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

1. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Money Laundering: High Street Businesses

   Organised criminality is behind much of the money laundering that we see on our high streets, which is why my Committee last week launched an inquiry looking at organised criminality and the role it plays in the crime we see in neighbourhoods up and down the country. Will the Minister set out the support the Home Office is giving to the National Crime Agency on this issue and how he envisages the NCA working with the 12 mega-forces and the national police force envisaged in the White Paper?

   Hansard source
2. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

   UK-India Free Trade Agreement

   Soggy poppadoms, buses, a lot of whisky, pottery, bricks, some Galloway cheddar and even an aircraft carrier promoting whisky—those are some of the colourful items mentioned in this debate, which brings to life the impact across all our constituencies of this UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. As such, it is a pleasure to close today’s debate on the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. This debate forms part of the process of constitutional reform and governance that Parliament has adopted, whereby we spend 21 sitting days scrutinising agreements such as this one. Despite the fact that other things happening in this building this evening have perhaps distracted the attention of some Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, we have heard that this agreement carries a lot of significance. In particular, I draw attention to the excellent and detailed speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam); she highlighted some of the economic incentives this agreement will create when it comes to employing British people versus Indian people to do the same jobs here in the UK. When the Minister responds to the debate, I would be interested to hear him answer those points. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) also raised an important issue about dairy. As I understand it, there are currently no licences for dairy products coming into the UK from India, but that could change in the future, so it would be interesting to know what process the Government would adopt to address that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) said in his opening speech, free trade is a key belief among Conservative Members. That is why we pursued trade agreements with the EU, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, as well as the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Indeed, it was predecessors in the previous Government who laid the groundwork for the agreement that is before us today. As has rightly been acknowledged in many speeches this evening, this agreement represents a Brexit dividend—the ability to pursue an independent trade policy and to deepen our relationship with one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. However, recognising that achievement does not mean we can ignore the areas in which this agreement falls short. Many of those points were raised by other Members in this debate. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), made the point that the Government risk undermining the benefits of the agreement through their planned 40% cuts in UK export support staff. I invite the Minister to once again reconfirm to the House that those cuts do not include staff in India who will be working on the implementation of this deal. The House of Lords’ International Agreements Committee report highlights the stark disparity between goods and services in this agreement. For a country whose economy is so overwhelmingly services-based, that imbalance matters. The agreement contains no meaningful advance on mutual recognition of qualifications; the deal establishes a 36-month target for reaching a conclusion in that area, but what will happen if no agreement is reached within that 36-month period? As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs highlighted, the sequencing of market access is deeply asymmetric, with many Indian exporters gaining from immediate tariff reductions in this country while UK exporters face phased access and quotas. A striking omission is that of legal services, as the House of Lords’ International Agreements Committee has said: “We view this as a missed opportunity given that legal services comprise a strategically important and growing sector of trade, both in their own terms and in relation to supporting trade in other sectors.” As others have noted, another concerning omission is the absence of any investment protection. The bilaterial investment treaty that was expected to be agreed at the same time as this deal remains undelivered, so can the Minister confirm for UK firms investing in India what his plans and deadline are for implementing an agreement along those lines? When we compare this agreement with the EU-India free trade agreement, the contrast is quite clear; the EU managed to achieve a full investment protection agreement, and its investors will have stronger legal certainty than their UK competitors. On agricultural products, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway was absolutely right to highlight farmers’ concerns about dairy being an issue in the future. I invite the Minister to offer farmers up and down this country the assurances they need about the effect that these provisions might have on them in the future. Finally, we must again address the double contribution convention. We do not know very much detail about it, but we do know that Indian workers posted to the UK will pay no national insurance, and nor will their employers. At a time when British businesses are being asked to shoulder increased national insurance contributions, it is hard to see how Ministers can defend a framework that makes it cheaper to hire from abroad than to employ a worker here at home. Can the Minister explain why the Government have created a two-tier tax system in which British businesses pay more in national insurance while employers hiring workers from India pay nothing at all, and what will he do if he sees British workers losing out in large numbers when this measure comes into force? In conclusion, this deal is a welcome opportunity for British exporters to explore new markets, but one with many missed opportunities in areas where the UK should be leading, not lagging. The task now is to ensure that this agreement becomes a foundation and not a ceiling, so will the Government treat it as a living agreement? Will they return to the negotiating table and deliver the services access, investment protections and sectoral safeguards that British businesses and workers deserve, and what metrics and milestones can we in Parliament use to continue to hold the Government to account as they implement this agreement?

