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

1. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Defence

   I draw my hon. Friend’s attention and the attention of the House to the other fundamental structural flaw in the method the Government have adopted for planning defence: the aspiration after 2029 is only an aspiration. The Treasury has agreed to no spending line in its own forecasts and figures beyond 2029, and yet the defence investment plan is a 10-year plan. How can the Treasury agree to a 10-year plan when it has not agreed to any funding for defence after 2029? It is just an aspiration.

   Hansard source
2. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Defence

   I share the respect of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for the Minister and his experience, but the two statements from the Leader of the Opposition that he read out are not incompatible. The fact is that we would not have joined in the military action that the Americans and the Israelis initiated, but it is undeniable that the war has now come to us. What does he think is happening in London? Did he not hear the deputy chief of the Metropolitan police on the radio this morning talking about the rising Iranian threat that is now domestic in our own capital? This war has come to us. As Leon Trotsky said, Madam Deputy Speaker, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

   Hansard source
3. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Defence

   I listened to the Minister’s remarks with great care. Many of the things that he says, he says with great sincerity, but some of the things he says, I do not believe that he quite so fervently believes. I ask him, being the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is, to consider whether criticising those who criticise Government policy on the basis of the question “How dare you criticise the Government at such a serious time?” reflects the same kind of attack made by supporters of Neville Chamberlain against Winston Churchill and his supporters even as late as 1940. As they went through the Division Lobbies in May that year, they taunted those coming through voting against the Adjournment of the House: “Quislings”, they said. To implicitly brand my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as some kind of warmonger who is out of control—that is what the Government are basically saying—reflects exactly the gibe thrown at Winston Churchill: that he loved war so much, he was not objective. Yet he was the one who appreciated the dire emergency of the situation being faced, even as the British Expeditionary Force was losing in France and the Norway campaign was proving such a disaster. I appreciate that it is perhaps obligatory for the Minister to say these things about the two-child benefit cap for the satisfaction of many of his Back Benchers, but we are now spending so much on welfare and so little on defence. Maybe the two problems have something to do with each other. If we could just spend the same on in-work or out-of-work benefits for people of working age as we were spending before covid, we could save £50 billion a year, but that does not seem to matter to the Government at all. The Minister talked, I am sure with great sincerity, about how important it is to have a system that works “for them”—I think I am quoting his very words; he said that we need a social system in this country that works for the poorest people in our society. Well, the system over which the Government are presiding is failing. We now have a rising and terrifying number of young people who are not in education, employment, or training—the so-called NEETs. Even those operating on the frontline of food banks—I visited a food bank recently—understand that if we keep indexing benefits with inflation, but do not index tax allowances, that means that people pay more tax at lower rates of pay, and if we increase benefits, such as by removing the two-child benefit cap, and do not uprate the tapers to protect the better-off who are receiving universal credit, we create a disincentive to work. When I first visited food banks, which I think was under Tony Blair’s Government—they were not originated under the Conservatives—there used to be a tiny number of people who were permanent beneficiaries of food banks; the vast majority were in a state of transition, and that persisted until quite recently. At the food bank I visited at the weekend, 80% of beneficiaries are now permanent clients, because they say there is no point in them trying to take work, as it does not pay. The system is not working for them, because we are spending too much on welfare and we have not cut taxes enough. The next question is: are we at peace or at war? Much of the discussion in the Liaison Committee was about that. I cannot find a Minister who denies that we are at war, and I am afraid that makes the question of whether we choose to get involved rather redundant. We are involved, and we cannot help being involved. Our sovereign territory is involved, because it is being attacked. Indeed, we have been involved in a war in defence of the west, NATO and Ukraine probably since as far back as the original invasion of Georgia and Abkhazia, because the nature of Putin’s regime had become apparent by then. They are quite explicit: Lavrov has said that Russia is at war with NATO, so that war is already here. What kind of war is it? Well, it reflects all kinds of conflicts, including hybrid conflict, which has often been discussed and is of such a varied nature, and what one might call cognitive conflict, which is the capacity and determination of Russia and China, and probably Iran, not just to interfere in our democratic processes, but to corrupt the truth. This is aimed at reshaping the societal, economic and informational environment, at undermining people’s faith in democracy and democratic values, and at destroying the faith of our voters in our democratic system. The question now is: what are we doing to fight back? Well, what are we doing? I know that in bits of Government, many small parts of the Government are at war. There are some wonderful people in the Ministry of Defence who are sweating the night hours to do things that are of crucial importance.

   Hansard source
4. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Defence

   The fact is that the whole of the deterrent stance of all the NATO nations is very substantially—I will not say hopelessly—dependent on the good will that the United States shows towards us. That was the basis on which the SDR was written. George Robertson—the noble Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—has said in public that one of the constraints of writing the defence review was to assume that the United States was our closest ally and could be relied upon. Whether that will be true in the future, we do not know. Some things that have happened have very much shaken our faith in that, but the idea that the Government should choose this moment—this very moment, when we are begging for American support in Ukraine to hold back the tide of possible Russian aggression across the whole European front—to further alienate President Trump from NATO seems to me like a bit of a tactical error. Going back to the second world war, when Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, complained to Winston Churchill that the United Kingdom did not seem to have an independent foreign policy, Churchill said, “No, we don’t. We’ve got to do what the Americans want us to do in order to get them to come into the war.” I am afraid that we are not in a great position of strength to dictate to the Americans, and pontificating about their moral judgments or their interpretation of international law seems to me totally counterproductive for the security of the United Kingdom and our European allies. To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, we need a deterrent stance. But what is the Government’s response? Well, we are waiting for a plan, but that plan is a long time coming. Drones have transformed the last few months, but the Government have not kept up with the change. We are still waiting for a plan, and it is not enough.

   Hansard source
5. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Defence

   I do not think many people in the House fully appreciate how utterly profound the drone revolution is. It means that in Ukraine, they do not have to mass troops to defend in the way they once did; they can mass drones. If we want to defend NATO, if we want to defend London and Akrotiri, we need to be able to mass very cheap drones in order to get that protection and deterrent capability, so that the option of pushing large numbers of troops over a NATO frontier at some stage is not available to Russia.

