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

1. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Building Safety Regulator

   With all due respect, the Government need to do an awful lot better than that. They hide behind the claim that there is a clear downward trend in live gateway 2 applications, but the reality, according to the Government’s own statistics across all categories, is that the number of live applications in London has fallen by a mere 6% in the last 12 weeks. That is hardly a reason to celebrate, is it? Will the Government admit that they, Sadiq Khan and their under-delivering reforms are hindering building, rather than helping to get London building?

   Hansard source
2. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

   The steps taken by the former head of Labour Together to smear journalists when they dared to look into the murky finances of this Labour think-tank are nothing short of chilling. No longer head of Labour Together, he is now serving as a Minister in the Cabinet Office, which is the Department currently looking into his actions, so he will be marking his own homework. When is the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office going to be sacked, if he will not do the decent thing and resign?

   Hansard source
3. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

   An additional concern that I have with the appointment of Peter Mandelson is that the American Government had compromising information in the form of the Epstein files. I wonder what consideration was given to the appointment of an ambassador who would be going into sensitive negotiations with a foreign Government knowing that that Government had compromising information. Will the Minister confirm that those considerations and that information is in scope of the disclosures?

   Hansard source
4. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving

   Clearly, the system needs reform, but many families that have managed to get through the system and get an EHCP will be concerned by the announcements and the uncertainty today. I note that the Government anticipate that by the end of this decade there will be a reduction in children with the highest need. Does the Secretary of State believe that that will be due to a reduction in their need or in provision?

   Hansard source
5. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Local Government Reorganisation

   What about the cancelled mayoral elections, such as those in Sussex and Hampshire? Do not the same arguments that the Secretary of State has made apply to those elections, or is he just afraid of our candidates, Katy Bourne and Donna Jones?

   Hansard source
6. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

   Regular updates are all well and good, and they are appreciated, but they are a classic Whitehall strategy for disguising managed delay. When we get the first tranche of documents, will the Minister ensure that it is substantial and deals with the two key issues: first, what the Prime Minister knew at the point when he appointed Mandelson, what the agencies knew and what the propriety and ethics team advised the Prime Minister in relation to Mandelson’s connection with the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, at the point of appointment; and secondly, the details of the dodgy, shady-looking Palantir deal involving Alex Karp, the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson?

   Hansard source
7. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving

   In April 2024, a much-needed SEND school at Bitham Park in Westbury in my constituency was given the green light by Wiltshire council and the Department for Education, with a planned in-service date for later this year. The Labour Government put that plan on pause. Is it the Secretary of State’s intention for that school to go ahead? If so, will she provide a timeline?

   Hansard source
8. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

   Leasehold Reform

   According to the Government’s own statistics, 84% of respondents to their consultation said they felt that the system for challenging unfair charges for managing agents and other lease arrangements was not fit for purpose. The Conservatives agree—that is why we legislated to address this in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has had a few distractions recently, but he has told the House that he is committed to addressing this matter. Can he tell all our leaseholder constituents by when the Government will enact that legislation, which we passed with his party’s support?

   Hansard source
9. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

   Grey-belt Land

   The Minister has set out clearly for the House the key plank of development strategy under the previous Secretary of State: re-designating large parts of our green belt as grey belt. Housing delivery is collapsing, but a recent report identified that London already has capacity for 460,000 additional homes on brownfield sites. At the mayor’s rate of delivery, that is an 83-year supply of housing development plots. Rather than focusing on releasing green belt for development, why do the Government not instead focus on building those homes that already have planning permission, and could be built on brownfield sites tomorrow?