   Hansard source
3. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

   Topical Questions

   Deng Majek from Sudan is an illegal small boat migrant who was sentenced last week to 29 years in prison for the brutal murder of Rhiannon Whyte. He stabbed Rhiannon 23 times as she desperately tried to defend herself. Given timing of Majek’s arrival, in the summer of 2024, he would have been eligible for deportation to Rwanda, but Labour cancelled the Rwanda plan and instead accommodated this illegal immigrant in a hotel at taxpayers’ expense. Does the Home Secretary now accept that it was a huge mistake to cancel, just before it started, the Rwanda plan, which would have seen Majek deported, thereby preventing Rhiannon’s murder?

   Hansard source
4. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

   Topical Questions

   The Rwanda scheme never started because this Government cancelled it. The Home Secretary talks about gimmicks. Her Government’s gimmicks have failed, and that is why cross-channel migration is up 42% since the general election. I am afraid that this is not an isolated case. Hundreds of crimes are being committed by illegal immigrants, including a 30-year-old woman raped on a Brighton beach, a 15-year-old girl raped in Leamington Spa by two Afghan small boat migrants, and a girl aged just 12 strangled and raped by two illegal immigrants in Nuneaton. Does the Home Secretary agree that this cannot go on, that only radical action will fix it and that, just as the Father of the House said earlier, we need to leave the European convention on human rights and deport all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival, because then the crossings will stop?

   Hansard source
5. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Asylum Seekers: Hotels

   1. How many asylum seekers were accommodated in hotels on (a) 30 September 2025 and (b) 30 June 2024.

   Hansard source
6. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Asylum Seekers: Hotels

   The Minister has just made it quite clear that since the general election the number of individuals in asylum hotels has risen by 22%. That is clearly at odds with his party’s manifesto pledge. What further action is he taking to reduce the number of individuals in migrant hotels? Can he guarantee to the House that there will be no new migrant hotels in this country?

   Hansard source
7. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   UK-India Free Trade Agreement

   Order. The shadow Secretary of State has already spoken for longer than the Minister, which must be something of a record. I appreciate that there have been a lot of interventions on the shadow Secretary of State from Government Front Benchers, but perhaps he can draw his remarks to a close. The Minister will have ample time to make his points in the wind-up.

   Hansard source
8. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Leagrave Station: Step-free Access

   Apologies, I was merely commenting that the hon. Lady might not be—longevity is increasing.

   Hansard source
9. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   Topical Questions

   T6. Over the last two and a half years, our Jewish population have had to put up with hate marches starting outside synagogues. Jewish businesses have suffered hate demonstrations outside. Now shops that store kosher goods have been targeted by demonstrators. What action can the Home Secretary take to make sure that our Jewish population are protected and these evil perpetrators are brought to justice?

   Hansard source
10. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Topical Questions

    Rasheed Afrin, co-director of the al-Roj camp in Syria, recently commented that several ISIS-linked individuals have been repatriated from that camp to the UK. Can the Home Secretary say how many ISIS-linked individuals have been repatriated to the UK, and whether they were held in custody on their return?

    Hansard source
11. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

    The Minister appears to have come to the Chamber today with absolutely nothing to say. The recent visit to China was an absolute disaster, with people taking burner phones and a burner plane—we even appear to have taken a burner Prime Minister. The Minister referred earlier to progress being made in these discussions, so can she outline exactly what progress has been made, and what was the response from the Chinese Government when the Prime Minister raised the case of Jimmy Lai with them directly?

    Hansard source
12. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Standards in Public Life

    The Chief Secretary keeps making reference to, “If we had known then what we know now,” with regard to Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The key fact is that we already knew of Peter Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as the Prime Minister spoke about at PMQs last week, just as the Government knew about Matthew Doyle’s relationship with Sean Morton and still gave him a peerage after the internal investigation. Let me come back to the resignation statement of the chief of staff yesterday. He stated that he “did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process”. Can the Chief Secretary explain who did oversee the due diligence and vetting process?

