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

1. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

   Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she illustrates the point I am making. It is not about the minimum wage; it is about the other taxes that have gone alongside the minimum wage and put huge pressure on businesses. Lots of people say that raising the minimum wage is great, because it puts more money in people’s pockets, but it is the other pressures at the same time that are the issue. I could name five businesses in just one town in my constituency that did hire young people to work on a Saturday but have reduced the number of people they hire because of the other costs. I will move on, because I am sure we were not expecting to be here in the Committee Room for too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. I raised this issue on Second Reading of the Employment Rights Act. I do not know how many Members on the Government Benches stood for election before 2024, but Labour party manifestos before 2024—it was not in the 2024 one—said the party would ban unpaid internships. I have fought to ban unpaid internships in every single term I have been in this place, and I have never got anywhere. Every Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box and said, “I don’t see why we are not doing it,” and then it did not happen. I brought forward an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act 1998 so that it would include unpaid internships. One would have thought that a Government who keep talking about paying young people, getting them on the ladder and doing things for them would have included a simple minimum wage—whether the apprenticeship wage or the minimum wage for the youngest, a minimum wage—in that Act for people who are exploited. Anybody who works for a company for four weeks is adding value to the company, no matter what anybody says. Being asked to go and work, perhaps in London, for a year—having to sort out accommodation and bear all the costs—and not getting paid is exploitation. I am afraid that, again, I push back on the Government. They parrot that what they are doing for people is great, because they are raising the minimum wage, but that does not take into account the other tax rises that have put pressure on business, and it does not do anything to move things forward for young people who are missing out on opportunity because they do not have the ways and means to work for free. The Government should take a close look at themselves. They have talked about their Employment Rights Act and have come here today to boast about rises in the minimum wage, but they have not ensured that a whole section of young people actually get paid for a day’s work. My party has always believed that work should pay.

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

   Middle East

   I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about working with religious communities and trying to ensure their safety, but I was appalled—not shocked, I am afraid to say—as I am sure the Prime Minister was, to see at the weekend the deputy leader of the Green party once again protesting in support of the ayatollah. I am afraid that the Green party has become a magnet for all the people who the Prime Minister quite rightly kicked out of the Labour party. The hatred and fear that runs through Leeds now, which has been whipped up at times by Councillor Mothin, is a disgrace. West Yorkshire police have begged Leeds city council to put in place a named person for hiring spaces run by the council, so that they can hold somebody responsible. The city council would not do so. My Jewish community are terrified about going into Leeds at the weekend. Will the Prime Minister work closely with all policing authorities to ensure that my Jewish community and other communities can be safe?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

   Middle East

   A militarily degraded Iran would be welcomed by both the region and the world, but an Iran that still possesses enriched uranium and has the potential to become a failed state is something to be avoided at all costs—the Prime Minister recognises that. While it is uncertain what President Trump’s plan is, at some point there will clearly be negotiations, talks towards peace, and the cessation of action. Will the Prime Minister impress upon the American Administration that we now have an opportunity to link progress for ordinary Iranians—their democratic rights, freedoms and civil liberties—to that process, and not just view it as a military degradation exercise?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

   Middle East

   Even if our military personnel are not deployed in offensive strikes, the additional air policing that the RAF is being committed to across the middle east means that it now has to do double the work, with no extra resources. What additional resources is the RAF being given to protect our service personnel in undertaking this activity?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

   Service Children

   1. What steps she is taking to support the education of service children.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

   Service Children

   Can I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks and thank her for her thoughtful answer? I know that we both share a desire to honour the service of those in our armed forces by recognising and addressing the impact on their families. As the MP for Catterick garrison and nearby RAF Leeming, I see in particular the impact on service pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, which I know is something that she cares about. My local school leaders have recently implemented the Garrison Assist project, which seeks to address some of those challenges, and in light of the recent White Paper I met with those school leaders. Will she arrange a meeting for them with officials so that they might share their learnings and so that service pupils across our country can get the support that they need and deserve?

   Hansard source
7. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Free Breakfast Clubs

   The roll-out of free breakfast clubs and the Government’s wider child poverty strategy are supposed to be driven by data, yet the Department does not even hold information on which councils in England have implemented auto-enrolment for free school meals. If the Government do not hold that basic data, which would show that Devon has done so and given £1.5 million in pupil premium but that Plymouth has delayed doing so until 2026-27, how can the Government be trusted to roll out further taxpayer-funded support—such as free breakfast clubs—and how can they prove the impact that that has on child poverty?

