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

1. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

   Middle East

   May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing I received from his officials this afternoon? I join him in putting on record my utter condemnation of the arson attack committed in Golders Green last night. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our sympathy to all who were affected and to the wider Jewish community. I also join the Secretary of State in expressing our condolences to the families of all allied personnel who have lost their lives in the current conflict, and in thanking the police for preventing potentially serious nefarious activity at Faslane. The potential economic ramifications for our constituents from Iran’s aggressive closure of the strait of Hormuz should concern us all. In that context, can the Defence Secretary tell the House what he understands to be the implications of the US President’s latest remarks, specifically on deferring strikes on power plants? Can he also tell us what further naval capability he intends to deploy to assist in securing the strait of Hormuz? It is extremely concerning that Iran fired long-range ballistic missiles at UK sovereign territory on Diego Garcia. I am grateful for the Defence Secretary’s update, but why did it take so long for the Government to confirm something that the whole world had been reporting on, and what action will he take to respond to those wholly unjustified attacks? Can he confirm whether the potential firing range of this Iranian missile implies that it could reach well into Europe?  When it comes to our own air defence, it is very welcome that the RAF Regiment has excelled in using Rapid Sentry, procured under the previous Government, to intercept multiple drones, and we pay tribute to all our personnel in the region at the present moment. We also welcome the fact that this capability is now being deployed to support our allies in the region, and we hope that the air defence system the Secretary of State is sending to Bahrain will be in position as soon as possible. However, we note reports that at least one of the Iranian missiles fired at Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer. Is it correct that the US intercepted this missile before the Government decided on Saturday to grant the US further permission for the use of our bases? Does this not once again underline Labour’s extraordinary double standards in that, until their latest U-turn, the Government had been relying on the US to defend us while denying it the use of our bases? The reports that an Iranian missile headed for Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer underline the critical importance of our Type 45s to our own air defence, so while we welcome HMS Dragon finally arriving, does the Secretary of State regret not sending her much sooner? As the Secretary of State knows, the Type 45 Sea Viper air defence system relies on Aster missiles. Last week, I wrote to urge him to use HM Treasury reserve funding for the middle east operations to urgently procure the missiles needed, including the lightweight multi-role missile for the Wildcat and Rapid Sentry, ASRAAM—advanced short-range air-to-air missile—for our fighter jets, and Aster for the Type 45s. Since then, he has confirmed the order of the LMM, which I welcome. Will he now use the reserve to order more air defence missiles for our ships and fighter planes? If our Type 45s are to intercept the most sophisticated ballistic missiles, they need the Sea Viper system upgraded to Sea Viper Evolution, which I have repeatedly asked Ministers to accelerate, as it is currently scheduled to enter service in 2032. When I was a Defence Minister, HMS Diamond, which was under attack by the Houthis in the Red sea, was using expensive missiles to intercept cheap drones, so I scrapped a load of red tape to accelerate the in-service date of our DragonFire anti-drone laser from 2032 to next year. Will the Secretary of State take similar steps to accelerate Sea Viper? There is, of course, a problem. In a written answer about Sea Viper Evolution that I received in January, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry responded: “Continued progress…remains subject to”— guess what?— “the Defence Investment Plan.” In Defence oral questions on 15 December, there were just four sitting days left before the rise of the House, and the Secretary of State could not tell us whether the Government would publish the DIP before recess. Given that there are once again just four sitting days left before recess and that he must know his diary for the week ahead, can he tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published before the rise of the House on Thursday, and if not, will he publish it during purdah? Above all, if the DIP is not going to be published this week, will he—to break the logjam with the Treasury—urge the Chancellor to take the difficult decisions required to set a course for spending 3% on defence in this Parliament, not the next? Finally, surely even the Secretary of State can see that hypothetical legal action under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea by a country without a navy or a standing army is less of a threat to our base on Diego Garcia than long-range missiles fired by Iran. Is not the best way that he could stand up for our sovereign territory of Diego Garcia be scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos deal and spending every penny on the British armed forces?

   Hansard source
2. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   Hatzola Ambulance Attack

   These despicable attacks have been claimed by Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, a group assessed by analysts to be an Iranian proxy linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah. Emma Schubart of the Henry Jackson Society has warned that this reflects a pattern of co-ordinated attacks on Jews across Europe. Do the Government share that assessment, and if so, when will they finally proscribe the IRGC? The best time to do that was 10 years ago; the second best time is now.

   Hansard source
3. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   Tobacco and Vapes Bill

   I served on the Bill Committee, and the subsequent process of scrutiny of this Bill has been entirely as expected. I was disappointed, though not surprised, by a failure to engage critically with its contents and to listen to the real concerns, in particular those of the high street businesses and the hospitality industry, which it will impact on most. I disagree with this socialist Bill on principle. Although I have a lot of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), I am sorry to see my Front Benchers continuing to support the broad thrust of the Bill. It creates two tiers of adults and, at its core, is fundamentally illiberal. However, I was willing to look beyond that and engage constructively with the Government to improve the legislation, which is why I tabled a series of common-sense amendments both in Committee and on Report. They would have allowed for the advertisement of smokefree products in venues that are already adult-only; required a consultation on the impact of advertising bans on retailers; and permitted the targeted advertisement of vapes and smokefree alternatives to existing adult smokers. Those proposals had some cross-party support in this House, and two of them were taken up by peers in the other place, notably Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sharpe for the Opposition. Throughout this process, I have engaged with the Minister and her predecessors through letters and written questions, and I genuinely thank her for her timely responses. However, it quickly became clear that there was little interest from the Government in improving this Bill, which is driven more by puritan ideology than by evidence or practicality. As a result, we have seen it forced through by the Labour Government and their little helpers, the illiberal Democrats in the other place, with no regard to implementation or unintended consequences. Today, we are likely again to wave through 100 Government amendments from the Lords with minimal scrutiny. All parties will welcome the fact that smoking rates in this country have declined from 30% in the early 2000s to 10.4% today. The free market has played a key role in that, with companies creating less harmful, smokefree alternatives such as vapes and nicotine pouches. There has been a consistent failure to recognise what an important role such products have played in the decline of smoking, and I hold concerns that the tight restrictions in this Bill on flavours and advertising will stop adult smokers from making the switch.

