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

1. 3 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

   Spring Forecast

   The Chancellor’s words on defence simply do not reflect the reality, at a time when the world has never felt more unstable. Every corner of our armed forces is being asked to find cuts. People in Gosport need only look out of their window to see that all our Type 45 destroyers are laid up in Portsmouth harbour, and this is the first year since the 1980s that we have not had a ship in the Gulf, at a time when the middle east is a tinderbox. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is on its knees, and defence companies are being tied up with bureaucracy, dither and delay. The Chancellor has mentioned a couple of contracts, but so many of them are bogged down with dither and delay from this Government. She is gaslighting the British people. This is a disaster for our defence, and for our armed forces. When will she face reality?

   Hansard source
2. 3 Mar 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   SEND Provision: Local Authorities

   It be remiss of me not to extend an invitation to the Minister to visit St Edward’s school in my constituency of Romsey and Southampton North. Question put and agreed to.

   Hansard source
3. 3 Mar 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   Topical Questions

   T3. The Foreign Secretary obviously faces real problems with the settlement she has received from the Chancellor, who is sitting next to her, but given that the last 20 years have led to the near eradication of polio and excellent work on malaria, will she prioritise those programmes to ensure we do not go backwards and once again release polio and malaria across the globe?

   Hansard source
4. 3 Mar 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   US Tariffs

   4. What discussions she has had with her US counterpart on tariffs.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Mar 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   US Tariffs

   Given that the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran without British involvement, and that this Government seem increasingly at odds with the US in relation to Diego Garcia, can the Minister assure me that the Government’s actions are not damaging the special relationship and increasing the likelihood that further tariffs will be imposed on the UK, driving up costs for the Great British public?

   Hansard source
6. 3 Mar 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Spring Forecast

   We have heard several different discussions about defence today, but may I remind the Chancellor that yesterday morning an Iranian Shahed drone struck the runway at RAF Akrotiri? It was not taken out by any counter-drone technology—technology that was due to be included in the defence investment plan that the Minister for the Armed Forces informed me would be announced in autumn 2025. It is now spring 2026 and, despite the fact that we have had a Budget and now a spring forecast since the autumn, we have still not seen the defence investment plan. Will the Chancellor assure us that all the recommendations from the strategic defence review that the Government have pledged to deliver will be delivered in the defence investment plan when it is announced?

   Hansard source
7. 3 Mar 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It has been too long since I have had the pleasure of responding to the Minister in a Committee Room. As the Minister outlined, the regulations update the mandatory levies that electricity suppliers must pay to support the operation of the CfD scheme, the capacity market and the nuclear RAB model. These are technical changes, and the Conservatives will not oppose them. However, while I have the Minister’s attention, I have some questions to put to him. The Government came into office pledging to cut energy bills by £300, but, some 18 months later, we have seen no evidence of that promise being fulfilled. The sleight of hand in pushing costs on to tax bills has not had the desired effect. Does the Minister think that the Government will actually deliver a £300 energy bill cut? The Government’s press release said that the Department’s “internal analysis” proved that CfD allocation round 7 would cut bills, but the Department refused to let us see that analysis when we submitted a written question asking to see it. Why is the Minister’s Department refusing to publish that analysis? What is it trying to hide? Will it finally commit to publishing a full systems-cost analysis of the new energy system, which was commissioned by the previous Secretary of State, so that we can have an open and honest debate about the cost of the new system? Finally, will the Minister commit to implementing the recommendations of the Fingleton review in full to make nuclear power much cheaper, quicker and easier to build in this country?