   Hansard source
8. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Middle East

   Over the weekend, I heard from families in my constituency whose loved ones—also constituents of mine—are among the 300 service personnel in Bahrain who were within metres of the Iranian missile strike. Given that we have known for some time about the build-up of US forces in the region, why did the activity to decommission HMS Lancaster in Bahrain continue, and—I trust that this is not an operational question—will those works be paused and service personnel withdrawn until the treat status has been downgraded?

   Hansard source
9. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Representation of the People Bill

   Order. To help more colleagues contribute to the debate, the speaking limit has dropped to three minutes.

   Hansard source
10. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Business without Debate

    With the leave of the House, I will put motions 12 and 13 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Consumer Protection That the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved. That the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.) Question agreed to.

    Hansard source
11. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Middle East

    I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the security briefing I received earlier. This is a defining moment for the people of Iran, the wider middle east and the world order. I know that hundreds of thousands of British people still in the region, many sheltering from drone attacks, are fearful about making it home. I agree with the Prime Minister that everyone in the region should follow FCDO advice and register their presence with a British embassy. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he is making contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens and what stage the operational planning is at? Let me also pay tribute to our brave service personnel stationed in British bases in the region. I know that this will be an anxious time for them and their families. They all have our support. We stand in solidarity with our allies, including Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who, along with others, have been on the receiving end of unprovoked aggression. On Saturday, our allies the United States and Israel took targeted action against the Iranian regime, a regime which for decades has been brutally repressing its own citizens, whose leader had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians on his hands and of countless others around the world killed by Iranian proxies. This regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism. It seeks to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state. It has said so repeatedly, and we should take despots at their word. It is a regime whose apparatchiks chant, “Death to Britain”. It has attacked British nationals and conducted multiple plots on British soil, as the head of MI5 has warned. It is manufacturing drones en masse for Russia—drones which are raining down on innocent Ukrainians. And it continues to try to develop nuclear weapons in flagrant violation of international agreement—nuclear weapons which, if obtained, would be an existential threat for this country. The outcome of Ayatollah Khamenei’s death will, we hope, be a safer middle east and a safer world, with the future of Iran back in the hands of the Iranian people, but that outcome is not yet guaranteed. On Saturday, our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by America against this despotic regime in Tehran. I have made it very clear that the Conservative party also stands behind America taking this necessary action against state-sponsored terror. But over the weekend, statements from the Government and the Prime Minister provided no such clarity. It was only last night that the Prime Minister finally told us that the Government would allow our allies the use of our own air bases. Despite it being obvious that UK interests were under imminent threat, it took Iranian missiles hitting allies in the Gulf before he finally made a decision. And even after that, the Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Government have put limits on the actions of our allies operating from our bases. Unbelievably, in his statement today, the Prime Minister still cannot say whether he backs the strikes or not. Today, the President of the United States has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking the Prime Minister publicly, saying that he “took far too long” to grant access. We are told that this dither and delay is because of concerns over international law, but I am afraid that that explanation simply does not hold. International law did not prevent our allies from clearly and unequivocally stating whose side they were on—you do not need international law to say whose side you are on. It has not prevented British Governments in the past from supporting strikes that we knew to be right. The shadow Attorney General said: “If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies” while forcing us “to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law”. Why is it that under this Prime Minister, international law always seems to be at odds with our national interest? Why is it that we are giving away the Chagos islands and paying £35 billion for the privilege, rather than standing up for our national interest and protecting a crucial military base that, even now, our allies are using? We in this House are elected to stand up for Britain’s national interest. Where the Government do the right thing, the Opposition will always back them. Let me therefore reiterate our offer: if the Government bring forward legislation to fast-track banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, we will support them. What national interest was served by refusing to help our allies for so long, particularly when we so need American support to protect the security of Ukraine and Europe? Are we going to see new UK military capabilities deployed to protect our security partners and our bases, including in Cyprus, as well as British nationals in the region? Will the Prime Minister also ensure that the Chancellor uses the spring statement tomorrow to set Britain on a clear path to spending 3% of GDP on defence? There is no point wanting action to make the world a safer place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others. Our national interest and national security must be front and centre. The Conservative party will always work with our allies to make the world a safer place.