    Hansard source
13. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    I am delighted to see not just the excellent Minister for Trade, but the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I did; just bank the win. I read that the Secretary of State is being earmarked as a caretaker Prime Minister, so we are pleased that he has the time to spend with us—I think we have 10 minutes before Labour colleagues have to run upstairs. Richard Cobden said: “I believe that Free Trade will do more to civilise the world than all the treaties of peace that have ever been signed.” He was the former Member of Parliament for Stockport, but he was a resident in my own West Sussex constituency, near Midhurst. His advocacy of free trade, including in this House, was always about its benefits for ordinary people: cheaper food, higher wages and fewer incentives for people to wage destructive wars that had a huge impact on ordinary people. We Conservatives agree. Those on the Conservative Benches will always be the party of free trade, where it benefits our country. That is why it was a Conservative Government who signed new landmark trade agreements with the EU, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and negotiated the entry of the UK to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It is why it was the Conservative Government who laid the foundations for this free trade agreement with India. And let us be absolutely clear: this agreement is a tangible benefit of the decision the British people made in 2016 to leave the political institution of Europe; the fruit of the independent trade policy we regained, allowing the United Kingdom to negotiate once again as a sovereign state, just like Canada, Australia and Switzerland —Britain first, not Britain hoping against experience that its interests would float to the top of a soup of 27 other conflicting flavours. Since July 2024, the Indian economy has grown by 11%. For context, the European Union has grown by 1.9% in the same period. Under this Government, the British economy has grown by just 1.6%. Exports matter, so this deal has the potential to be a key part of a growth plan for our economy. However, as any business leader will tell us, the devil is not just in the detail of such deals, but in what is not in them. I welcome the excellent report by the Business and Trade Committee, which is very thorough and an important part of the scrutiny process of this House. We are a nation for which services represent nearly half of our global exports. I am afraid it appears that the Government have accepted a deal that is disappointingly thin on the sectors where Britain leads the world. The inclusion of services in this deal was the No. 1 priority of the previous Government’s negotiations. Instead, this deal settles for locking in existing levels of liberalisation—all good—rather than breaking new ground on services. There is an absence of provisions for mobility to allow our service industries to really integrate in India, restricting our consultants, engineers and architects from practising on the ground.

    Hansard source
14. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    Well, I was going to be generous to the Government and say something slightly positive. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Governments of all flavours could do an infinitely better job of listening to businesses. They are the people at the frontline in the real world. His constituents have very deep links to the economy of India and it represents a real opportunity. We support the deal, but the only tone today is one of slight regret about the missed opportunities. Of course, it is easy for a Government to get a deal if they take the deal being offered, rather than negotiating and seeking to improve that deal. Therein is some of the difference between the approach of our Government and—[Interruption.] Well, we did not get it because we were not willing to take the deal that was on the table. We were holding out and negotiating for a better deal. Let me give the Minister an example of that—a quite surprising example, in many ways—which is the complete omission of a legal services sector deal from this agreement. The Law Society called that “a missed opportunity for a significant breakthrough”. The chair of the Bar Council said it was “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” missed. How ironic that a Government of lawyers, led by lawyers and stuffed full of lawyers, could not get even that aspect of the agreement across the line. The deal places a 36-month target—I hope it is a target, not an aspiration or ambition—for the conclusion of a mutual recognition of a professional qualifications agreement. That would be a great opportunity. Our services sector would welcome that, but I hope the Minister will agree with me that not to achieve that now would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It would be a humiliation for this Government and I hope he will address, when he winds-up, the precise plans to secure that agreement. In a similar vein, the bilateral investment treaty that was planned to be agreed at the same time—it was in the original objectives for our deal—has also not been delivered. This is the deal that was offered, rather than the deal that could have been negotiated and improved. That leaves British investors exposed to sudden policy changes, unfair treatment and expropriation. I could, of course, be talking about the policies of this Government, but in this case I am talking about the Indian Government and the jeopardy for some significant British investors. Again, this is another missed opportunity—a deal that we support but that could have been better. I understand that the chief negotiator on the deal has confirmed that, sadly, there are no plans to return to the table to get an investment treaty across the line, but I would be very happy to stand corrected on that. Perhaps that point could be addressed in the Minister’s winding-up speech. As we heard from the Minister, on day one the deal will grant Indian exporters of such wonders as textiles, gems and engineering goods immediate duty-free access to the British market. This is a welcome deflationary measure. It will come as good news for households as the price of goods in their weekly shops fall. Leather shoes, clothes, home furnishings and more will be cheaper under this deal. However, it is disappointing that this welcome reduction in tariffs is very far from symmetrical. Indian exporters benefit immediately, while British exporters sit in the waiting room. Scottish whisky producers, whom we have heard about, manufacturers of electric vehicles, the medical consumables industry and chemical producers will have to wait for between five and 10 years before tariffs are fully reduced.

    Hansard source
15. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to simply agree with him for the sake of it: it is not easy for Chancellors of whatever flavour to balance the books, but where we have wonderful industries such as all our drinks and spirits industries, including, if I may say so, our English wine industry, the Government must do everything they can to promote them—

    Hansard source
16. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    And Welsh, and from other parts of this wonderful kingdom. This Government, as the previous Government, have by and large got the importance of the wonderful Scottish whisky industry, but it is important to do anything that can be done to help. Of course, the way that one reduces taxes over time is by making tough decisions on Government spending, which would be one of the key things the Conservatives would do in order to be able to lower those taxes. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is no longer in his place, made an important point about the protection of ceramics and related industries, such as our brick and energy-intensive chemicals industries, which are all important. A trade deal, however wonderful it may or may not be, will do nothing to help the ruinously high energy costs faced by the ceramics, brick and chemicals industries, along with so many others. This debate is not about that issue and it is not the responsibility of the Minister, but it is nevertheless an important factor; if we are going to lower barriers and frictions so that we can boost trade, increase the prosperity of our citizens and grow our economy, that absolutely must involve the full stack, including energy and what one does about employment law and regulation.