   Hansard source
8. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

   Middle East

   For those of us who were ready to go into Iraq just over 20 years ago, the comparisons between this situation and that vote are absolutely zero. The reality is that nobody is talking about ground troops or a land invasion; we are talking about striking those that are targeting our friends and allies. In the past few hours, over 500 rockets have struck the United Arab Emirates, and no doubt many have struck bases around the area. Will the Prime Minister deploy HMS Dauntless and HMS Duncan in the Gulf right now? Both are in a state of readiness, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary could give that order this afternoon. Perhaps most importantly, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with colleagues in the region? We talk about finding solutions in conversation with others, but frankly, at the moment it looks as if there will be conversation with nobody, because these events will be happening without our having any part in them.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

   Middle East

   Given that the Prime Minister has outlined that the Iranians attacked a United Kingdom sovereign base at Akrotiri, why does that not form the basis not just for hosting US forces on our bases, but for legal military action, taken directly at source against the Iranians for the launch of such missiles, as we did in relation to the Iranian proxies, the Houthis, in previous conflicts that he supported? Moreover, given the Iranians’ ability to exercise malign influence on the streets of this country, what reassurance can he give the House and the public at large about co-ordination across our intelligence and security capabilities to address the heightened threat on our streets?

   Hansard source
10. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Middle East

    If a missile battery in Iran was continuing to target British bases, would an airstrike against it be offensive or defensive?

    Hansard source
11. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Middle East

    On Saturday, Prime Minister Carney said: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” Why was our Prime Minister not able to make the same statement? Was Prime Minister Carney wrong?

    Hansard source
12. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Middle East

    British influence in the middle east is directly linked to the strength of our military and our willingness to use it. When he took office, the Prime Minister rightly increased defence spending, but that sum is now widely thought to be too little and taking too long. Will he unblock the argument between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, so that this House can always have confidence that we will maintain a military formidable enough to defend our borders, interests and values?

    Hansard source
13. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill because reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 is inconsistent with and contradictory to other aspects of the Government’s position on ages of majority and citizenship; automatic voter registration will lead to less accurate electoral registers and open the door to fraud; the Bill has been drafted without proper engagement with political parties; the Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in UK politics has yet to report; it does not include effective measures to tackle foreign interference from China and other hostile actors; and it believes that it would be preferable to proceed with a new Bill in the next Session of Parliament, following the report of the Rycroft review and proper consultation with political parties.” When Parliament legislates on elections and the franchise, it is not passing an ordinary Bill; it is rewriting the rules by which MPs and, by extension, Governments are chosen and removed. Therefore, changes to those rules should be made carefully, after proper consultation and in full knowledge of the potential knock-on effects. While there are many elements of this Bill that we support, it unfortunately comes up woefully short when measured against the metric I have just outlined. It creates deep inconsistencies around the age of maturity; it risks weakening the integrity of the electoral register; it side-steps serious questions about foreign interference in our politics; it reduces protections against electoral fraud; and it has been introduced without proper consultation. To start with the process, political parties were not properly consulted before these proposals were introduced. If the Government want to defend themselves against the accusation that they are putting their thumb on the scales for narrow party political advantage, this is not the way to do it. The Secretary of State should know that a quick phone call on the day before a Bill is introduced is no substitute for proper engagement. There is a long-standing convention in this country that Governments do not unilaterally impose changes to electoral law. When the last Labour Government brought forward major electoral reforms, they did so through working groups, a Green Paper, draft legislation and Select Committee scrutiny. That Government understood that legitimacy matters; this Government have chosen to put political advantage over consensus.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    I am not sure that that addresses the point I was making, but I will come to votes at 16 in a moment. This Government have chosen political advantage over consensus, and that is part of a pattern not confined to this Bill. We have seen that in the handling of local election pilots, which were advanced without proper transparency or meaningful consultation with political parties. We saw it in the attempt to cancel this year’s May elections. That was another decision taken without proper engagement. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not an administrative inconvenience to be switched off and on at the whim of Ministers. Against that backdrop, Ministers say that this Bill defends against political interference. The Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box that the Government have commissioned a review on that very subject, but they have not waited for that review to report before bringing forward the legislation. If the Rycroft review matters, why legislate before it reports? If it does not matter, why commission it in the first place? The correct action would be to await the findings of the report, and then bring forward legislation in a coherent manner at the next King’s Speech. I appreciate that the Bill’s timetabling, and the time available for this debate, were not in the Secretary of State’s hands, but we have a huge number of Members wanting to speak on this important matter and a constrained timetable, because the Prime Minister rightly gave a statement on the middle east. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) would like to not have this debate, and for the Bill just to be rushed through. That says a lot. This legislation is important, and time should be taken on it. We are running out of time in this Session, so why does the Secretary of State not do the right thing, pause for just a short period, introduce the Bill after the King’s Speech, and give us a proper opportunity to debate it and get it right? I have been Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, and I saw how persistent and serious the threats from hostile states are to the democratic process in this country and other countries. That is important, and I recognise that the Government are seeking to take action. Russian aggression, Iran’s hostile activities on British soil and the interference and espionage activities of the Chinese Government have sharpened the risks to our political system, but why have the Government not engaged with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who led the defending democracy taskforce before and during the last general election? He has been targeted by foreign Governments, and his advice has not been sought. It is right that the Government should seek to protect our democracy from foreign interference, dirty money, intimidation and corruption, but this Bill fails to match the scale of those threats. It does not address, for example, the consequences of devolved franchise changes to UK political finance rules—the devolution loophole. We agree that no Government should accept impermissible donations. The question is not whether we should; it is whether this Bill properly targets the sources of hostile state interference. Fund transfers to UK banks are already subject to robust anti-money laundering checks. If the objective is really to stop hostile state money, enhanced security should be focused on the higher-risk routes, not on duplicating existing restrictions and stifling legitimate domestic activity. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is no longer in his place, but the mask slipped when he basically invited the Secretary of State to ban donations from legitimate British companies because he just does not like the industry they are in. That is what causes concern about the integrity of the decisions being put forward in this Bill. Turning to automatic voter registration, individual voter registration was introduced for a reason: to improve accuracy and reduce fraud. Automatic registration cuts right across that principle. It risks adding names from datasets not designed to determine eligibility. People move and datasets lag behind, and an inaccurate register creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for abuse. This roll-out will be phased, which means that some parts of the country will have automatic voter registration ahead of the next general election, and others will not. The Government are making the case that automatic voter registration increases turnout, but they will be choosing which parts of the country have increased turnout and which do not. Surely the Secretary of State must see how cynical that looks in the eyes of an already sceptical electorate.