    Hansard source
12. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Representation of the People Bill

    It is quite frankly absurd to grant children the right to vote, and even place 14 and 15-year-olds on the electoral register, all while maintaining the plethora of age-based rights elsewhere. Just look at the contradictions. A 16-year-old would be able to determine who governs the country, yet not able to enter legally binding contracts such as buying and renting property, purchasing alcohol or tobacco, or making independent medical decisions. It simply does not stack up, and Labour Members know it. Even with these obvious inconsistencies, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the unintended consequences of this Bill. First, on turnout, younger age groups are historically less likely to vote. Lowering the voting age and bringing another 2 million individuals into the electorate will only compound the issue, and as we see turnout levels drop, there will be more questions about the legitimacy of our elections and electing our leaders.

    Hansard source
13. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Representation of the People Bill

    If the Government get their way, young people will not be able to access social media anyway, so I am not sure the hon. Member’s argument holds up. Secondly, other inconsistencies arise because the Government believe that those young people should be shielded. They should be shielded from fatty foods, smoking alcohol and, as just mentioned, social media, yet overnight—on reaching the age of 16—they are considered sufficiently informed to decide who they want to run the country. Thirdly, and most importantly in my eyes, there is the issue of family voting. In the light of the recent allegations about the Gorton and Denton by-election, this raises serious concerns. Could lowering the voting age increase the risk of undue political influence in households? Could some young people face pressure to vote in line with family expectations rather than exercising genuine independence? Votes at 16, alongside watering down the rules on voter ID at polling stations, lead Conservative Members to question whether our democracy is being undermined still further. To conclude, lowering the voting age is contradictory. It creates inconsistency in our age-based rights system. It carries the potential for serious unintended consequences for turnout and the legitimacy of our elections, political divisions and voter independence. Labour Members should consider these risks very seriously indeed, before inflicting lasting damage on our fragile democracy.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Power to Cancel Local Elections

    The Chairman of the Petitions Committee is introducing the debate very well. I was a local councillor too, in Basildon in the early 1990s. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a good thing that the Government have done a reverse ferret, so we can now have local elections across the country, including in Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Southend and Labour-led Thurrock? Those councils will now have to face the electorate on their appalling record.

    Hansard source
15. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Power to Cancel Local Elections

    Just as a matter of record, we had a general election in Britain in July 1945, when we were still involved in fighting the second world war in the far east. If we can have a general election in wartime, I see no reason why we could not have local elections this May in peacetime.

    Hansard source
16. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Power to Cancel Local Elections

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for the skilful way in which he introduced this important topic. The Government’s original reason for postponing the elections was that councils were too busy with local government reform. In Essex, we had the bizarre situation where some of those involved in LGR thought they were not too busy to have elections, and some—mainly Labour-led councils—thought they were. I served on Basildon council in the early 1990s, when we went around this buoy before, under John Major’s premiership. The idea then was not to have mayors, but to have one unitary system across the county. I was involved in the negotiations between Basildon and other authorities. In the end, to cut a long story short, the whole thing broke down because no one could agree on who to team up with. There were too many old rivalries and too many differences between towns, and the whole thing collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. When I heard we were going around that buoy again, I confess, perhaps based on my previous experience, that I was deeply sceptical. I remember saying to my local Rayleigh and Wickford Conservative association at one of our quarterly executive meetings more than three years ago, “Don’t take it as axiomatic that this will all happen. It fell apart last time; it could yet fall apart again.” Where are we now? We were supposed to have mayoral elections this May; the Government have postponed them to May 2028. We are supposed to have a mayoral combined authority, so now we face the bizarre position where we would have an unelected combined authority—it is an unelected committee of a handful of senior councillors drawn from several constituent councils—but with no mayor. The fate of the combined authority now appears to be effectively in abeyance. Labour’s whole argument for doing all of this is to move from a two-tier system to a single-tier system. That is not true. The two-tier system we have at the moment is Essex county council as the upper tier, with a series of district, borough and city councils below. The third tier of parish and town councils are basically unaffected either way. We are now moving to another two-tier system, where we will have a mayoral and a combined authority as the upper tier and a bunch of unitary authorities—whether three or four or five—as the lower tier. We will have gone through all this cost, misery and uncertainty to go from one two-tier system to another. The whole argument is nonsense from the get-go. Moreover, I have been door-knocking in my constituency for 25 years, and I have never—not once, ever—had an elector say to me on the doorstep, “I want a mayor of Essex.” Members can take it from me: if Essex people want something, they are not shy to let their politicians know. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is grinning; he has obviously experienced that himself. They do not want a mayor of Essex. If they do, they have not said so. It has no demos. There is no public demand for it. People are not clamouring for a mayor. We have never had one in 1,000 years, but suddenly the Government think we need some Sadiq Khan for Essex. That is about as popular as a bowl of—well, it is not very popular. Where do we now sit? Southend unitary authority—forgive me, it is Southend city council, for which my great friend Sir David Amess campaigned for many years; if he were here, he would chide me now. Southend city council conducted its own consultation about a year ago, and two thirds of the people who replied did not want any change at all. The Government instituted a wider consultation county-wide—for the avoidance of doubt, that is Greater Essex, including Southend and Thurrock—which closed on 15 January. When the Minister replies, perhaps she could tell us, some six weeks on, what the result of that consultation was. If she does not have that information to hand, perhaps she could tell us when she intends to publish the results of the consultation. I am sure that that will be before the local elections—before we get to purdah in the third week of March—so that the good people of Essex know what their fellow county people have said before we go to the polls. I am going to take a punt: it is going to reveal that there was little enthusiasm for any local government reorganisation whatever in Essex. If the Minister wants to prove me wrong, she can publish the results of the consultation. Labour sought to postpone these elections and now, thanks to campaigning by—I admit—Reform, and by the Conservatives and others, but overwhelmingly due to public pressure, which perhaps both parties have managed to articulate in our different ways, the Government have given in. Now those elections are back on, and people in Southend, Basildon and Thurrock can go to the polls and peacefully and democratically express their opinion on the Labour mob who run those three councils should be allowed to carry on.

