairman and the Committee will be elected at the beginning of a Parliament and serve the duration of that Parliament, unless the parties decide to remove members of the Committee. The Chairman will serve for the duration of the Parliament, which is once again a sensible and good move. Of course, I hope that Members will see the wisdom of re-electing me as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee when we return after the state opening of Parliament, but that is for another day. I welcome the Procedure Committee changing the rules on how lobbying and the process of elections for Select Committee Chairmen take place at the beginning of a Parliament. We are all used to fighting each other in the election, then suddenly arriving back in Parliament and being greeted as long-lost friends when somebody is standing to be elected as a Select Committee Chairman. That is reasonable, but what has not been reasonable is the deluge of papers and other lobbying that has taken place—particularly through the use of the email system—on behalf of candidates. I think that most of us got fed up with that a long time ago, so this is a very sensible reform. In closing, I thank the Leader of the House for listening to what we had to say, for acting on it, as we asked him to do, and for bringing forward these motions, albeit literally at the last minute before Prorogation. The changes are welcome none the less.

   Hansard source
5. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   Madam Deputy Speaker, “Why does the Prime Minister think everybody else’s actions have consequences except his own?”—[Official Report, 20 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 155.] That is a question the country would like an answer to. It is, given the appearance of several recently defenestrated senior civil servants, a prescient question. But it is not my question—it is the Prime Minister’s own question from 2022. How hollow those words must feel now. The testimonies from Sir Oliver Robbins last week, and from his predecessor, Sir Philip Barton, and the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, this morning—all casualties trailing in the wake of a Prime Minister who will stop at nothing to save his own skin—have torpedoed what last vestiges of credibility the Prime Minister is desperately clinging on to. The Prime Minister set the conditions for Peter Mandelson to be the UK ambassador to the United States with a devil-may-care attitude with regard to the consequences. The public announcement of his appointment in December 2024, His Majesty the King being informed and the agrément with the United States being secured all before vetting had taken place ensured that the appointment was a fait accompli. Peter Mandelson then being granted access to the FCDO building and higher-classification briefings before he was granted developed vetting reveals a shockingly lax approach to our national security, but it is not without precedent. We saw much of the same laissez-faire attitude with a previous ministerial appointment: that of the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, Jonathan Powell. A similar pattern was followed, with access to the FCDO granted and access to classified documents, use of unsecured email for communications and question marks over potential foreign influence all confirmed to have taken place prior to his developed vetting within the last few hours by Morgan McSweeney. That was six months prior to the Mandelson farrago. As I said at PMQs last week, playing fast and loose with national security is a key characteristic of the Prime Minister’s chumocracy. The question of Mandelson’s security clearance itself poses a host of further questions. When Peter Mandelson commenced his role, he had already been given developed vetting, although UKSV had highlighted concerns—that is now well established. But if full due process was followed, why was Olly Robbins sacked? On 4 February, less than a week before Mandelson started his role, the appointments and interchange officer of the FCDO informed him via email that the role required STRAP-level clearance in addition to DV and that a new STRAP application would need to be made. Sir Oliver Robbins confirmed that it was clear to him that Mandelson had received STRAP clearance from the STRAP authorities. During the urgent question in the Chamber on 16 March, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister what level of security clearance Mandelson had been granted, notwithstanding the minutiae of whether developed vetting is a clearance level and STRAP is a role-specific access. The reply I received from the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra)—somewhat conveniently one hour after The Guardian broke its story—stated only that Mandelson had developed vetting upon commencement of his role on 10 February. So when was his STRAP application made, and when was it granted? When I asked the Prime Minister last week, despite his legendary forensic eye for detail, he had no idea. Did the intelligence services also have access to the UKSV vetting report? The wider question is this: what assessment did the US intelligence services make of Peter Mandelson? Did he pass vetting by the US Department of State? As the nexus for all Five Eyes intelligence and US-UK eyes-only intelligence coming from the United States, was Mandelson granted access to all the available intelligence in order to discharge all his responsibilities as ambassador? Would the US, for example, have given him visibility of TK-level imagery? What assessment have the Government made of the damage this debacle has done to the UK’s relationship with the United States? It is surely no coincidence that the special relationship has soured at the same time that this fiasco has unravelled, quite apart from the other faux pas that the Government have made in recent weeks. Even more damning in Sir Olly Robbins’ testimony was the Prime Minister’s dogged determination to reward the now Lord Doyle: “I was under strict instruction not to discuss that with the then Foreign Secretary, which was uncomfortable… I found it very hard to think how I would explain to the office what the credentials of Matthew were to be in an important head of mission role, when I was in danger of making very senior, very experienced diplomats leave the office.” The fact is that the Prime Minister put pressure on the FCDO to give Lord Doyle a head of mission role in the diplomatic service in March last year despite his complete lack of qualification for the role. That same individual later had the Labour Whip removed owing to his relationship with Sean Morton, a man subsequently convicted of possessing indecent images of children. The Prime Minister deliberately directed that information to be withheld from the then Foreign Secretary; I suspect that is not the first time he has done that. Those two men with proximity to convicted paedophiles were both Labour peers and both key figures in the Starmer project—the Government’s cronyism is second only to their nepotism. Given what we know about the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last reshuffle, what confidence can the general public have that Ministers who owe their careers to him will vote honestly in the coming vote? It is not on the Opposition side of the House that we have to worry about whether Peter Mandelson paid for anybody’s wedding. The laissez-faire attitude to Peter Mandelson’s appointment has illustrated the nonchalance, arrogance and incompetence of the Government under this milquetoast premiership. There is a key question that we come back to once again: why does the Prime Minister think everybody’s actions have consequences except his own? The public must be assured that there has been an investigation into whether the Prime Minister misled the House. The Privileges Committee must investigate the Prime Minister. Labour MPs must vote for the motion, for transparency and truth, not the defence of a Prime Minister who does not deserve their blinkered loyalty.