   Hansard source
10. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    This is a short Bill, but it involves potentially raising and spending a huge amount of public money, so in the interests of thorough scrutiny, I will speak to Opposition amendments 3 and 4 to clause 2, concerning the use of public finance for exports that may ultimately be re-exported to sanctioned destinations. Our amendments would prevent the Government from providing export finance or insurance where there is reason to believe that goods may be re-exported to Russia, or to any other country subject to UK sanctions. In such cases, the Secretary of State’s financial commitments would be capped at zero. These amendments are not abstract. They respond to a very real problem in our world today that has been highlighted by independent analysis. For example, Sky’s Ed Conway has done extensive reporting showing that although direct exports to Russia have collapsed since sanctions were imposed, goods of UK origin are still reaching Russia through third countries. Exports to states such as Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Uzbekistan have surged by extraordinary amounts—sometimes more than 1,000%. Obviously, these are not normal market movements; they are clear indications of diversion routes being used to circumvent sanctions. These are not just trade flows on a spreadsheet. Sky News has shown that components of UK origin have been found inside Russian military equipment used on the battlefield in Ukraine. Among the items that have been identified in Russian systems are British-made microchips found in Russian drones, UK-origin electronic components inside Russian missiles and dual-use technology that should never have been able to reach Russia under the sanctions regime. Those components were not exported directly from the UK to Russia; they were routed through intermediary countries, often the same countries to which UK exports have suddenly spiked. President Zelensky has publicly raised concerns that UK goods are still making their way into Russia, despite sanctions. That is why we believe that amendments 3 and 4 are necessary. They represent a simple but important safeguard. The UK must ensure that its export finance system does not inadvertently support supply chains that undermine our sanctions regime. In the case of Russia, we must be absolutely certain that no UK-backed goods are being diverted in ways that could support its illegal war against Ukraine. The Minister has spoken about the need to expand UK Export Finance’s capacity and to support small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. We agree that export finance has an important role to play, but it must be deployed responsibly. I am sure that the whole Committee agrees that public money should never be used in ways that conflict with our foreign policy or national security objectives. Our amendments would ensure that the Government exercise due diligence, and that UK Export Finance support is aligned with the UK’s sanctions framework. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a constructive and proportionate proposal, and will want to support it tonight. New clause 2, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, is about the steel industry. We can all agree that steel made in the UK is a strategic foundation sector for the United Kingdom. It supports thousands of skilled jobs and underpins supply chains across manufacturing, construction and defence. We did not oppose the Government’s emergency legislation last April, although we warned that it was rushed, and that the Government did not have a proper plan. Nearly a year on from that emergency legislation, and nearly two years into this Government, we are still waiting for the long-promised steel strategy. The Government have still not been able to agree a deal with the Chinese, despite the Prime Minister’s visit to China. There has been secret meeting after secret meeting between Ministers and Jingye—meetings on which the Government have refused to update Parliament. New clause 2 would simply require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of the increased financial assistance limits on the UK steel industry. That report would set out, first, the amount of financial assistance provided each month to UK steel undertakings under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and secondly, the number of full-time equivalent steel jobs that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would have been lost without the increased limit. It is a straightforward accountability measure. If public money is being used to support the steel sector, Parliament and the public deserve to know how much is being spent, why it is necessary and what outcomes it is delivering. The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of steel, and we agree that steel is very important, but without a clear strategy or transparent reporting, it is impossible to judge whether interventions are effective, and whether they represent value for money. How do we know that we are not providing a limitless amount of funding that will crowd out support for other industries, and how can we assess whether it is good value for the taxpayer? New clause 2 would not constrain the Government’s ability to act; it would simply ensure that support is justified, targeted and effective. I hope that the Minister will recognise the value of this additional transparency and accept the new clause. I turn to amendments 1 and 2, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We believe that they are sensible and straightforward. If the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking is likely to be present in the supply chain of a business receiving export-supported goods, obviously the amount of public financial support should be zero. That is surely the only responsible position that this House can take. We are inherently supportive of the need for transparency in supply chains, and will support the amendments. I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Providing transparency on the amounts that are allocated across the whole United Kingdom would seem to be helpful assistance to this House.

