Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

   Business of the House

   I welcome the fact that Cavendish Street in Keighley is to be upgraded thanks to the investment secured through the previous Conservative Government’s towns fund, but among the brilliant local businesses the street is still home to several dodgy shops. They were stripped of their alcohol licences for illegal activity just last week, but they remain open and no convictions have followed. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time so that we can propose that when shops are found to be carrying out illegal activity, they can be shut down and replaced with proper, law-abiding, independent businesses?

   Hansard source
2. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Richard Fuller

   Banking Services: Accessibility

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on not only securing the debate but opening it so clearly. He laid out the particular issue in Penzance, but in doing so highlighted common concerns about bank closures. He raised some interesting questions in his excellent speech. I am sure the Minister will address them, but I will highlight a couple that I thought particularly interesting. The first was about the manner in which the closure was done—there was no consultation. He also talked about access to banking, not just to cash. The Minister will be aware that the Labour party had thoughts on that prior to the election; I do not want to prejudge the consultation, but I would be interested in her observations about that. The hon. Member for St Ives has been joined by several other Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) made an important point, among many, about the communal role that banks have played historically, and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) mentioned the impact on town centres. Those two points highlight how central bank branches were to our country’s culture. The hon. Member for St Ives also talked about the buildings that once housed the recently closed banks. The withdrawal of bank branches not only strikes at the way financial services operate in this country, but says a lot about the type of country we are. I will come on to that point later. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) raised the issue of the criteria used in the selection of banking hubs. I would be interested to know whether the Minister is considering that. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) talked about face-to-face banking, which goes to the nub of the matter: future trends in banking, an issue that I will raise in my own comments. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), made a wide-ranging speech and talked about how mobile banking must be dependable to be successful, as well as the availability of mobile networks. I had an exceptionally brief ministerial career, part of which included introducing to the House of Commons the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which contained the provisions that provided for banking hubs. It might be helpful to share some of my own thinking, or the thinking of the Conservative Government at the time. Some comments have been made about the impact of closures. I share people’s concerns about that issue, but the Government of the day—the Labour Government, today—must take a view on whether they will work with trends in how financial services operate in this country. They must decide either to seek to mitigate the social consequences, which is the rightful role of Government, or to stand steadfast against such changes. Patently, the decision made by the then Conservative Government, which has been supported by this Labour Government, was to work with the grain of how financial services are moving. It is about facilitating that, as far as possible, while recognising the social disbenefits that can arise. It is fair to say that when consultations were done at the time, which was during covid, accessibility to cash was the primary focus of concerns about the decline of branches. It is also fair to say that the provisions in the 2023 Act on the future accessibility of banking were not set in stone. It was clear that we were in a period of trend and change that would require further consultation and review on how it was working, and what further trends were occurring. The Opposition welcome the Government’s taking the opportunity to look at these issues again. To give a sense of the pace of change—this has not been mentioned so far—in 2024, for the first time, cash accounted for less than 10% of payments in this country. We need to go back only eight years for it to be, by far, the No. 1 form of transaction in this country. For those Members who are old enough to remember them, cheques now account for only 0.2% of all payments, so there has been a significant change. On the pace of change of bank branches, since January 2015 there have been 6,700 bank branch closures, according to Which? magazine. To put that into context, there are approximately 12,000 towns in the country, and about another 100 cities. That shows the significant withdrawal of physical premises across the country. The number of ATMs has also fallen by 40% since 2015. On the plus side, we have largely seen an end to the long decline in post offices in this country. One of the benefits of our post office network was that post offices were present in many locations, although not all, and could provide aspects of the banking services that were important to people. The change to the trend for post offices is welcome. We want our post offices to continue to provide a broad range of services to local communities. Postmasters and postmistresses are often among the most trusted people in their community, and they can provide a range of services, but of course they do not necessarily have the same level of expertise in banking that one would find in a bank branch. That takes me on to another point. This debate was starting to look like a bit of a hit-job on Lloyds bank. I think that it was just by chance that the first three bank closures referred to were all of Lloyds branches, so let me say that this is not just a Lloyds thing; it affects all financial institutions. On the other hand, our financial institutions and banks do a very good job for people. They are effective in making sure that people have a safe place for their money and that money can be transferred from A to B. They are good at developing new products and at trying to adapt to technological change.