    Hansard source
15. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point, but it is a point of debate. Registration in the UK is not difficult, and the fact that some people have not registered is not in itself a rationale for undermining the integrity of the voter registration process and introducing errors. He asks whether it would not be better to have errors of over-registration than of under-registration. That is a point for debate. I think it is better to have accuracy of registration. In many parts of the world, people literally put their life at risk to vote. People who do choose not to vote in the UK do not do so because voting is too difficult; it is not difficult to vote in the UK. Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken steps over time to make it easier to vote. If people are not voting, perhaps political parties—all of us—should ask why we are not inspiring people enough to register, rather than taking up the point that he is making, and putting people on the register who should not be there, because they do not live in that place.

    Hansard source
16. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    I will move on in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. If the Government’s contention is that auto-enrolment increases turnout, then turnout should be increased universally, or they risk being perceived as putting their thumb on the scales.

    Hansard source
17. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    It is easy to vote. Everyone has the right to vote. The right hon. Lady says that voting should be as easy as breathing; she is advocating for the removal of all electoral limitations and restrictions, whether that is the need to show ID, to provide proof of address, or to register. [Interruption.] There you go; the mask has slipped. If we take democracy seriously, we should want everyone who has the right to vote to be able to vote, but nobody who does not have the right to vote to be able to vote. Otherwise, the democratic process is meaningless. Safeguards must be robust, verification must be clear, and pilots should be transparent. Integrity is strengthened by accuracy, not automation for its own sake. As for voter ID, let us look at the facts. At the last general election the vast majority of those who sought to vote were able to do so successfully and immediately, and public confidence in polling integrity has increased, so why should we weaken the system by allowing bank cards without photographs to be used as ID? A name printed on a card is not an identity check, and I am not hearing that the Secretary of State is advocating the checking of PINs at the polling station. The risks are obvious, and, indeed, the Electoral Commission itself has raised concerns about the security and practicality of expanding the lists of acceptable IDs.

