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

1. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

   I am grateful to the Minister for his typical courtesy. I am sure that there will be wide agreement with his proposition that someone who is doing a ministerial job ought to be paid for it, and such jobs should not be reserved for the people who can afford not to be paid. However, on the principle that a bigger Government is not necessarily a better Government, can he guarantee that if there is an increase in the number of paid ministerial posts, there will not be a commensurate increase in the number of unpaid ministerial posts?

   Hansard source
2. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

   I am sorry to come in again. One of the things that I have never quite understood, given that the workload is broadly the same, is why there is a differential in salary between the different levels of Minister—particularly in the Lords, where their jobs are effectively the same. Why are some Ministers of State or Under-Secretaries paid a different amount? After all, whatever our seniority, we are all paid exactly the same as Members of this House. Why would they not all be paid the same?

   Hansard source
3. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Immigration Reforms

   There has been too much immigration into this country for too long, and that is certainly the view of the vast majority of the people I speak to in my constituency. I suspect it is a widespread view among law-abiding, patriotic Britons from all kinds of backgrounds. Three myths have been perpetuated to sustain the level of immigration that we have endured. The first is that it is necessary for our economy—that we need labour. What migration has actually done is to displace investment in domestic skills, to perpetuate a labour-intensive economy at a time when we should have been automating and taking out labour demand, and to feed the greed of those employers who, rather than paying a decent wage for employees who understood their rights, were happy to take cheap labour. Those have been the effects of the arguments about the economy. The second myth has been about multiculturalism: this curious notion that we can absorb all kinds of people into our country without a shared sense of belonging, a common sense of what being British is all about, and that these co-existing subcultures would somehow cohere. In fact, as Trevor Phillips, himself of course the child of migrants, argued long ago, we have ended up with the ghettoisation—his words, not mine—of large parts of our country, with co-existing subcultures, without the bonds that bind us together in the shared sense I have described. The third myth is that migration would not have a detrimental effect on some of our public services. Just imagine the figures for a moment—I am speaking now of legal migration. Between April 2022 and March 2023, the number of people entering Britain was 944,000—944,000 people extra in a year—yet when we debate housing, transport infrastructure, the health service, the availability of dentists and GPs, we never consider the effect of population growth at that scale on the demand for all those services.

   Hansard source
4. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Immigration Reforms

   The hon. Gentleman is of course right. The blame for all this should not be laid exclusively in the hands of the Labour party or Labour Governments. Successive Governments have administered a regime that has been out of tune with the sentiments of the vast majority of the population, who know what I have said is true. For the hon. Gentleman is right to say, too, that those successive Governments have allowed unsustainable levels of net migration. If we look at the history, however, we see it was once quite different. In 1967 net migration was minus 84,000, in 1987 it was just 2,000, and in 1997 it was 48,000. It is in my time in this House—although, I hasten to add, not at my behest—that migration has soared, and we have begun to accept that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people can be added to our population without taking account of the fact that that brings additional pressure on public services. That is not to say that many of those people do not make a positive contribution to our country—of course they do, in all kinds of ways—but to ignore the facts in terms of, for example, the growth in demand for housing is a dereliction of duty of which politicians across the political spectrum are guilty.

   Hansard source
5. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Immigration Reforms

   Illegal migration, of course, is of a different order. Illegal immigration is about breaching borders. A nation means very little unless it has territorial integrity. What is the purpose of a nation that has porous borders? Indeed, it barely deserves to be described as such. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the way our borders have been breached, with impunity, over time. Bear in mind that nine out of 10 of the people who arrive in dinghies are men, and 75% are under the age of 40. Let us be clear about who is coming, and for what purpose. Many are economic migrants and, frankly, given where they come from, if we came from those places, we might come, too, because we would see a better life here and want that life for our families. I do not criticise the individuals; I criticise a system that permits that level of illegal migration. Legal migration matters because of its scale and its character. It has led to a change in our society at a pace that many people find it impossible to comprehend, still less to cope with, so it is time that the political establishment, populated as it is by the liberal bourgeoisie—

   Hansard source
6. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Immigration Reforms

   Not the Minister, of course—I except him from that general description. It is time that the political establishment faced up to the fact that what they have perpetuated for too long is at odds with the intuition, experience and will of the British people. We need to cut migration of all kinds, and we need to cut it now, or they will dispense with us and elect people who will.