   Hansard source
6. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Defence

   Governments of all colours reduced defence spending after the cold war to spend more on health, education and welfare, but the world of today is not the world of 1991. This Government must deal with President Putin rather than President Yeltsin. Since Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, it has become increasingly clear that we need to spend more on our armed forces. The Government have admitted as much. Last year, they said they would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a good start, albeit not enough—but thus far they have failed to set out a programme for how that money will be spent. Where is the defence investment plan? Twelve months have passed and no extra money has gone into advancing our military capabilities. Meanwhile, the Government have found billions of pounds to spend on welfare so as to placate their Back Benchers, to try to save the Prime Minister’s skin. It is a pity that the Prime Minister does not regard defending our country as important as defending his own job. Three weeks ago, the Government finally announced a £1 billion contract for the new medium helicopter. That contract will keep Leonardo operational in Yeovil. That is vital for Somerset’s economy as well as for the UK’s defence infrastructure, and I welcome that announcement, but the deal was announced at the last minute only to stop the factory closing. That demonstrates how unserious the Government are about setting their plans for defence. If they were serious, they would have published their defence investment plan as promised in the autumn; instead, we have had delay and excuses ever since. The Government are happy to set out their plans for welfare spending years ahead, but they cannot tell us their plans for defending the country. An additional problem is that the Government are run by human rights lawyers. They see all matters on the global stage through the prism of international law rather than what is in Britain’s national interest. I imagine that Lord Hermann lives in the hope that Russia and China will one day adopt such an approach, but I fear that he will be disappointed. The Government apply that myopic approach to how they treat our military personnel and our veterans as well. There are about 4,400 veterans living in my constituency—I have met many of them at the Bridgwater and Burnham-on-Sea branches of the Royal British Legion—and I pay tribute to every one of them for their service and the sacrifices they have made for our country. They have told me how worried they are by the legal persecution of veterans who served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner. Those men faced down terrorists who threatened our country. Now, decades later, they are not being honoured for their service; rather, this Government treat them as suspects. Terrorists who murdered British soldiers have effectively been granted an amnesty—we know that no future action will be taken against them—but veterans who served the British state are to be hounded like criminals for doing what they were ordered to do.

   Hansard source
7. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Defence

   I do agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the additional time. The legacy legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government intended to halt that injustice is now being repealed by Labour. That is disgraceful. Not only is Labour’s campaign against our veterans deeply unfair; it endangers us in future conflicts. In a more dangerous world, with a looming threat of conflict, we need to increase the size of our armed forces. What signal are the Government sending to young recruits by prosecuting our veterans and showing that serving their country may lead to decades of lawfare, with the full support of the Prime Minister and his Attorney General? The Minister knows that republicans in Northern Ireland will exploit Labour’s naiveté to undermine the morale of our armed forces. The time has come to stop relitigating these events. I call on the Government to stop this disgraceful prosecution of our veterans.

   Hansard source
8. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

   Oil and Gas

   On that point about security and growing energy at home, I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my concern that in the push for renewables, we are entirely reliant on the processing being done in China on the other side of the world. The Government talk about not being reliant on petrochemical dictators, but they seem perfectly happy to be reliant on renewable dictators.

   Hansard source
9. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

   Oil and Gas

   On the subject of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), it was a shame that she did not take my intervention, because she may have been able to answer this question. She was very keen to talk about what happened under the Conservative Government and how we need to have renewables, but does my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) find it incredulous that at no moment did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mention that it was Nick Clegg who cancelled all the nuclear power stations? He said that he was not going to invest in something that would not come along until 2022.

   Hansard source
10. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Defence

    Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is any military threat to this country from abroad?

    Hansard source
11. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Defence

    It is a bit of a pity, is it not, that we seem not to recognise what is going on today? It would probably help to recognise that defence spending was cut from the end of the cold war to 2022, when the whole NATO alliance suddenly woke up to what the threat had become. One of the best speeches I have heard today—I am sorry to some of my colleagues—was from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), because he had the honesty to stand up and point out what the choices are. I disagree with him, but he made an honest speech in that if there has to be an increase in defence spending, it has to be funded. I believe that if we want peace, we have to be ready for war. I am afraid that we are now in war, and things have to change. I was in the United States last week in my role at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. There are several concerns to bring back from that, not least that the American commitment to NATO is always predicated on saying to other members, “That is why we need you to spend 5%.” That gives it that little bit of wiggle room to say, “Well, if you’re not going to spend that, we can’t defend you any more.” Perhaps even more worryingly—this is where some of the dots need to be connected—one of the think-tanks that we were at made it clear that the Democrats, who will probably take the House in the mid-term elections, will use their leverage to control the amount of money that can go to the White House and the commander-in-chief. He can direct troops, but Congress has to fund that and it will say no. As a consequence, the President will say, “Well, I’ve already got assets and I’ve already got money, so I will use those,” which is to say in Europe. That should bring into sharp focus the threat that the defence of Europe faces. What we are picking up in many of these debates, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) said, is talk about article 3. A lot of people overlooked article 3 for a very long time. Article 5 was never about the United States guaranteeing European security; it was about ensuring that we all acted as one. Article 3, which obviously comes before article 5, says, “You must be able to defend your borders for three weeks.” There are very few European nations that can do that. I will touch on Security Action for Europe, which I am afraid to say is becoming a single market issue. It is becoming about protecting the borders of the single market, rather than the borders of Europe. We really do have to stand back and say, “Do we think the single market would exist if the borders of Europe did not exist?” We need to wake up and realise what is going on. In the Czech Republic, we were given the example of a company that makes drones. Some 25% of the materials used to build those drones came from Canada. The AI to run them made up 20% of the spend and came from the USA. Under SAFE, both would be shut out, because those countries are not willing to pay into the budget just to have access, and that will set us back. We should be more concerned about the fact that the NATO industrial base does not have the ability to deliver on what it needs. The Americans themselves had $135 billion of exported arms last year and $160 billion of domestic arms manufacturing last year, and that did not even scratch the surface. What the Americans are good at, which we have frankly never been able to deliver in this country, is the diversification into small and medium-sized enterprises. It was recognised that the big companies do not have the flexibility to develop at the speed that is needed in a rapidly changing world. We visited a company in Nevada that is making energy-focused weapons—or lasers, as we might call them—that are used to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the sky. I have very little time, and I could expand on so many more areas, but I make the point that we cannot fight the last war. We have pretty much used up all our munitions and weaponry in Ukraine, and the Russians know exactly how those weaponry and munitions work and how to defeat them. We cannot just restock what we have used before; we have to be able to develop, and that means that we need to be light on our feet. To be fair, in Bavaria in Germany there are drone factories that not only produce drones, but react quickly to the changes in drone technology. To be fair to the Minister, he outlined some of the things that need to be developed in the Royal Navy—a service that is close to my heart. There is no doubt that this is about decisions that have been made over a very long period of time. I will gently prod the Minister and say that when we are talking about Royal Navy procurement, I think of the story of the aircraft carriers, which was probably not the greatest moment of the Labour Government—they spent tens of billions extra by changing their mind. We have to be able to adapt quickly. There is plenty more that I could say, but the war exists today. Talking about what has happened ever since the end of the cold war and trying to place the blame on the last 14 years, on the last 10 years or on what has happened from 1997 onwards is irrelevant; we are at war, and we have to be able to develop. I am afraid that in the current political climate, Europe will have to look after itself.