    Hansard source
18. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    I need to make some progress, otherwise I will be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker. Integrity is not just about integrity at the door of the polling station. At the time of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported widespread breaches of ballot secrecy. Parliament strengthened the protections for ballot secrecy through the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—and this is not “family voting”; it is breaking the law. If polling station staff do not intervene when a voter is directed by another inside the polling booth, if secrecy signs are missing, if offences are ignored, the problem is not an absence of legislation, but a failure to enforce the legislation. The vote belongs to the individual—not to that person’s husband, not to that person’s brother, and not to a community leader—and no cultural practice overrides the secrecy of the ballot box in this country. The Secretary of State mentioned artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He was right to say that we are entering a new era, and we support the idea of digital imprints. The rules exist, but the technology is moving fast. We would support and are happy to engage with sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement, but that work should be done carefully and in consultation. Again, this is exactly the kind of issue that would benefit from cross-party engagement. The centrepiece of the Bill—its big sales point—is the lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16. Both domestically and internationally, through the Children Act 1989 and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child respectively, we define 16 and 17-year-olds as children, so allowing votes at 16 can only logically be explained in one of two ways.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    Well, let me at least make the point! I can see that the hon. Gentleman is itching. Calm; calm; calm. Either the Government are intending to give votes to children, or the Government want to redefine 16 and 17-year-olds as “not children”. Now I will give way.

    Hansard source
20. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. We do have a legal definition of childhood, and there is an international definition of childhood. The Children Act defines 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK as children. The UN convention on the rights of the child defines 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So I ask again, do the Government plan to define this as giving votes to children, or are they now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?

    Hansard source
21. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    Sixteen and 17-year-olds can only join the armed forces with parental consent, and they cannot be deployed. Sixteen and 17-year-olds in the armed forces are children, which is why they are still in the education system, even when they join the armed forces. They are non-deployable, and they can only join with parental consent. Let me say yet again—third time lucky—that the Children Act and the UN convention on the rights of the child define 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So, for the third time of asking, are the Government saying that they are giving votes to children, or are they saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?

    Hansard source
22. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    It seems that no Labour Members are willing to address the point that I have raised. This is a really simple binary choice. As I have said, both domestically and internationally, 16 and 17-year-olds are defined as children. I have asked this question multiple times, but Labour Members will not address it.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    I value the contribution of people in this country whether they are or are not able to vote, but again, that does not address the point. I am going to move on now, because it is clear that Labour Members either will not or cannot address it. They do not seem to know whether they are giving votes to children or stripping childhood from 16 and 17-year-olds.

    Hansard source
24. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    I have tried on a number of occasions, but I have not received an answer either the Benches opposite or from the Benches to my left.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect him enormously, but there are a number of other points that I want to make. If he thinks he can answer the question that I have posed, let him do so. OK, here we go.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    I take it from his intervention that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children. Is that his point? I have tried to squeeze the logical underpinning of this proposal out of the Government, but I have not been able to do so, because I do not think they know what it is. If the Government are going to make the case for giving the vote to children, why 16-year-old children? Why not 15-year-old children? The Secretary of State chuckles, but why not 15-year-old children? The argument is that 16-year-olds have a longer stake in society, but if that is true of 16-year-olds it is, by definition, more true of 15-year-olds—and why not 14-year-olds, or 13-year-olds? Will he take up the proposal of Professor David Runciman of Cambridge University and give votes to six-year-olds? As a society, we do not confer legal adulthood on children, and the law reflects that. Sixteen and 17-year-olds cannot buy alcohol. They cannot buy cigarettes and vapes. They cannot stand for election to this House or, indeed, to other statutory representative bodies. They cannot legally place bets. They cannot marry in England and Wales. They cannot join the armed forces without parental consent. They cannot go to war. They cannot consume pornography, and rightly so. If the Secretary of State and his Government now believe that 16-year-olds should in fact be of civic and legal adulthood, they should simply say so and put in place the legislative changes to bring consistency to the statute book. Good luck to him if he wants to make the case for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the rights laid out in the list that I have just given. If the Government do not feel that 16 and 17-year-olds should have those full rights and responsibilities, this change appears to be selective at best and cynical at worst. Such a fundamental alteration to the franchise for UK elections should rest on broad consensus and careful reasoning.

