Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentSir Julian Smith

    Royal Mail: Performance

    On the issue of postwomen and postmen, in areas such as mine, the most rural areas of our country, those people are a lifeline. They are often the only people whom older people meet in a day, but a postman in my constituency has been taken to an employment tribunal because he helped to deliver a local parish magazine in the middle of nowhere —just to be a help. Those are sometimes the only people my constituents meet, so as the hon. Lady campaigns on this issue, will she press for recognition of the social role that postwomen and postmen play throughout the country, on behalf of many of our constituents?

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    Do the Government now accept that the former Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero got this important policy seriously wrong, and if so, why was he promoted to become Foreign Secretary?

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    I congratulate the Secretary of State on what, in my opinion, is the best statement I have heard from any Government Minister on any subject since the last general election. It has rightly brought forth supportive comments from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and from Back Benchers. I have an interest in the question of impartiality in schools. It is rather disconcerting to realise that 40 years ago, in May 1986, I was working with a group of peers, led by Caroline Cox—Baroness Cox—and the late professor Lord Beloff, to amend the 1986 Education Bill. Two provisions put forward in that Bill were carried forward as sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996. Section 406 bans political indoctrination in schools, and section 407 lays down that, when politically contentious subjects are discussed in schools, they must be presented in a balanced and appropriate way, with opposing views fairly discussed. May I suggest that the Secretary of State, when she writes to all schools, should include, as an annexe, a single page setting out the provisions of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Act, because they are as germane today as they were when first formulated for the previous Act 40 years ago?

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentSir John Whittingdale

    Engagements

    <Question HRSContentId="{A333C655-2A4B-41D5-B68E-92078B4E5803}">Q13. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{DE5E19DB-D52B-4DD7-B4B9-862D276691DF}"></QuestionText>Unlike the Government’s shameful attempts to hand over the sovereignty of the strategically important <span id="1114" class="column-number" data-column-number="1114"></span>Chagos islands, will the Prime Minister confirm that this time the Government will strongly oppose the case being made by the Government of Argentina to the international tribunal to try to stop the exploitation of oil reserves around the Falkland Islands, which is authorised by the United Kingdom?</Question>

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentSir James Cleverly

    Engagements

    <Question HRSContentId="{2B787D4D-E18C-4653-B532-B8B9787D6742}">Q5.  <QuestionText HRSContentId="{41D6F9ED-9691-4F19-A898-B2E76D6C12C9}"></QuestionText>Last week, the Prime Minister was kind enough to pay me a compliment, so let me return the favour. When he was Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Greater Manchester police had more police officers than before he was appointed. When I was Home Secretary, Essex police had more officers than at any point in its history. However, over the last 10 years, the Metropolitan police has failed to recruit, and police numbers have fallen. So what is it that he was able to get right and that I was able to get right, but that Sadiq Khan catastrophically has failed to get right?</Question>

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentSir Iain Duncan Smith

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    I commend the right hon. Lady for her statement. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that it is a remarkable statement and I commend Sir David Bell’s review. I also commend the response by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) from the Opposition Dispatch Box. In 2004, I was asked, with others, by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to carry out a review of antisemitism in the UK. What we discovered then was an appalling rise, even though it had not been figured out prior to that, and we made our recommendation. The problem is that each generation seems to have to keep on looking at this issue and making recommendations, yet it erupts again. The Green party’s terrible conference motion is a part of that problem: isolate them, blame them, attack them, ban them. I suggest that the Government put into every school, where teachers are reluctant to engage, Pastor Niemöller’s poem. The critical lines are: “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew… Then they came for me”.

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    On a point of order, Ms Cummins. I have a question about the possible hybridity of this Bill. A hybrid Bill is when a Government Bill—a public Bill—is used to affect only one person. As we see in paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes, “The Prime Minister professes the Roman Catholic faith. He is therefore prevented from fulfilling his constitutional role”— exactly. The Bill is therefore specifically referring to one person. I know that in answer, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might say that this will also benefit Catholics and Jews in the future, but we have to deal with the situation as we find it now. We cannot deal with hypothetical issues. It is rather as if we had a Bill to address a condition that has affected only one person in the past 500 years. Of course, we have not had a Catholic Prime Minister for 500 years. Indeed, there was not a Prime Minister who was Catholic 500 years ago; there was not even a Prime Minister 500 years ago. The chance is therefore vanishingly small that in the immediate future, this Bill will be activated. Of course, I never try to cause trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am not asking for an answer now, but I think it is a moot point that you might ask your Clerks to investigate.

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    Surely it will remain on the statute book that a member of the royal family cannot marry a Roman Catholic and inherit the Crown?