   Hansard source
7. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Immigration Reforms

   I should have congratulated the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate and said how pleased I am that you are in the Chair, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend will know that the care visa system established by the previous Government brought here more dependants than care workers. Everyone who arrives in a country brings an economic value and an economic cost; they all want houses, they all want health and they all want education for their children. That was a flagrant example of what my hon. Friend described: more dependants came, and the cost was much greater than the value.

   Hansard source
8. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

   Youth Unemployment

   I have known the Secretary of State for a long time, and I have a lot of respect for him and for the position that he is in. The key thing here, as I observe it, is that one of the big problems is the competition between younger people with no experience and older people. He is focusing on younger people. One of the things that we learned the hard way on this matter is that we also have to do something that moves older people through the system faster. We put up the Work programme at the time, which did not cost the Government any money, because it was based on payment by results. May I suggest that when the Secretary of State goes back to the Department and has a look at that, he is focused on the longer-term older people and moving them through jobs? The second point is on the criticism of national insurance. I recognise that this is not the Secretary of State’s decision; it comes from the Treasury—he will have endless disputes with the Treasury. The threshold does not apply to those under the age of 21, but lowering that threshold puts a block in the system, because the risks to those who want to hire younger people are at the same time blocking older people from coming into work for the same reason. May I suggest that he says, “Let’s do a proper set-up so that we understand this issue”? We have to get older people and younger people into work, not just the younger people.

   Hansard source
9. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

   Bailiffs

   I very much associate myself with the Minister’s words on the sad loss. She touched on the important issue of the vital role that court bailiffs play. Many small businesses are struggling to recover money because of a lack of court bailiffs. What actions are the Government looking to take to increase the number of court bailiffs, in order to help small businesses recover the money that they are owed?

   Hansard source
10. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Meningitis Outbreak

    I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Obviously, we are rapidly approaching the time when, right across the country, university students will be dispersing and heading away from halls of residence and their campuses. What actions is the Secretary of State taking—working not just with universities, but with health authorities and other bodies right around the country—to make sure that any cases that may be dispersed around the country are quickly acted on?

    Hansard source
11. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

    What a pleasure it is to speak in this debate. Speaking in a debate where there is no time limit attached to the speeches made is a rarity and an opportunity that we should all relish and take advantage of. I must confess that when I saw the title of this Bill, the radical in me was excited. I thought that the Government were going to do something bold, visionary and different, but sadly that opportunity to do something different seems to have passed them by. Instead of listening to what the Chancellor has said about some of the great challenges that this country faces in balancing the books and ensuring that we have the ability to pay our way and make savings in government all the way from the top to the bottom, the Cabinet Office seems to have gone on a little jolly of its own. It has decided to do something completely different and expand the cost of doing government. That is not quite what the British public are asking for. Before this debate, I thought I had best check my emails, because I was wondering when I last had a deluge of emails—or even one email—calling for more Cabinet Ministers, more Ministers of State or more Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. I searched my emails over the past month, and I could not find one. I searched over the past year, and I could not find one. I went all the way back over 16 years, desperately searching for an email calling for more Cabinet Ministers, more Ministers of State and more Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, and I found none whatsoever. I am concerned for the health of this Government, who are having a few difficulties. Are they doing things that the public do not want? I do not think there is a great demand for more Ministers. I urge the Minister to look again at this legislation. I agree with one element of the Bill—that if a person is being asked to do a job, they should get a wage for it—but why not bring down the number of people who can be Ministers? Why not turn this Bill into a saving for the Government and the Treasury? That will earn the Minister great plaudits from No. 11. He will probably be hailed; he will probably be earmarked for promotion, so that he can get one of the reduced number of Secretary of State positions. I question why, at this time, the Government are bringing forward legislation enabling them to expand the Government payroll. I remember that when I was Chief Whip, I would often be confronted with Members of Parliament who were quite willing to do a job without any pay as long as they were going to be called “Minister”. Admittedly, that was many years ago—maybe things have changed—but I worry about sending the message that we have found the time to pass legislation to pay more people to be Ministers. What the public want to hear is that the Government and this House are tackling the issues that impact their lives. They want to hear that this House is tackling the issues that will make a difference to their living standards, not those of Members of Parliament and Ministers.

    Hansard source
12. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

    I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a disconnect between all the priorities and all the issues around the world and our wanting to pass legislation to create more ministerial offices. I also understand and appreciate the challenges that the Prime Minister will face. I am sympathetic to his position, because he will be constantly badgered to make more Ministers, with more people wanting patronage and elevation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has pointed out, there is no upper limit to the number of Ministers, so if we are in this House in 10 years’ time, we will be having a debate about how there are another 15 Ministers who are unpaid. The Government Minister will be at the Dispatch Box, possibly trying to defend the idea of paying even more Ministers. We will have a creep, creep, creep of patronage, with ever more people going on to the Government payroll. I feel, and I fear, that that may weaken this House.