   Hansard source
4. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   Tobacco and Vapes Bill

   I absolutely recognise that. We should make sure that these products are available to adult smokers—children should never start. However, I am afraid that the heavy-handed nature of this Bill risks sending the broad message to the general public that vapes are bad, which is not a message that we want to send to existing adult smokers. That point was ably made earlier by some of the hon. Gentleman’s friends on the Labour Benches. I believe that we would be doing a disservice to, and setting back, the public health aims of the Bill by advancing it as it stands. Lords amendment 72 rightly protects the advertisement of vapes and nicotine products as part of a public health campaign, but this demonstrates the great irony of the Bill. The Government know that vapes and nicotine products are an effective quit aid and actively promote them for that purpose, but at the same time they are bringing in measures that will reduce their availability and attractiveness to adult smokers. If Ministers will not listen to Members of this House and peers in the other place, I had hoped that they might at least listen to the hundreds of high street businesses that took the time to write to them. I share those businesses’ concerns about the extra pressures the Bill will place on corner shops, convenience stores and hospitality businesses, and how it will change the face of our high streets. That is where the real impact of the Bill will be felt. Those businesses are already under immense pressure from high energy costs, increasing national insurance contributions, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and changes to business rates—I will admit that the Government are nothing if not consistent. Corner shops and convenience stores now face losing custom due to the generational ban, alongside further compliance burdens through advertising restrictions and licensing schemes. The ban alone is expected to cause 7,680 store closures, to cost 70,000 jobs and to cost retailers £6.52 billion. Those are not my numbers; they are from the Government’s own impact assessment.

   Hansard source
5. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   Tobacco and Vapes Bill

   I am not suggesting that at all, sir. I am suggesting that the generational smoking ban that applies to smoking adults—I have never met a smoking adult who did not know that smoking was bad for them—is an illiberal policy that will create two tiers of adults. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people making decisions that we individually might think are bad for them. The evidence suggests the same, but people should be perfectly able to make those decisions should they choose to do so. As legitimate businesses struggle, less scrupulous operators will inevitably fill the gap. The rapid growth of seemingly dodgy vape shops is a real concern for my constituents in Windsor, and it will be a concern for the constituents of Members right across the House. On the high street in Windsor, there are eight such shops. This is not a response to the demand for vapes, so we should ask whether fraud, money laundering or organised crime are taking place. We already have much evidence to say that they are. During a mystery shopper exercise in Windsor and Sunninghill, I witnessed the sale of illicit tobacco in three shops—it was alarmingly easy to obtain. The price difference explains why: a pack of illicit cigarettes can cost as little as £3.50, compared with £16.75 at retail. If such activity is taking place openly today, that raises the question of what else might be happening behind the scenes, and where this activity will go under the Bill. The Bill risks turbocharging an already thriving black market. Tobacco receipts are down by £414 million, or 10%, in the last six months alone, and have fallen nearly 30% over the past decade, far outpacing the decline in smoking rates. More than one in four cigarettes consumed in Britain are now illicit, amounting to about 2 billion cigarettes each year, and the international evidence, including from Australia, should serve as a warning. Members who are sceptical should spend time with their local trading standards office to see the reality for themselves. That is why hundreds of retailers backed an amendment, tabled by Lord Murray of Blidworth, that would have replaced the generational ban with a minimum age of sale of 21. That would have been more enforceable and less costly. Naturally, that amendment was rejected. Hospitality businesses have voiced real concerns about provisions in the Bill. That sector is so important to the economy in Windsor, and it is already struggling: since the 2024 Budget, job losses in the sector have made up around 50% of job losses overall. UKHospitality has said that many businesses have no capacity to absorb additional costs. Labour has hiked alcohol duty, is banning smoking and is considering health warnings on alcohol. Labour hates fun—it is no wonder that landlords are barring MPs from their pubs. Amendments tabled in the other place by Lord Sharpe of Epsom would have protected our beer gardens from being designated as smokefree and allowed the advertising of products that do not contain tobacco in age-gated venues, in a similar way to the amendments that I tabled in the Commons. Those amendments would have gone some way towards reassuring pubs and venues that the Government are not completely set on destroying them. Again, those amendments were rejected—or am I to understand that the Government have U-turned on that? Before I conclude, I will briefly raise one further concern regarding the powers granted to Ministers to prohibit cigarette filters in future. The justification for this measure remains unclear, and it is yet another example of the broad and—I would argue—excessive powers that this Bill contains, including the host of Henry VIII powers it grants. Through this Bill, the Government have teed themselves up to bring in further puritan measures in the coming years without needing to consult this House. Any such steps will simply exacerbate the growth of the black market and the decline in duties collected. Smoking rates are falling naturally, but this Bill may well reverse that trend, as it limits access to quit aids. It will likely mean less revenue for the Treasury as the black market grows, and it will cost our high street businesses billions. The amendment process has done little to address, or even acknowledge, those concerns. However, I will end on a more positive note by saying that I welcome Lords amendment 80, which requires a review of the Bill within four to seven years of its implementation. I believe that review will vindicate me in many of the concerns I have raised today and provide a future Government with the opportunity to address or, indeed, repeal those aspects of the Bill that prove most unworkable—not that I believe this Bill will get that far. It will not survive a change in Government, which will happen at the next opportunity afforded to the Great British people.

   Hansard source
6. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   Tobacco and Vapes Bill

   The hon. Member is right that the Bill, if it does apply, should apply to the whole United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part. Under the Windsor framework—the sell-out that is disgracefully named after my constituency—Northern Ireland is subject to the tobacco products directive, is it not? Is it possible, then, for the Bill to apply equally to Northern Ireland?

   Hansard source
7. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   Tobacco and Vapes Bill

   I thank the Minister for her implied compliment to the Leader of the Opposition, who voted against this Bill on Second Reading when the previous Prime Minister brought it forward. She voted against it because the Bill does not respect the proper relationship between the state and the individual, and does not deliver equality under the law, so we will take that as a compliment in the new Conservative party, which is being refreshed in an authentically conservative direction.

   Hansard source
8. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. My constituents have a clear expectation that we proceed with caution when it comes to children’s healthcare, but there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this trial: the Government have already restricted these drugs due to what they described as an “unacceptable safety risk”, but those same drugs are now being made available through a clinical trial. We must also look squarely at the evidence. There is no robust proof that puberty blockers deliver the benefits often claimed. In fact, the evidence suggests that, for many children, gender-related distress resolves naturally through puberty. The risks, however, are very real—to bone density, brain development and fertility. There are also serious ethical concerns. We are talking about administering powerful drugs to young children with no reliable way to predict who will benefit. This is not a targeted intervention; it is a gamble with children’s futures. The design of the trial only adds to those concerns. It compares immediate treatment with delayed treatment, rather than examining long-term outcomes, and relies heavily on subjective measures rather than clinical evidence. It risks answering the wrong questions while exposing children to the well-rehearsed risks. Even more concerning is the sequencing—clearly, we should understand past outcomes first, and yet the trial presses ahead before we do. The process itself also gives us pause. The trial received ethical approval and £10.7 million of public funding, and yet within months it has been paused following intervention by the regulator over concerns about safety and design. If a trial collapses under scrutiny before it begins, that tells us it is not ready and raises a serious question about why it was pushed forward in the first place. I urge the Minister to explain why, given the known risks, the trial should proceed at all. When the evidence is weak, the risks are real and the patients are children, pressing ahead is not leadership, but recklessness.