    Hansard source
17. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    The document produced by the Select Committee lays out the impact for defence, modest as I believe it is. I will leave it to those on the Government Front Bench to answer my right hon. Friend’s important question about security—

    Hansard source
18. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    I hope that my right hon. Friend is reassured to a degree by the Minister’s response. I will move on now—you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my speech is not as comprehensive as the work of the Select Committee. I would be grateful if the Government could clarify a few points about the position on food and agricultural products. There are protections for sugar, chicken, eggs and pork, and that has been welcomed by producers. However, there are concerns from the British dairy industry about opening the market, which describes the deal as a one-way street: dairy is excluded from UK exports to India, yet tariffs on Indian dairy coming into the UK are removed.

    Hansard source
19. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    I will try to leave the Minister with a short list of questions, rather than going through each and every one as we go. Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said—perhaps we can revert to this later—there are also concerns about the Government’s hypocrisy in respect of pesticides and animal welfare, particularly with regard to crustaceans. I do not know whether the Minister has quite the same degree of expertise in crustacean welfare and in particular prawn eyestalk ablation, which sounds more trivial here than it would to the prawn whose eyestalks are being ablated. Those concerns are particularly relevant because despite the Government publishing and vaunting their virtue in terms of animal welfare, these poor blinded prawns seem to be victims under this deal. [Interruption.] I would be happy to give way to the Minister on prawn eyestalk ablation, which is an important point; perhaps, on winding up, he could make a more general point on trade deals and how the Government will protect our animal welfare and food safety standards.

    Hansard source
20. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    I am in no way qualified to answer that. However, it is the Government’s position about crustacean welfare, and they should speak to it. Just before Christmas, they published a significant proposal to change the law on that. As ever in trade, this is not a point about the underlying fundamentals, on which the Minister will be advised by Government scientists and others—I did part of his job as Minister for Exports; it is a point about the symmetry and balance of the issue.

    Hansard source
21. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    My hon. Friend puts the point in a better and more informed way than me. It is important, and it is for the Government to set out very clearly how they propose to maintain or create a level playing field on these matters so that producers operating here to British standards are not disadvantaged, while we all get the benefits of trade and prosperity that I spoke of.

    Hansard source
22. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    I thank the Minister for that intervention; I drew some comfort from it, but we will have to see the detail of the exact crustacean protections we end up with. Finally, there is one glaring area that—even beyond the missing benefits to our important services industry—was a point of difference in the negotiations that we conducted and a reason why, when we were in government, we did not consummate that deal and why the negotiations remained outstanding. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear about this: when she was leading the negotiations, she refused to sign this deal because of the double contributions convention. The Minister will know precisely what I mean by that. We still have not seen the detail of that convention, and every Member of the House should be concerned. This is a very limited part of the process of scrutiny of trade deals—the rights of Parliament are perhaps not fully discharged just by the CRaG process. However, we have not even seen what the Minister referred to earlier as the HMRC agreement on this. What it means in substance—I will choose my words very precisely—is that Indian workers who come here to work will not pay a penny in British national insurance contributions, and neither will their employers. The Government decided that they would open this deal—this two-tier tax system for India—at precisely the same time as hiking their jobs tax on every single British worker. I am happy to be rebutted or corrected, but by my calculations, under this agreement it could be up to £10,000 a year cheaper to hire a software developer on an average British salary from India than to hire someone from Britain for the same role, as employers will not be liable for those national insurance contributions. These are big numbers, and this will mean a big disadvantage to hiring an identical British worker at a time when there are 9 million people of working age not in work and when unemployment is rising—in fact, it has risen every month under this Government.

    Hansard source
23. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The former Secretary of State—the current Leader of the Opposition—has been very clear that that was a deal breaker. It was deal or no deal, and if that had been an absolute red line, we would not have signed this deal. It is not a virtue to take any deal that is offered. As I say, the Conservatives are in favour of trade, and we value our relationship with India, but we would not have crossed that red line.

    Hansard source
24. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    I am glad to hear agreement across the House on the desire not to have a two-tier system. We all understand the need to pay our taxes to support our public services, but it will not feel right if two people are sitting cheek by jowl, side by side in the same place of employment—a factory or other work environment—but are contributing at a very different rate to the Exchequer for the public services that we all support.