    Hansard source
11. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    The hon. Member makes a very important point, and I know that the House will be eager to hear how enthusiastic the Minister is about all the amendments that have been tabled. I am sure we will shortly hear whether he supports them, or why he does not and why he will urge his colleagues to vote against them this evening.

    Hansard source
12. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    I sense that this is an occasion when the House would appreciate it if I were quite brief, but I am grateful to set out our support for the principles of the Bill, and we will not oppose it on Third Reading. The Bill raises the statutory limits in a way that will enable the Government to provide UK industry with additional support, and as His Majesty’s official Opposition we of course want exports to grow, investment to increase and UK firms to thrive. We also believe that public money must be used responsibly, transparently and only where it is genuinely needed, which is why we regret that the Government opposed our amendments this evening. The Government did not accept our amendments, but we will continue to press for greater transparency around these large sums and expenditure of public money. We will press for stronger safeguards and a more coherent industrial strategy, particularly in the steel sector. We want British businesses to succeed, and exporters to have the support they need. We want public money to be used wisely and in the national interest, so while we will not oppose the Bill today, we will continue to scrutinise closely the work of the Department.

    Hansard source
13. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Topical Questions

    T6. From his time at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State will be well aware of issues with agricultural planning, so will he guarantee to the House that he will take urgent action to unblock the system and unlock tens of millions of pounds back into the rural economy?

    Hansard source
14. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving

    I welcome the ambition to look again at the funding formula that so disadvantaged children in my constituency. I also welcome the additional provision for children with SEND in mainstream settings, but for many children, that is not appropriate; they need a specialist setting. One of the biggest problems I have locally is a lack of places in our special schools. In Bridlington, a plan for a new 120-place school was approved in May 2024. Can we ensure that officials in the Department work with my local authority to get that school built at the earliest possible opportunity?

    Hansard source
15. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clauses 2 and 3 stand part. New clause 1—Removal of two child limit: report on effects on children in households subject to the benefit cap— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the effects of this Act on households and children. (2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include an estimate of the total number of households, and the number of households in poverty, which will not receive— (a) an overall increase in benefit support from the abolition of the two child limit from April 2026 due to being subject to the overall benefit cap, and (b) the full potential increase in benefit support they would have been entitled to from the abolition of the two child limit from April 2026, but for the fact that they became subject to the overall benefit cap following any increase provided through the abolition of the two child limit, and the assessment must include the total number of children in such households, and the impact on the number of such households in poverty. (3) The estimates made under subsection (2) must include analysis at the following levels— (a) country, (b) county, (c) local authority, and (d) parliamentary constituency.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effects of the Act on households and children, including the number who will either not receive an increase in benefit support, or the full potential increase, because they are subject to the benefit cap. New clause 2—Report on the effects on households with a disabled family member— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the effects of this Act on the number of households in poverty with more than two children that have at least one disabled family member. (2) The assessment under subsection (1) must also consider— (a) the cumulative impact of changes to universal credit since July 2024 on households in poverty that have at least one disabled family member, and who are affected by this Act, and (b) any changes in the standard of living for households with— (i) three or more children, and (ii) at least one person in receipt of the Universal Credit health element, arising from implementation of this Act.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment of the effects of the Act on households in poverty that have at least one disabled family member. New clause 3—Review of the impact of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, review the effect of this Act on— (a) overall levels of child poverty in the UK; (b) levels of destitution and deep poverty among households with children; (c) households in receipt of Universal Credit which include children; (d) educational outcomes for children in households affected by poverty; (e) physical and mental health outcomes for children in households affected by poverty; and (f) longer-term impacts on economic participation, workforce skills, and demand on health and welfare services arising from child poverty and destitution. (2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the conclusions of the review.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the effects of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes. New clause 4—Assessment of the impact of the Act on child poverty— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the effects of this Act on children and child poverty. (2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider households with three or more children which are subject to, or as a result of this Act become subject to, the benefit cap. (3) The assessment must estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of— (a) implementation of this Act, and (b) implementation of this Act if households were not subject to the benefits cap. (4) The Secretary of State must consult the following organisations in undertaking the assessment— (a) Child Poverty Action Group, (b) End Child Poverty Coalition, (c) Save the Children UK, (d) The Children’s Society, (e) Barnado’s UK, (f) Action for Children, (g) Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and (h) any other organisation that he deems appropriate. (5) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of the assessment.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effects of this Act on children and child poverty in consultation with a number of relevant specialist organisations and also assess the cost of removing the cap.