    Hansard source
27. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Representation of the People Bill

    My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am a believer in democracy, and being punished at the ballot box is a fundamental foundation stone of democracy. None of us should change the mandate for narrow party political advantage. I strongly suspect that the point he makes is right, but that is not the point that I am making. This move will be perceived to be partisan and counterproductive. This Bill could and should be so much better. If the Government were serious about this issue, they would work cross-party to get it right, because democracy does not belong to Ministers; it belongs to the people, and the rules that govern it must be worthy of their trust. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment, and I invite the House to support it. I say to the Secretary of State that we will work with the Government to improve this Bill, but we reserve the right to vote it down during its later stages if the Government do not act in good faith and in support of the broader principles of democracy.

    Hansard source
28. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Middle East

    May I take the Prime Minister back to his earlier position? I do not think his own MPs quite realise what he has said. He said that his reason originally for not allowing RAF Fairford, for example—or even Diego Garcia—to be used was that it would constitute, for him, a breach of international law, because it would mean that we were condoning an offensive operation. However, he has changed his position because of attacks on allies and on a UK base. That means that he is authorising the Americans to act in defence by taking out those kinds of missiles that would attack us. Surely that means that the UK armed forces—in this case, the Royal Air Force—could now be used by the Government in no breach of international law in a defensive action to take out those missiles as well.

    Hansard source
29. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Representation of the People Bill

    There was much in what the Secretary of State said at the start of his opening remarks—about the threats to our democracy, and the challenges that we face—that I very much agree with. However, I worry that the Bill does not go in quite the right direction to deal with those threats, and with the challenges presented by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. They are all nations that wish to undermine our democracy, and there is tentative evidence to show that all of them are already trying to do so by influencing our democratic structures. However, it feels as though the Bill is more about gestures than substantial change. Changing the architecture of democracy should be done incredibly thoughtfully and carefully, with proper consideration and consultation. There are areas on which there will probably be a great deal of agreement; on others, there may be some disagreement. What is required is a thoughtful conversation that involves all. I will pick up on a number of areas where there are deep vulnerabilities in the Bill. Automatic enrolment superficially sounds like a great idea—something that I think many in this House would happily support. However, there is no clarity about how it will be rolled out across the country. At the next general election, it will be available in some parts of the country, but not others. We will effectively have two distinct electoral rolls. I am not sure how that will go. I am not sure if it will even survive judicial review, but then I am not a lawyer, and the Secretary of State probably has considerably more recent experience of judicial review than I have. To me, it looks very vulnerable to challenge. It is important that the Secretary of State sets out clearly how the issue of boundaries will be dealt with, which will, of course, be addressed straight after the next general election. Of course, if we are to have auto-enrolment in certain parts of the country—which will be chosen, I presume, by the Secretary of State, as opposed to this House—then, hypothetically, he could select areas where auto-enrolment would be beneficial to the Labour party. I am sure the Secretary of State would never be so partisan as to do that.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Representation of the People Bill

    The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point; this concern could easily be addressed.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Representation of the People Bill

    I was hoping for the Secretary of State or his No. 2 on the Front Bench, but I will happily give way.

    Hansard source
32. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Representation of the People Bill

    No. It is important that the Bill does not define which areas will have auto-enrolment. In theory, constituencies or areas that have a greater propensity to vote Labour—or used to—could be prioritised. We would like clarity from the Secretary of State on this point, and I am happy to give way to him, so that he can provide it. In fairness, if every area of the country were to have auto-enrolment, that would reduce or eliminate the risk, but this is a concern. I hope that during the passage of the Bill, the Government will address that with absolute clarity. The issue is not just the legislation; it is the perception of where the Government are going. The Secretary of State got himself into some difficulty when the Government were seen to be trying to take away the right of people to vote in local council elections. I am sure that he has a good heart and was acting with the best of intentions, but the perception was different.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Representation of the People Bill