    Hansard source
13. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

    Was any consideration given to reducing the ministerial total, as against increasing it, in preparing this Bill?

    Hansard source
14. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

    I thank the Minister for his generosity. He is right to say that the Government have moved to remove hereditaries, which is an important step forward, but they have failed to do a number of other things that were in their manifesto, including introducing an age limit and making rules about attendance. Can he give some clarity about when that legislation will come forward, and about whether he can also get rid of the bishops?

    Hansard source
15. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Automated Enforcement Technology: Evidence

    The Minister will have heard, as I did, the very moving speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) last week. She really moved the House with her testimony of the terrible experience that she had had as a rape victim, and her experience of delays. She will also have heard her say that, according to the Government, abolishing jury trials will save perhaps only a week. So my positive question to the Government is this: why do we not proceed on the basis of the Labour manifesto? It has its merits and it promised specialist rape trials. Why do we not set up courtrooms in every single courthouse with specialist lawyers and really deal with the backlog now?

    Hansard source
16. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Middle East

    In June last year, Mr Trump told the world that the Iranian nuclear sites had been “completely destroyed”, but the last few weeks prove that he did not believe that to be true. Last week, the President told the world that the war was nearly completely won and that he needed no help. He has said in recent months that NATO is useless. He now appears to need both help and NATO. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me—and, I believe, with many in the House—that the President himself is becoming an increasingly unreliable and erratic ally and partner, and that the UK is therefore right to be strategically questioning and sceptical about his pronouncements and his motives? I also echo the view of many people across the House that our remaining sceptical and questioning should not be an excuse for sitting idly by, wringing our hands and offering earnest words but no action in support of humanitarian aid to safeguard the lives of ordinary Lebanese and Palestinians and those in the west bank, because to sit and do nothing would make us as culpable as the guilty.

    Hansard source
17. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Youth Unemployment

    It frankly beggars belief that the Secretary of State does not understand the impact that the Government’s policies on business, tax and regulation have had on the confidence of businesses up and down the country to invest and employ. There is a direct causal link, and nobody will understand why the Secretary of State does not make that link and persuade the Treasury to do something about it. However, my direct question to him is this: why does he think that unemployment is always higher at the end of a Labour Government?

    Hansard source
18. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Rural Roads

    It is frustrating, yet sadly not surprising, that roads across Keighley and Ilkley are facing so many challenges. I lay those challenges at the doorstep of Labour-run Bradford council, which has consistently shown disregard for the needs of the people across Keighley and Ilkley. That is backed up by a freedom of information request that I made in 2023, which found that over a six-year period, just £4.1 million of the district’s highways funding was spent in Keighley and Ilkley, equating to just 4% of the total funding over that period, yet Bradford East, Bradford West and Bradford South—all held by Labour MPs—received £19.2 million, £17.4 million and £13.1 million, respectively. It is beyond belief that my constituents have received much less funding compared with other areas across the Bradford district. I would therefore like to understand what the Minister will do to hold to account local authorities that do not share their highways funding equally across the districts they represent.

    Hansard source
19. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Jury Trials

    10. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

    Hansard source
20. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Jury Trials

    About 6,200 cases are awaiting justice in the south-west. Sexual offences cases take about 320 days, but local victims and defendants deserve justice. The excellent example of Liverpool Crown court highlights how it is possible to tackle the case backlog and secure justice without impacting defendants’ right to a jury trial. Given that tackling the backlog using efficiency, not removing the right to a jury trial, has the backing of the public and the Opposition—and, indeed, Labour MPs—when will the Secretary of State back down from his entirely un-British decision to minimise the use of jury trials?

    Hansard source
21. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Rural Roads

    A key point to make is that potholes are often a symptom that roads have not been resurfaced at the right time. In reality, we have billions of pounds in community infrastructure levy funds that are sitting across the country, often just earning interest. They are not being invested in resurfacing roads or our drainage system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we can better spend that community infrastructure levy money and ensure that it is put into roads? That often means making sure that—

    Hansard source
22. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Youth Unemployment

    I think we can all agree that tackling the rise in youth employment is very important, but I am concerned about the approach that is being adopted for that purpose. We are essentially taking money away from employers and then giving some of them some of it back. Has the Secretary of State considered, for instance, the use of existing levers in relation to employer national insurance? That would be an obvious way to address the issue and ensure that some of our young people are employed.