   Hansard source
6. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Costs for Commuters

   In rural areas like Rutland and Stamford, we are reliant on our cars, so fuel costs are hitting us hard. I have a simple ask that the Chancellor could deliver on now: will she expand the 5p per litre rural fuel duty relief to more areas as soon as possible, particularly Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire, where it is desperately needed?

   Hansard source
7. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   Are we really suggesting in this debate, in this Chamber, that anyone who does not pass vetting fully and comprehensively, and who is not granted it without hesitation, should be given the most important of our ambassadorships? The Government seem to be suggesting that someone who is borderline—about whom there are any red flags—should be put in that sort of role. Is that not extraordinary?

   Hansard source
8. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   The hon. Gentleman is right that there are some precedents for House business being whipped, but the lesson is that it is a fool’s errand—it is normally the start of the end. He is making a fair point and being kind to his Front Benchers, but does he agree that we should learn from precedent and not necessarily repeat it?

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

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   The motion does not attribute wrongdoing. It represents a simple choice and a decision: do we as a House support transparency, and do we think that truth in this place still matters? Peter Mandelson’s CV reads like an indictment—we all know that—and I do not need to rehearse the litany of appalling and heinous decisions and acts. For me, that leaves no question but that the Prime Minister’s judgment was absolutely found wanting in this situation. Given the seriousness of Mandelson’s actions and of this appointment, surely every Member of this House wants to know why he was appointed, how he was appointed and whether we and the British people have been given the full story of what happened. I worked at the Foreign Office as a civil servant. If I, listening and reading every single detail, feel that something does not sit quite right; if I have former colleagues ringing me and saying, “That is not how the process works. It just doesn’t make sense—that is not right”; if we then have the Prime Minister saying that he had seen the vetting, “Oh no, I meant I’d seen something else. Sorry, I had not seen the security vetting; I had seen the due diligence. Oh, there was not any pressure put on” when others most clearly think there was pressure put on; and if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) is genuinely suggesting that there is no such thing as abuse from those who have more power against those who have less, that politicians do not sometimes behave appallingly to civil servants and that, “Oh, we are all busy. It’s the same pressure”, then I say no. That is why we have specific laws.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Let me finish this point and then I will happily take an intervention. We have specific laws that when someone senior to you puts you under undue pressure or treats you in a certain way, they have to take far more responsibility, because they have the ability to exercise that responsibility and authority over you which you cannot challenge. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come back and argue that he does not believe that in hierarchies, particularly No. 10 political appointments versus civil servants, there is such an imbalance in power, I will happily have him make that case.