    The hon. Gentleman is both confused and hard of hearing. I also pointed out that straight after the next general election, the Electoral Commission will redo the boundaries for the whole country, and that will be based on the electoral roll for every single constituency and area across the country. Certain areas will have auto-enrolment and other areas will not. That will have a significant impact on the redistribution. I hope that has helped the hon. Member’s confusion. [Interruption.] I will move on. There is a fantastic opportunity here, which the Secretary of State could seize, to end the automatic right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in this country. That right is not available to UK citizens in Commonwealth countries. The only country where there is an automatic right for UK citizens to vote is the Republic of Ireland, and that arrangement is reciprocated in the UK. There are up to 2.7 billion people on this globe who, on moving to the United Kingdom, could have the automatic right to vote here. That should be looked at very seriously. As the Bill moves through the House, I ask the Secretary of State to look at the option of addressing this open access to our democracy for anyone in this country.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Middle East

    Although many of us believe that we should be guided by the law of national self-interest, rather than so-called international law, does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to be cautious in this matter? The British public will warmly support him in defending British people and bases, but they are very sceptical about being dragged into the cesspit of middle east politics. They remember Iraq, which some of us voted against, and all the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. What evidence is there that Iran was on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons? Since when has regime change from the skies ever changed a regime?

    Hansard source
35. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Representation of the People Bill

    Clearly this was cynical, but judging by the by-election in Greater Manchester, perhaps the Labour party, when it comes to giving votes to 16-year-olds, should be careful what it wishes for.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Topical Questions

    T4. Instead of the Secretary of State’s cap on the number of branded items of school uniform, will she substitute that for a monetary cap, which would afford much greater flexibility to schools?

    Hansard source
37. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Topical Questions

    T3. In 2023, Parliament legislated to protect freedom of speech on our university campuses, but we are still waiting for the Government to bring section 8 of the Act into force, so will the Minister set out a clear timetable for commencing the complaints scheme to ensure that our academics are protected from censorship and silencing?

    Hansard source
38. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Representation of the People Bill

    Does my right hon. Friend notice the inconsistency in the Government’s plans? They propose to lower the voting age to 16, but they do not propose to allow those same 16 and 17-year-olds to stand for Parliament, presumably because they are children.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Middle East

    The Prime Minister’s reaction at the end of last week appeared to many to be both anaemic and disappointing, and at variance with the other Five Eyes nations. Will he read the analysis of the shadow Attorney General, my noble and learned Friend Lord Wolfson KC, which shows not only that British active engagement and support is within international law, but that those who seek to use international law to constrain us in these circumstances have the effect of leaving tyrants and murderers in place to continue perpetrating their vile deeds with impunity?

    Hansard source
40. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    I am genuinely delighted to see the hon. Member for Halifax in her place as the Minister; I congratulate her on her achievement. She has been sent here to speak to a straightforward piece of delegated legislation that raises the minimum wage levels but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs outlined, the situation is becoming more complex. It is worth saying a few words about what we see in the real world. My constituency is Wetherby and Easingwold, and it does what it says on the tin: I represent the two market towns of Wetherby and Easingwold, as well as other towns such as Tadcaster and Boroughbridge, surrounded by lots of villages. There are lots of small businesses in those towns, and although it would be wrong to say that they are not hiring young people, they have stopped hiring as many young people as they used to. It is all well and good to compliment the changes and say that wages are rising for the poorest paid, but that does not take into account the other tax changes that have taken place, such as the changes to rates and employers’ national insurance contributions. All these things, when added together, have resulted in businesses cutting back on the number of young people who work for them. I remember my very first job at WHSmith, when I was still at school. I went for a Saturday job, but I ended up getting a job doing the newspapers and magazines before the shop opened every day of the week. I would get up at half-past 5, and leave WHSmith at half-past 8 to go to school. It was a real experience for me as a 17 to 18-year-old to have to have that discipline and to go to work in the real world. As I have often said, I have never had as much disposable income as I had then—the clubs and pubs of Gravesend were very welcome to it. The experiences that a young person can gain from short-term or Saturday employment, or part-time employment during school holidays, are vital. I fear that looking just at the rises in the minimum wage, and talking about how much people can earn a year, does not take into account the other pressures on business. For all the importance of raising people’s wages, it does not achieve anything if the jobs are not there.

    Hansard source