    Hansard source
12. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Defence

    The hon. Gentleman is quoting some figures. Does he have the figures for the percentage of GDP spent on defence in 1991 compared with what it was in 2010, and how many troops there were in 1991 compared with how many there were in 2010?

    Hansard source
13. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Middle East: Economic Update

    The £474,000 awarded to Dorset council last week as part of the Chancellor’s announcement is welcome, but I must tell her that it really will not touch the sides; more will need to be done to support rural communities. Unwillingly and unwittingly, the Government will be profiteering through a massive hike in VAT and duty take. May I urge the Chancellor to ringfence, either in whole or in great part, the excess receipts that she will be receiving—this would not add to Government borrowing—to support rural communities across the country as they face this cost of living crisis?

    Hansard source
14. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to add further weight to the points that colleagues have already made. Service personnel themselves have said that the armed forces covenant, while incredibly well meaning, needs to be enacted and enforced properly. It also needs to be explained to the forces themselves what it means and what is on offer to them. With the duty’s extension going as far as it does, we must be absolutely clear what it means in practice, in order to ensure its enforcement. I speak as a lawyer, too, and the enforcement issue is always the biggest problem with any legislation that comes out of this place. From the evidence sessions we know that the statutory guidance will be doing a lot of the heavy lifting, but we do not know what it will look like or what form it will take—that is not in front of us—so it is important that we discuss and consider the definition of due regard. Including a definition would bring more clarity to the Bill, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said. During the evidence sessions, many Members questioned what due regard means, so it is really important that we ensure that our local bodies know, via a definition on the face of the Bill, what we are hoping and aiming for them to achieve.

    Hansard source
15. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    The Minister talks about the definition being narrow, but it would actually be quite broad. The amendment says that “‘due regard’ means that specified bodies should think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the key factors”. That definition sets out a framework, but it is not so narrow and specified as to be problematic. On the Minister’s point, we already have problems enforcing the covenant across three areas; now we are going to 12. Even the armed forces personnel I have been speaking to have said that they have severe concerns about that. Local councils also raised that issue in the evidence sessions. While the Bill is very well intentioned, I worry that we are setting up councils to struggle, and that the postcode lottery will get even worse.

    Hansard source
16. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. New clause 6 would introduce a veterans commissioner for England. We have three excellent veterans commissioners —the commissioners for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales—but they represent just 15% of veterans living in the UK. Some 85% of veterans live in England, yet there is no equivalent dedicated commissioner. As Members will recall, when the Minister asked at our evidence session on 25 February whether there should be a veterans commissioner for England, the three commissioners all expressed their support for such an appointment. This is not a new campaign or issue. On 1 May 2024, after a campaign by the Royal British Legion, which included a petition that received 1,400 signatures, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs under the last Conservative Government said that it would appoint a national veterans commissioner. It started recruiting for the role, and the job advert stated: “This role will cover England and any veterans matters which are reserved to the UK Government and are not in the remit of the Devolved Administrations.” At the time, the RBL was delighted that England would have the same key public role of an independent advocate and voice for the armed forces community as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, which have had veterans commissioners since 2014, 2020 and 2022 respectively. The national veterans commissioner was intended to replace the Government’s independent veterans adviser. The IVA was a UK-wide advisory role with informal influence; the national veterans commissioner, by contrast, was to be a public commissioner with formal oversight and scrutiny, looking at England and UK-wide reserved matters to improve veteran support and accountability. However, the post has never been filled. Following the general election in July 2024, the new Labour Government moved the Office for Veterans’ Affairs from the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Defence. The Prime Minister explained in a written statement that the change would “enable the Minister for Veterans and People to have complete oversight for the entirety of service life; from training to veterans working with all government departments to deliver for our service personnel.” In February 2025, at Defence questions, I asked the then Minister for Veterans and People whether he planned to appoint a veterans commissioner for England. His response was: “I reassure the hon. Member that I work closely with my Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish commissioners. We are currently looking at the structures by which we support veterans across the whole tapestry of the United Kingdom, and we really want to put in place an institutional resilience system that gives the best care at the right time and in the right place to the right people. That primarily involves working with thousands of charities collaboratively and coherently to ensure that we can get the best bang for our buck from all the amazing volunteers and charitable services out there. A bigger review is going on. It is on hold at the moment, and we will let the House know more in due course.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 16.] However, the new veterans strategy published in November 2025 made no reference or commitment to the creation of such a role. I appreciate that Op Valour is ongoing. It was announced last year and was described as the first ever UK-wide, Government-led approach to veterans support. It is said that the programme, backed by £50 million of funding, will deliver easier access to care and support for our veterans, connecting housing, employment and health services across the UK. It has three parts: Valour-recognised support centres, Valour field officers and the Valour HQ. However, it does not provide the single point of overarching advocacy that a commissioner would provide. Neither would the Armed Forces Commissioner, which was established in legislation in 2025. I note that there has still not been an official announcement, nearly a year after the application deadline closed, of who that will be, but perhaps the Minister can provide an update. The role of the Armed Forces Commissioner is to investigate general welfare matters in the armed forces. The office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman would be abolished, with its functions and responsibilities transferred to the newly established commissioner. A veteran would fall under the commissioner’s remit only where their complaint relates to their time in service when they were subject to civil law. There are time limits for submitting a complaint; only those veterans who recently left the armed forces will generally fall within the provision. New clause 6 proposes that a veterans commissioner for England be appointed within 12 months of the passing of the Act. We have used the word “appoint”, because this is not a statutory role but a public appointment. That would mirror the position for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which all have non-statutory commissioners. I note that the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, while technically non-statutory, operates much closer to the statutory model than those in Wales or Northern Ireland. It is treated like an arm’s length public body, with a defined budget, a permanent staff, a published governance framework and annual reporting requirements. Although that is not the exact model proposed here, perhaps it is one that the Minister might consider. Proposed new section 366A(3) sets out the commissioner’s core functions, which are to “promote the interests of veterans in England…monitor the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England…review the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families…identify barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services…make recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.” In doing so, the commissioner may “carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans …consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations…publish reports and recommendations.” Given the proposed extension of the armed forces covenant, and the issues and concerns that many people have, the oversight role of a commissioner is vital. To date, as the local government representatives indicated to us, the covenant has been delivered through enthusiasm, but we now need robust implementation. Any report prepared by the veterans commissioner would be laid before Parliament. The role would operate for three years at a time, with a further chance to be reappointed. I believe that all members of the Committee understand the value of a veterans commissioner for England. As the existing commissioners are calling for it, I implore everyone to consider carefully how vital it will be.