    Hansard source
11. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I am sorry but the idea that somebody just chasing an update—“Can I just check where we are with that? We really would like to get it done”—and that there is no concept of any bullying because someone is just asking for something to be done a bit quicker, is a foolhardy suggestion by the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister has come to the House many times, as hon. Members have said, but he has not answered the questions. The Prime Minister himself set the terms. Either he misled the House or he was reckless with the truth, and those are the terms that he set. Multiple people have lost their jobs over this Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Mandelson: two civil servants and two political appointments. For a man who said he would never sack his staff because of his own appointments, that is quite something. The Prime Minister’s judgment has also shown that he was happy to appoint people to Cabinet who had lied to the police, where he knew full well that they had done that, so there is a pattern. Olly Robbins lost his job for implementing the wishes of the Prime Minister by the book. Either he followed due process and was sacked for doing so, or there was no due process and he was sacked because there was not. The Prime Minister’s position so far is that the former is true; it cannot be both, in which case Olly Robbins should never have been sacked. He did his job under immense pressure and was stripped of the agency to say no. As Mr Speaker set out at the start of the debate, this motion does not attribute guilt to anyone and the vote today is for an investigation by the Privileges Committee. That Committee is chaired by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and I want to place on the record my total faith in his probity and professionalism. Unfortunately, as we have seen in previous approaches and investigations, some people may seek to undermine individuals. I appreciate that there are a range of views among Labour Members. Some of them seem genuinely to believe the Prime Minister’s version of events, while others share the concerns of Conservative Members, even if they are reticent to say so. I point out that at no point in this debate has there been more than nine Labour MPs sat on the Back Benches who were elected before 2024. I was once a new MP, and I too went through this process. As I have said before, on the Owen Paterson vote, I voted in a way that I deeply regret. I had planned to vote against him, because, in watching the debate from the Government Benches, I was horrified by what I saw. Despite the enormous pressure from people around me, I thought, “Okay, I must do what is right,” and I decided to vote with those 13 brave Conservatives who did the right thing. I then went downstairs to breastfeed my daughter, who was very young at the time—she was just turning six months old—but when I came back upstairs there was only one minute remaining following the Division Bells. When I looked at the two voting Lobbies, I could not see those 13 friends who had gone the right way on the vote, so I stood there on my own, absolutely terrified about what to do, and saw everyone else going through the other Lobby. I will never, ever accept feeling that way ever again. I say to the new intake that there is a reason why no other MPs from previous intakes are on the Labour Benches, and why MPs from previous intakes have said, “If your gut is telling you there’s a problem, there’s a problem.” They have given you their advice. They often tell us how dismissive you are of them, but—[Interruption.] Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—you would never be dismissive of anyone. There is a reason, and you should take that time—

    Hansard source
12. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Oh my goodness! I can only apologise again for saying “you”, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a reason why Labour MPs from older intakes have chosen not to come and defend the Prime Minister: they have seen this show before and know what happens. They know that their gut is telling them the right thing to do. I congratulate those of them who have been brave enough to speak out and share their views. The House will recall that the Government attempted to whip Labour MPs against giving the Intelligence and Security Committee a role in assessing and releasing the Mandelson files, as per the Humble Address. Parliament asserted itself on that day, and we must do so again. A vote against this motion will show loud and clear that Labour Members forgave, followed the party line and ignored their conscience. There is precedent here: in 2022, the House unanimously passed a motion allowing an inquiry into whether the then Prime Minister had misled Parliament. We Conservatives supported that motion—not a single MP blocked it. I know how hard such decisions are because we have been there. I supported the Committee’s finding that Boris Johnson had misled the House. My advice to Labour MPs is to listen to your conscience and do what you know is right. Members will thank themselves, as the years pass by, for being free of the weight of regret. Standards matters should never be whipped. Is any Labour MP willing to stand up and say that the threat of having the Whip removed has not been made? So far, none of them has said that. [Interruption.] Indeed, pressure seems to be an issue that we ought to debate more. I would also say to Labour MPs who are considering speaking in this debate that you may find—[Hon. Members: “They may find!”] Labour Members may find that, before the vote this evening, their party changes its mind and they are no longer being whipped. I encourage Labour MPs to reflect on whether that is the record that a Member may wish to have. Whips do change their minds if Members make representations to them. Can you truly say that the whole story is out there?

    Hansard source
13. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I fully accept that. I know better and I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Hansard source
14. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Absolutely. Some Members have suggested that their constituents do not really care about process and whether the truth is told in this Chamber, and that they are not really interested in this privilege motion, but that is most certainly not the case—and that is something that Members will experience in the months to come. I fear that a future release of files will further contradict the Prime Minister’s version of events. We discovered only this morning that Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser, was also appointed before being vetted. I asked the Government about his vetting in February, and I was told that national security vetting for the current National Security Adviser was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting. Does that sound familiar? Clearly, something went awry and due process was not followed, but this House was told once again that due process was followed. Judgment is revealed not in the exception but in the pattern, and there is a very clear pattern in this situation.

    Hansard source
15. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    The hon. Gentleman is completely right. We were told repeatedly and consistently that due process was not followed. I know that it was not because I have been through security clearance. At the first level, before I could hand in my notice at my existing job and join the civil service, I had to wait seven months for security clearance. Then there was developed vetting, for which I had to wait about six months before I could take up a new role. I have also been through STRAP clearance, so I have been through the works. The claim that due process was followed does not sit right with me. Fundamentally, if due process was followed, Olly Robbins did not deserve to be sacked—he must have breached due process if he needed to be sacked. I will vote in favour of the motion and end my day with a clear conscience, knowing that I voted to give my communities the answers that they deserve. I hope that every Member can say the same. We are asking whether the man leading our country has the judgment that his office necessitates and the required commitment to the truth. At this moment, the country does not believe that that commitment is there, so let us have an inquiry and see if it was.