    Hansard source
25. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    Let me finish my point, and then there will be plenty of opportunity for interventions. I will not anticipate the Minister’s point, but there are other agreements such as this in place—I want to be full and clear about that. There are social security agreements where contributions are both paid in and taken out. We have them with the European Union, for example. They are a long-standing feature, and they were under previous Governments. Again, to be very clear and open, we also have a limited number of agreements like this with some selected other countries, including the high-skilled economies of Japan, South Korea and Chile and, to some degree, Canada. But we do not have an agreement like this of any sort with a mostly English-speaking nation of 1.5 billion people, all of whom would potentially be better off availing themselves of this arbitrage—this two-tier system—under this deal. Astonishingly, this part of the deal was left out of UK Government communications, so not only do we have two-tier substance in terms of the economics of the deal; we also have two-tier communications. The Indian Government boasted about this element as a significant and attractive feature of the deal, but there was not a single mention of it in the UK Government communications. That, in and of itself, should send alarm bells ringing about this two-tier tax deal.

    Hansard source
26. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    I shall take good heed of those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker. We support having a sovereign trade policy, and this is an excellent example of where it could have advantages. We are talking about one of the largest economies on the planet, which is growing approximately five times faster than the European Union. However, the deal could have been better. We are passionate about supporting our investors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and the wonderful services industry. We believe that they can compete anywhere in the world, provided that the field is level and the rules are fair, but we did not need to get a “good enough” deal across the line. British businesses needed something with a really good kick in it to get this country growing. Instead of a vindaloo of a deal, the Prime Minister came back with a bag of soggy poppadoms.

    Hansard source
27. 9 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alberto Costa

    Standards in Public Life

    I never comment on any conduct or standards issues that may impact individual MPs, precisely because of my adjudicatory role on the Committee on Standards, and I do not propose to refer to the Prime Minister in respect of the potential that, if not all the documents are disclosed to the House, there might be a breach of privilege. However, let me say this gently: the Minister constantly refers to the past, and to my party’s role in government with regard to breaches of standards issues. From this moment on, will he accept that, given the litany of issues that have befallen the Labour Government, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) at the Dispatch Box, it would really behove the Minister to stop doing that, and just to ensure going forward that the Labour Government act with the same standards of conduct that they demanded of my party in government? Also, given the Minister’s statement, might he request that the Prime Minister attend a meeting with the Committee on Standards to outline exactly how, moving forward, the Prime Minister will uphold the highest of standards?

    Hansard source
28. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

    I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. Before turning to the legal issues, it is important to begin with the fundamental moral reality of this conflict. I want to be clear: we welcome the release of the surviving hostages, who returned home to Israel after more than 730 days in captivity. They were abducted by Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, and held in utterly unimaginable conditions. We pray for the health and recovery of those who survived and for their families as they attempt to rebuild their lives after such trauma. With the return of the final hostage, our thoughts are also with the families of all those who will not be returning alive. This conflict arose from the brutal massacre of civilians on 7 October 2023—the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history and the worst pogrom against the Jewish people since the second world war. If the current ceasefire is to lead to a long-term and sustainable peace, one principle must be non-negotiable: Hamas must no longer hold power and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Recent reports of violence between Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza underline precisely why Hamas cannot be part of Gaza’s future. Hamas govern through terror and repression and prioritise their own survival over the welfare of Palestinian civilians. The suffering in Gaza is directly linked to Hamas’s choices and their governance. Much of today’s debate has focused on allegations of genocide, so let us be clear: we do not believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. That was the position of the previous Conservative Government and, to my understanding, it remains the position of the current Government. I hope the Minister will reaffirm that clearly in his response. Every innocent life lost is a tragedy, but the Israel Defence Forces do not deliberately target civilians; Hamas, in contrast, embed themselves in civilian areas, store weapons in schools and hospitals and use civilians as human shields. Israel’s stated objective is to dismantle an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that threatens its very existence; Hamas’s objective is the destruction of the state of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. It has long been the British position that determinations of genocide are matters for competent courts, not unilateral political declarations. That is fundamental. I ask the Minister to confirm that that remains the Government’s position and whether he accepts that genocidal intent is not abstract in this conflict. The Hamas charter and the language routinely used by Iran and its terrorist proxies call openly for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Should we not be unequivocal in calling out those terrorist and genuinely genocidal ideologies, rather than misapplying that most serious of legal terms? It is precisely because genocide is the gravest of crimes that the term must be used with care, discipline and legal precision. The genocide convention was never intended to be reduced to a political slogan or applied without rigorous assessment of intent, evidence and context. To dilute that standard is not to protect international law but to undermine it. There is much more I would like to talk about today, not least the current humanitarian situation. However, being conscious of time, I will conclude by saying that the Abraham accords remain a credible pathway to regional peace and that Saudi normalisation with Israel is central to that effort. The Conservative party is clear about the future we seek. We are committed to a future in which terrorism has no place and Hamas are permanently removed from power. We are focused on what comes next: a safe and secure state of Israel and a Gaza that is rebuilt, governed responsibly, free from terror and capable of offering its people stability, dignity and hope.