    Hansard source
16. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    Order. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he has strayed some distance from the Bill.

    Hansard source
17. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    No, we are going to return to the amendments to the Bill.

    Hansard source
18. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Grey-belt Land

    7. What definition his Department uses for grey-belt land for housing developments.

    Hansard source
19. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Grey-belt Land

    Bromsgrove golf course is in open countryside. It is a beautiful, green open space and one of the most popular golf courses anywhere in the country, and it contains more than 20,000 trees. Does the Minister really think that it is suitable for development, particularly at scale? Will he rule out development on such golf courses? If not, will he meet me and members of the golf club to discuss their concerns?

    Hansard source
20. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Firearms Licensing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing what has been a really balanced and thoughtful debate. I hope that the Minister has found it useful and will take lots of useful comments from it as the Government move forward with their plans. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on firearms licensing and the reforms we need to strengthen public safety while retaining the trust of responsible shooting communities. I begin with a case that has been referred to by hon. Members in this debate: the tragic Prosper case in Bedfordshire, which revealed serious vulnerabilities in our current licensing system. An individual, Nicholas Prosper, obtained a shotgun using a highly convincing forged certificate, which appeared legitimate to a lawful vendor. On the following day, he went on to commit a triple murder within his own family. That was on my doorstep in north Luton. Police later confirmed that he had also planned an attack on a local school, prevented only through the swift actions of Bedfordshire’s officers. Just last week I again met with a member of the extended Prosper family—someone whose life has been utterly shaken by this tragedy. Listening to their grief, their unanswered questions and their determination that no other family should ever endure such devastation has shaped my contribution to this debate. It took courage for them to speak out and to speak to me about something so profoundly painful; I am grateful, and I am hopeful that their experience will help drive the reforms needed to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. For that family and for our wider community, change must be about preventing real, life-altering harm and ensuring that the system designed to keep people safe cannot be exploited again. It is important to acknowledge that that case was not an isolated vulnerability. There has been at least one further attempt to use a similar forged certificate; fortunately, it was spotted by a vigilant registered firearms dealer, whose professionalism prevented a potentially catastrophic situation. However, we cannot depend on vigilance and instinct alone—public safety must rest on systems, not luck. At the centre of this issue lies the national firearms licensing management system. It is an outdated platform, unable to provide real-time certificate validation and no longer fit for the demands placed upon it. The Home Office is now tendering for its replacement, which is expected in mid-2027. Crucially, the new system will introduce real-time online certificate verification, akin, in my mind, to the MOT checking service that people are familiar with, and is strongly supported by the police, licensing experts and responsible shooting organisations. The replacement platform will enable wider modernisation, new digital licensing formats, stronger anti-fraud measures and a public portal allowing certificate holders to update basic information themselves. Those changes will reduce pressure on police forces, improve data accuracy and support a move to a more efficient and secure licensing environment. Serious concerns remain in the interim, however. The seven-day review mechanism is helpful, but it cannot eliminate the risks exposed in Bedfordshire and across the country. If a firearm is transferred before police notification, there is a dangerous window in which harm can occur. Bedfordshire police made clear to me in our interactions that the system must be capable of validating a certificate before the transfer proceeds, in order to make the secondary market much safer, and I agree. Some have suggested that the solution lies in a far more radical structural change: merging the section 2 shotgun licensing regime with the stricter section 1 system used for rifles and higher-powered firearms. I understand why people reach for a radical change in the wake of tragedy—it happens after every tragedy, and we have the strictest gun laws in the world as a result. Constituents understandably want reassurance and decisive action to ensure it never happens again, but the evidence simply does not support the approach being proposed by Government, for all the reasons explained by hon. Members here today. Shooting organisations and licensing specialists tell me that merging section 1 and 2 would not materially improve public safety. Both regimes already require rigorous background checks, suitability assessments and medical scrutiny. Tragedies have arisen from failures in the system, outdated technology and administrative gaps, not from the distinction between certificate types. A merger would generate significant unintended consequences: increased strain on already overstretched police licensing teams, slower processing times, higher costs for responsible shotgun owners, and damage to rural economies, game management and conservation work. At the same time, I must highlight the unacceptable licensing delays that residents and shooting organisations consistently report—delays that are particularly acute in my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, which falls under the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire firearms licensing unit. That unit is now formally recognised as the worst performing in the country: some applicants are waiting up to two years for renewals or grants, placing livelihoods, rural businesses, conservation activity and community clubs under real pressure.