   Hansard source
3. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Richard Fuller

   Banking Services: Accessibility

   I have to say to my Liberal Democrat friend that the Liberal Democrats’ position is that taxing big businesses, big banks and big tech can pay for everything. I think I have heard the moneys from that being allocated to well over 20 different applications. That may have a role—it is up to the Liberal Democrats to say—but the key point I was making is that, whether we like it or not, a vast number of the things we do are moving from analogue to digital, and banking is not isolated from that. Look at the way in which people communicate, the way in which legal services are likely to change and the way in which public services are likely to be delivered. The role of Government, back in 2022-23, was either to put up a block against that or to facilitate the change. We said that we would facilitate the change. There are contributions made through the banks to fund the banking hubs. More broadly, on the major transition of banking into the digital age, I take the hon. Member’s points about outage concerns and about someone receiving £1 million in their bank account and wondering how it got there, but overall the transition by financial services in this country has been done very well. It is important, though, that the Government of the day recognise the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in the sector. The issue of footfall is crucial, as is the point about being able to talk to a person. I recently went into a bank to withdraw some cash—not a huge amount, but a fair amount. I was asked, “Why are you taking your money out?” That might seem a rather intrusive question—I was going to say, “I’m putting it all on red in Las Vegas,” although I was not, obviously—but the reason for asking the question relates to a serious point that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch made. One issue that, back in 2022-23, I did not anticipate becoming so significant was how sinister online fraud on vulnerable people would become. With just a phone conversation, people can be intimidated or forced into thinking that they have to take money out of their account, and it ends up in criminal hands. Online fraud is an evil crime, and it can affect anyone. It is a very sophisticated way to get to people who feel vulnerable. The best defence against it is the fact of having to go into a branch of a bank or financial institution and have someone over the counter look you in the eye, see how you feel, and ask important questions to reassure themselves that you are not the victim of a crime. I take that very seriously; when I was looking at the issue a few years ago, I was perhaps not as cognisant of it as I am now. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts. Notwithstanding certain disagreements about the overall role of banks, this has been a debate in which all sides have urged the Minister and the Government to look at the update and the consultation in a serious way, think about what has been done correctly and see what, in today’s world, are the best changes to be made to the regulations.

   Hansard source
4. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Business of the House

   My constituent John Mildmay-White, whose ancestor was a Member of this House over 100 years ago, has completed a 600 km run from Mothecombe in Devon to Westminster Bridge in aid of Wild About The Erme River, raising at least £25,000 for that cause. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating him and all the campaigners who supported him?

   Hansard source
5. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   9. Whether the Attorney General has advised the Lord Chancellor on the potential impact of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on the rule of law.

   Hansard source
6. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   Notwithstanding what the Solicitor General just said, she must recognise that there is growing resentment and lack of confidence not just among the general public but within the legal profession. How does she expect to maintain confidence in the judicial process against such widespread opposition?

   Hansard source
7. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

   Business of the House

   For workers at Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency, the clock is ticking towards the end of this month, when they will receive their final redundancy notice. We had a useful meeting with the Energy Minister on site a couple of weeks ago, but I am sure that the workers would appreciate an update statement, in open session, where they can hear directly from the Minister about what progress has been made since that meeting.

   Hansard source
8. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

   UK Steel Strategy

   Hundreds of my constituents work at the Scunthorpe steelworks, and hundreds more are reliant on the supply chain. They want certainty about their future. Will the Secretary of State give a clear indication of how long he anticipates the existing blast furnaces will be in operation? If the Government’s intention is to build arc furnaces, will they be established in Scunthorpe?

   Hansard source
9. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Business of the House

   Tomorrow I will be enjoying Kelso’s musical theatre performance of “Beauty and the Beast” at Tait Hall; on Saturday, I will be at Lauder Amateur Dramatic Society’s performance for its 76th year at Lauder public hall. From the Leader of the House’s marvellous performances here in the House of Commons, I know that he is a great fan of amateur dramatics; will he join me in wishing the performers and production teams well?

   Hansard source
10. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Glen

    Flooding

    Salisbury has benefited enormously from investment in the river park scheme, which has alleviated flood risk to the centre of the city. My attention now turns to the villages, the role that farmers and agricultural land can play in effective flood defence, and the consequential impact on food supply. How does the Minister view the role of farmers in a collaborative approach to flood defences?