    Hansard source
17. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this really important debate. There are a few meetings that Members of Parliament never forget. Over three years ago, in January 2023, I met my constituents Cheryl and Darren Midgley for the first time. On Christmas day 2022, Cheryl and Darren put their loving, happy and healthy 16-month-old son Jack to bed. The family had enjoyed the best Christmas, but when Darren, the father, went into Jack’s room the following morning, he quickly realised he had gone. He said that, that day, their “world fell apart”. Christmas in the Midgley household is never just a day. Jack, with his brother Louis, saw Santa four times. They had had the best Christmas. On Boxing day, when Darren cracked open Jack’s door and went into the room, he said there was perfect silence. He walked over to his son’s cot, but as soon as Darren put his hand on his back, it was cool. From what Darren saw at that point, he knew that his baby son Jack had gone. Jack was taken to Martin House children’s hospice in Wetherby, where he was cared for in one of its special cooled bedrooms. Darren described the hospice’s services as an anchor for the family. The fact that Jack could stay in one of the cooled bedrooms meant the world. Darren said: “It was a huge comfort to us to know Jack was being looked after in a bedroom, in his Christmas pyjamas, and the staff would be there to talk to him and put his night light on.” The family spent five days at Martin House until the post-mortem could take place, but the results were inconclusive. Since meeting Cheryl and Darren three years ago, I have kept in touch with them, and I have been truly blown away by their resilience and mental fortitude, as well as that of their eldest son Louis. They have worked tirelessly to raise awareness to help others, despite their own grief, including by completing a 127-mile bike ride along the Leeds to Liverpool canal path, raising over £6,000 for the Airedale Hospital & Community Charity, where Cheryl works as a nurse. I went to see them just this last weekend to catch up with them and check in, and I reiterated to them that I will continue, as their Member of Parliament, to do all I can to raise this issue on their behalf. I was glad to see that they are working united as a family to keep this issue going. Over the last three years, they have worked together to raise over £220,000 in total for local good causes. Sudden unexplained death in childhood is the fourth leading category of death in children aged one to four in England and Wales. Approximately 40 children are affected by SUDC in the UK each year: one to two seemingly healthy children pass away every fortnight, often going to sleep and never waking up again. As seen in cases such as Jack’s, SUDC does not just affect young children under one year old; more one to nine-year-olds die of sudden unexplained death than as a result of road traffic accidents, drowning or fires. Published epidemiology data suggests a common profile for children affected by SUDC. Most commonly, they are one to two years old and male. Most worryingly, they die unwitnessed and alone as they sleep. The children’s development is often normal, and their vaccinations are normally up to date. The death of a child is always a tragedy. Sudden unexplained death in childhood is one of the most under-recognised medical tragedies, and simply not enough support is provided for many of the affected families. Cheryl and Darren received a year of support from the NHS following Jack’s death. They have both sought counselling, and the trauma still lives with them today. I commend the work done by charities such as SUDC UK and Martin House children’s hospice in providing support for those impacted by sudden unexplained death in childhood. However, we cannot just rely on the good work of charities and volunteers. Despite their efforts, the delays in small charity-funded research into preventing these deaths remains completely unacceptable. One hundred and twenty seemingly healthy children have died without explanation since the last SUDC debate three years ago, which I took part in. Although we are a long way from prevention, it is vital to develop a well-defined and co-ordinated national plan to gain better insight into the causes of SUDC and to raise awareness. There have been 13,000 publications on SIDS—unexplained deaths under 12 months—versus 100 publications on SUDC. There needs to be a co-ordinated and planned movement because, as I am sure the Minister is aware, a small amount of research will not move the dial. There also needs to be better and longer-term support, available free of charge, for families such as Cheryl, Darren and Louis, to help them to come to terms with the deep sense of loss, anguish and grief that comes with the death of a child.

    Hansard source
18. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Oil and Gas

    Time and again, we hear this Labour Government’s rhetoric about being pro-growth, pro-jobs and pro-economy. Despite these claims, they have continued to do the very opposite, as has been reiterated by Conservative Members. That is why I absolutely support the motion before us, in the name of the official Opposition. It would be remiss of me to come to this debate on oil and gas and not speak about the impact that the war in the middle east is having on our business community, our manufacturers and our engineers. They are all experiencing a rise in energy costs, which are soaring, including our farmers and those in our rural communities. The price of red diesel is going up exponentially, and there is a huge amount of nervousness about supply and further increases in costs. To put this in context, the cost of red diesel was 67p a litre in February but has risen to about 135p a litre this month, impacting many in our farming community. I spoke to many of those farmers yesterday, and they made the point that we simply cannot talk about food security without talking about energy security. The two rely on each other and go hand in hand, and they need to be treated together, not as separate entities.

    Hansard source
19. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Oil and Gas

    That is absolutely right, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is an additional cash-flow pressure on many food producers, which is why it is absolutely crucial that we have an energy strategy, alongside a food security strategy, under this Government. I will pick up on the point about the green transition that has been made by Labour Members, and refer specifically to a live example that is happening in my constituency: the Calderdale wind farm, which is going to be the largest wind farm development in England. It was initially proposed that 65 wind turbines would be built on Walshaw Moor, which neighbours my constituency.