    Hansard source
23. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Middle East

    I want to put on the record the thanks of the Opposition to our brave armed forces in the region and to those en route, as well as our thanks to the diplomatic and consular staff for all their efforts to support the quarter of a million British nationals in the region. We also thank our GCC allies for their care in hosting the thousands of British nationals who have returned home via their commercial carriers—Emirates and Etihad Airways—through the air corridor that they secured. British nationals in the region, our assets and interests, and our allies continue to be on the receiving end of indiscriminate targeting by Iran’s despotic regime. As our friends in the GCC have said, the regime has pursued a nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programme, and sponsors terrorist proxies, whose destabilising activities across the region and interference in domestic affairs of state have threatened us all. The world would be a safer place free from the tyrants of Tehran. While Iran attacks our military bases, targets British nationals, holds Lindsay and Craig Foreman captive and indiscriminately fires missiles and drones on its neighbours, we cannot stay silent or inactive. The UAE’s Minister of International Co-operation, Her Excellency Reem Al Hashimy, has called Iran’s actions “unhinged”. Our friends in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have rightly stated that Iran must stop the attacks on economic infrastructure. We have consistently called on the Government to work closely with our friends in the Gulf. We must back our allies in their attempts to safeguard their regional airspace, freedom of navigation and economic and national security. Given the concerns that they have raised in recent weeks, what assurances and confidence did the Foreign Secretary give our friends in the Gulf about the depth and reliability of our support to them? What specific commitments did she make to them about better protecting our bases and allies in the region? The way that our friends and close security partners who host British armed forces have been subjected to outrageous, unprovoked aggression has been painful to watch. Britain cannot stand by while our allies do the heavy lifting to protect us all. Take Bahrain, for example, with whom we signed the C-SIPA—comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement—in 2024. I am yet to receive a substantive answer from the Government on how we are mobilising the agreement to better protect our ally and our naval base near Manama. What commitments has the Foreign Secretary given to ensure that British assets would be made available to bolster our allies’ defences? Will minehunter vessels be returning to our base in Bahrain, and will a destroyer, which can take down projectiles, be in the region? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with Israeli Ministers on the Iranian-backed terrorist organisation Hezbollah, whose actions are undermining regional stability and the Lebanese Government and causing terrible hardship for both the Lebanese and Israeli people? Can she advise the House on any actions that the British Government are taking to support practical efforts to see Hezbollah disarmed? What is her assessment of the capacity of the Lebanese armed forces to deal with this threat? Earlier this month, the Minister for the Middle East summoned Iran’s terrorist representative in London. What was discussed? Will the Foreign Secretary summon him again? Has she held any direct discussions with her Iranian counterpart? As well as threatening regional security, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threatens our homeland. It has been designated a terrorist organisation by every corner of the world, including the United States, the European Union, many members of the GCC and our Commonwealth partner, Canada. At this time of war, why does the UK diverge from the rest of the world? What leverage over Iran are the Government exacting for taking the position of not acting? If the Government bring forward legislation to proscribe the IRGC, the Opposition will stand ready to work with them. That also applies to the source of funding of the Iranian regime—what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking with our partners to cut off the financial flows that fund the Iranian regime through the international financial system? The Foreign Secretary referred to her conversation with Secretary Rubio. Can she confirm that Britain is being kept informed of US actions, both militarily and diplomatically? What kind of agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme would she find acceptable, given the Government’s preference for a negotiated settlement? What is her assessment of the international efforts to reopen the strait of Hormuz? I say that following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday about a new viable collective plan. What are the details of that plan? Finally, Iran’s close friend Putin must not profit from this conflict in the middle east. What is the coalition of the willing doing to collapse Putin’s financial flows, make the shadow fleet unviable and stop refineries in India, China and Turkey buying Russian crude oil and funding Putin’s assault on Ukraine? Will the Foreign Secretary also join me in commending our Ukrainian friends for their support of our Gulf allies, when they themselves are under constant attack? This is a consequential moment for the world, and strong and consistent British leadership is required.

    Hansard source
24. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Child Maintenance Service

    I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. We are all here because we have been inundated with issues and complaints about the CMS. One of the things I hear about over and over again is the lack of communication. Does the hon. Member agree that if the CMS got the communication right, some of these disputes might not escalate to the point where they become very troublesome indeed?