    Hansard source
11. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

    Hansard source
12. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Let me begin by paying tribute to President Zelensky. Thanks to you, Mr Speaker, he gave an extraordinary speech here this week. Like Auden’s “The Shield of Achilles”, it was a speech of poetry and hope, but also of steel. He showed that Ukraine, far from being bowed by Russia, is now sharing its expertise in counter-drone defence with nations across the Gulf and elsewhere. I give thanks for the swift action that the Government have taken to support households that are now facing sharp and unexpected increases in the cost of heating oil, including many in Herefordshire. As Herefordshire goes, so goes the UK. The events in the middle east have exposed a hard truth: this country is dangerously exposed on energy, and the Government’s policies are compounding that vulnerability. Around a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the strait of Hormuz. When that is threatened, prices spike, and when prices spike, everything else is hit—heating, electricity, industry and jobs. Every industrialised economy relies on secure and affordable energy, yet this country imports around 60% of the gas we use. We pay far more for it than our competitor nations do—around three times US prices—so when shocks come, the benefits of higher gas prices go to other countries, but our citizens bear the higher costs and added insecurity. That structural vulnerability has built up over decades under Governments of all the major parties, but this Government are negligently or deliberately making it much worse. They have blocked new North sea licences, and sent a clear signal that domestic oil and gas production is to be run down, regardless of demand. The consequences of these decisions are already visible. The CF Fertilisers plant near Chester has closed thanks to high energy costs, so this country now imports ammonia instead. The Grangemouth refinery is ceasing its refining operations and becoming an import terminal. In Aberdeen, Scunthorpe and Teesside, investment is falling and companies are failing. Thousands of jobs have been lost, and tens of thousands more put at risk. Little wonder that a host of businesses and unions, including Unite, the GMB and even RenewableUK, have expressed their concern. These are not isolated events; they are the predictable effects of policy decisions taken by Ministers without any serious consideration of the economic and strategic consequences in the current context. The Energy Secretary often says that the problem is global gas prices, and that increasing domestic production makes no difference. Of course that is nonsense, because domestic production actually boosts jobs, public revenues and national resilience while lowering emissions. But that line is also dangerously misleading. Gas prices are regional, not global, because gas, unlike oil, is relatively expensive to ship and store. The Energy Secretary is confusing a global market with global pricing. It is a basic error. Alas, the Chancellor is no less confused. On Tuesday, she said: “You see countries like Canada and Norway increasing their production, and every country’s got to play their part”. But, in her view, that does not include the UK. Her policy is precisely the opposite: not to increase but to reduce oil and gas production. You could not make it up. Shortly we will hear the Business Secretary make a statement on how the Government want to increase domestic steel production, even while they are stopping the domestic oil and gas on which that steel production relies. It is an absolute nonsense. If we cut domestic production in the face of steady demand, imports will fill the gap, but an increasingly import-dependent system is forced to rely ever more on pipelines, LNG cargoes and interconnectors. These are vulnerable fixed assets that are open to damage and disruption from abroad, and there is a further consequence. Modern conflict is determined by industrial capacity in steel, chemicals, fuels and supply chains, yet the Government are allowing these national sovereign capabilities to erode. So this is a policy that increases carbon emissions, deprives Britain of tax revenues, worsens the balance of payments, hurts consumers and businesses, and weakens both our energy resources and our national security—that is quite an achievement. It is hard to imagine a more confused or dangerous approach. I do not want a debate on this topic as we can all see what is happening: at some point there must be a U-turn, because Iran is making a fool of the Energy Secretary. No, I desperately want the Leader of the House to get the Prime Minister to see the madness of this approach and get the policy changed as soon as he possibly can.

    Hansard source
13. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if you could clarify that the House’s position is, and has always been, that we expect Members to show courtesy by informing other Members if they intend to mention them, not their constituency, and that in the normal course of business, Members of this House may always refer to places without any intention of discourtesy towards the Members of Parliament who represents them.