    Hansard source
20. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Oil and Gas

    Well, it has not been built yet. The proposal will come before the Energy Secretary, because he removed the onshore wind farm moratorium that the Conservative Government put in place. This is a development that I am staunchly opposed to. Why? It is because it is due to be built on precious peatland, which in a good year has a millimetre of growth. Despite that, the application coming before us is for a wind farm development, with deep foundations, on protected peatland. Road infrastructure is going to be built, wiring infrastructure is going to be built, and there will be consequences for flooding in neighbouring constituencies. I am staunchly against the project, which is why I cannot for the life of me understand why this Labour Government, alongside the Green party, are determined to roll out renewable energy schemes that have a hugely detrimental impact on our environment. The Calderdale wind farm will have a hugely negative impact not only on our environment, our biodiversity and our precious peatland, but on the historic landscape in which it will be built. I do not know whether you have watched “Wuthering Heights” yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the proposed wind farm will be built on Brontë country. The Labour Government churn out this narrative of the green transition, but communities and environments such as those neighbouring my constituency are going to be negatively impacted.

    Hansard source
21. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Oil and Gas

    The narrative that continues to come from those on the Government Benches is that we must have a roll-out of more renewable energy, without necessarily looking at the negative consequences on the environment. A development of the size that is being proposed on the outskirts of my constituency will not be carbon neutral, given the amount of energy that is needed to build the wind turbines and the negative impact on the carbon sequestration of the peatland. That is why I am firmly opposed to the Calderdale wind farm, and I 100% back the motion before this House.

    Hansard source
22. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Defence

    South West Devon is home not only to 42 Commando Royal Marines, but to Plymouth and South Devon freeport, with Langage and Sherford offering significant development opportunities, thanks to the previous Conservative Government, and plenty of space for defence. We have Turnchapel Wharf, home of the Plymouth National Centre for Marine Autonomy. Devonport naval base is in the neighbouring constituency, which is involved in the upgrading of our nuclear deterrent. GMD Eurotool, Bluestone Technology and DTM Global Procurement, which I am visiting after Easter, are just some of the many SMEs that rely on defence. Members can therefore imagine the anticipation in my constituency for the strategic defence review. Indeed, at the Oceanology International event, it was clear that there are businesses queuing up to come to South West Devon. The strategic defence review brought forward welcome promises: regional clusters in areas like Plymouth; the hybrid Navy, with the introduction of new autonomous systems; a boost for UK export potential; and the use of uncrewed vessels and autonomous systems in our own military, with improved regulations to enable the autonomous experimentation required. Indeed, recommendation 39 says: “More flexible regulation is needed to enable experimentation in areas such as autonomy. By April 2026, Defence should establish options to enhance the mandate of the Defence Maritime Regulator to allow the Royal Navy and industry to use a dedicated regulatory ‘sandbox’ to test and deploy new technologies.” We are a couple of weeks away; I wonder where that is.

    Hansard source
23. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Defence

    My hon. Friend makes a really good point. That is exactly what I am beginning to hear in my constituency. I referred earlier to a queue of companies wanting to come to South West Devon. My concern is that the queue is going to get shorter if the investment under the DIP does not come forward. Following the strategic defence review came the defence industrial strategy. Again, it was another lauded document, with further references to industrial clusters, which it called “critical for the competitiveness of the IS-8 and national economic resilience”, including to “maritime autonomy in Plymouth” and so on; it kept promising. There was a fantastic paragraph in the strategy about the existing ecosystem in Plymouth, to which I have already alluded. It was an exciting prospect and has been a positive development. The city has got going; we have Team Plymouth looking at how we can deliver. But the defence investment plan is required to fulfil this aimed-for growth and to enable contracts—like those just mentioned by my hon Friend—to be brought forward, with the jobs that have always been promised. For businesses, the SDR and the defence investment plan were exciting, but they are still missing the funding. This is a threat to our national sovereign capability and to the economic growth that the Government seem convinced that they are going to deliver. Furthermore, there is a delay to the vital trial areas for autonomy that we were also promised, and that is hampering growth too. Businesses in my constituency want the green light in order to go forward on their testing, but those trial areas have not come forward—we just see more dither and delay. I raised this matter recently in Prime Minister’s questions, asking for the changes that we need to see. Canada is able to clear these vessels for practice testing off their shores within as little as six weeks, yet our businesses are expected to fill out hundreds and hundreds of pages of applications.

    Hansard source
24. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Defence

    I thank my constituency neighbour for his comments, although if he had been listening, he would have heard me say that I welcome all those things, but without the defence investment plan it will disappear in a puff of smoke. I am sure that, like me, he wants to see Plymouth and the surrounding area capitalise on the strategy. We can see the things that Team Plymouth will bring, but without the defence investment plan, we will see people walking out of the door. We have the King’s Speech in May, I believe—that has been the worst kept secret—and I would suggest that is the perfect opportunity for the Government to deliver the changes required to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. At the moment, they are saying that there needs to be a legislative opportunity and are looking at other Bills, but if they were serious about delivering for defence and growth, why not bring forward a unique Bill? It need not take very long, and it could be included in the King’s Speech. That would show that the Government have the ambition to make the necessary changes. We need to get deals across the line, and we need to give the businesses investing in our community the funding to enable those deals to happen. I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say to reassure my constituents in that regard. To conclude, I had an incredibly constructive letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), about marine autonomy test sites and the regulations. I think this is the hook: “Marine autonomy is a cross-departmental priority of the Government, as detailed in the Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy…the Modern Industrial Strategy…and the Strategic Defence Review…The draft legislation for maritime autonomy exists and the Department for Transport will continue to seek parliamentary time for these important clauses.” I make my point again: what are they waiting for?

    Hansard source
25. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Household Energy Bills

    24. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce household energy bills.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Household Energy Bills

    The Secretary of State promised that Great British Energy would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills. Can he confirm how much the average family has saved as a result specifically of Great British Energy?