    Hansard source
25. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Rural Roads

    As my hon. Friend knows, he is also the Member of Parliament for my mother-in-law, so I congratulate him on all his hard work. [Interruption.] Check the words: I said nothing wrong. One issue hitting rural areas is, of course, road works, because residents cannot just take the next left or right turn and sometimes have to detour for miles. Does my hon. Friend agree that it behoves the utility companies to keep residents informed of any road works they are doing, so that residents can plan their journeys in advance?

    Hansard source
26. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Nigel Huddleston

    Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am very pleased that I can start my speech by saying that I agree with the Minister: the Churches Conservation Trust does indeed play a vital role in the preservation of our heritage, and our religious heritage in particular. The CCT cares for more than 350 listed churches across England that are no longer used for regular worship, including several in my constituency, and is the custodian of the third largest collection of heritage properties in the country, surpassed only by the National Trust and English Heritage. Together, CCT churches receive as many as 2 million visitors a year. They play a key role in our tourism economy, a point especially pertinent to today’s debate, which takes place during English Tourism Week. The Churches Conservation Trust keeps these buildings open to the public for free, operating on a far smaller turnover than the National Trust or English Heritage. It not only performs vital restoration and preservation work but, working alongside the local community, often seeks new use opportunities for its churches, which helps to revitalise and rejuvenate those spaces for the benefit of all. Our churches contain some of the country’s best examples of historical art and architecture, from medieval wall paintings to stained glass and stunning monuments. By looking after them for future generations, the CCT also helps to sustain our country’s vital craft and heritage skills. Government funding, in the form of an annual grant, is vital to the CCT’s work, and the Opposition therefore support the grant being awarded by this statutory instrument. Other funding comes from the Church of England, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, donations, legacies and commercial income, including the innovative idea of “champing”, or church camping—something I am sure you have partaken in, Sir Desmond. The CCT keeps its costs down thanks in no small part to the more than 2,500 volunteers in churches across the country who assist the trust in its work; I am sure the Minister will join me in thanking them all. Funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport represents less than a third of the CCT’s funding, but provides a crucial foundation on which to build and raise other funds. A modest sum of state investment keeps nearly 360 of our most precious historical buildings safe and open for millions of visitors in each English county, and provides a network of valuable community facilities in urban and rural settings alike. In recent years, the CCT has been given responsibility for looking after many more churches, and its costs have increased significantly due to inflation and the effects of a changing climate. Last month, the Church of England’s General Synod agreed to increase its annual contribution to the CCT in light of those growing challenges. Yet for many years the DCMS grant has been frozen, and this statutory instrument once again provides a flat cash settlement with the same ceiling for the two subsequent years, representing a real-terms cut. Along with the abolition of the listed places of worship VAT scheme, which will cost the CCT more than £300,000 next year, those funding cuts from the state cancel out the rise from the Church. That situation reflects a broader anxiety among the custodians of our religious heritage. Many current and former places of worship are on Historic England’s heritage at risk register, meaning that without significant intervention they are at risk of being lost to the nation due to neglect, decay or inappropriate development. Yet the Government recently announced the end of the listed places of worship scheme, having halved its budget last year to a maximum of £23 million per year, compared to the £42 million budget when my party was in power. To the surprise of no one but the Government, last month the fund ran out of money. The replacement scheme is due to start next month, but there is still little detail about how it will work in practice, particularly for historical churches, which now face large tax bills for carrying out essential works to look after these important parts of our shared heritage. The VAT grant scheme gave the custodians of our historical places of worship the certainty they needed to carry out vital works to these public buildings, and it sent a message that these were places that we all valued. Scrapping the VAT scheme means that people caring for historical churches, including the Churches Conservation Trust—the Government’s own body that was set up to do just that—will now have to pay a 20% tax to repair or maintain a church, while someone demolishing one would pay 0%. That sends a terrible message about what we value as a nation. To give two examples of trust churches in my constituency, investigation work to locate and fix a leak on the roof of St Lawrence’s in Evesham will cost an estimated £12,000, of which £2,000 is VAT. At All Saints in Spetchley, re-roofing the nave and chancel to protect the 700-year-old church with its fabulous medieval paintings will incur a VAT bill in the region of £20,000. Uncertainty about the Government’s changes has meant that important—indeed, vital—repair work has been delayed or cancelled. The Government announced other changes to heritage support, but again few details have been forthcoming and the high-level information that we have received so far has just given an indication that the VAT reclaim scheme will be replaced with capital grants instead, which has caused considerable anxiety to many stakeholders who fear they will lose out. Can the Minister confirm whether that means fewer sites will receive funding? Will there be winners and losers? If so, who? We are still in the dark about the eligibility criteria, about timescales, the application process, the Barnett consequentials for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and whether any underspend may be carried forward from one year and so on. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity in his closing remarks to provide some reassurance to those entities, including the CCT, about when more details on the new scheme will be announced. In particular, can he confirm the eligibility criteria for the new places of worship renewal fund? Finally, will he lobby the Treasury to support the Conservatives’ commitment to fully restoring funding for the places of worship scheme up to the levels we had when we were in Government?