    Hansard source
14. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases

    I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on his excellent speech and on securing this debate, and all those who have participated in it. I thank the Minister for allowing me a few words. On your behalf, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will mention your constituent Steve Mawby, because he has been a key campaigner in this important and very difficult area. I first got involved in it before I became a Member of Parliament in 2007, and I pay particular tribute to the late Roy Harries and Les Collard, because they brought to my attention the injustice that had been perpetrated on older pensioners by the Special Metals Wiggin pension fund. Hundreds of people were affected by that, and, alas, many of them are now dead. They were almost invariably widows, who were left receiving half of a much-diminished pension. These pensioners have not received a single penny in top-up payments since the legislation kicked in, because the company’s trustees have decided not to pay any discretionary bonuses at any point. The result is that those pensioners’ incomes are 55% lower than they would have been, and, for widows, half of that. It is an absolute outrage and a great historical injustice, and as the hon. Member says, the fact that an injustice occurred in the past does not mean that it is not important to address it now. Of course, there was a clear blunder in the legislation. I have raised this issue in the House over the years, and it is a matter of great embarrassment that previous Conservative Administrations and the coalition Government did not address it, but there is now the opportunity to do so. On the Special Metals Wiggin pension fund, I recognise that the trustees are often directly or indirectly controlled by the company, regardless of whether they are formally independent. The company has not paid any bonuses or top-ups, and it is now owned by a large American company, Precision Castparts Corp., which is itself owned by Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. I have written to Buffett, who has said that he is not willing to help either. It is a source of great sadness to me that even such a great philanthropist and entrepreneur such should have failed to do so. My question to the Minister is this: given that the Special Metals Wiggin pension fund has been in surplus for many years, could he, as well as considering the question of historical injustice, consider the question of whether the trustees should be required, out of the surpluses they have, to pay top-ups to the pensioners? I hope they will consider doing so retrospectively but, if not, they should do so in way that is generous, that recognises the terrible injustice that has been done, and that pays proper tribute to Les Collard, Roy Harries and all the great men and women of the Wiggin pensioners, who we justly celebrate and whose injustice we seek to fight.

    Hansard source
15. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases

    I will not detain the Minister long. If a group of trustees never pays a discretionary bonus, even though the scheme is in surplus, it starts to look like it is a policy of theirs to discriminate against a subset of their beneficiaries, and I think that is illegal. I would be grateful for his guidance on that.

    Hansard source
16. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases

    I can understand why the Minister thinks those cases are harder; in some respects, they are less hard, because in those cases changes have been made reflecting circumstances. In the cases that I am talking about, there is a policy to discriminate against a settled group of beneficiaries. That is the bit that I think is potentially illegal.

    Hansard source
17. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Helen Grant

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    On Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, told the House that “politics is about choices”, so let us be clear about the choices that this Government have made. They chose to bring forward a Bill with no consultation, no manifesto mandate, no Green Paper, no White Paper and no robust modelling. They chose to go further than Sir Brian Leveson had recommended. They chose to remove the right to trial by jury for offences carrying up to three years in prison—sentences that will cost defendants their jobs, their homes and their families. And they chose to do all this in five days of Committee scrutiny. What does the Minister think about the choices that her Government have made? What will she tell the victims of miscarriages of justice and the thousands of legal professionals who oppose the measures?

    Hansard source
18. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Helen Grant

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what she said about the Hudgell case and the child cruelty register. It has been an amazing campaign, led by Paula Hudgell and her little boy, and I am pleased that we were able to get cross-party support to change the law and hopefully look after children and save lives. It is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Lady just will not answer the very straightforward questions that I am asking. Jo Hamilton OBE was a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal. She made it clear that, under Government proposals, none of the wrongly convicted 900 sub-postmasters would have had the right to a jury trial. Just this weekend, there was a further revelation, this time involving the Prime Minister. In a report, he had previously concluded that scrapping jury trials led to unreliable convictions in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. Will the Solicitor General explain how removing this vital safeguard makes the justice system more fair, not less?

    Hansard source
19. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    UK Steel Strategy

    What assessment, if any, has the Department made of the impact that moving from blast furnaces to arc furnaces will have on our virgin steel capabilities? The Minister for Trade, who did the morning round, seemed to accept that it would mean our virgin steel capabilities being undermined.