    Hansard source
17. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Power to Cancel Local Elections

    I give way to the right hon. Gentleman from Northern Ireland, because no debate in Parliament would be complete without him.

    Hansard source
18. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Power to Cancel Local Elections

    I have two responses to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have a great deal of time for, as he knows. First, the Chairman of the Petitions Committee laid out clearly the responsibilities of local government, so I shall not try your patience, Mr Mundell, or that of the rest of the Chamber by repeating them, but it is everything from planning to housing, adult social care and education. These things affect people’s everyday lives, and they are really important. People should have a democratic right to decide which councillors run those services, which they pay for as customers via their council tax. So of course there should be elections. Secondly, and on a personal note, and I hope that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other colleagues here will understand this: nobody delayed the general election. I went into battle 20 points behind in the polls. No one gave me a bye; I had to fight to be here. I had to convince my employers, in my constituency, to renew my contract of employment to represent them, and so did everyone else in this House this evening, so why should it be different for local councillors? Why do they not have to get their contract of employment, in effect, renewed by their employers at the ballot box? I thank the Minister for the fact that the local elections will now go ahead. She may recall that we had some sparky exchanges in the Commons Chamber about this, but we have ended up with the right decision, albeit after far too long. So if the people of Essex wish to support the Government’s bonkers housing targets—mandatory and top-down, imposed by some Whitehall civil servant who could not find Essex with a TomTom, and supported by a mad computer algorithm—they can go and vote for that. If, conversely, they want to vote for Conservative councillors, who care about the area they live in and want to defend the green belt and carry on providing good services to people at a cost that they can afford, they have the chance to vote Conservative—although, for the record, other products are available. People can actually have elections in Essex and pass a verdict, and I very much hope that in my corner of the world—for Essex county council, for Rochford district council and for Basildon borough council—they will vote Conservative. But however they vote, whomever they choose, whomever they give the very important mandate to run those really important services to, the fundamental point is that they will be allowed to exercise their right to choose. It was this Government who very nearly took that away and we should never let them forget it. Other than that, I have no firm view on the matter.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Power to Cancel Local Elections

    My constituency is pronounced “Rayleigh”, by the way. My advice to the Minister is to cut your losses and drop the whole thing in Essex, because it is a shambles. However, under the Government’s plans we will have a unitary tier, and then a tier above that which is a combined authority drawn from some of those councils and a mayor. It is patently obvious that that is two tiers of local government replacing two different tiers of local government. To pretend that it is one is fantasy.

    Hansard source
20. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Supporting Children with SEND

    I spend a lot of time visiting schools in my constituency and speaking to the hard-working headteachers about the pressures they are under due to spiralling costs and teacher shortages. With the Government’s proposed reforms placing an additional responsibility on schools to create individual support plans, alongside an ambition for more children’s needs to be met within mainstream schools, how will the Minister ensure that schools do not have to make sacrifices that harm the education of every child?