    Hansard source
29. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    The EU reset deal is predicted to slash around a third of the Government’s farming budget from farm profits in its first year, cause higher food prices and lower food production, and sink the UK fishing industry. As the Prime Minister’s authority seeps away, will the Secretary of State insist that this shoddy deal is renegotiated while she is still in post?

    Hansard source
30. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    For goodness’ sake, if the Government are still negotiating, the Secretary of State needs to deal with the matters I have raised. It is not just the farming sector that they are damaging; it is the entire rural economy. Rural and coastal businesses tell me that they simply cannot afford Labour’s high taxes, rates and costs, and they will not survive. In these desperate times, will the Government match the Conservatives’ plan to help rural and coastal businesses by scrapping business rates entirely for our high streets?

    Hansard source
31. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    National Cancer Plan

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. May I say right at the outset that we share the ambition to improve cancer survival and outcomes? Almost every family in Britain has been touched by cancer, and patients deserve timely diagnosis, treatment and proper support. I also recognise the Minister’s personal experience and the commitment that she has clearly brought to this agenda. We on the Opposition Benches wish her every success for the future. I also join her in thanking all those who have taken part in the shaping of this plan. It makes a big difference when we hear the voices of patients and families who have been through these experiences. The national cancer plan sets out major commitments, including on early diagnosis, improving performance against cancer waiting time standards, the faster set-up of clinical trials, and the national roll-out of targeted lung screening. It also talks about modernising services through technology and innovation. Cancer Research UK has said there is “much to welcome” in the plan, but it is right for it to say that delivery, funding and accountability will determine whether patients see change. Too often, plans sound impressive on paper but fall short when it comes to clear published delivery milestones and accountability. In many respects, this plan mirrors the ambitions of the 10-year NHS plan: it is strong on aspiration, but light on the detail of how change will actually be delivered on the ground. My first question is simple: when will the Government publish clear, funded milestones showing how and when patients will see improvements in the next year or two? We welcome investment in diagnostics, technology and innovation. It is also right to recognise that this plan builds on the significant expansion of diagnostic capacity delivered by the last Conservative Government, including the roll-out of more than 160 community diagnostic centres. Earlier diagnosis on this scale is only possible because of that foundation, but technology is only meaningful if it translates into real capacity and quicker treatment for patients. That is why radiotherapy matters. Radiotherapy UK is right that it is a core part of modern cancer care, but it relies on up-to-date equipment and a skilled workforce. My second question is this: will Ministers set out how the plan will expand radiotherapy capacity in practice, including equipment replacement and the workforce, so that patients can benefit in reality, rather than the plan just being something written on paper? Are we learning the lessons from the Danish example? They invested in radiotherapy and saw significant improvements over a period of years. That point brings me on to the workforce. The success of this plan depends on cancer nurses, radiographers, pathologists and oncologists who are already under immense pressure. We have heard big promises before, but less clarity on delivery, so my third question is this: where is the fully funded long-term workforce plan to deliver the staffing needed to expand diagnostic and treatment capacity and to make sustained improvements, including in neighbourhood health centres? Will the Government explain clearly who will staff them and how they will be funded? Blood Cancer UK has highlighted the importance of ensuring that blood cancers are properly recognised in planning and that patients receive consistent support from the point of diagnosis, including access to a named healthcare professional. That underlines why delivery and accountability across the system matter so much to patients. I also welcome the commitments in this plan to children and young people. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who I know did some incredible work in this area. Having worked in children and young people’s hospices, I will never forget the journey that those children and their families go on, and I am really grateful to the Government for having a big section on that in the plan. My fourth question is about life after—and at the end of—treatment. The plan rightly talks about improving quality of life and support after treatment, including personalised support and rehabilitation; we all want people to live longer, but for many patients and their families, hospice and palliative care are essential. Yet hospices across the country are under severe pressure, with many now in crisis, exacerbated by recent Government tax rises hitting staffing and running costs. Hospices are also notably absent from today’s statement. Will the Government urgently convene a crisis meeting with the hospice sector and set out what immediate steps they will take to stabilise services and expedite delivery of the palliative care plan? We will support any serious, deliverable reforms that improve earlier diagnosis, speed up treatment, strengthen the workforce and improve patient experience. But we will also hold Ministers to account on turning long term ambitions into real improvements now, because we want to see patients getting the care that they need.