    Hansard source
20. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Climate Change

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing the debate and thank him for doing so. I recognise his concerns and those of others on climate change and its impacts, but I do—this will not be a surprise to anyone in this House—have a difference of opinion, especially when it comes to the actions we have taken and should now take, in particular with regard to our oil and gas sector, which I will come to later. But I will begin by looking backwards. Under the Conservatives, the UK made more progress to cut emissions than any other G7 country—by 2022, cutting emissions in half compared with 1990 levels. Indeed, emissions were cut to such an extent that the UK surpassed the targets that countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and the US set for themselves for 2030. Under the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of the UK electricity generated by renewables increased fourfold, from 9.5% in 2011 to over 47% in 2023.

    Hansard source
21. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Climate Change

    I will not skip forward a few pages of my speech now, but we will touch on that matter in the coming few minutes. As I said, the things that we have done are notable. Between 2010 and 2019, the UK Government oversaw the planting of 15 million trees, and during our time in office, the UK was home to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest wind farms in the world. We—the UK—have done a lot, and yet the climate is still changing. That is not because there has not been enough ambition or enough action from the UK, and it is not because of a need to just go faster. It is because, first—and I know there will be wails about this—the UK contributes less than 1% of global emissions; and secondly, other countries have not been following our lead.

    Hansard source
22. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Climate Change

    No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we have made huge progress and yet others have not been following our lead, so why would we make our industry less competitive? Why would we ensure that investment goes down in our country just to virtue signal and for no one to follow? We will look at what is happening today. To be very clear—I think this needs saying—disagreeing with the Energy Secretary’s approach to energy policy, and questioning the speed and cost of moving towards renewable energy, does not make one a climate change denier. That is tedious; it is a lazy argument made by those who want to close down the debate—those who believe that decarbonisation must always be the No. 1 priority, at the cost of all else. That is the inherent problem with the current debate on climate change and carbon emissions. It has become a pursuit of what is perceived to be the perfect response—the purist approach to the climate—over what is pragmatic and what is practical. It does not prioritise the public, prices, industry or energy security.

    Hansard source
23. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Climate Change

    The hon. Gentleman is obviously keen to hear from me, which is great, but as he says, I am four minutes in and have taken three interventions; I think I still have a couple of minutes to form my argument. I will first consider electricity. Our electricity is some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also some of the most expensive, and that is the issue. Making electricity the cheapest option will make it the preferred option. Making electricity cheap will encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and the electrification of home heating, and it will make the UK more attractive for businesses and for growth markets like AI. Cheap electricity will improve the cost of living for households across the country. That is why the Conservatives have a cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone—for households and for businesses. And how? By cutting the carbon tax, which is a tax that makes up a third of the price of our electricity. But of course, as Members know, electricity only makes up about 20% of our energy mix. Oil and gas—at over 70% of that mix—remain central to our energy needs, and will for a long time. The Climate Change Committee’s projections include oil and gas in its 2050 net zero scenario. So why are the Government banning new licences for the North sea? Why are they taxing companies to such an extent that they pack up and leave? Climate change is a global concern, and therefore global carbon emissions must be considered. Why is the Secretary of State determined to run down our oil and gas production just to increase imports, which are four times more carbon-intensive than what is produced in the North sea? LNG imports have to be extracted, liquefied, shipped and re-gasified, rather than just being piped from the North sea directly into our gas grid. Permitting Rosebank, Jackdaw and, down the line, Cambo will mean that the UK’s emissions from oil and gas, which we will be using in any case, will be lower—lower than if those reserves are left in the ground and instead we use more carbon-intensive imports. Based on science, emissions and the fact that oil and gas will still be needed in the UK for decades, no one can reasonably argue that replacing domestic North sea oil and gas production with imports is the right course of action. It is not—not for jobs, investment, growth, energy security or emissions.

    Hansard source
24. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Climate Change

    I do not know whether there has been a misunderstanding of the title of the debate—it is on climate change, not the costs of bills. For climate change, we are looking at emissions; if we are focusing on emissions, we are focusing on where the carbon is produced. There is less carbon intensity in our domestic oil and gas than in imported oil and gas. I know that is not the message that the hon. Lady or others want to hear, but those are the facts. Being wedded to domestic emissions targets while ignoring emissions produced elsewhere is causing the deindustrialisation we are seeing across the UK. Businesses in ceramics, refining, petrochemicals, oil and gas and many more industries are packing up and leaving the UK, not because their products are needed less, but because they are unable to sustain themselves here under the weight of industrial energy prices and carbon taxes.