    Hansard source
27. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Defence

    I will not repeat the excellent points that have been made by hon. and right hon. Members, but I will focus on one specific point: the country’s technological capacity, which is being delayed because of the delay to the defence investment plan. Some 8% of UK GDP—£454 billion—is reliant on satellite services, and the importance of space to our defence, intelligence and security is ever increasing. The previous Government understood that, and set out a clear strategy to make the UK a meaningful actor in space when we published the defence space strategy in 2022. However, the situation has now changed, and this Government are completely failing to grasp the urgency of leveraging our existing commercial capability so that we can operationalise the space domain at pace. Earlier this month, I attended Space-Comm with the shadow Science Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), and it could not be clearer from the conversations I had that Britain is at serious risk of lagging behind our neighbours when it comes to the new space race. Countries such as Germany have recognised the opportunities, with a commitment to invest €35 billion. We must match that ambition. Another point that came up time and again was that the missing defence investment plan impacts on our ability to encourage new people into the sector. The Government promised that it would be published in the autumn of last year, yet we are still waiting. However, given that their strategic defence review was late and kicked big procurement decisions down the road, it is no real surprise that the DIP is late too. The Government simply have no evidenced plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence, and this is leaving our domestic defence and space industry in the lurch. Many companies tell me that they have plans that are ready to go, but they cannot action them without the publication of the defence investment plan. This kind of paralysis will only serve to see us fall even further behind our neighbours. I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is currently not in his place, cares about the investment in our armed services and takes it deeply personally—as does the Minister for Veterans and People—and I put on the record my personal respect for him. I would hope that he would agree with the Conservatives on the urgency with which we need to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament. I hope that the Government will make the same commitment; otherwise, we will lose the opportunity to lead and develop the technologies that will take us to the new scientific and defence frontier.

    Hansard source
28. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Good morning to you and to members of the Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, although I am slightly surprised that she has asked me to withdraw my amendment; I have not yet talked about why it is so brilliant. I hope that she will reconsider and look at the amendment again, although I doubt it. Amendment 33 is in my name. At the heart of the issue lies a simple question about clause 1: when do we consider somebody to be an adult? In the United Kingdom, the answer has long been clear—at 18. That is the age at which full citizenship rights and responsibilities are granted. Voting—one of the most significant civic duties in a democracy—should remain tied to that threshold. Those who argue for lowering the voting age to 16 often claim that the issue is about fairness and inclusion, but that quickly unravels when we examine how 16 and 17-year-olds are treated under the law. At 16, individuals cannot marry or join the armed forces without parental consent, and they are not permitted to buy alcohol, gamble, purchase cigarettes or even obtain certain financial services independently. Those are not arbitrary restrictions; they reflect a consistent legal and societal judgment that individuals under 18 are not yet fully mature adults. If we do not trust a 16-year-old to make decisions about alcohol, finance or personal safety, why should we trust them with decisions about the future of the nation? Since the adoption of universal suffrage, taxation has never been the basis for enfranchisement in the United Kingdom, but the Prime Minister has stated that those who pay tax should be able to vote. Those aged 16 and 17 are explicitly exempted in law from paying council tax. Do advocates who say that 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local elections believe that that legal exemption should be removed, so that those aged 16 and 17 become liable for council tax? I suspect the answer is no. Taxation already exists without direct representation for children. Everyone pays indirect taxes, such as VAT. For example, for children, VAT is levied on toys and sweets. Only a tiny number of those aged 16 and 17 actually pay income tax, especially given the Conservative Government’s increases to the income tax threshold. Those under 18 cannot obtain consumer credit, nor can they open a full bank account without a parent’s signature; that indicates how their financial rights are qualified. There is also a striking inconsistency in the Government’s arguments for this change. On the one hand, they argue that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote. On the other, they support policies that explicitly treat under-18s as children in need of protection: raising the legal age for buying knives, fireworks, cigarettes and even undergoing cosmetic procedures. Those contradictions suggest that the push to lower the voting age is not grounded in principle but in convenience. Consider also the issue of responsibility. Voting is not just a right; it is part of a broader framework of civic duty, yet 16 and 17-year-olds are exempt from key responsibilities such as paying council tax, and only a small proportion pay income tax at all, as I have outlined. Historically, the right to vote in the UK has never been based on taxation alone, and it would be wrong to start now. We should also look internationally. The overwhelming majority of democracies, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, set the voting age at 18. That is not a coincidence; it reflects a widely accepted understanding of adulthood. Furthermore, the argument that lowering the voting age will increase long-term political engagement is not supported by strong evidence. Studies show that any increase in participation among younger voters tends to be short-lived, with no lasting impact on political involvement. In other words, the reform risks being a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful improvement to democracy. A study looking at the effect of a lower voting age in Scotland, which was also cited by the Minister’s Department, advised: “For engagement with politics beyond voting in elections, however, we find no lasting difference between young people who were eligible to vote at 16 versus 18. The experience of voting at age 16/17 did not make a difference in young people’s non-electoral engagement in early adulthood.” It warned that any change in turnout might actually have been due to the polarising effect of the Scottish independence debate, rather than the voting age. It went on: “Our results may reflect this to some extent as cohorts included in our sample of young people enfranchised at 16 came of age in the highly salient and polarised time around the 2014 independence referendum.” Finally, we must consider where the logic leads. If we detach voting from the age of adulthood, then why stop at 16? Why not 15 or 14?

    Hansard source
29. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is that I do not want to legislate for when people can become engaged in politics. Younger people can absolutely become engaged in politics and join a political party. As I think I have said previously, I love elections and I love politics. I joined the Conservative party at 15, and I have not regretted my decision—sometimes. Engaging with a political party is absolutely acceptable. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the system of younger people electing a party leader, then we can have a debate about that. But we cannot pick and choose different ages for when a person becomes an adult just because it is convenient. I contend that the reason why the Labour party brought this matter forward in its last manifesto is that it wanted to extend the coalition of voter that it thinks favours it politically. That is why the Bill has been presented and brought before the Committee today. I suspect that every Labour Member secretly knows that that is true. Let us not pretend that this is a divine intervention of principle. It is being done because the Labour party wants to extend the coalition of voters that it suspects is more likely to vote for it in the election.

    Hansard source
30. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    If the hon. Gentleman only dares to look at the polls from recent weeks, I suspect that he will find that his style of politics and his party’s politics are not attractive to 16-year-olds—they are voting for other parties because of the record of the current Government. But I do not want this to be a debate about how popular or unpopular the Government are. Political parties can select the age of their memberships, but the Conservative party fundamentally believes that the age of majority should be made more consistent. When it comes to deciding the future of the country, 18—the age at which a person becomes a statutory adult and has the rights of citizenship—is the age at which people should engage as a citizen in the democratic process. I understand if the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, but many countries around the world disagree with him. I do not expect him to agree with my speech at all, but if we look at some of the reports that I have outlined and the statistics that have come out, we see that there is no evidence that voting at 16 increases participation rates in elections. My party will be in a minority of one in the vote on this issue because Members across the House have different views.