   Hansard source
9. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Topical Questions

   T7. Given the ongoing national security concerns, including the risk of foreign interference in elections, will the Home Secretary set out what her Department is doing to ensure that individuals convicted of terrorism offences are prevented from standing for elected office in the UK?

   Hansard source
10. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Energy efficiency in the home sits at the heart of our ability as a country to support those struggling with energy bills, protect consumers from volatile energy bills and maintain the skilled retrofit workforce that this country will need in the years ahead. Since 2013, the energy company obligation has delivered around 4.4 million measures in 2.6 million properties. Under ECO4 alone, around 949,800 measures have been installed in approximately 281,000 households. Whatever its imperfections, it has been a lifeline for millions of low-income families, and the supply chain that grew around it employs tens of thousands of people across the country. As the Minister said, this statutory instrument will extend the ECO4 end date by nine months to 31 December 2026. The stated purpose is to allow suppliers additional time to meet existing targets, remediate non-compliant installations and avoid a cliff edge in delivery before any successor arrangements are in place. The Opposition support this extension. It is responsible and the right thing to do and we will not stand in its way this afternoon. However, support for the principle of orderly transition does not mean that the Government escape scrutiny and there are several questions that I would be grateful if the Minister could answer clearly. On cost, the Chancellor was emphatic in her Budget statement last year that ECO costs households £1.7 billion a year through levies on their bills and that ending the scheme would save the average household £59 annually. She described it as a failed scheme and said that she was scrapping it. However, this nine-month extension means that the levy continues on bills for longer than households were led to expect. Ministers must set out plainly how much consumers will pay during this extended period, and whether that figure of a £59 saving remains accurate. As the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has rightly observed, moving costs from energy bills to general taxation is not the saving it appears on paper. Households are still paying; they are just paying from a different pocket. On the issue of quality, a National Audit Office report published in October 2025 found that many of the home improvements funded under ECO were carried out to a poor standard, particularly those involving external wall insulation. Families have been left with damp, mould and homes made worse by interventions that were supposed to help them. That is not an abstract concern and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has raised those failures directly in the House. The Opposition have committed to working cross-party to ensure that affected households receive proper remediation—and we stand by that commitment. However, the Government must confirm that Ofgem’s oversight is fully resourced, that installers and not consumers are funding that repair work, and that further audits will be carried out without delay. Finally, on the supply chain, the Government’s own rationale for this extension acknowledges the need to protect the supply chain and jobs while continuing support for low-income households. That language reflects a real anxiety in the sector. Anna Moore, chief executive of retrofit company Domna, put it plainly when she warned that suddenly removing £1.3 billion of funding was “chaotic” and had “created a cliff edge for thousands of low-income households in fuel poverty as well as SMEs employing some 10,000 people.” Joel Pearson of Net Zero Renewables made the same plea directly to the Chancellor. These are not abstract economic arguments; they are real firms, jobs and communities that depend on this sector continuing to function. The extension buys a little time, but time alone is not a strategy. The Chancellor has announced that there will be no successor to ECO4, and that future support will come through the warm homes plan—£15 billion over five years, funded through general taxation. The Opposition do not oppose the principle of that shift, but the warm homes plan remains, at this stage, more promise than programme. It has not yet been finalised, piloted or mobilised. This extension exists in part precisely because the replacement is not ready. This is an honest admission and we welcome it, but it underlines that the instrument is a holding measure, not a solution. ECO4 is also estimated to deliver carbon savings of around 0.38 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year once all measures are installed. Whatever replaces it must be designed to match and exceed that ambition—not simply to fill a political gap. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could address three specific points. Can he confirm the precise additional cost to bill payers during the nine-month extension period? Can he provide a full update on the remediation programme for substandard installations and give this Committee confidence that affected households will not be left waiting indefinitely? Finally, can he set out a clear timetable for the warm homes plan so that the supply chain can plan with confidence, rather than continuing to operate under uncertainty? The households who have relied on the ECO scheme deserve an efficient transition, not the chaotic cliff edge that the Government are presenting; the retrofit workforce that will be central to this Government’s own climate ambitions deserve certainty, not managed decline; and taxpayers deserve full transparency about what this extension will cost them. We support this instrument, but the Government must use the time it buys wisely.

    Hansard source
11. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Middle East

    On top of the direct attacks by Iran, its principal proxy in the region, Hezbollah, continues to defy the Lebanese Government by using Lebanon as a base from which to fire rockets into Israeli civilian populations. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking, in conjunction with the Lebanese Government, to help them dismantle this absolute cancer in Lebanon? More importantly, what steps are being taken to ensure that infrastructure built in Lebanon in recent years using British taxpayers’ money is categorically not being used for any of those attacks?

    Hansard source
12. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Hatzola Ambulance Attack

    I join the Minister in condemning this evil attack and expressing my sympathy with the British Jewish community. To build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), we have been talking about this issue for years, including when I sat on the Government Back Benches in the last Parliament. When I went to a Hanukkah event in my constituency led by the South Bucks Jewish Community in 2024, the rabbi opened the ceremony with words of welcome, saying “even though we no longer feel safe to meet as a community”. That should shock each and every one of us. Does the Minister accept that we need not incremental change or modest change but a sea change in the way that we as a country put our arms around the British Jewish community and protect them?

    Hansard source
13. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Tobacco and Vapes Bill