    Hansard source
21. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

    I, too, thank the more than 120,000 people across the United Kingdom who signed the petition. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) in acknowledging the many organisations that have engaged constructively on this issue, many of which have already been named. They include Unlock Democracy, whose chief executive Tom Brake is a former Member of this House, the Hansard Society, the Electoral Reform Society, and many others that have worked on an independent basis to review our constitutional arrangements. Members’ views on this proposal will differ in line with their views on the effectiveness of this Government, but the number of signatures demands that we treat the petition with the utmost seriousness and respect. The petition understandably calls for a further mechanism that would allow the public to remove a Government who no longer command public confidence. My hon. Friend read an excerpt from the petition, in which the petitioners said that they feel they have seen the opposite of what the Government promised before the election. Many people across the country in all our constituencies will recognise that sentiment. The Government have seemingly lurched from error to error and from crisis to crisis. Decisions that have been made have damaged the economy, undermined business, driven up unemployment, increased debt, and left communities and public services struggling. Above all, they have hit confidence in the Government, because people were promised so much but have seen so little delivered. Whether it is veterans being dragged through the courts or sovereign territory being conceded, the public are not getting what they expected—indeed, they are not getting what the Government said only months ago, in some cases, before the 15 major U-turns. Commitments made before the election have been abandoned: the promise of no tax rises on working people was broken and pensioners were left struggling after cuts to winter fuel payments. My hon. Friend raised many other examples in his opening speech. The crux of the debate comes down to perhaps the biggest promise that the Prime Minister made before the election: his pledge to deliver the highest standards in public life and “a Government of service”. Instead, the Government have delivered scandal after scandal, many of which were of their own making. Only this weekend, the inquiries Minister had to resign after being investigated by his own Department. It is no surprise to see members of the public signing petitions such as this one to try to regain an element of control from a Government who were elected with an enormous majority but are failing to deliver what they promised. While the public’s frustration is clear and understandable, we must look carefully at the proposal itself. Any new mechanism must work in all circumstances. The previous Government introduced a recall mechanism for Members of Parliament who were found guilty of certain criminal offences or who seriously breached the standards of this House. That allowed their constituents to decide whether they wanted those Members to continue. I am not necessarily against looking at whether that principle could be expanded to a national level. We want our political systems to be more responsive to the electorate, but we need to look carefully at how that could be done within a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, because that is the existing system in many countries where the public have the ability to trigger elections or recalls at a national level. It is the electorate who choose us and it is the electorate who remove us, if they wish, at a general election. Under our parliamentary system, a Government hold office because they command the confidence of this House. That is a fundamental principle on which our system and our democracy rely. As the Cabinet manual explicitly states, a Government’s authority flows from their ability “to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said in his speech, that confidence can be tested at any time through a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, that option is available for those Members of Parliament whose constituents feel that we need a general election. I urge all constituents who feel that way to make sure that their representatives in Parliament are aware of the strength of that feeling, because the conventions of parliamentary democracy have served us well. Introducing a direct recall mechanism for removing a Government or triggering a general election before the parliamentary term is due to expire would raise significant practical and constitutional questions, some of which have already been highlighted, such as whether a successful public vote of no confidence would automatically trigger a general election, or simply require a change of Prime Minister to form a new Government within the existing Parliament, and whether such a change in personnel would suffice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk noted, it is unclear what threshold should demonstrate genuine national support that would suggest that a Government have irretrievably lost the confidence of the British people, and are not merely going through what might be temporary unpopularity at a time when they need to make difficult but, perhaps, necessary choices. Would it be at the level that has been set for recall petitions for individual MPs, which has tended to be very low? In almost all such cases, once a petition has been triggered, the threshold has been met. That would lead to some instability. Alternatively, would we be looking at a higher threshold? Would we require 50% of registered voters, or more voters than a Government secured at the previous general election? As has already been mentioned, if the threshold were too low, we risk well-funded groups being able to repeatedly attempt to destabilise any Government of any political party. We would have to seriously consider the risk of that including outside actors with their own motives before making any constitutional changes of this significance. On a national level, how could we be confident that a signature is verified? Where we have postal votes in a parliamentary or local council election, there is something to compare them against, but unless we are requiring signatures alongside voter registrations, which would go against the direction that I know the Government are setting out in this evening’s legislation, there would be unlikely to be any definitive database against which any signature on a petition could be compared. Furthermore, how could we prevent petitions from being launched back to back, creating permanent instability? These are just some of the questions that might be asked. They are not minor details, and it is fundamental that we consider them before we look at major constitutional change. We have seen the consequences of poorly considered constitutional reform in the past, such as in the case of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It was, genuinely, introduced with the noblest of motives, but we then saw its impact at a time when there was no consensus or majority in Parliament to dissolve Parliament and allow for a fresh election. It seems it was not properly considered. Although we should be cautious about rewriting the constitution, we cannot ignore the clear message sent by petitions such as this one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said, it is only weeks ago that more than 3 million people signed a petition calling for a general election. That was just one of a number of petitions expressing similar sentiments. Such a level of public anger should concern every hon. Member. Whether or not they happen to agree, in this case, that this Government are not delivering, it should be a concern across the political spectrum that people feel unheard and ignored. I urge those who signed this petition, and others seeking an early election, to make sure that their representatives are aware of their view and to encourage those representatives, if appropriate, to pursue that constitutional route because Governments that lose the confidence of the House have, historically, either resigned or sought a general election. I do not think that Governments can continue for too long when a majority of their Members have constituents who have lost confidence in the Government. After the promises made at the last election it is no wonder that so many of our electors feel let down. That is why this petition matters; it sends a clear signal from the public to Parliament. The message is simple: people want accountability, honesty and the ability to take back control, even where the Government have a very large majority, as this Government do. Above all, the public want competence and a Government who deliver. This Government are fast running out of road and the sooner that the country is given the chance to choose a new direction, the better. Ahead of the next general election we will certainly look at what mechanisms might be appropriate and effective to allow voters to retain control in between general elections. We would be reluctant to rush into committing to specific mechanisms until we have had a chance to properly consider what the consequences, intended and unintended, of such mechanisms would be.