    Hansard source
25. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Climate Change

    I will not. I have taken a lot of interventions, and there is not a huge amount of time—I want to wrap up. The targets of the Climate Change Act are forcing the UK to make decisions through the lens of emissions, not what is best for industry, electricity costs, growth, prosperity or jobs. That is why it is right that the Conservatives have committed to repealing it. The carbon tax imposed on our industry through the emissions trading scheme has also made it significantly harder for energy-intensive industries to do business in the UK. It increases costs for consumers and makes our industries less competitive. The illogical way in which we consider domestic emissions while ignoring global emissions further undermines UK industries. Carbon leakage—exporting production, and therefore emissions, abroad—has become a convenient way for the Government to reach their emissions targets at the cost of vital UK industries. We are offshoring our industries and losing jobs, skills, taxes and investment just to import products at huge cost on huge, diesel-chugging container ships from across the world from countries that still use coal power. It is a complete contradiction of what the Government say their emissions ambitions are. The UK has already done a lot—more than many other countries—to reduce emissions, but that cannot and must not be at any cost. From our electricity prices to the North sea, traditional industries to AI, the Secretary of State’s idealistic approach to energy policy, which focuses primarily on domestic carbon emissions, is impoverishing Britain for no benefit to global emissions. I once again thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke for securing today’s debate. To conclude, I ask the Minister the following three questions: does she recognise the incoherence in the Government’s determination to shut down North sea production just to increase reliance on more carbon-intensive imports? When will the Government make a decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank? Will the Government adopt our plan to cut the carbon tax and adopt our cheap power plan, immediately stripping 20% off household and business electricity costs?

    Hansard source
26. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Online Harms

    I support a number of the things that the hon. Lady is saying about the dangers of online harms, especially for children, but I am unclear about her position on a social media ban for those under 16. Although I accept her overall point, which is that social media companies have a responsibility, we could send them a really clear signal, and protect children, by bringing in an immediate ban on under-16s using social media. Does she support that or not?

    Hansard source
27. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Online Harms

    Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am very convinced of the need for a social media ban. That is why I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s stance on that. On his point about communities, schools and parents, if we do not go for a full ban, there are some technologies that could be used. I think of Jason in my constituency, who runs a company called Orbiri. He is looking to set up communities, where a school—maybe a class or a whole school—can set the parameters for usage time and the sites and apps that are used, so parents do not feel that they are alone but are part of a wider community, all working together to limit and control the social media usage of their children. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something like that would help?

    Hansard source
28. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Business of the House

    Does the Leader of the House seriously think it is reasonable for the Government to announce a new framework that will have a profound effect on Mid Buckinghamshire—and indeed every constituency represented in this House, not least as regards food security—by written ministerial statement, rather than through an oral statement in the Chamber, which would allow scrutiny by Members from all parties? Will he reflect on that, particularly as Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time continues to be just 40 minutes long, rather than a full hour? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a full oral statement in the House about the framework?

    Hansard source
29. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    UK Steel Strategy

    Now that the Government have some experience of running a business with British Steel, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the £37 million cost of the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the national insurance jobs tax increases on the viability of our steel industry?

    Hansard source
30. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    8. Whether the Attorney General has advised the Lord Chancellor on the potential impact of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on the rule of law.

    Hansard source
31. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    The contentious element of the Courts and Tribunals Bill relates to the proposed changes to jury trials. It has united the legal profession, the Opposition Benches and a significant number of Government MPs. To avoid the embarrassment of Government MPs coming out and defending the policy only to face a U-turn, can the Solicitor General give a categorical assurance to those on her own Benches that there will be no U-turn or watering down of this folly of a policy?