    I welcome the new Minister to her place; she is stepping in and taking the Bill through this stage, like a technical finishing substitute. I, too, have been substituted for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who spent a huge amount of time going through the Bill in Committee. I place my thanks to her on the record. Because of what she did, I have not had to do it, which has been a relief. Eradicating smoking among young people is a public health priority. There may be differences in how we would achieve that, but the objective is shared by Members across the House, and we will not divide the House on the Bill tonight. There has been important common ground. As my colleague Lord Kamall said in the other place, smoking is harmful, vaping is less harmful than smoking, and not vaping is better than vaping. I think we can all agree that those principles should guide this legislation. Those principles underpinned the Bill introduced by the previous Government. Since then, it has expanded, and at times it risks losing focus on its central aim of reducing smoking, particularly among young people. The Opposition have been concerned, for example, about measures that have placed additional burdens on hospitality and retail, and about restrictions on vaping that could undermine its role as a quitting tool for adult smokers. I therefore welcome the changes made in the House of Lords and the Government’s acceptance of them. Further, the exemption of the adult mental health in-patient setting from the ban on vapes vending machines is a sensible and compassionate decision. Ministers were right to respond to concerns raised by peers, including my colleague Lord Moylan, and mental health charities, and we welcome the changes to clause 12. It is also right that local authorities will be able to retain proceeds from fixed penalty notices to support enforcement under the amendments to clause 39. However, the Bill marks not the end of the process, but simply the end of the beginning. Key questions remain, including about the regulation of flavours and descriptors, advertising, and the designation of vape-free places. Those decisions will pretty much determine whether the Bill works in practice. It is therefore essential that the Government proceed in a way that is proportionate, enforceable and sustainable. We have already seen the importance of that balance. I welcome the decision to drop proposals to extend restrictions in pub gardens, which would have placed further strain on the hospitality sector. However, Ministers should take note. Restrictions should be targeted at areas where there is a clear and significant risk to public health. Possible considerations include restrictions outside schools and playgrounds, and I gently ask the Minister to reflect that approach as further regulations are developed. The Lords also strengthened the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to cigarette filters, enabling more effective regulation of components that contribute to environmental harm. In addition, a series of technical amendments were agreed to, aimed at clarifying definitions, improving compliance mechanisms and ensuring that secondary legislation is subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For example, Lords amendment 1, relating to age verification regulations under clause 1, requires the affirmative procedure to be used, increasing oversight of a core part of the Bill. Those are sensible improvements that reflect the spirit of constructive scrutiny. A key and central issue raised throughout the passage of the Bill has been the risk of unintended consequences, and particularly the growth of the illicit market. Whether we are for the Bill or against it, one concern unites us all: the black market. If regulation is too restrictive or poorly enforced, it will drive consumers away from the legal market and into illegal supply, which would undermine both public health and enforcement. The Opposition proposed an annual report on illicit tobacco and vaping activity, which the Government rejected. Given the concerns raised throughout the passage of the Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out clearly how the Government will monitor and respond to changes in the illicit market. We support the broad objectives of the Bill, but we will be watching closely. Its success depends not on its intentions, but on its delivery. When it was first introduced, I spoke about my experience as a junior doctor on a respiratory ward—my first hospital job. I saw patients struggling for breath, families in distress, and moments when, despite everything, there was little more that could be done. The true test of the Bill is simple: in years ahead, fewer families should have to experience the same pain, suffering and despair. Let us hope this works.

    Hansard source
14. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Tobacco and Vapes Bill

    I am glad the Minister has addressed many of the questions that I posed. One was about the designation of vape-free places, and I think there is consideration of what that will look like. How will the Government approach that? I would welcome it if she could at least set out the framework of what she might think about in her new role.

    Hansard source
15. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Court and Tribunal Transcripts

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He is proving himself to be a consistent and doughty champion of victims and the issues that they raise with him. I also acknowledge the long-standing campaigning of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in this area. I welcome today’s opportunity to discuss this issue as part of our wider debate about transparency in the justice system. Sadly, I think that I can predict to some extent what the Minister will say: the phrase “14 years” will make an appearance; there will be lots of rhetoric about how terrible the previous Government were; and there will be a complete absence of any idea of how the current Government would have managed differently the challenges that the previous Government faced. I can also be pretty confident about what the Minister will not say. There will be no real engagement with what the challenges of covid presented to our justice system, even though they truly were unprecedented. However, that is the standard that Ministers and Labour have set, not just for justice, but across the Government on issues such as inflation and energy bills. There is no acceptance of the challenges that the previous Government faced and no exceptions made for things outside their control. It therefore should not be any surprise when the present Government are held to exactly the same standard. In reality, this issue is a good example of what more fair-minded commentators accept as a multi-decade failure to give the justice system and those involved in it the priority and resources they deserve. I am sure that if the Minister and I were to design the justice system from scratch together, we would agree that free access to transcripts was important and, indeed, should just be the default. However, we are where we are. Sadly, I am realistic about what success we will achieve on the issue of transcripts today, even when a petition has been signed by an impressive 200,000 people. After all, this is the Government who tried to delete the Courtsdesk archive, which has been one of the biggest steps forward for transparency in our justice system in recent years. I raised that issue in the main Chamber because I was deeply concerned about the decision to delete a unique archive of corrected and correlated court listings. In the absence of retrospective access to court transcripts, the work of journalists is absolutely vital, and Courtsdesk had become a valuable tool for journalists, campaigners and others seeking to identify patterns in offending and to expose failings in our justice system. Rather than seeking to preserve that transparency while dealing constructively with any data protection concerns, the Government moved towards deleting the archive altogether. Of course, the Government’s defence of that decision did not hold up to scrutiny. When the Minister for Courts and Legal Services came to the House and said that there were serious data protection concerns with Courtsdesk, she did not tell us that the Government’s internal processes had found the incident she cited to be low-risk, not even warranting referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office. At a time when confidence in the justice system depends on greater openness, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services was going to deliver the exact opposite, and that is part of the context for today’s debate. It relates to the broader question of whether the Government are approaching transparency in the justice system with sufficient urgency and seriousness. The petition speaks to the basic principle that access to justice should not depend on the ability to pay, and open justice is not an optional extra to be considered only once the administrative convenience of the system has been satisfied. The petitioners are right to identify transcript fees as a paywall. For too many people, they are exactly that: a barrier to understanding what happened in court; a barrier to considering making an appeal; a barrier to holding the system to account; and, in some cases, a barrier to justice itself. That matters not just for journalists and campaigners, but for victims, bereaved families and ordinary members of the public who are trying to make sense of a justice system that is supposed to work for them. There is clearly public demand for greater transparency in the system, which was why the previous Conservative Government started moving in that direction, including through the pilot of making sentencing remarks available free of charge to victims of rape and other sexual offences. That was a start, although I now think that we should have moved faster and further while we were in government. I find it hard to think of any other walk of life in which we would expect a member of the public who is part of such an important process—it is important for them, for their friends and family, and for the wider justice system—to be asked to remember key things that may or may not have been said in court, and to be asked to be in court every single day if they want to understand the full process, although that might not necessarily be appropriate. What disappoints me in particular is the Government’s resistance not just to making full transcripts available, but on the much narrower and more readily resolvable issue of making transcripts of sentencing remarks available. The Government have refused to accept our proposal—it has been voted on in the Lords—to have such transcripts produced within 14 days and free of charge. They will accept doing that only from spring of next year and not necessarily within 14 days. As we have heard, given the unduly lenient sentence scheme, people need those transcripts quickly if they are to be able to make good use of them. It is particularly clear that there is public interest in sentencing remarks. I look forward to the Labour Members who spoke today backing amendments that the Conservatives, with cross-party support, are attempting to pass so that transcripts of sentencing remarks are made available. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), pointed out, similar amendments have been proposed to allow victims to have even more made available to them, including the route to verdict and bail decisions. Those amendments have cross-party support, so I hope that Labour Members and others will support them when the House considers them this week. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) showed his ministerial experience through the well-articulated questions that he put to the Minister. I will add my own questions to his. It is all well and good for the Minister to talk in warm words about access to sentencing remarks and court transcripts, but do we have an actual date for when the Government will deliver that? What cases will it apply to at first, and what barriers are preventing us from implementing this much more quickly than the Government have committed to? I pay tribute to everyone who signed the petition, particularly those campaigners such as Fiona Goddard, who my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley mentioned and focused on grooming gangs. That has been a key driver of the demands for greater transparency in our justice system. The Government resisted an inquiry on that matter in a similar vein to how they are resisting transparency in our justice system. I look forward to the Minister giving us concrete answers about how we will make progress, rather than just warm words.