    Hansard source
31. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but look at the evidence that the Electoral Reform Society gave the Committee. It believes in a change of voting system and in reducing the age of the franchise to 16. However I have just cited evidence from a report from his Minister’s own Department; it states that there was no significant change in participation rates when the voting age was reduced in Scotland for the independence referendum—it was the polarising effect of the independence referendum that increased participation rates. The hon. Gentleman has cited one source. Although the Electoral Reform Society is a very good organisation, I have a number of disagreements with what it said in Committee when we were cross-examining. It believes in changing the electoral system, in greater limits on political parties being able to maintain their business and in votes for 16-year-olds. That is not the Conservative party’s policy, and I hope I am setting out reasons why I do not think it should be the Government’s policy. There is evidence showing that there is not an overall increase in participation rates in general elections, or national elections, when the voting age is 16. The Cambridge professor of politics, David Runciman, has argued for a voting age of six. He has said: “we don’t apply a test of competence before granting the right to vote to anyone other than children. So why start with them? Setting imaginary tests before allowing enfranchisement is essentially a 19th-century idea.” He goes on: “I do believe in a very basic competence threshold, which is the ability to express a preference in the first place. Being in full-time education seems a reasonable way of establishing that”. The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. If they think somebody can vote, why do they not think that person should be able to stand in those elections? I will give way to any Labour Committee member who can explain to me why the Government have advocated for a drop in the voting age to 16 but do not want those people to stand in elections. Is it because of competency? Is it because, dare I suggest, the Government do not believe they are mature enough to stand in those elections?

    Hansard source
32. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    What I think is fairly obvious is that if there was consistency from the Government, someone’s being allowed to vote for their representatives would enable them to stand as a representative themselves. I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s and I want this Committee to be good tempered—as his colleagues will know from previous Bill Committees, I am a very good tempered individual. However, I politely suggest that the hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He is again saying that there are variations of participation. He is proposing to open up the franchise to 16-year-olds in the election of Members to this place and the Government of the United Kingdom, but he does not want them to stand in those elections and have that participation in democracy. In his intervention, I heard no solid reason why the Government do not believe younger people should be able to stand in those elections.

    Hansard source
33. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    I agree with my hon. Friend. I was a Conservative at 15—maybe that means I have just been completely stupid all through my life. [Interruption.] I said it—there is no need for an intervention on that! We know the reason why the Labour Government have brought this forward. I was elected as a councillor at 19, and the voting age was 18. I was older than the voting age at the time. The Government are criticising my party on why we do not believe there should be voting at 16, but I ask the Minister again—perhaps she will respond in her winding up—why the Government do not believe that 16-year-olds should be able to stand in an election for the Government of the United Kingdom if they are enfranchised to vote in such an election. I contend it is because they want the votes, but they do not want them to be able to stand, because they do not believe they are mature enough and—dare I say—adult enough to do so. The contention that the Minister has brought to the Committee is flawed. We cannot pick and choose when we believe a child becomes an adult to participate in part of the democratic process, and not include in the legislation the ability for them to stand in those elections. Amendment 33 simply tries to urge the Government to review the mess of the age of majority in this country. If we legislate to have votes at 16, that is fine. I think I am pretty down with the kids when I go on school visits—I see there is no comment on that—and my party and I will absolutely make sure that we become presentable and popular and start talking about young people and the issues that they face—

    Hansard source
34. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    Which is the point, the Minister says from a sedentary position, but it is our contention that we then need to look at the age of majority across the whole of the United Kingdom.

    Hansard source
35. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    What an interesting idea from my hon. Friend. It is one of his more radical suggestions, but he raises a serious point. The inconsistency of this Government’s approach to the age of majority is about to be made worse by this Bill. If the Minister had come to the Committee this morning and said, “We are going to open a proper consultation and review on the age of majority”, that could be a starting basis for a genuine conversation in this country. At the moment, as my hon. Friend outlined, the Government are proposing to allow a 16-year-old to vote, but they have mandated them to stay in full-time education, meaning that they do not pay tax. They do not have that stake in the Government, because they do not pay those taxes. As I have outlined, the Prime Minister said himself that people who vote should be paying taxes. That would not be the case under this proposal. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point on other aspects. The Government believe in 16-year-olds not being able to join the armed forces or secure a bank account without parental support, but they want them to be able to elect the Government of the United Kingdom, because it is convenient to them. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to bring in votes at 16; it is perfectly reasonable, and I know many Labour Members genuinely believe that. I have no problem with them, but if they are going to do that, they should at least bring what a 16-year-old can do in society on to a level playing field. The way this proposal has been brought forward, on the basis of the reasons given, with 16-year-olds not able to participate fully in the democratic process because they are not able to stand in the elections, suggests that this is more a cynical attempt than a pragmatic one.

    Hansard source
36. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    I do not think a 15-year-old should be allowed to be Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is advocating for a 16-year-old to be able to elect a Prime Minister and their Member of Parliament, but does not want them to have the equal right to stand as a candidate for Parliament. I understand his intervention, but he still has not told me why he thinks that the purposeful variance in this legislation is a good thing. I have been very clear that I think the age to able to vote and become a Member of Parliament should be 18, because that is when somebody becomes an adult. Forgive me if I am wrong—I do not intend to put words in his mouth—but the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention that some bits of becoming an adult happen when we are younger and some when we are older. In legislation in this country, someone becomes an adult when they get citizenship rights at 18. This Government are changing that and making it slightly more blurred than it needs to be. That is why we oppose this clause.

    Hansard source
37. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    That goes to show the picking and choosing attitude of the Labour party when it comes to enfranchising younger people. They want to allow them to elect Members, but believe that 18 is the right age to vote their candidate selections and internal processes, so why are we suddenly discussing legislation proposing that 16-year-olds should have the right to vote? I am sure Labour Members will present a petition to the National Executive Committee, or whatever organisation represents them, to change the internal voting age. If they so believe in 16-year-olds electing national politicians in this country, perhaps they should believe in being selected by 16-year-olds too, although I do not see them jumping to take up that proposition. I will wrap up shortly. The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. We have had a vibrant discussion about that. Why do they think that those aged 16 or 17 are old enough to vote, but not old enough to stand for an elected body? Even if the Government do not think they can be MPs, why can they not represent smaller communities? Are they not capable of being local, parish or town councillors, or police and crime commissioners? The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has advocated this clause. Does he therefore think a 16-year-old could represent their local parish or local town ward? Is there a variance in their ability to represent constituents in their local areas?