    Hansard source
22. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

    To be clear, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not be spending 2.5% on defence this year?

    Hansard source
23. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Middle East

    The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is no longer in his place, but can I put on the record my support for the words of caution that he expressed earlier? Can I turn the Prime Minister’s attention to oil supplies? It is not just about the risks to shipping; I understand from contacts in the industry that some refineries in the region are shutting down. Clearly, that could have a serious impact on business in this country. Could the Prime Minister assure us that contingency arrangements are in hand to maximise oil supplies?

    Hansard source
24. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Middle East

    When British children are being bombed in Dubai, and the British military are being attacked in Cyprus, Qatar and Bahrain, why does it seem like the Prime Minister—I hope he will forgive me—is frozen with indecision, entangled in his own legalise, and fretting about his Back Benchers? He is looking to the left in his party as much as to the middle east. He will know that I have supported him time and again on what he has said about foreign policy decisions at the Dispatch Box, but I have to say to him that this is not his finest hour. He is looking very weak, and that is not in our national interest.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Middle East

    I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I agreed with parts of it. I agreed with him when he said that the regime was an abhorrent one, that British civilians, British service personnel and British sovereign bases had been attacked, and that, “You cannot shoot all the drones out of the air; you have to attack them at source.” However, his statement then implied, very cleverly, two things: that we did not have, in international law, every justification for offensive action against Iran; and that only the Americans had the capability to carry out these offensive operations. Bearing in mind that the world is listening, would the Prime Minister like to state very clearly that he understands that he would be justified, on the basis that we had been attacked, in launching offensive operations against our attackers, and that we have the capability to do so?

    Hansard source
26. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Representation of the People Bill

    Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that if the Government are going to push forward with auto-enrolment on to the electoral roll, it should at least apply to everybody at the same time, for the same general election? If not, they could be perceived by the British people as gerrymandering to get a specific result at the general election.

    Hansard source
27. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Supporting Children with SEND

    Last week, I asked the Secretary of State a specific question about SEND funding during her statement, which she failed to answer, so I will try again with the Minister today. The £4 billion for SEND announced last week, to be paid over three years, which the Secretary of State described as “new money”, is actually from within the Department’s existing spending review settlement, isn’t it?

    Hansard source
28. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Topical Questions

    Under what circumstances does the Secretary of State think it is appropriate for a five-year-old to socially transition?