    Hansard source
16. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I must first declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician. I thank James Esses for the petition and the thousands of people who have signed it, including many of my constituents, for enabling today’s important debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for leading the debate so well. The petition asks the Government to cancel the puberty blockers trial and to safeguard vulnerable children. Perhaps it is worth considering whether clinical trials in children are a good idea in principle. The answer, of course, is yes. Children are not just small adults; they have different illnesses from adults, they present with different symptoms and respond differently to medication, and they require different doses at different ages. Properly designed clinical trials ensure that children’s medicines are safe and effective for them. However, today we are discussing one particular trial: a proposal to give puberty blockers—gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues—to children, specifically for gender incongruence. Perhaps at this point it is worth considering why doctors and others prescribe medication; we do it to treat or cure disease, to treat or lessen symptoms and to aid in diagnosis. What does this trial seek to do? On the face of it, it seeks to establish whether puberty blockers are a safe and effective treatment for gender incongruence. ICD-11 defines gender incongruence as: “A marked and persistent incongruence between an individual’s experienced gender and the assigned sex”. To suggest persistent incongruence with gender stereotypes is wrong could undo years or decades of rolling back gender norms. If it is not causing the person any distress, why would we want to treat it, especially when we know that most children, even those with gender dysphoria who do have distress, will get better without any puberty blockers? Currently, there is no way to identify which children will persist with a trans identity as adults and which will not. The much-delayed data linkage study could help with that. It could enable more targeted interventions and may also provide information on the long-term outcomes for people who have taken puberty blockers in the past. However, the Government insist on pushing on with the puberty blockers trial anyway, before the data linkage study is complete. Why? In written parliamentary questions, Ministers have said that they expect the data linkage study to be finished by April 2027, so what is the rush? What is the point of the treatment? It has been suggested that it helps transgender adults pass more easily as the opposite sex and potentially avoids surgical operations in adulthood, but how on earth can it be ethically, morally or medically right to treat a large group of children with risky medication to give cosmetic benefits to a much smaller number of adults? There are also cosmetic risks to the treatment. The penis grows very little between the ages of three and 10 years. The use of puberty blockers restricts growth, meaning those with a persistent trans identity may struggle with having enough tissue for a vaginoplasty surgery, and those who do not have a persistent trans identity may struggle with normal intimate relationships. As mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State has said that he has confidence in this trial. Now it has been paused, we can presume that he is not quite so sure. But can we, patients and the general public have confidence in this trial? There are certainly causes for concern. In fact, there are so many that I cannot speak of them all today, but I would like to speak of a few in the time I have available. First, on the selection of patients, we have had a dramatic change in the demographic. There has always been a small number of children uncomfortable in their own bodies, but there has been a rapid increase, which is not fully understood, particularly among girls. Many of them are in care, some have autism spectrum disorders and many are same-sex attracted. We need to understand this before prescribing irreversible treatments. We do prescribe—and I have prescribed—drugs that are high risk or potentially harmful to children. An easy example would be chemotherapy, but that is being given to save a child’s life; it is not used to pause a perfectly normal physiological process in a physically healthy child. The risks of these treatments have been listed today, but I will list just a few: fertility problems; idiopathic intracranial hypertension; demineralisation of bone density, leading to fractures; in some studies, an increase in depression and anxiety; and the long-term loss of sexual function in some patients. We have discussed consent. How do you get consent from a parent of a child—a boy or a girl at Tanner stage 2—about long-term sexual function and fertility? On the design of the trial, it is said to be a randomised controlled trial. Well, it is, but that is a bit of a fudge, because instead of an actual randomised controlled trial where some patients receive puberty blockers and some do not, it has given some now and some slightly later, with a very short difference in the timing. The comparison group that does not have any puberty blockers at all is taken from a slightly different population, which introduces an unnecessary bias. The trial’s organisers have said that they are doing that because they think the children would get the drugs from elsewhere or from abroad, but that is not how we do medical trials. When I have raised this issue, Ministers have responded that it cannot be blinded, but blinding and randomisation are not the same thing. The trial is also far too short to provide data on long-term outcomes. On the process of the trial, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) raised questions about what children are being asked as part of this trial. Why is the trial proposing to ask children about their sexual experiences? Why is this helpful to the trial?

    Hansard source
17. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

    I will not because I am aware of the time. The Commission on Human Medicines’ report heard that, because trials of puberty blockers have been blocked, some clinicians are trying to use other drugs to limit puberty, such as spironolactone and cyproterone acetate. There have been reports that the number of prescriptions for spironolactone in 10 to 17-year-olds is going up. Could the Minister confirm whether that is the case and what the Government are doing to look into it? The MHRA was happy with the process; now it is not. What has changed? None of the issues raised seem to have not been raised before. The Government are being secretive about it: in February, Ministers brought forward a written statement referencing an MHRA letter in November, but the Minister is refusing to publish it. I have asked Ministers whether they talked to MHRA officials about the trial before February 2026, and they will not answer the question. There was a letter between the MHRA and KCL; I asked when it was received, when the Department became aware of it and when Ministers became aware of its contents. They will not tell me. What about the people controlling the trial? As has also been mentioned during this debate, Professor Jacob George has been recused from further involvement. According to the MHRA’s statement, this is “a precaution”, because of social media posts made before his involvement. Why have those who have made the opposite type of comment not been recused too? This will inevitably make members of the public think there is bias involved. There is an oversight board. What has the Minister done to ensure that the clinicians and scientists on that board are impartial, and that it is balanced between both perspectives? The Tavistock trial was supposed to report to the MHRA, but it did not, seemingly with no consequence. There will be lay members on the board with lived experience; will one of those be a detransitioner, or will they all be people on one side? That would increase the perception of bias in this trial. In summary, this is a trial of risky medication on healthy children, most of whose features of gender incongruence will resolve in time, given normal puberty. What is particularly worrying is that, at the end of this treatment, the trial has so many flaws that it is bound to be disputed, whatever the result. To give this treatment, the lead clinician will need to think that there is a reasonable prospect of a patient benefiting from puberty blockers. Given all that has been said, how can any clinician believe that that is the case? I hope we can all agree that we do not need a clinical trial to know that helping a child to be at peace with themselves and their body is infinitely preferable to a lifetime of harmful medical intervention.