    Hansard source
21. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Firearms Licensing

    I absolutely agree. My constituents, like the hon. Lady’s, want a system that works, that is swift and that is safe. The delays coincide with rising licensing costs, meaning that responsible, law-abiding certificate holders are paying more while receiving a poorer service. That is not sustainable, and any reform must ensure that those who follow the law are not unfairly penalised by the overstretched system. Crucially, merging regimes would not address the real vulnerability: the absence of real-time verification. I would be grateful if the Minister in her summing up could assure us that she understands that distinction and will take on those views as she moves forward with the legislative proposals. Across Bedfordshire, more than 1,000 residents, including nearly 300 in Mid Bedfordshire alone, have signed the national petition calling for section 1 and section 2 licensing to remain separate. Their message is clear: we must focus reforms on the real risks, not on measures that burden those who already comply with the law. A modern verification system will improve public safety; a structural merger of shotgun and firearms licences will not. I want to put on record my thanks to Bedfordshire police for their professionalism, insight and commitment to preventing further loss of life, and for the compassion they have shown to the Prosper family and the wider community. Their insight into the system’s shortcomings must shape the reforms that follow—we must empower them, not encumber them. Can the Home Office Minister now set out the precise timetable for delivering real-time verification, what interim safeguards will be put in place before 2027, and how both technological and legislative reforms will be accelerated? Our objective must be to ensure that what happened in Bedfordshire can never happen again. We owe that to the Prosper family, every family in the county and every community in the country—but we also owe it to the responsible shooting community to ensure that regulation is proportionate and supportive, rather than a block to their participation in country sports, conservation and stewardship. Before I conclude—I should have said this up front—I declare an interest: I have worked closely with BASC on this issue and I have been on a deer management course with BASC to improve my knowledge of firearms. I am not a firearms licence holder, but I have in the past held shotgun licences.

    Hansard source
22. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Firearms Licensing

    While we are on the topic of Bedfordshire, will the Minister reflect on the lessons that have been learned from the Prosper case? I went into it in some detail. It is of concern to not only my constituents but constituents in Luton—the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is here—so I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on it. In particular, what can be done to improve controls on the secondary market and the onward sale of guns?

    Hansard source
23. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor

    Defence will be a key pillar of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. In my Huntingdon constituency, we are lucky to have RAF Wyton. It is in the middle of a very ambitious project, Project Fairfax, which will use surplus Ministry of Defence land. The MOD signed a memorandum of understanding with Huntingdonshire district council last year, and Homes England is a key part of that. Will the Minister meet me and the chief executive of Huntingdonshire district council to discuss how we can best supercharge these growth plans and make good progress on them?

    Hansard source
24. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

    Far be it for me to insert myself into the internecine warfare fast breaking out on the Government Benches, but the Minister pushed back when it was suggested that he had received donations from Labour Together. His entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests shows £63,000-plus of donations in kind with regards to both his time in opposition and his time in government. With that in mind, if the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee launches an inquiry into Labour Together, will the Minister and his Department co-operate with it?