    Hansard source
16. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    This has been a long and sometimes interesting debate. We have had some revelations. I was interested to hear the speech by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I am sure we are all delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrats are now opposed to sanctimony. I was also interested to hear from the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that he is not particularly political. I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister back to his place. I congratulate him on the fact that, on the “Today” programme this morning, he was being lauded as the Prime Minister’s right-hand man. I hope that he will be not made too anxious by what has happened to all the Prime Minister’s other right-hand men. The motion before us is very simple. It is about starting a process that will take what has been discussed in this House and put it in the hands of a Committee of our peers, who will get to adjudicate, because there is no agreement on these points. That process has long existed in this House to resolve issues such as these. We are doing this for a reason. It is simply because—[Interruption.] Yeah, okay. Come on. We are doing this for a reason. It is because Members of all parties have reason to believe that the Prime Minister may have misled this House. Those Labour MPs who said sanctimoniously, to the horror of the Liberal Democrats, that this was some sort of political stunt—[Interruption.] Okay. All right. Do they think that the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) was part of a political stunt when she said that “good, decent colleagues will be accused of being complicit in a cover-up”, or when she said that this was “a matter for the Privileges Committee”? Was she part of a political stunt? Was it all about the local elections for her? The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) explained that she had no Labour opponent and did not have any local elections; was she part of a political stunt? When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is not in his place, said that he does not believe that the House was misled by the Prime Minister, but does think that the Prime Minister should be referred to the Committee, was he part of a political stunt? This claim falls away at the first hurdle. Labour’s objection to the motion is political, because the Labour party knows that the Prime Minister may well be in the wrong and is scared of referring him. That is the only reason why the Government needed to put in place a hard three-line Whip and started twisting arms. Do they really believe that the hon. Members for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is absent and has tweeted that if she was here she “would be voting for the motion”, were part of a political stunt? No. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said at the start of the debate, if the Government have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from the Privileges Committee. A number of Labour MPs have objected, saying that they think the Prime Minister is innocent, and they are perfectly entitled to make that case. We think that case is wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) elegantly pointed out, that is why we need the Privileges Committee to adjudicate. A number of Labour MPs thought that the Prime Minister should have referred himself; indeed, he should have. It would have been the simplest way of moving on this whole process without any further need for the House to agonise over it. As for those Labour MPs who said how sad it was that they could not debate all the other things that they wanted to debate today, they could have done so if the Prime Minister had referred himself. This ground has been well trodden this afternoon, but I will make the case again briefly. It rests on two points: full due process, and pressure. We know because of the Humble Address—and only because of it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) eloquently said—that the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, set out in November 2024 what full due process looked like: the Prime Minister’s appointee had to have security clearance before he was appointed, and he had to declare his interests before he was appointed. So far, the Government, despite being asked on many occasions whether Peter Mandelson filled in a conflict of interest document, have been unable to tell us. They did not release it following the Humble Address, and have not even been able to tell us whether such a document exists. On the security clearance aspect of the case, we know that process was not followed. We know that the Prime Minister immediately went ahead and made the appointment anyway, despite being told by the Cabinet Secretary that he should not. There are plenty of other reasons why we know that full due process was not followed. It does not require any great experience of government to know that full due process does not involve reading a due diligence document by the Cabinet Office that says that Peter Mandelson was a director of a Russian company during the Russian invasion of Crimea, and then thinking, “Well, we just need security clearance later.” That is obviously not full due process. It is obviously not full due process to ask Peter Mandelson’s Labour Together friends to complete the clearance process for him. It is not due process to not keep any records of meetings, calls or decisions in a way that is clearly in violation of all the guidance given to civil servants. In no way was that full due process, although people have nobly tried to make the case that Wormald, the later Cabinet Secretary, said that all that was done was fine. Let us remind the House that Wormald’s letter to the Prime Minister was written on 16 September. By that time, the Prime Minister had already told the House that “full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.] The system was trying to defend a position that the Prime Minister had already made very clear in the House repeatedly. At that moment in time, on 10 December when he told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that full due process was followed, the last piece of advice given to him by a Cabinet Secretary was from Simon Case. He knew that he had not followed full due process. On the point about pressure, it is very clear that the Prime Minister mis-spoke, at the very least, in the House last Wednesday. He said that Sir Olly Robbins “went on to say: ‘I…have complete confidence that…recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of’ any ‘pressure.’”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.] But what Sir Olly actually said to the Foreign Affairs Committee was, “I also have complete confidence that their recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of that pressure.” There is a difference between no pressure and there being pressure. Sir Olly made it clear throughout his testimony that he and his office were put under pressure, so when the Prime Minister said, “Sir Olly was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment”,—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.] that was manifestly false. What Sir Olly actually said was: “Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure… While I think the Department felt under pressure, we were proud of the fact that we had not bowed to that pressure.” He also said that he found an “atmosphere where this was not just, ‘Please get this done quickly,’ but, ‘And get it done.’” That was—[Interruption.] Well, it deserves to be said loudly, because it is important. The Prime Minister appears to have misled the House and not corrected the record. Ministers sometimes make mistakes, but as everyone knows, under the ministerial code, they must come and correct the record at the earliest available opportunity. The earliest available opportunity was Thursday. We could probably have squeezed that to include Monday, but it is now Tuesday, and the Prime Minister is still pretending that he has done nothing wrong, even though what happened is here in black and white, for everyone to read. There is clearly a case to answer. I have sympathy for all those Labour MPs who have spoken in this debate and have deep concerns and grievances about this. I also have a great deal of sympathy for those who feel the same way but have not spoken. The Prime Minister’s failure to self-refer, as several Labour MPs have suggested he should, has put them in this position. They are being whipped to support something that they know is wrong. They are being whipped to support something that they know their constituents will hate. They are being whipped to defend the Labour Together machine, which has brought such shame on the Labour party. [Interruption.] You can get angry, but you have all taken money from them! Well, not all Labour Members, to be fair—some of them have called for an investigation of Labour Together, and rightly so. They are being whipped by a Prime Minister who will lead them over the edge of the cliff, if they let him. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said powerfully, in politics, it is important to be able to look at oneself in the mirror at the end of the day. I know that many Labour MPs will struggle to do that after going through the Lobby tonight, but they need not vote against the motion. They all know where this ends. It ends with the Prime Minister not fighting the next general election. It ends with them having to justify what they have done. It ends with them having only what is left of their reputation.