    Hansard source
18. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Financial Assistance to Industry

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome this motion, which will allow the Secretary of State to make individual payments above £30 million to successful applicants to the life sciences large investment portfolio. The LSLIP has been developed and designed to support large-scale manufacturing and R&D investments in medicine, medtech and diagnostics, with a total budget of up to £570 million, and scope for individual awards of up to £130 million per project. It very much builds on the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund set up by the last Conservative Government to provide substantial capital grants for manufacturing innovation to strengthen the UK’s health supply chain. Together, the life sciences large investment portfolio and the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund provide a pipeline of support in the UK for both resilience-building manufacturing and global-scale industrial capability. The year 2025 was a challenging one for the UK life sciences sector, with AstraZeneca first scrapping plans to invest £450 million in expanding a vaccine manufacturing plant in Merseyside, blaming a reduction in Government support, and then announcing in September that it was pausing its £200 million research investment in Cambridge. That same month, Merck announced that it was scrapping a planned £1 billion expansion of its UK operations. However, that was not the full extent of the problems, with Eli Lilly and Sanofi also pausing investment in their UK operations. Several life sciences investments secured under the previous Conversative Administration were culled or put on hold after this Government took office. The life sciences large investment portfolio may go some way to recovering that lost ground and signalling to the life sciences sector that the UK remains serious about attracting, retaining and growing a world-leading life sciences R&D and manufacturing sector. Sadly, it will not be sufficient in isolation. The Government intervened late last year to stabilise the rebate rate applied to newer medicines under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth for 2026. However, UK rates remain significantly higher and more volatile than those in many of our peer countries, which is a deterrent to significant investment in UK life science industries. My first question therefore is, what further action are the Government taking to secure longer-term stability and predictability in this area? Last year, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry made a pre-Budget submission calling on the Government to take action to restore the UK’s position as a global leader in life sciences. Among the ABPI’s recommendations was ensuring that VAT is not applied to free-of-charge medicines under early-access schemes, to preserve access for UK patients and maintain the UK’s attractiveness for clinical trials. However, The Sunday Times reported yesterday that one multinational drug company has stopped patients receiving early-access medicines, with another considering similar action after His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs issued VAT bills to pharma companies providing medicines under the scheme. That fiscal folly has real-world effects on not only the economy, but the lives of patients with debilitating and life-threatening conditions who are taking part in those trials. Therefore, my second question to the Minister is, what discussions has he had with Treasury colleagues about the urgent need to reform the tax system to make the UK a more attractive and stable jurisdiction for investment in life sciences?

    Hansard source
19. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Financial Assistance to Industry

    Will the Minister respond on the point about VAT on medicines and trials?

    Hansard source
20. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Middle East

    Given that it takes about a month to move a minor war vessel from Portsmouth to the Gulf, and notwithstanding the meetings that the Secretary of State says that he is having with allies about ensuring freedom of navigation through the strait, would it be a good idea to start shifting those minehunters now, so that when he has the results of his discussions, which I hope will be a bit more than just handwringing, we will be in a position to genuinely do something in an area that we are actually really rather good at?

    Hansard source
21. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Hatzola Ambulance Attack

    Among the many reviews that he cited, the Minister mentioned Jonathan Hall’s review, which is getting a bit long in the tooth. Surely, given the events in north London and the middle east this month, its recommendations should now be expedited, as there appears to be cross-party support for the concept that the IRGC should be proscribed. Why can the Wagner Group—a state-linked entity—be proscribed, but the IRGC cannot, even without changing the Terrorism Act?

    Hansard source
22. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Draft Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Let me say at the outset that the Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on the regulations, because they achieve an ambition that we support. Indeed, Katy Bourne was selected some time ago as the Conservative candidate for the new mayoral role and has been campaigning for a good deal of time, in the expectation that the election would take place in May 2026, as per the original timetable. The fact that we are here considering this instrument, which will be made under Conservative legislation—the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—is an indication of how far behind the Government are on achieving their ambitions for devolution in England. We find ourselves in the position that elections will go ahead in May for councils that the Government are set to abolish, but not for the new mayor, who, it is envisaged, will take over some of their responsibilities. I intend to press the Minister a little on those issues. The first thing that it will be helpful to understand is the likely cost of the delay. As we know from feedback from local authority leaders around the country, the delays that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has introduced consistently to this process have meant that things like the renewal of contracts to provide children’s social care, adult social care, highways and pothole maintenance—all kinds of different local authority services—have been put in question, because the new authorities do not know when they will come into those responsibilities, and the authorities that currently hold them do not know when they will be abolished. That imposes a cost on taxpayers, causes a degree of uncertainty and bears down on the service quality that can be leveraged through that process. It will also be helpful if the Minister can set out what interdependencies there are between the draft regulations and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is yet to make its way through the parliamentary process. There is no carry-over provision for the Bill, so, with Prorogation imminent, the Government will have to undertake significant consideration of what parts of it will make it through, if any at all. Having spent many painful days on the Bill Committee, I am sure that the Minister is no more enthusiastic than the Opposition about the prospect of having to relitigate all the points on the Bill. However, the Bill is designed to create the underpinnings of the role that this mayor will occupy. Clearly, there is significant doubt about the ability to implement those policies, if the necessary legislation has yet to make it through Parliament. Finally, is the Minister able to say anything about the interaction between these regulations and the Home Office proposal to abolish the role of police and crime commissioner? The Government set out very clearly in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill the expectation that these new mayoral authorities would take on some of the responsibilities of PCCs, but the elections of the new mayors have been significantly delayed, so there will be a gap between the end of the current PCCs’ terms in office and the election of the new mayors, of whom I think this the first to have delegated legislation underpinning their role.

    Hansard source
23. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Asylum Seekers: Accommodation

    13. How many asylum seekers were in asylum accommodation on (a) 30 September 2025 and (b) 30 June 2024.

    Hansard source
24. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Asylum Seekers: Accommodation

    The figures published by the Home Office show around a 7% rise in the asylum and dispersal accommodation numbers. My Hillingdon constituents would know, because we have the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority area in the country, and it is putting huge pressure on the supply of temporary accommodation. My local Conservative council argues that it should put the housing needs of long-standing local residents ahead of the needs of those who have newly arrived as asylum seekers. Does the Minister agree?