    Hansard source
27. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Jury Trials

    The Prime Minister, we learned this weekend, once said that trials without juries mean evidence is not properly tested and can lead to wrongful convictions. Was he wrong?

    Hansard source
28. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Jury Trials

    I think the public will be disappointed by this behaviour. The Justice Secretary cannot get his story straight. Like the Prime Minister, he once said: “Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”. Now he says they are a good idea, with his justification for this change changing by the minute. Last week, 10 Labour MPs voted against the courts Bill and 90 abstained. They are looking for a compromise—not in the House of Lords, but while the Bill is in this House. The Justice Secretary just refused to agree a sunset clause in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), so, for the sake of the 100 Labour MPs who do not trust him or his intentions, I will ask again: will he consider a sunset clause, or will he tell his own MPs no?

    Hansard source
29. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Topical Questions

    I join the Justice Secretary in sending condolences to the family of Jeff Blair. I also pay tribute to the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for her successful campaign for a child cruelty register, and I look forward to meeting the Hudgell family this afternoon. The Government have published their Islamophobia definition, rebranded as a definition of anti-Muslim hostility. We are told that the definition is non-statutory, but it is designed to influence official decision making, so will the Justice Secretary make it clear right now that the definition will not be adopted by the police, prosecutors or the judiciary?

    Hansard source
30. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Right to Protest

    People should have the right to protest, but that needs to be coupled with responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned, it is outrageous that fringe groups feel emboldened to protest in support of terrorist ideology, contrary to basic British values. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that these people are under no illusion about how they will end up being prosecuted if they openly support fundamentalist Islamist ideology, and that if they have no right to be here, they will be deported?

    Hansard source
31. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Youth Unemployment

    This is a socialist economic statement. If it moves, the Government tax it; if it keeps moving, they regulate it; and if it stops moving, they subsidise it. Will the Secretary of State accept that his national insurance rises, the changes to business rates and the “unemployment” rights Act have contributed to the hostile environment to employing young people?

    Hansard source
32. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Draft Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to this timely and important discussion on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I welcome today’s discussion on tertiary education, which is long overdue. I thank the Minister for her helpful introduction to the order. The 2022 Act abolished the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and, as the Minister spelled out, the new Commission for Tertiary Education and Research— Medr—became operational in August 2025, bringing responsibility for higher education, further education, apprenticeships, sixth forms and adult learning together in a single strategic body. I recognise that the draft order does not revisit policy decisions; it simply updates legislation so that it continues to function properly following the creation of Medr. While the instrument is technical, as the Minister said, it sits within a wider set of reforms that will shape the future of tertiary education in Wales. Audit Wales has rightly emphasised the importance of ensuring that Medr’s strategic planning reflects the views of learners, employers and providers, and that its long-term planning aligns with statutory missions. Education as a whole should be at the forefront of the Government’s focus for Wales. Many members of the Committee will be concerned that, while Welsh Labour has been in charge of education in Wales from as far back as 1999—when Tony Blair was still Prime Minister—it has been somewhat distracted by other priorities, with some youngsters leaving school unable to progress. The Opposition have concerns about politicians ploughing hundreds of millions of pounds into other focuses, such as Cardiff airport, or sending millions of pounds to plant trees in Uganda. Those spending decisions reflect where the Labour Welsh Government’s focus has been, so I welcome this interest in tertiary education in Wales. There will be some who feel that Labour Ministers in Cardiff Bay have somewhat ignored this issue. Every Government’s first duty should be to create the right conditions for our young people to succeed, no matter where they live, because they are the future of our country. Under both Governments either side of the M4, ideological decisions have impacted on education in Wales in some way. A lack of ambition and motivation is a concern, particularly in higher education. The educational evidence is clear that Welsh pupils continue to record the lowest scores in mathematics, science and reading across the United Kingdom in the PISA figures. Those inherent weaknesses in schools are having a profound effect on the broader tertiary system because they mean that pupils are poorly prepared for further and higher education. It is important to recognise that the target of delivering 125,000 apprenticeships has currently fallen short in Wales by around 25,000 places—or 25,000 opportunities that young people in Wales simply do not have—so it is important that this measure works. There is a shortage of degree apprenticeships, which has been exacerbated by the previously somewhat narrow scope in Cardiff Bay, and flexibility is needed. There is also a degree of worry about developments in universities in Wales. Given these concerns from parents, guardians and students, I would appreciate the Minister’s addressing some points on the proposals and changes. First, will she outline any specific detail on how today’s proposals will tangibly improve tertiary education across Wales? What is her understanding on that? Secondly, will she kindly explain how the proposals address the worrying decline in the number of people entering Welsh tertiary education? Thirdly, what feedback has been received from relevant authorities, particularly in relation to article 4, which requests them to carry out joint functions? Fourthly, has there been an impact assessment to evaluate the potential consequences or opportunities of the proposals? Fifthly, will the Minister outline how these changes will affect the private school sector, which is somewhat struggling in Wales? Sector leaders are approaching us as the official Opposition, because they are currently unable to obtain answers from the Wales Office or indeed from Education Ministers in Cardiff Bay. Sixthly, will there be an update to the House on how any change in these regulations will directly deliver for the people of Wales and support the college sector? Finally, can the Minister talk about the transition to the new Commission? Is it proceeding smoothly? It is, as I know the Minister will understand, a large institutional change. Any evaluations and safeguards are key so that it is properly regulated and all responsibilities and changes are understood. I look forward to her response.