    Hansard source
17. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    My right hon. Friend knows that I have been gravely concerned about this issue. I, too, commend her on a very hard-fought fight, but I remain concerned that we had a vehicle before us, in Lord Nash’s amendment, which would have dealt with the programme now—not in five, six, 10 or 12 months’ time. I hope very much that when the Minister replies she will confirm that it will be adhered to. If it is not, then this House will regard that as a matter of bad faith. I do not propose to vote against the Government tonight if my right hon. Friend has struck that agreement.

    Hansard source
18. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Dunmurry Police Station Attack

    Given what the Secretary of State said about the nature of the Lurgan bomb, it sounds as if these weapons are unsophisticated and presumably not detonated remotely. This must mean that the delivery drivers were in exceptional peril, because such crude devices could have gone off at any time. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is liaising closely with people in the Republic of Ireland, and that their attitude is nowadays one of complete support for the discovery and prevention of a new version of the terrorism of the troubles?

    Hansard source
19. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

    The Government are keen to emphasise their transparency in the course of dealing with the Humble Address requests and demands, so here is an opportunity to put that to the test. Last Tuesday, I put down a question for written answer by the Prime Minister: “To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.” It was accepted and published as such by the Table Office. Subsequently, it has been transferred to the Cabinet Office, for which he has responsibility. It is due to be answered tomorrow. Will the Minister give the answer to that question tomorrow, on time and substantively?

    Hansard source
20. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

    I thank the Minister for his kind words about the hard work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He will recognise and want to reflect with the House that we cannot work any faster than the speed at which the documents are given to us by the Government; the last of them, as he said, is being given to us today. The process will not be complete by Prorogation, as perhaps it should have been. I would like to raise two points of concern in what the Minister has said to us this afternoon. The first is about redaction. He has made it clear that the Government intend to redact for reasons beyond the Humble Address exemption related to international relations and national security; he has described that as the names of junior officials, personal information or legally privileged information. On Thursday, I put it to the Leader of the House that the Government document describing their approach to redactions is substantially wider than that. It says: “It may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including”— but of course not limited to— “commercially sensitive information.” Will the Minister please, either today or in writing, explain clearly on what grounds the Government intend to redact these documents? If, as I suspect, some of the grounds on which the Government propose to redact are beyond the scope of the Humble Address, will he confirm that the Government must return to this House and seek consent so to do? With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, my final point is also about redaction. The Minister has said in his statement that the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations. As he knows, in accordance with the process agreed, it will be for the Intelligence and Security Committee to determine those questions, not the Government—won’t it?

    Hansard source
21. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

    Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was about whether the Minister would confirm that it will be the ISC that determines redactions on the basis of international relations and national security.

    Hansard source
22. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    In the limited time I have, I say to the Secretary of State that this Bill was bad, and it is now a mess. He comes in front of the House to ask for a carry-over when he knows that carry-over motions are only ever to be used for Bills that are pretty well set, but have run out of time to progress. Such motions are not for highly contentious legislation that is about to be changed, possibly beyond recognition from what has gone before. He is now apparently addressing many of the issues, but we are not allowed to know, because they are a secret until next time, when we will come back to carry on with a massively changed Bill. It is bad procedure, and it is bad government. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of time—he knows that—that this is just a bad route to take. The problem that the Government have had from the beginning is that they have been tied up with trying to satisfy Sinn Féin and the hand of Ireland. I worry desperately about the arrangements. As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, where are the promises on delivery from Ireland? For all these years, there has been all the stuff that they know about who did what, when they did it and how it was done. All that has been kept behind closed doors for so long, and the Irish Government could have dealt with it earlier. Instead, there are people who do not want this to be open and we are now singing to their tune. That is what really bothers me. We are now being asked to take a pitch in the dark. Having denied all the way through the Bill’s passage that veterans would be pursued vexatiously through the courts and having said that there were controls in place, the Government have apparently finally realised that that was not the case. All of a sudden, the position has changed.