    Hansard source
25. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

    Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. As the debate is heavily subscribed, I am afraid that I will have to impose a two-minute speech limit from the start, and even that will not guarantee that everyone will be called.

    Hansard source
26. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

    Thank you, Mr Smith, for keeping to time, which I am sure Rebecca Paul will do as well.

    Hansard source
27. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

    Order. I think the Minister has made it clear that she is not taking interventions.

    Hansard source
28. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Asylum Seekers: Recorded Crime

    I recently met Siobhan Whyte, the mother of Rhiannon. Rhiannon was brutally murdered by Sudanese illegal immigrant Deng Majek, who stabbed Rhiannon 23 times. Majek arrived by small boat in late July 2024. As the Home Secretary will know, small boat crossings since the election have gone up by 45%. Majek would have been among the first eligible for removal to Rwanda, so Siobhan wants me to ask the Home Secretary this: why did the Government cancel the Rwanda scheme just before it was due to start? If Majek had been removed to Rwanda, Rhiannon would still be alive today.

    Hansard source
29. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

    I have come to the House directly from Golders Green, where I have visited the scene of the appalling attack on the Hatzola ambulance service. I strongly urge the Home Secretary to visit as well. I thank the police, fire service and Hatzola volunteers for their response in the early hours of this morning. The members of the Jewish community who I spoke to this morning in Golders Green feel under attack, so what more can the Home Secretary say about the Government’s plans to protect the Jewish community, including potentially by using counter-terrorism-style surveillance powers to identify and disrupt antisemitic attacks before they occur? Does the Home Secretary agree that calls on our streets at marches for jihad and intifada are calls for violence that fuel antisemitism, and does she agree that they should no longer be allowed? Finally, will she ensure that all antisemites and extremists who are not British citizens get deported?

    Hansard source
30. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

    I will pursue these questions with the Security Minister, when he gives his statement later. Media reports suggest that the Home Secretary is under pressure from the former Deputy Prime Minister on her indefinite leave to remain policy, so will the Home Secretary tell the House who is running the Government’s immigration policy now? Is it her, or is it the former Deputy Prime Minister? Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House now—

    Hansard source
31. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Hatzola Ambulance Attack

    As always, I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This was a hideous antisemitic attack on a charity that provides ambulance services not just for the Jewish community, but for the whole community. I saw that for myself some months ago when I visited the Stamford Hill branch of Hatzola, and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) has been a great supporter of the Hatzola branch in her constituency. Let me start by thanking Hatzola and the emergency services for their response this morning. Antisemitic incidents are on the rise. The Jewish community has been targeted again and again, including through the Islamist murder at Heaton Park synagogue last autumn. The Community Security Trust recorded the second highest ever number of antisemitic incidents last year. The truth is that the Government must do a lot more to fight antisemitism. We have seen a recent antisemitic murder and a surge in antisemitism, but too little has been done, as this morning’s outrage demonstrates. This morning I visited the Hatzola branch in Golders Green with the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I spoke to dozens of people in Golders Green who are now living in fear, including a mother who is worried about sending her children to school. Antisemitism often goes hand in hand with Islamist extremism, a threat we know all too well. Fifty-two people were murdered on 7/7, we had the murder of Sir David Amess, and 22 victims were killed in the Manchester Arena attack—all perpetrated by Islamist extremists. Some 75% of MI5’s terrorism caseload relates to Islamist extremism, and 94% of terrorist murders in the last 25 years have been perpetrated by Islamists, yet only 10% of the Prevent caseload is Islamist. I ask the Minister again, just as I have asked before: what is he going to do about that? In October, I asked the Home Secretary to use her power under section 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 to remove any foreign national who expresses extremist views, sympathy for violence, or terrorism, antisemitism or any other religious hatred. She said that she can exercise that power where someone is not “conducive to the public good”. It is a wide-ranging power, and she should use it. The Home Secretary said that she was reviewing the use of the power and promised to update the House, but we have heard nothing since, so will the Security Minister update the House on what the Government will do with that power? Once the perpetrators of today’s attack have been caught, will he use that power to deport them if they are not British citizens? Since Hamas’s attack on 7 October, we have seen protesters marching on London’s streets and openly calling for jihad and intifada. These are express calls for violence. We should no longer tolerate chants at these marches that encourage and endorse violence, and which fuel antisemitism. They must simply not be allowed. We must do more to prevent antisemitic attacks from happening in the first place, so will the Security Minister commit to authorising the intrusive surveillance powers usually reserved for counter-terrorism or to counter state threats to be used to identify and prevent antisemitic attacks that are in the planning? Finally, since July 2024, 67,000 illegal immigrants have arrived here by small boat, which is a 45% increase on the period before. As I have said, the small boat crisis is not just a border crisis, but a national security crisis. How can we be sure that these unvetted illegal migrants are not linked to terror groups or extremists, such as the small boat illegal migrant Mosab Al-Gassas, who had previously posted on social media brandishing a gun and spouting support for Hamas? If we are serious about protecting the public, we must leave the European convention on human rights and remove all illegal immigrants within a week of their arrival. Warm words alone for the Jewish community are no longer enough. We need to take the tough actions that will make a difference, some of which I have mentioned. The litmus test is not the good intentions the Minister has expressed today; the litmus test is taking the tough, difficult actions that will actually eradicate antisemitism from this country.

    Hansard source
32. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

    Division off. Question agreed to. Lords amendment 4 disagreed to. Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.—(Christian Wakeford.)

    Hansard source
33. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Middle East

    I pay tribute to all the personnel at RAF Wyton, who are doing incredible round-the-clock work to analyse exactly what is going on in this conflict in the middle east. The Secretary of State talks about missile defence for the UK. I appreciate that he has had his Weetabix this morning, but can I gently remind him that he was a Minister in the last Labour Government, who halved the number of Type 45 destroyers, meaning that we do not have enough? They also equipped them with WR-21 engines, and as a result, we have only one that is currently seaworthy, HMS Dragon. The Security Minister, who is also sitting on the Front Bench, told me last week that the Government were informed in advance of the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Could the Secretary of State confirm how far in advance the Government were informed of those attacks? Was it hours, days, or weeks?

    Hansard source
34. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Hatzola Ambulance Attack

    In a previous incarnation, I was fortunate enough to be a parliamentary candidate in Hackney. I was invited to meet Hatzola in Stamford Hill, and I was blown away by its incredible work. The fact that Hatzola is integrated into the London ambulance service and provides such a vital community resource is extremely commendable, and I pay tribute to it. I am conscious that emergency workers are incredibly vulnerable at the best of times. Given that Hatzola is liveried and clearly marked as effectively Jewish, what steps is the Minister taking to mitigate the additional vulnerabilities of the Hatzola crews going forward to ensure that they are not targeted in any type of copycat attacks?