    Hansard source
38. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I do not think, if he looks inside himself, that he genuinely believes that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to stand in an election but should be able to vote in them. In his intervention, like many on the Government Benches, he arbitrarily decided in his head what a 16-year-old can do and what they are not quite ready for. I suggest that is intellectually at variance with what the Government are saying about a 16-year-old. I take his intervention with a pinch of salt because he himself is saying they are not ready. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also said they are not ready to stand in the election. It is a big difference for someone to be able to represent the community they live in—but they can vote in it and elect someone to represent their community on their behalf. To put it mildly, that is intellectually at variance with the Government’s position, and I suggest that Labour Members do not really believe it is the case. Labour Ministers have not yet justified that variance—though that is understandable as the Minister has not yet spoken on this—other than to say that a lower voting age is about building long-lasting engagement. The right to vote is one of the most important responsibilities in a society. It should be granted when an individual reaches full legal adulthood—when they are entrusted with the full range of rights and the responsibilities that come with them. We in the Conservative party contend that that age is 18. Lowering the voting age to 16 undermines that principle, introduces inconsistency and fails to deliver the benefits that its supporters promise. Amendment 33 would prevent part 1 of the Bill coming into force until the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in the Bill. It is not a troublesome amendment; this will have such profound impacts on other Government Departments and public services, and I genuinely do not believe the Government have thought of them. For example, each of us are privileged to represent a constituency in this place. We all go and visit our schools and younger people and we advocate, hopefully impartially—I am the biggest recruiter for the Hamble Valley Labour party that there could possibly be, and they all go and join once I have spoken to them. When we go and speak to our younger people, we do so because we want to get them interested in politics, but nothing that this Government are proposing in this legislation would improve the education system to make sure that people have proper citizenship lessons and get that proper education through the national curriculum. Our teachers are doing their best, but many young people I talk to in schools are not getting that full, rounded citizenship education from the very early age that they should be if the Government are to implement these provisions. That is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach, so we think there should be a review on a cross-departmental basis to see what that age of majority should be and what resources, from any Government Department, should be working towards if this legislation is passed and the voting age is reduced. That is the aim of amendment 33. We have set out our position, perhaps not as clearly as I would have hoped, but we have had a good debate on it. We will oppose clause 1 because we do not believe that the voting age should be 16; we believe the age of majority is 18, and that that is where it should stay.

    Hansard source
39. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    We welcome the Minister’s speech on this clause, and we agree entirely with her remarks. Clause 2, as the Minister has outlined, extends the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners to include 16 and 17-year-olds detained in youth custody. It is consistent with the long-established principle in UK law that individuals serving custodial sentences have temporarily limited civic rights. The extension to youth detention simply aligns 16 and 17-year-olds with the framework that already applies to adults, ensuring that the law treats those in secure detention in a consistent manner, regardless of age. While 16 and 17-year-olds are generally recognised as sufficiently mature to vote under the legislation, that recognition does not automatically override the legal consequences of being placed in detention, where participation in normal civic life is restricted for reasons of accountability, public protection and rehabilitation. We believe the Government have made the right decision. If the Bill goes through and the voting age is reduced, it is absolutely right to align it with the legislation that extends to such people. When someone commits a crime and faces a custodial sentence, I believe that there should be rehabilitation and education, which are crucial parts of the prison system. However, the fundamental right to participate in civic life is taken away when someone receives a custodial sentence in this country, which includes the right to vote and participate in electing a Government. That punishment has been sacrosanct within the criminal justice system for hundreds of years, and the Opposition believe that it should continue, so we wholly welcome the alignment of the Bill with current legislation. I turn to new clause 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Minister rightly outlined that it would extend the franchise to those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years, and who would ordinarily be eligible, and I think her response was absolutely spot on. No member of this Committee, or any Member in the main Chamber, would ever say, “Once you go to prison, you do not have the right to restorative justice, or the right to make something of your life again.” There is a fundamental principle in UK society when we make a mistake: you do the crime, and you do the time. We pay our debt back to society, and we then have the right to rehabilitate ourselves and make the most of our lives. There is a fundamental difference if someone is put in prison for a custodial sentence, particularly one of up to four years, as the person has likely committed quite a serious crime to deserve that. It seems right to me that a punishment for that is the person being removed as an active participant in society, including having the right to vote for an elected Government or locally elected representatives. This issue has been contentious for many years. When I worked for the last Conservative Government, before I was elected as the MP for Eastleigh, the European Union made an overt attempt to punish the United Kingdom for not aligning our custodial laws and voting laws with its mainstream recommendations; that was vehemently resisted by the Government at the time. Correct me if I am wrong—I am looking to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to help me out—but I think that happened during the coalition Government. We resisted that attempt to punish the United Kingdom, because we believe a dividing line is that, if someone goes away and is put in prison for a crime, they should not be able to participate. The Opposition wholly stand by clause 2, and we do not support new clause 9. If the new clause is pushed to a Division—I know the procedures mean that votes on new clauses will happen another time—we will vote against it.

    Hansard source
40. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    I will speak briefly, because I spoke to new clause 9 before the speech made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. During the course of the debate, I heard a couple of things that I wanted to come back on. I thank the Committee for indulging me; I will be very quick. There is absolutely no difference between my party and that of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire in advocating for the rehabilitation of the individual who is in the prison and criminal justice system. That is also the stated position of the Government. I was pleased to hear the passionate intervention from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, which was filled with conviction. I was disappointed, however, with the tone that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire took in responding to the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West and for Welwyn Hatfield. The former, having been through horrific prejudice growing up, and the latter, as an advocate, asked the hon. Lady about a crime that falls within the arbitrary four-year sentence proposed in new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. There are many crimes for which someone can be issued a custodial sentence of four years that—I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West takes this in the right way—could be perceived as worse than the racially aggravated assault case that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned, such as sexual assault. Many people are put away for less than four years for sexual assault. They would be able to vote under the proposals in new clause 9. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said that those Members mentioned that crime to make a political point, but their point directly addresses the proposal from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to set the sentence threshold at four years. If the threshold were six months, or anything less than four years, we could openly discuss that, but the crimes encompassed within a custodial sentence of four years can be some of the most serious perpetrated against victims. I believe that everything the hon. Member for North Herefordshire does is well intentioned and principled. There is no doubt about that, and it should never be intimated that I take a different view. Members feel, however, that they have to challenge the Green party’s position because of that arbitrary figure for a custodial sentence in their proposal. The hon. Lady should therefore expect to be questioned on some of the terrible Pandora’s boxes that will be opened by the people serving those custodial sentences.

    Hansard source