    Hansard source
23. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    It is astonishing. My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I served early on in Northern Ireland, and I lost a very good friend—I apologise for repeating his name—in Robert Nairac. We have never got to the bottom of what happened to him. I thought that the speech from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was incredibly interesting. It is very difficult to pursue truth, which is why I supported the previous legislation. That was not because I thought it was a great Bill, but because I wanted some truth to come out. I do not think the vexatious pursuit of veterans will ever produce the truth that he rightly seeks. There is a better way, and it is not this Bill.

    Hansard source
24. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    I will, but briefly, because I do not get any extra time.

    Hansard source
25. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    We will not altogether agree about this issue. We can debate what actually happened, but we will never know, because the Government refused to pursue this matter through the courts. South Africa was a good example of how it could be done. I went out to advise in South Africa at the time, and I genuinely believe that the truth and reconciliation committee got to the bottom of quite a lot of what happened in South Africa and allowed some mending of fences. We will no doubt debate that issue further. I have high respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I understand his position. In conclusion, we are being asked to vote blind on a Bill that we knew was damaged before. All our protestations about the vexatious pursuit of veterans were denied, as were all the issues that the right hon. Member for Belfast East has raised throughout the whole of this debate. The legislation was rather arrogantly pushed through, and the Government said, “No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The legislation is perfectly okay.” At the last moment, when they have failed to get the Bill through, they have produced this idea that somehow there are amazing new amendments that will protect veterans going forward. Why should veterans, who have been vexatiously pursued endlessly for no particular reason, other than because they were veterans who served in Northern Ireland, now say, “Oh, that’s okay; it’d be a good idea to see what comes next time around, because they were so honest this time around.”? The Government have failed to be honest about this from start to finish. The Armed Forces Minister is not here for a reason—because he knows very well that he does not want to be sitting on the Front Bench when the Bill gets voted through to the future. [Interruption.] I say to all colleagues, it is time to call time on this piece of bad legislation and kick it into the gutter.

    Hansard source
26. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

    A referral to the Privileges Committee has always been considered a House matter—a matter for the individual judgment of Members of Parliament. It would be an abomination if it were to be whipped by either side, wouldn’t it?

    Hansard source
27. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    On the question of the failure of the Government of the Republic, the reality is that they have an outstanding interstate case against us.

    Hansard source
28. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

    The truth of the matter is when the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister says that process was followed to appoint a diplomat, a professional diplomat would not have been appointed if they had taken dodgy loans, tried to flog passports and leaked to the Chinese and the Russians, so that was not the case. The motion on the Humble Address got through this House because it said that all documents would be handed to the ISC, because that is the most secure place for them to go. It is not in the gift of the Government not to hand this over—that was the view of the House. This is not being done in good faith. When will all these documents be given to the ISC, which was exactly what this House said should be done?

    Hansard source
29. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

    May I, through the right hon. Gentleman, thank the officials in the Cabinet Office who have assisted me in the work that I have been doing in this area as Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee? He will know that not all Government communications are carried on Government devices. Will he, for the benefit of the House, explain what is being done and what can be done to secure and get into the right domain correspondence between the principal players who have used their personal devices, rather than their Government devices? Will he also assure the House that when he and his colleagues do the sift as to who sees what and when, parliamentary privilege and all that that means is still absolutely at the heart of the decisions that he and his officials take?

    Hansard source
30. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    For several months now, including when the Secretary of State has appeared before the Select Committee, he has in all good faith promised these amendments. Does he understand that his case this evening would be assisted if the House were to see those amendments? The motion effectively asks us to sign a blank cheque on a promissory note when we have no idea what it might contain.