    Hansard source
25. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving

    It was not lost on me this morning that the Secretary of State announced the SEND White Paper in Peterborough, just down the road from my constituency of Huntingdon. It comes under Cambridgeshire county council, which has a terrible record of delivering EHCPs. I have spoken to dozens of schools and hundreds of parents in my constituency who are beside themselves at the length of time it is taking Cambridgeshire county council to deliver EHCPs. Not only is it not within the 20-week statutory timeframe; it sometimes takes 20 months-plus. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that these plans will immediately address those concerns about the delivery of EHCPs and make a real difference to the children who are waiting for those much-needed plans?

    Hansard source
26. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Topical Questions

    There are a number of new build housing developments in my constituency where developers have sold the properties and moved on without completing work on vital infrastructure such as roads and sewers. What consideration has the Minister given to allowing councils to refuse future planning permission to developers with a record of leaving developments incomplete?

    Hansard source
27. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving

    In my constituency and across West Sussex, the number of EHCPs has risen by 75% since 2019, but the funding to support them has risen by only 37%. Can the Secretary of State reassure parents that the correct funding—not just £24,000 per school—will be in place for support?

    Hansard source
28. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Topical Questions

    I am afraid that this question may feel like groundhog day. This time last month, I asked for a meeting about local government reform, because my residents are so concerned. I was promised a meeting, yet despite having chased at least twice a week every single week for the past month, we have had zero response from the Department. When are we going to get the meetings on really important matters that we are promised in this Chamber?

    Hansard source
29. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Cabinet Office review into Labour Together and APCO Worldwide.

    Hansard source
30. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

    Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The details of this story are quite extraordinary, even by the standards of this Government. While he was the director of the think-tank Labour Together, the now Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), paid a PR agency to investigate the “backgrounds and motivations” of British journalists who had written about Labour Together’s breaches of electoral law, of which there were many—more than 20, the most famous being a failure to declare £730,000-worth of donations. The agency produced a report that included an allegation that the journalists in question had relied on Russian hacking. Needless to say, those reports were entirely spurious. The Minister has claimed that the agency acted beyond its brief, but in the past few days an email from the agency to the Minister has been published, showing that he was shown that a “human intelligence investigation” into the journalists would take place. That investigation included details of one journalist’s Jewish faith and made claims about his ideological upbringing and personal relationships. The report was then circulated to key members of the Labour party and to GCHQ, who swiftly said that there was no case to answer. This looks to all intents and purposes like a deliberate attempt to smear and intimidate journalists whose only “crime” had been to report that Labour Together had broken electoral law. As of today, it is very difficult to see how the Minister’s position is tenable. The referral to the independent adviser, which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has just announced, is the right thing to do, but it should have been done immediately. This should not have been dealt with internally in the Cabinet Office, where the Minister in question is the Minister with responsibility for inquiries and whistleblowing—you couldn’t make this stuff up! I must ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister why the Minister has not been suspended while the investigation is going on. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister refers to the work of the propriety and ethics team. We must also ask about the current membership of that team, because it is known that a political appointment was made to a civil service role of a woman who was previously an employee of Labour Together. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now accept that that appointment was wrong? It must also be the case that very many people took money from Labour Together: the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister—the list goes on. An organisation set up to conceal the source of its donations from the public and from the Labour party—is it not time for an investigation into Labour Together?

    Hansard source
31. 12 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Business of the House

    Madam Deputy Speaker, you and the Leader of the House will be aware that all those who serve on the Treasury Bench are Ministers of the Crown. For that reason, from time immemorial, the Government have been described as HM Government—His Majesty’s Government—yet we now learn that that has changed, and that this Administration have decided to drop “HM Government” and replace it with “UK Government”. I do not know whether that is to pander to foreigners who do not understand our constitution or—more likely—to the doubt-fuelled, guilt-ridden bourgeois liberals who fill too much of our establishment. I believe that our traditions matter, because they underpin our shared sense of belonging, and I think the House as a whole probably agrees. This change has been made without consultation, without reference to the House and without discussion, so will the Leader of the House ensure that at the very least there is a statement, and better still a debate, on why this change was made under the radar?