    Hansard source
33. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. He referred to most of Lincolnshire in his opening remarks, but I represent the bit of Leicestershire that is not, in official government terms, part of the east midlands, even though we have the East Midlands ambulance service. We are in no man’s land. We have the Northern Lincolnshire and Goole hospital trust; we are under Humberside police; and the integrated care board—well, that wanders all over the place. My question to the Minister is “Should that continue?” We now have the Greater Lincolnshire Mayor and a combined authority, which play an important part in developing economic strategies and so on. Equally, I recognise that the Humber estuary plays an important part, particularly in energy. I am sure that there are ways to combine that with playing our part in the east midlands. Reference has already been made to the A46. I remind Members that that road continues to Cleethorpes and is important to access to the south Humber industrial sector. We have the Humber freeports; I remind Members that Immingham is the largest port in the country, measured by tonnage. I have 10 railway stations in my constituency, but I do not have a direct train service to London. I have been campaigning for one ever since I arrived in this place in 2010. We have an international airport at Humberside that could play a much more important part in developing the economy of the area. As for railways, mention has been made of Sheffield and the slow services down the midland main line and so on. The first railway to reach my constituency was the MSLR—the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway—which was referred to at the time as “mucky, slow and late”, so this is nothing new. My plea to the Minister is that she give a commitment in her response to looking at our place in government terms. Should we be part of the east midlands? I think perhaps we should. Equally, I recognise the importance of the Humber estuary and the links to the north bank of the Humber.

    Hansard source
34. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Jury Trials

    13. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

    Hansard source
35. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Jury Trials

    I think what the Health Secretary is actually doing at the moment is paying people to fudge the waiting lists. I want to be very clear, because there are slightly mixed messages from the Justice Secretary: are there any circumstances in which he would consider the reintroduction of jury trials for those cases that are going to have them removed?

    Hansard source
36. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Middle East

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I am slightly struggling to see what it adds to the answer to the urgent question we had yesterday, but it is always nice to see the Foreign Secretary. When she asks the US Government to de-escalate, what do they say in response?

    Hansard source
37. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Youth Unemployment

    A couple of weeks ago, I hosted a student roundtable, with two pupils from my eight secondary schools and two from my further education college. I agree with the Secretary of State in that I was left incredibly excited for them and by their hopes and aspirations for the future. However, we also had a discussion about how AI-proof those plans were. His statement mentioned short AI courses, and he also talked about the urgency. Can he tell us how short these short courses will be, who is going to deliver them and how the young people of Spelthorne will sign up to them?

    Hansard source
38. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

    I am reminded of that great fictional character Sir Humphrey Appleby, who once observed that a party with 300 members gets to form a Government, but 100 are too young and too callow, and 100 are too old and too silly, so the Government pretty much select themselves. I congratulate the Minister on making it into the middle group. On the subject of second jobs, being a Minister is essentially a second job, for which the Minister is remunerated. Does he not feel that it is a bit mean-spirited to pull up the drawbridge on other MPs who might desire to have a second job, just as he does?