    Hansard source
32. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    EU-UK Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: Negotiations

    Stakeholders have expressed alarm about the fact that the Government’s guidance for businesses on the UK-EU SPS agreement, published last week, has legislation in scope on the use of hormones, including bovine somatotrophin, in livestock. The use of growth-promoting hormones for livestock and of bovine somatotrophin are rightly banned in the UK and EU because of serious animal welfare issues and public health concerns, and bovine somatotrophin is linked to a 25% increase in mastitis in cows. For the sake of animal welfare, will the Minister give a clear assurance that the UK will maintain our bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork and bovine somatotrophin-treated dairy, and that none of those standards will be weakened or traded away in the EU SPS negotiations, or in trade deals with other countries? Will she also confirm whether the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which ended the export of live animals for slaughter or fattening, will be retained in the reset?

    Hansard source
33. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Online Harms

    I congratulate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this debate. As with so many debates over recent months, it has shown that online harms are a matter of paramount importance to Members on both sides of the House and in the other place. As was to be expected, every Member who spoke focused on online harms. I think only one Member, the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), spoke about some of the positives of the internet age. I would usually say that it has been a pleasure to listen to and take part in the debate, but it really has not been in this case, because it has been a pretty grim debate. We have had a tour de force discussion of all the horrors that young people and adults are exposed to on the internet, and we have heard about the importance for our society and country of tackling them. I am very proud of the steps that His Majesty’s official Opposition took in government to make the online environment a safer place, from bringing the Online Safety Act into force to the commendable and tenacious work of my noble Friends in the other place, especially Baroness Owen and Baroness Bertin, who are the staunchest of advocates for protections from digital forms of abuse for women and girls. Members will know that Baroness Owen secured important amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to criminalise the solicitation of sexually explicit deepfake images. Baroness Bertin’s report and campaigning has resulted in amendments being tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill concerning nudification apps. That is by no means the extent of their important work. The aim of the Conservatives’ Online Safety Act was to build an environment where adults could access legal content freely and where children enjoy greater protections. I welcome in particular the entry into force last year of Ofcom’s protection of children codes. I also welcome the enforcement action that Ofcom has already taken under the Act to tackle file-sharing sites disseminating child sexual abuse material and pornography sites that have failed to put in place highly effective age-assurance measures to prevent children from accessing content. However, we know that concerns regarding children’s social media use go well beyond content that is explicitly harmful and subject to restrictions under the Online Safety Act. As a result of addictive algorithms that drive excessive use and unhealthy patterns of behaviour, parents across the country are rightly concerned about their children’s social and emotional development. That is why we called for a social media ban for children under the age of 16. This month, the Government regrettably voted down amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which were secured in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Nash, to bring such a ban into effect. In response to pressure from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and other Members across the House, the Government have now launched their own consultation on measures to restrict access to social media for under 16s, alongside several other online safety matters. If the Government had accepted our amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, such a review would be well under way by now, and we would be closer to a solution on this generationally important issue, but we are where we are. Consultation is no substitute for action, and I sincerely hope that the Government will deliver on the timescales set out for responding and bringing in measures after their consultation concludes in May. As with any rapidly evolving technology, social media and other online tools develop new apps and sites that pose novel threats and demand a response from Government and regulators. We have seen most recently in AI chatbots, some of which may fall outside the scope of the regulatory framework in promoting self-harm content to young people. A particular harm that I have raised with Ministers and Ofcom, of which there has been a disturbing increase, is the use of AI chatbots to obtain medical or other advice that should be sought from regulated professionals. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) mentioned that in his speech. Last year, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency established a national commission, which ran a call for evidence on the suitability of the UK’s framework for regulating AI in healthcare. The call for evidence closed last month, and I look forward to seeing the commission’s conclusions and the Government’s proposals for dealing with the risks that will no doubt be highlighted. A fundamentally important aspect of online harm that has attracted comparably less media attention and debating time in Parliament is the threat to democracy of online disinformation campaigns perpetrated by hostile state actors and their affiliates. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee reported last year that online foreign interference and disinformation campaigns are putting UK citizens at risk. We also had credible reports last year of Iranian state-backed digital interference in the Scottish independence referendum. The risk posed by that type of activity is intensifying, as artificial intelligence tools provide the capability to generate deepfake content purporting to represent politicians or campaigns, amplified by foreign, hostile, state-controlled bot accounts. As people—particularly young people—increasingly obtain their news online, it is more important than ever that we consider the potential of digital watermarking tools that can be used to demonstrate the provenance and authenticity of content published on the internet. This danger is likely to increase as a result of geopolitical tensions. In their report on artificial intelligence and copyright, which was published yesterday, the Government recognised the risks posed by digital replicas and deepfakes in spreading convincing disinformation online, and committed to exploring options to address the growing problem. The Government also discussed the need to label AI-generated content to make disinformation easier for users to spot. Will the Minister provide timescales for that further work, and an update on the Government’s broader strategy on countering AI-generated democratic interference material? What role does Minister think digital watermarking tools will play in countering the proliferation and impact of deepfake videos and content?