    Hansard source
29. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Topical Questions

    The answer should have been “never”. That is what our guidance said, and that is what the Government’s guidance should have said. In our universities, gender-critical feminists have been kicked off campus, while today the ayatollah is being celebrated as a martyr at University College London. This is completely unacceptable, so what is the Secretary of State doing to crack down on this two-tier system, or is she going to sit on her hands while an enemy of Britain is celebrated?

    Hansard source
30. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

    I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 734311 relating to the public being given a right to a vote of no confidence. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank the more than 120,000 people across the United Kingdom who have signed this petition and secured today’s debate. I also thank the organisations I met during this process, including Unlock Democracy and its chief executive Tom Brake, who is a former Member of this House, as well as the Hansard Society and the Electoral Reform Society, which are universally recognised as independent, non-partisan authorities in this area. Whatever views Members have on this proposal, the fact that so many people have taken the time to sign the petition demands that it is treated with seriousness and respect. The petition calls for the introduction of a mechanism that would allow the public to remove a Government who no longer command public support. The petitioners state: “We voted for a party based on promises made before the general election, yet we feel none have been delivered—in fact, the opposite has happened.” I could not have put it better myself. Since the election, we have seen nothing but chaos from the Prime Minister. The Government are making bad decisions: they are damaging our economy, crushing businesses, driving unemployment up, piling on debt, giving away sovereign territory and allowing our veterans to be dragged through the courts. That is because the Prime Minister came into office with no plan for our country. This Labour Government have now made at least 15 major U-turns, including hiking taxes on working people despite promising not to do so before the election; the cruel cuts to winter fuel payments that left pensioners freezing in their homes last winter; the family farm tax; the refusal for many months to hold a grooming gangs inquiry; scrapping welfare reforms; digital ID; the betrayal of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—the list goes on and on.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that goes to the nub of the motivation behind the petition, which lies not so much in a desire for constitutional change but in a feeling of being let down by this Government—a Government who promised change but has delivered none. All the promises they made have been abandoned, and they have tried to introduce other measures that were nowhere near their manifesto at the time of the election. The Prime Minister promised the highest possible standards—in his own words, “a Government of service” —yet all we have seen is scandal and chaos. Peter Mandelson was appointed US ambassador despite his links to a notorious paedophile. A communications chief was appointed to the House of Lords despite his links to another paedophile. A Deputy Prime Minister was caught evading tax. A Homelessness Minister resigned after making her tenants homeless. Just last weekend, a Cabinet Office Minister was forced to quit after it was discovered that he had hired a firm to gather information to discredit journalists. We have seen many other scandals—too many to mention today. People signed this petition because they are fed up with the chaos, with the U-turns and with this Prime Minister. Let me turn to the petitioners’ proposal. Members of Parliament, of whatever party, serve at the pleasure of the British people; it is their right to elect us, and to remove us at an election. There are many questions about how the petitioners’ proposal would work in practice. Would the public go back to the polls in a new general election, or could a new Government with a new Prime Minister be formed within the current House of Commons? There is also the significant question of a defined national threshold. It would be easy for a well organised, well funded campaign group to remove a Government of any political party, should the threshold be set too low. Would the threshold be 10% of the British public—the same as it is today for recall petitions for Members of Parliament? Should it be 50%, or perhaps a higher percentage than the incumbent Government secured at the previous general election? Whatever the number, it would have to be high enough to demonstrate a genuine national consensus. Over what period would the signatures need to be gathered? How would they be verified to ensure democratic legitimacy and prevent foreign state actors from interfering politically? There is also the question of frequency: if a petition succeeded once, could another be launched shortly thereafter? Important questions would need to be answered for such a profound constitutional change; however, none of those practical concerns should blind us to the message being sent by the people who signed the petition. Less than two months ago, I led another debate in this Chamber on behalf of the Petitions Committee, after more than 3 million people signed a petition calling for a general election. People are deeply angry about the performance of this Government. They feel unheard. They are sick and tired of the constant mistakes being made by the Prime Minister and his Ministers almost every day. Rather than focusing on making our country better, Labour MPs’ energies are seemingly being consumed by leadership speculation and political survival. The easiest way to remove this Government almost immediately would be through a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons by MPs. Having the confidence of the House of Commons is essential to any Government’s authority. When Governments have lost a confidence vote in the past, the Prime Minister has either resigned in favour of an alternative Government, or requested a Dissolution from the monarch to trigger a general election. We do not necessarily need new legislation. Labour MPs know the message their constituents are sending them. They know how deeply unpopular the Prime Minister is. They know they no longer want him to be in charge. As the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said on several occasions, Labour MPs have an opportunity to join with the Conservatives and remove this failing Prime Minister from office by uniting on a vote of no confidence. That would be in the best interests of this country. After all Labour’s pre-election promises, it is no wonder people are feeling fed up. They feel utterly betrayed. That is why it is important that Members across the Chamber listen to the message the petitioners are sending. The Prime Minister and this Government have run out of road. The sooner we see the back of them, the better for our country.