    Hansard source
32. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Topical Questions

    On 8 January, the United States Secretary of the Interior wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of the big game hunting industry, asking her to ensure that the Government would abandon their commitment to the ban on importing hunting trophies. In her reply, will she give a robust indication that this Government are committed to that ban?

    Hansard source
33. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Business of the House

    Much has been said, rightly, in support of the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Epstein. Another group who must not be forgotten are the dozens of young women who were raped and sexually assaulted by Mohamed Fayed. Fayed is dead and has been judged in a higher place, but those who aided and abetted him are still under investigation by the Metropolitan police, and they must be brought to justice. That investigation is taking too long. Will the Leader of the House please invite the Home Secretary to make a statement about the progress of that inquiry and to indicate when some action may be brought in support of these ladies?

    Hansard source
34. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Farming Sector Productivity

    2. If she will take steps to help increase productivity in the farming sector.

    Hansard source
35. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Farming Sector Productivity

    The Batters report included a number of good recommendations about productivity. North Yorkshire farmers want to produce food; they are obviously worried about the environment, but the priority is food. After covid, we talked about more UK food resilience, so may I urge the Minister to press forward quickly with the recommendations about productivity in the Batters review? And will she come and visit a farm in my constituency soon?

    Hansard source
36. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    National Cancer Plan

    The league table of NHS trusts shows that the percentage of patients starting treatment for cancer within 62 days in Mid and South Essex is 21%, which puts it bottom of 121 trusts. Can the Minister say what additional help will be given to the Mid and South Essex NHS trust to recruit the additional staff it needs, and to help it to meet the targets that she has just set out?

    Hansard source
37. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    National Cancer Plan

    While cancer incidence in Lincolnshire is about average, premature mortality is higher than average, and we only have to look at a map of England to see the north-south divide and the rural-urban divide. I want to ask about prostate cancer. I do not want to get into a debate about national screening, because that has been well aired, but it is not generally known by men that any man over the age of 50 can go to his GP and demand a prostate-specific antigen test. It seems to me that, as part of this programme, we should encourage all men every year to ask not just for a PSA test, but for a general blood test. Women should do similar. Irrespective of national screening programmes, everybody should do that, given that survival rates for conditions such as prostate cancer are incredibly high if there is early detection. Is that not something that we should be encouraging?

    Hansard source
38. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Farming Sector Productivity

    Farming cashflows are under pressure, and farming businesses need clarity, certainty and clear policy direction from this Government now more than ever. However, with partial U-turns, continuous consultations, new taskforces, road maps, frameworks, reviews and now—finally—an announcement that the renewed sustainable farming incentive will be launched, but not until summer, farming businesses are really struggling to financially plan ahead. In all this confused policy direction, has the Minister decided the budget allocation for the new SFI scheme? How much will be available per farm? What will the assessment criteria be? Given that she wants to open up the scheme first to smallholdings, has she yet defined the definition of a small farm?

    Hansard source
39. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 59, page 33, line 19, at end insert “in addition to a subsequent right to appeal to the ORR”. This amendment would enable a subsequent right of appeal to the ORR after going through the dispute resolution process.