    Hansard source
34. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Business of the House

    One great privilege of being a Member of Parliament is the ability to raise constituents’ concerns directly with Ministers. Unfortunately, far too frequently, the responses to be sent to our constituents come from officials rather than Ministers. I am sure the Leader of the House agrees that our constituents are entitled to hear from the Ministers themselves. Will he remind his ministerial colleagues of their duty to ensure that our constituents hear directly from them, not their officials?

    Hansard source
35. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    International Development

    Many of our constituents will want to react to this announcement today by increasing the amount of money they give. Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continue to offer an aid match option? Given that 0.7% is still technically on the statute book, will the Foreign Secretary bring forward a named vote in this Parliament to make the changes she is announcing today?

    Hansard source
36. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    UK Steel Strategy

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives very much believe in a sovereign steel industry, but what we see today is a multibillion-pound shot in the dark, and it heralds the end of primary steel production in the UK. Just to set the record straight, there would no longer be any steel production in Wales without action from the last Government. This steel strategy has no plan to make the industry stand on its own two feet, and it risks a permanent state-funded drain on taxpayers. British Steel was losing £700,000 a day when the Government took emergency action last year, and now the taxpayer is losing an estimated £1.3 million a day and there is a subsidy of £110,000 per job to keep the Scunthorpe blast furnace operational. This steel strategy does not include any exit strategy, risking a permanent drain on taxpayers, and now the Government are negotiating handing taxpayers’ money to a Chinese business that they said was worth nothing, while hitting British users of steel with a 50% tariff hike. Given that the previous Secretary of State said that British Steel had zero value, will the current Secretary of State confirm whether compensation will be paid to Jingye? How are these new tariffs going to affect the cost of living for our constituents? How much will the tariffs raise? They represent a massive tax hike on our world-leading automotive, defence and aerospace sectors, which will make building homes, bridges and railways more expensive. Have the Government carried out any impact assessment on the tariffs, and will jobs not be lost in those other sectors? The Government say in the strategy that electric arc furnaces are the future, but without competitive energy, green steel will simply become no steel. If electric arc furnaces are the future, when will the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe be decommissioned, and how many jobs will be lost in that process? Where will the £2.5 billion go? Is it all going into the Scunthorpe blast furnaces? How is this £2.5 billion spending spree fiscally responsible? What is the Secretary of State cutting to pay for it? The so-called National Wealth Fund is rapidly become the national slush fund. The shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has announced our cheap power plan, which will slash energy bills for businesses and households. The Conservatives will axe the carbon tax, scrap extortionate subsidies for wind and solar, repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, and end the ban on new oil and gas licences to maximise domestic extraction and reduce dependence on foreign energy imports. Could the Secretary of State please copy this approach? This is a Government who are subsidising decline and reaching for protectionist tariffs. After the botched nationalisation of Scunthorpe and the surrender of the Chagos islands, we can see from this steel strategy that when Labour negotiates, the British taxpayer loses.

    Hansard source
37. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    EU-UK Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: Negotiations

    6. What steps she is taking to support UK interests in sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU.

    Hansard source
38. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    EU-UK Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: Negotiations

    Various farming organisations have expressed their concern about the potential negative impact of dynamic alignment with the EU. CropLife’s report suggested that immediate alignment could cost British farming £800 million in year one, and could see wheat production reduced by more than 15%. What is the Secretary of State doing to work with Cabinet Office colleagues to ensure that they understand the potential negative impacts of an SPS deal, so that we do not sell out our farmers, as they sold out the fishing industry?

    Hansard source
39. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    UK Steel Strategy

    I call the Father of the House.

    Hansard source
40. 19 Mar 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    National Security Strategy, Political Finance and Foreign Influence

    We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Matt Western will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. Those should be questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Minister, but Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

    Hansard source