    Hansard source
39. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026

    Notwithstanding the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, I am a little alarmed by this statutory instrument and its implications for my residents in North West Hampshire. I have a number of questions for the Minister. My understanding is that this scheme was originally established in the aftermath of the disruption to supply chains caused by the conflict in Ukraine. There was significant concern about the ability of the offshore industry to continue, so the subsidy was put in place on a supposedly temporary basis. That was to allow for the uninterrupted development of an industry that had hitherto been working quite well, but was suffering at that point. This statutory instrument, however, turns that temporary subsidy into a permanent feature of the landscape. We are voting through, colleagues, a permanent subsidy to the wind industry. [Interruption.] Well, there is no sunset clause; that has been taken out. There is no review mechanism—there is nothing. If the Minister wants to intervene on me, I am quite happy to be corrected, but as far as I can see this is an open-ended subsidy scheme through the CfD system. My questions are configured around that assumption. First, could the Minister confirm that there will be no annual parliamentary vote on this subsidy? Normally, a subsidy to an industry would expect to come through direct expenditure from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Business and Trade or whatever it might be. This is being funded through the supplier obligation levy, which is a direct levy on consumer bills. There is no approval by the House of the budget. In fact, I think it is just approved administratively—it is what it is. The consumer will pay, whether we like it or not. If the Minister could confirm that, that would be great. As I understand it, the budget for AR7 was about £544 million. Could the Minister confirm for us the projected budget that the Government expect for AR8, and therefore how much my residents in North West Hampshire can expect to be added to their electricity bill to pay for this statutory instrument? Much of the Government’s case for extending what is—let us be clear—an industrial subsidy is that there is a very high leverage. I looked at the maths, and the leverage of private sector to public sector is about 16:1. How was that number reached? I could not see in the impact assessment what the maths was, what assumptions had been made or whether this had been independently verified. Is there some kind of National Audit Office examination of that number? I have been a Minister myself, and I was always very sceptical about these public-private leverage numbers. They are often promoted by the industry looking for the subsidy, and make their way into these sorts of impact assessments without any kind of checking. I would be grateful to understand what the assumptions were. Could the Minister also confirm that this is now a permanent feature of the landscape—that there is no sunset, statutory timeline, let or control? People will effectively just bid through the CfD system, the subsidy will make up the difference, they get to build their onshore, floating offshore or whatever wind it might be, and my constituents and I have to pay no matter what. Then I wanted to ask a bit about this fair work charter. I understand that the Government are very keen on employees’ rights. We should all make sure that people are treated with respect in employment, but using a statutory instrument effectively to extend employment regulations seems very odd. I wonder whether that will be an ongoing feature of the landscape for statutory instruments such as this and whether we can expect a kind of extension of regulation by stealth. I am sure these regulations are perfectly amenable, but their being contemplated in a small Committee of Members, rather than on the Floor of the House, as the Employment Rights Act 2025 was, or indeed going through both Houses in all their pomp, seems to me a slightly sneaky way to get around proper Government scrutiny. I would be very interested if the Minister could point me, please, to the specific statutory authority that permits the use of CfD contracts to impose employment standards on developers and their supply chains. If he cannot point me to that, what is the legal authority, please, for that being included in this statutory instrument? Finally, CfDs were designed originally to bring down the cost of alternatives. That was the original plan. Yet what we are voting on today will do precisely the reverse: raise the cost for me and my constituents. I wonder how the Minister can justify that at a time of difficulty for so many of our constituents with the cost of living. If this industry is as attractive to the private sector as he says it is, why does it need the subsidy in the first place?

    Hansard source
40. 17 Mar 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026

    As I think I said, I agree that people should be treated with respect; my question was more about why it is being done through this particular route. For the Government to legally have grounds to include what we are discussing as part of, effectively, a procurement process, there has to be a statutory basis on which they are doing that; it cannot just be shoved through on a non-universal basis. I was asking for the authority on which it is included. I am sorry if I misread the time limits regulation. Could the Minister confirm that, if the Government give notice before 31 December 2028 for 12, 15, 19 or 120 more rounds to come, they will then be able to continue post that deadline? So they can in fact manufacture a deadline. Finally—rather than my having to intervene again; I hope you will bear with me, Ms Jardine—could the Minister confirm to colleagues what he said: we are being asked to vote today for higher energy bills for our constituents in perpetuity, or certainly for the next few years, as a result of this instrument? Just so everyone is clear: you are voting for higher bills.

    Hansard source