    Hansard source
35. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Child Exploitation

    Online cowards such as Andrew Tate make money by radicalising boys into viewing women as prey, which has been laid bare once again by Louis Theroux’s documentary “Manosphere”. Meanwhile, we have religious preachers encouraging men to beat and rape their wives if they refuse to give them sex at their request. Will the Home Secretary therefore issue statutory guidance requiring police forces to use existing incitement legislation to prosecute those who incite sexual violence against women and girls, and will she share what a difference that could make? The reality is that we have the laws, but they are not being used in creative ways to crack down on those who use their voices in this way.

    Hansard source
36. 23 Mar 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Middle East

    Any assessment of this intervention must recognise that the Iranian regime has made the Iranian people pay with blood for every single act of defiance, so any attempt to apportion blame when a mass insurrection does not materialise would be unjust, and I hope that we will soon hear Ministers say so from the Dispatch Box. Last week, I raised concerns that the assessment of the intent and capability of Iran was clearly flawed, and this weekend’s activity has proved that to be true. What action has the Secretary of State taken to challenge thinking internally, and to support British overseas territories by taking action to reinforce their defences and by speaking to their elected Governments, not just governors?

    Hansard source
37. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    International Development

    I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement, but I have listened carefully, and what we have heard today will do little to reassure this House, the development sector or the British taxpayer. After more than a year of uncertainty and delay, 12 days before the start of the new financial year, we still know little about how Labour will reform development. A reduction in funding has to be accompanied by genuine reform, and I remind her that it was the Conservative party that pushed the Government to reallocate funding from development to defence. It was Labour that conceded. We hear warm words about a fundamental change in approach and about moving from donor to investor, but the Foreign Secretary has not told us what that means in practice. What programmes have been cancelled this year as a result of these reductions? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which commitments made by this country will no longer be honoured? We on the Opposition Benches are clear that development spending must be rooted firmly in Britain’s national interest, economic security, national security and health security. That is the anchor; that is the test. The Foreign Secretary talks about moving from donor to investor, yet almost a decade ago, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), set out the UK’s first economic development strategy. These subjects featured in the 2023 international development White Paper. What exactly will be new in the Government’s approach? How will the investor model operate? What metrics will be used to measure return, not just financially, but in terms of stability, resilience and alignment with UK interests? What will the Foreign Secretary do to make the private sector much more of an engine in development? The Foreign Secretary has announced that bilateral aid to G20 countries will end, with the exception of Turkey. What specific programmes will the UK fund in Turkey? How much will be allocated and what assessment has been made of the direct benefit to the UK? I want to press the Foreign Secretary on oversight and accountability. Spending is being reduced and reprioritised, and there have been briefings about the future of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. That body was established to ensure that every pound delivers value for money. Will it continue in its current form, with full independence and authority? If not, what will replace it? Weakening scrutiny at the very moment of greatest change risks undermining public confidence entirely. She says it remains the Government’s intention to return to 0.7% of GNI on development. What are the fiscal circumstances that would allow that and what is her expected timescale? Turning to priorities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken about climate finance, but at a time when the country faces serious fiscal constraints—driven by this Government’s own economic choices—can she explain why this remains a central pillar? Should our first priorities not be economic resilience and national security, including global health security? On the latter, the Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund. What will she do to ensure that the UK remains a strong contributor in an era when the ODA envelope is smaller? The multilateral development system needs a complete overhaul. Given Labour’s plans to reduce bilateral aid funding, does the Foreign Secretary have a serious plan to drive reform of the multilateral development banks? Will she push for much more robust accountability, transparency and conditionality? How will she ensure better outcomes and a stronger focus on delivery? Crucially, is she working in concert with our key allies, including the US, to drive that reform? The World Bank under its current president is undergoing a significant reform programme, which could be much more widely rolled out across the MDB ecosystem. Is she discussing how Britain could support that? Will the right hon. Lady update the House on support for British international investment? This is a genuine success story, mobilising private capital, supporting growth and advancing British interests. Does she have any plans to strengthen it and to ensure that it continues to generate strong returns? What of Britain’s soft-power institutions that support our influence around the world? What is her vision for the future of the British Council in this new landscape? Is it being supported or quietly squeezed? The Foreign Secretary omitted to mention the Commonwealth at all in her statement. How will she work with the Commonwealth Secretariat and our partners to ensure Britain’s partnership offers are much more attractive, so that our friends do not turn to China, which seeks only exploitation and closed trade? More broadly, is she exploring the potential for minilateral partnerships with close security partners? There are pressing geopolitical questions, not least how the Government is supporting countries vulnerable to Russian interference, including Moldova. What role will organisations like the Westminster Foundation for Democracy play going forward? Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine. This week, we welcomed President Zelensky to this House. It is important that we reaffirm our commitment to the humanitarian response to Putin’s illegal invasion. This House is entitled to answers, the sector is entitled to certainty and the British people are entitled to know how their money is being spent and why. For decades, UK development policy has delivered transformative results around the world. It works at its best not when we are a charity, but when we are ruthlessly focused on driving genuine outcomes with genuine objectives, have rigorous criteria for selecting projects and take a clear view on how to play to our strengths.

    Hansard source
38. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    Consumers and farmers believe that a Union Jack flag or a Made in Britain label should mean that the food was made or grown in the United Kingdom. We Conservatives, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), consulted on this flag loophole before the election—and we will close it when we are back in government. May I offer the Secretary of State some help? We have already helped her with her fly-tipping policies this week, and I am pleased to see that she has adopted some of our policies to tackle the problem. Will she now adopt another Conservative plan and close the flag loophole?

    Hansard source
39. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    And the Secretary of State has had this matter sitting on her desk for 18 months. Instead of dealing with it, we have had 18 months of damaging the rural economy, damaging rural businesses and hurting rural families under this Government. Indeed, only yesterday we saw yet another example: as fuel prices surge, Labour MPs voted to make the fuel in our cars even more expensive than it already is. We on the Conservative Benches know that rural families depend on their cars to live, so we ask why this Labour Government are targeting rural families with ever-higher taxes on their cars, their incomes and their businesses, making life harder for us all?

    Hansard source
40. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State announced yet another supposedly significant policy this week—the land use framework—outside Parliament, and has not offered an oral statement so that Ministers may be scrutinised. This is the fifth time she has done this. The other four occasions were the Baroness Batters review, the animal welfare strategy, the family farm tax fiasco and the SFI scheme, which has attracted many questions today because colleagues need to know more details for their constituents. What can be done to encourage the Secretary of State to make a proper announcement in the House so that Members of Parliament can—

    Hansard source