    Hansard source
40. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    It is a privilege to work under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I start by conveying the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, who is not able to be present today. Instead, I am standing in on his behalf. The clause sets out that Great British Railways must issue documents explaining the policies and procedures for access to and use of GBR infrastructure. Policy must cover procedures for applying for access, the criteria that GBR will apply to its decision making, and a procedure for resolving disputes. Subsection (3) permits GBR to set out the terms—that is, the rights and obligations —that a train operator can expect to receive where it has been granted access to GBR infrastructure. Subsection (6) allows a person aggrieved by a provision in the document to appeal to the Office of Rail and Road. That is crucial information for all open access operators, and yet the Bill has no detail at all. It just makes reference to a future “document or documents”. In our view, that is a totally unacceptable approach, and it leaves the industry in the dark on mission-critical issues. Furthermore, no draft has been published, no direction of travel set out and no assurance given to the sector. We feel that to be a slightly arrogant approach from the Government and not a good sign of the approach that GBR itself will take to the independent sector. Under the Bill as drafted, GBR can make the application process as one-sided as it likes, favouring its own services over those of other competing operators—in the interests not of passengers, but of GBR. The key issue is that the Government’s approach to the legislation is an assumption that the interests of GBR are synonymous with those of passengers, but we do not believe that that is always the case. Every organisation seeks to remove competition, which is uncomfortable—it exposes failures and weaknesses, and ultimately will show GBR up—but competition is crucial to improve service to customers, because organisations are forced to respond. That is why we believe that it needs to exist. The Bill gives GBR the power to design out competition to itself, with no checks or balances save what we consider to be a pathetic appeals process, where the Government’s position is that the appellate body should not second-guess the decision of GBR, only errors of law. That is a core problem with the Bill and something that we feel is akin only to what a judicial review can do in other areas. The clause gives GBR sweeping control over access rules, with very few safeguards. GBR sets both the access criteria and the timetable dispute procedure, so the body compiling the timetable also controls challenges to its own decisions. Subsection (3) makes the publication of access terms optional, allowing for opaque or preferential conditions. Subsection (4) lets GBR change the rules at any time, with no duty to consult. Overall, the clause lacks the transparency and checks promised in the consultation and risks embedding clear conflicts of interest to the disadvantage of non-GBR operators. Lumo and Hull Trains, in their written evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, stated: “Maintaining a fair, evidence-based, and independent process for access to the network is fundamental to ensuring continued growth and innovation.” Under clause 59, however, the access and use policy will be developed and revised by GBR, setting the framework by which new services are assessed and defining the terms under which the ORR will judge appeals. Giving GBR exclusive control over that framework risks creating real or perceived conflicts of interest. For more than two decades, the independence of access decisions has underpinned rail market growth. The continued involvement of the ORR in assessing applications objectively, balancing passenger, freight and performance needs, is essential to preserving that success. To ensure a transparent and fair access framework that the ORR can meaningfully enforce, it is important that private operators are involved in the development of the access and use policy and that appropriate statutory protections for open access are in place. Without consultation or clear safeguards, the access and use policy risks becoming a document shaped solely by GBR’s priorities, which would potentially exclude private operators and leave them with no effective mechanism to challenge decisions that affect their ability to operate. A robust and independent access framework will also help to unlock further private sector investment in new services and rolling stock. By maintaining confidence in fair treatment and predictable regulation, the Government can encourage additional capital into the network, supporting the expansion of rail connectivity and the delivery of GBR’s passenger growth targets. Freight operators currently benefit from statutory protections that recognise their environmental and national importance. Open access services deliver comparable benefits by driving modal shift, reducing emissions and supporting regional economies, and should therefore receive equivalent recommendation. They recommend that the Bill provide statutory protection for open access services, equivalent to that afforded to freight, and ensure that the ORR retains full authority to make access determinations independent of GBR. That would support the Government’s ambition for a network that is accountable, transparent and responsive to passenger demand. I think that they are right. A core criticism of GBR is that it is a player and, now, the referee at the same time. Everyone must surely see that glaring conflict of interest. If His Majesty’s Government insist on changing the access and use policy to create a non-level playing field through the very tight capacity duty in clause 63, it should, at the very least, have an independent body responsible for applying the access and use policy. That is basic fairness in organisational structure. We tabled amendment 76, which was not selected. We are not sure why, because it would ensure that the access and use policy would remain with the ORR by removing clause 59. That would mean sticking with the status quo and the existing access and use policy, avoiding the profound conflict of interest that clause 59 creates. If the Government decide to keep clause 59, which I assume they will, amendment 79 would enable a subsequent right of appeal to the ORR after going through the dispute resolution process. That would give open access operators a mechanism by which they could go to an independent regulator where necessary, giving them more assurance that they could survive in a new GBR world. That is a different point to the right of appeal under clause 59(6), which refers to the right to appeal the contents of a document. Amendment 79 requires a right of appeal to be included in the document itself. Amendment 217 would place requirements on Great British Railways to use the access and use policy to promote high quality service or competition. At the very least, legislation needs to point GBR in the right direction so that other users can hold their decisions to account. The amendment gives such guidance. Without it, all that is left is clause 18, the general duties for GBR, and a bold reference to the public interest. It is inevitable that GBR will consider the public interest and the interests of GBR to be the same thing. The Government must think again on this, because the long-term damage to the wider rail sector will be profound. Amendment 77 ensures that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways could take any step to implement any part of the access and use policy until it has been laid before Parliament for three months. That ensures that we are not blindly creating law when we have not even seen important documents relating to how that law will work in practice. Clause 66 lists the bodies that GBR will be required to consult before issuing its access and use documents: the ORR and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. That is it; they are the only ones that have that opportunity by right. There is no requirement to consult freight or other operators that might be affected. We think that that is an extraordinary approach. Amendment 87 addresses the shocking lack of consultation envisaged when GBR creates its crucial access and use policy documents by adding open access operators to the mandatory list.

    Hansard source