    Hansard source
31. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. We on this side of the House recognise the challenging situation that offshore wind developers face and the need to simplify the process to make schemes deliverable. Equally, we recognise the environmental issues. As we have heard, the regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of developments is determined and delivered. Let me be clear: it is right that the Government prioritise energy security in cost-effective ways in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while also being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. However, I do have several concerns with the SI, which I hope the Minister can address. First, the SI leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. While I can see that the Government are attempting to adopt a new approach, that is no justification for asking for approval before the full details have become apparent, such as how the new compensation scheme would work in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of the reforms, so I am unclear as to why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with the legislative process, as opposed to being published on 21 May, once the SI has come into force, as the Minister has indicated. I am keen to understand from her why the decision was made not to publish the guidance before we legislated on the reforms. I know that their lordships also made their concerns known on that point. How can we be reassured that the guidance will be of the highest quality, as the Minister has outlined, when it is published? My second concern relates to the compensation hierarchy. The regulations mandate the publication and use of a compensation hierarchy, which sets out categories of compensation measured on the basis of how the measures would benefit the UK marine protected area network. The secondary legislation states that tier 3 will cover compensation measures that provide ecological benefits to the UK marine protected area network more widely. My concern, however, is that that could allow for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. That concern is shared by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which believes that the tier 3 approach will not deliver ecologically effective compensation for environmental impacts from offshore wind and would not maintain current levels of environmental protection.

    Hansard source
32. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. We would absolutely expect the Government not only to open those oil fields, but to make sure that they apply exactly the same criteria when any energy project gets the go-ahead, and it feels that a one-size-fits-all approach is not being adopted in this case. I want to expand on my concerns about the compensation hierarchy. It seems that the environmental protections are already not adequate to deliver favourable conditions for most sites or network coherence, so my second point to the Minister is to ask for reassurance that tier 3 will not become the norm or a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy. What level of assessment has been given to that issue, and will she explain why no further detail has been published to date on the tier 3 compensation hierarchy? That concern has also been raised by their lordships in the other place. My third concern, which has not yet been touched on, relates to fisheries and the impact of offshore wind on our fishing communities. The shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently visited Peterhead fish market to discuss the issues facing fishermen in Scotland, which include a lack of workers and fuel costs. The Scottish Government plan to install up to 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, a target that it has been warned is “far too high” and would cause irreversible damage to our marine environment while displacing the fishing fleet from grounds it has worked for generations. A report carried out for the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has shown that the surge in offshore wind farm developments will exclude the trawling fleet from approximately 50% of fishing grounds by 2050. I am sure the Minister will agree that the plans put forward by the Scottish Government show complete disregard for Scottish fishermen.

    Hansard source
33. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It appears that the Scottish Government are not only ignoring the challenges associated with spatial squeeze—

    Hansard source
34. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

    I will absolutely listen to your comments, Mrs Harris. I merely wish to make the point that spatial squeeze is an issue, whether it be north of the border in Scottish waters or south of the border in English waters, where there is a similar challenge to do with offshore wind farm development. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish Government addressing the issue, I would like to understand from the Minister what they are doing to address the concerns about spatial squeeze that our fishermen have raised, and how they will address their concerns in the future. Briefly, I would like to make a point about the establishment of marine recovery funds. I know it is hoped that marine recovery funds will enable developers to compensate for environmental impacts for multiple projects, yet they are not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. It is also important to note that marine recovery funds are voluntary schemes. Can the Minister explain what the Government anticipate the take-up of marine recovery schemes to be, and how significant a role they will play in environmental compensation? To conclude, the central concerns that I present on behalf of the Opposition about the statutory instrument are focused on how the changes will operate in practice. The devil is always in the detail. To be clear, the Opposition support the development of affordable home-grown energy sources, which is why we are fighting so hard to oppose the Government’s ongoing ban on new oil and gas licences in the North sea. With all subsidies, environmental schemes and regulations such as these, it is crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture. We need to prioritise our energy security in cost-effective ways to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer while being responsible and honest caretakers of our ecosystems. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various concerns I have laid out.

    Hansard source
35. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

    Can the Minister expand on whether fishermen were included as one of the key stakeholder organisations as part of the guidance.

    Hansard source
36. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

    The Minister is being incredibly kind in giving way, but to push her on that point: has the guidance been stress-tested on the fishermen to date? The Minister said she will work with them. Have the fishermen been involved yet?

    Hansard source
37. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Child Maintenance Service

    The Child Maintenance Service is not working for parents and it is not working for children. My own casework shows that the majority of those getting in touch about the CMS believe it to be ineffective, with systemic issues in communication, timeliness and case handling. My constituents are not alone. The independent case examiner received 1,827 complaints about the CMS in 2024-25, up from 1,519 in 2023-24. In November 2024, the charity Gingerbread published a report, “Fix the CMS”. In October 2025, a House of Lords Public Services Committee report recommended a range of changes to do the same. The Government have responded to both, but when will the Government enact the changes to bring forward the recommended and acknowledged improvements to the service?