    Hansard source
32. 12 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

    I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker; I apologise for having missed the Minister’s opening remarks, but I did hear him endorse the integrity of the ISC. I entirely agree. It is important that I say from the Conservative Benches, just as my Committee colleague the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that we have full confidence in the integrity of the Labour members of the ISC to do the job that the House has commissioned us to do. May I put to the Minister a point about the problems that the Government now have? It seems to me that the potential problems for them in complying with the Humble Address are: first, the volume of material that it may cover and, secondly, what the Metropolitan police wish us to hold for the purposes of their investigation. On the first point, does he agree that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) put it to him—if the Government seek to moderate the terms of the Humble Address in any way to take account of the volume, they must come back to the House for its consent? On the material that may concern the Metropolitan police, does he agree that as it will not be made public if it is submitted to the ISC, there is no reason to slow down the referral of documents to my Committee simply because of concerns the police may have that if material is made public it may prejudice a future trial?

    Hansard source
33. 12 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Rail Transport and Economic Growth

    The Secretary of State probably knows what I am going to ask. The single best thing we could do to promote economic growth in North East Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire, and particularly in Grimsby, which is one of the largest towns in England without a through-train to London, is to get our through-train to London from Grimsby and Cleethorpes, via Market Rasen and Lincoln. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have campaigned relentlessly for this. We went to see Lord Hendy, who gave us a very good interview, didn’t he?

    Hansard source
34. 12 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Rail Transport and Economic Growth

    We were very encouraged. There is nothing party political about this; it is all about economic growth in an area that really needs it. I beg the Secretary of State; she just has to lift her finger and get our train. We have had a test run; it can happen now. Will she please do it?

    Hansard source
35. 12 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Rural Mobile Connectivity

    I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I represent a rural area like hers—mine is in Lincolnshire—and in some Wold villages it is appalling: there is no mobile connection. All the red telephone boxes are being closed, and it is a tremendous struggle to persuade BT to keep them open. I wonder whether we could do more work with councils such as West Lindsey on the voucher scheme and Project Gigabit to get to the last hard-to-reach areas. Through this debate, can we encourage the Government to put resources into helping district councils such as West Lindsey?

    Hansard source
36. 12 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

    Even the UK gigafactory commission, chaired by a former Labour Secretary of State, says that the ZEV mandate is disincentivising investment in UK motor manufacturing. We all know that U-turns are a sign of open-mindedness and strength. Can we please have another?

    Hansard source
37. 12 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Driving Test Waiting Times

    Is not the fundamental problem that the DVSA is a state-controlled monolith without any competition? Would it not be a good idea to privatise the DVSA and enable young people to access driving tests a lot more quickly?

    Hansard source
38. 12 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

    Does the Minister share my concern about the revelations relating to the connection between Mandelson and the Chinese motor manufacturer BYD, which now says that the United Kingdom is the largest destination for its electric vehicles? Is he preventing the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero from disclosing the conversations that he had when he visited China last year and signed agreements that remain secret as far as this House is concerned?

    Hansard source
39. 12 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Bus Fare Cap

    8. Whether her Department plans to reinstate the £2 bus fare cap.

    Hansard source
40. 12 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Bus Fare Cap

    Young people in my constituency, many of whom have to travel long distances from rural areas, are concerned about the cost of bus fares, especially since the increase from the Conservative £2 bus fare cap to a £3 bus fare cap under Labour. In fact, many are supportive of the Transport Committee’s recommendation that bus travel should be free until the age of 22, to enable easy access to education and work. What response does the Minister have for those young people?

    Hansard source