    Hansard source
32. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

    For the record, it is also important to note that in each of those elections—with the exception of the last—the Conservative vote actually rose.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

    I had not anticipated having an hour to fill—I joke; I am not going to fill the hour. I thank the petitioner for creating the petition, all the people who signed it, and the Members who have participated in the debate. It has been an example of quality over quantity. I particularly enjoyed the Minister’s speech, although I feel that she is living in a parallel universe in terms of the chaos, division and uncertainty that this Government are apparently moving on from. For most of us in the real world, I think our perception is somewhat different. The Minister made much of the 14 years of Conservative rule, although it is useful to remember—she mentioned the many elections that took place in that period—that in four of the five general elections that took place in the 14 years of Conservative rule, the Conservative vote went up. More people were voting Conservative and more people had Conservative MPs as a consequence, so it was not all bad. The petition is less about the proposed constitutional change and more about the feeling, which many people have, of being let down and betrayed by this Government: the sense of promises being broken and not delivered, and a real sense of a lack of direction. We all heard the Minister’s account of all the things that have apparently been achieved during Labour’s time in office, but in many ways that is part of the problem—the Government’s feeling that people should be grateful and should feel better. The reality out there in the real world is that people do not feel any better; they feel that things are getting worse. Unemployment is up, debt is going up and people are waiting longer for NHS appointments. People feel very let down, and this debate has been an opportunity to reflect on that. I hope that the petitioner and everybody who has been watching the debate have had an opportunity to listen to both sides of it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 734311 relating to the public being given a right to a vote of no confidence.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

    This is unquestionably a really important issue, and the petition is indicative of the public’s unhappiness with this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the great difficulties people have with this Government include the number of manifesto pledges that have been broken, the introduction of policies that were not in their manifesto, and their constant U-turning, which would spin heads?

    Hansard source
35. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

    I am very much looking forward to the ending of this chaos; it seems that we are completely mired in it. As a former member of the fourth estate—I was a journalist for a long time—I am always concerned when politicians blame the media. I do not think the media are creating the chaos; they are simply reporting on it.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Representation of the People Bill

    The hon. Member talks about the legitimacy of the voting system and the votes nationally not being proportionately represented here. Is the example that he is using the current Government, which got 34% of the vote but has 63% of the seats in this House?

    Hansard source
37. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Middle East

    I seek clarity from the Prime Minister: given his initial refusal of permission for the use of bases by the US, is it the view of His Majesty’s Government that the initial strikes by Israel and the United States were illegal?

    Hansard source
38. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Phone Use in Schools

    The Secretary of State has bent over backwards to avoid backing a ban on mobile phones in schools. Her Back Benchers are making their views clear, so can she confirm whether she will be whipping them next week to vote against our amendment to ban phones in schools? We look forward to the Government’s 17th U-turn in as many months—the 18th if the one on Iran counts—but if a U-turn is not coming, why does she continue to stand in the way of parents, heads and her own Back Benchers, who simply want classrooms free from disruption?

    Hansard source
39. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Student Loan System

    On “Newsnight” on 23 February, the Minister for School Standards acknowledged that the student loan system is not perfect, but justified no change by saying the Government face huge pressure and must make tough choices. Given spending choices made since this Government came to power, is not the truth that the political choices that the Minister’s colleagues are talking about include balancing their “Benefits Street” Budget on the back of aspirational graduates?

    Hansard source
40. 2 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    National Year of Reading: Phonics

    When I visit primary and first schools, teachers tell me that when given a book, more and more children starting school are swiping it, rather than knowing how to turn the page. If the Secretary of State is serious about raising phonics standards at key stage 1, will she act now to empower parents and get screens out of classrooms, and back a ban on social media for under-16s to create the right habits early? Or will she continue to drag her feet, given that it has already taken six weeks to even launch a consultation that we all know the answer to?

    Hansard source