    Hansard source
38. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Animal Testing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition. This is my first time responding to a petition debate and I am happy to do so under your chairmanship, Sir. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on most ably leading the debate, and I thank the more than 100,000 people who have taken the time to sign the petition. The previous Conservative Government had a strong record on improving animal welfare standards across the board with measures such as the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export from Great Britain of live animals, including cattle, sheep and pigs, for slaughter and fattening; the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognised vertebrate animals as sentient beings for the first time; the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022, which created new financial penalties for those who commit offences across animal health and welfare against farm animals, zoo animals and pets; and the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022, which banned the use of glue traps in England in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The testing of products and medicines on animals has always been an emotive topic, and one on which many people hold extremely strong views, so it is absolutely right that animal testing is heavily regulated. It is clear that there is a national consensus that animals ought to be treated with dignity and respect, and I am pleased that the Government have continued to take the welfare of animals as seriously as the previous Government did. The use of protected animals for any experimental or other scientific procedure that causes “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm” to the animal is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Scientific procedures covered by the Act are controlled using a triple licensing system enforced by the Home Office. That requires a personal licence for the scientific investigator, a licence for the establishment where the procedure is to take place, and a project licence, which contains details of the animals to be used and the procedures to be performed. The Act requires a cost-benefit analysis to be performed, weighing the likely adverse effects on the animals against the scientific learning arising from the procedure. The UK has a policy to limit the number of animals used in science through replacement, reduction and refinement of research design—the three Rs. That requires licence applicants to demonstrate that they have considered using non-animal alternatives as far as possible. Moreover, under existing legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Put simply, animals can be used in research only when no alternative methods are available. In 2024, 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in Great Britain. Of the animals used in those procedures, 73% were mice. That figure seems huge, but it must be recognised that it is 37% lower than the recent peak of 4.1 million in 2015. That is a welcome development, but more work definitely needs to be done. It has been hugely valuable to hear the range of views of those who have taken part in this very constructive debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. There were lots of passionate interventions —in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) gave us particular food for thought on the testing of botox—but let me focus on the substantive contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) did his job as a local MP and visited a lab to give us an understanding of the scenario. It is difficult for us to think about what goes on in there, and we thank him for setting that out for us. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about the pragmatic approach to testing, but also about an aggressive and urgent push to move to alternative processes as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) stressed that, especially in an area as important as this one, ambition is not enough, and that a strategy needs to be implemented urgently. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) spoke about the ethics involved and showed that, while animals may not have a voice, hon. Members can provide one for them—and she did so extraordinarily well. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) talked about the possibility of using AI to replace experimentation, and about not being anti-science, but using better science. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) reminded us of the deep relationships that we can have with animals. I do hope that his slippers are returned very soon. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) developed the theme of our relationship with animals and told us of his conversations with cats. Nobody has ever won a debate with a cat, and we could use some of that feline tenacity in pushing this issue through. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) again stressed the need to move to modern alternatives, and that was also highlighted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance). The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) raised important questions about licensing and enforcement, and the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) raised important questions about morality. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about how the mark of a civilised society is treating animals well—I concur. Let me stress that the Conservatives are keen to support any work that aims to accelerate the point at which animal research and testing is no longer necessary, having been fully replaced by effective alternatives whenever possible. I welcome that the Government have published a road map for phasing out animal testing. While we support its broad aims, there are concerns, such as that life sciences’ research and investment could move overseas to countries that test on animals to far lower standards. At this point, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Concern arises because regulators have set out that certain products still require animal testing. Medicines, drugs and vaccines are manufactured for sale around the world, and companies can move their operations to places where the ethical and clinical regulations around animal testing are much laxer. I ask the Minister to address that point. On the timeline for the Government’s road map, will the Minister set out how the 2030 target for a 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates is backed up by alternative methods? Is that actually achievable? How do the Government plan to report to the House on whether the milestones are being met, and what happens if alternative methods are not validated in time? The goal of seeing no animal suffer needlessly in a laboratory is one that we all share, but that vision is not enough on its own. If we move too slowly, we betray the millions of people who rightly find the continued use of animals in laboratories morally unacceptable, but moving too fast, without validated alternatives, risks both patient safety and the very sector that funds the research on which we all depend. We will continue to ask those questions of the Government and hold them accountable for their actions.

    Hansard source
39. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

    Last week, I asked the Prime Minister if he would publish his decision note on the box note given to him on 11 November from Simon Case. The Prime Minister said he could not remember the answer in that box note, and in the debate last week, the Minister himself said that redactions are only in black. The decision response on the box note has been left blank. Was there a decision, why has it not been published and will the Minister now undertake to publish the decision on that request from Simon Case, because this House and I believe that it will be fundamental to see whether the Prime Minister is actually telling the truth?

    Hansard source
40. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to admit that I am confused, which is not unusual. I seek your guidance. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said that documents have been published in the first tranche relating to the box note issued to the Prime Minister on 11 November by Simon Case. I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister whether that had been redacted, and he said to me that redactions are in black. The Prime Minister’s decision box is blank. I have asked three times now; why is there no response, and why has that not been published? No Minister has answered that for me. My question to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is: where can I go to get an answer?

    Hansard source