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    Before I begin my speech, I had better declare an interest, because I know it is not widely known that I am a Roman Catholic. I do not oppose the Bill. The discrimination that we suffered for centuries was absolutely horrible. It was not discrimination as we understand it in the modern world—my direct ancestor, the blessed Richard Leigh, was hung, drawn and quartered simply for denying that Elizabeth I should be the head of the Church in England. Obviously, I welcome anything that ends discrimination. However, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I make a few points to try to find out why he is moving this Bill now. Obviously, it is because we have a Catholic Prime Minister, but as the Opposition spokesman said, there has been little enthusiasm for such legislation until now. If we are to have such a Bill, particularly when there are many other pressing matters, it should achieve something, but this Bill will change absolutely nothing. Although in theory one name is pushed across the Prime Minister’s desk, when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister he effectively ended the veto. The last time the veto was exercised was by Tony Blair, shortly after the 1997 election when he objected to two candidates to be Bishop of Liverpool. John Major exercised his power on one occasion, I think. As hon. Members might expect, Mrs Thatcher viewed the process with immense enthusiasm and exercised her power rather more regularly. If we are to have a Bill, it has to achieve something, but frankly this power of the Prime Minister has fallen into abeyance. That did not occur in the past. As we have heard, in the 19th century Prime Ministers viewed this part of their job as having great importance—we have heard about Gladstone—but it was worse than that. It was not that they were simply trying to appoint the best people to the job; they viewed their role as entirely political. Those of us who love Trollope will know the novel “Barchester Towers”. The central plot is that the Government change and the candidate—I forget now whether he was a Whig or a Tory—is promptly prevented from taking up a bishopric. Viscount Palmerston packed the bishops’ Bench with low-church evangelicals. Given that there were 26 bishops in the House of Lords and therefore they had important political power, successive Prime Ministers deliberately packed the episcopal Bench with their appointments, which caused some upset. To heed the lessons of 19th century history—a fascinating subject—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Ah, I see the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) wishes to intervene.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    That is a very interesting point of view from our Reform colleague. It is interesting to think that at some future date the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might appoint bishops, but we will see—it may or may not happen.

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    My wife is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. <em>[</em><em>Laughter</em><em>.</em><em>]</em> The Oxford movement of the 1830s was established precisely because faithful Anglicans grew disturbed that a secularised, reformed Parliament that included non-Anglicans held absolute power over the doctrine and leadership of the Church of England. Indeed, the House of Commons historically had an enormous interest in the matter—there were huge debates in the 1920s over the nature of the prayer book, and these Benches were packed with people who were interested. What a pity that these wonderful debates do not attract similar attention. In his many reflections on the relationship between Church and state, Cardinal Newman, who was central to the Oxford movement during his time as an Anglican earlier in life, feared that the state would reduce the Church to nothing more than a Department of Government.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    We of course have to reflect changes in society. I have made the point that this measure will make no practical difference, so I wonder why it is really necessary. My other point is that it would be extremely unwise and would dig up past controversies if any Catholic Prime <span id="1178" class="column-number" data-column-number="1178"></span>Minister were to appoint an Anglican bishop. I hear what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) says, but I do not think it makes sense for somebody who is an atheist, like Keir Starmer, or a Hindu or a Catholic to appoint an Anglican bishop. I just cannot see the logic in that. Frankly, the practice has been discontinued, and it will not happen again.

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    By the way, I just want to make the point that I love the Anglican Church. I love the fact that we have an established Church. I think it is wonderful that in our country we proclaim the value of religion and that bishops sit in the House of Lords—although I have to say to most of them seem to spout rather woke rubbish most of the time.

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    I think that—

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    Of course.

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    I am very grateful to my good friend, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for that intervention. Actually, I see him on my fridge every night, from when we were <span id="1179" class="column-number" data-column-number="1179"></span>introduced to Benedict XVI—there we were in the row. Every time I open my fridge, I see the hon. Gentleman. He is an ornament of this House. I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to make one final point. I have asked whether it is actually wise for a Catholic, a Jew or a Hindu to appoint an Anglican bishop, or to have any say, but there is a wider debate about whether—although we believe in the established Church, and the Prime Minister in effect is not involved—there is any reason why the Prime Minister should be involved. I am afraid I have to tell the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that although I agree that in any other organisation, people rise through committees, it is all quite dull and there are safe options, the intrusion or lack of intrusion of the Prime Minister makes no difference. If we were going to have an entirely logical Bill, surely we would remove this power of the Prime Minister altogether—although it is never exercised, so the Bill is not going to achieve anything—and pass the role of final arbiter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire will not agree with me, but that would be entirely logical. I just do not see the logic in having a politician appoint the head of a Church nowadays, not that they ever do it. I apologise for my comments, but I hope that they give a different perspective on this Bill.

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

  18. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

  19. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

  20. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    Support for Farmers

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am glad that he is brave enough to take an intervention from a Member from Somerset. He is absolutely right to emphasise our commitment to scrapping the family farm and family business tax, but does he agree that the fertiliser tax that this Labour Government will introduce on 1 January, and which the Liberal Democrats are too timid to oppose, will hit farmers and increase the price of food in our country?

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    Support for Farmers

    In the hon. Gentleman’s discussions with farmers in South West Norfolk, are they content with the Government changes to agricultural property relief, or do they still think the family farm tax should be abolished in its entirety?

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentSarah Bool

    Support for Farmers

    This is an important debate about support for our farmers. A few weeks ago, I was absolutely delighted to speak to the Towcester Young Farmers Club, in a room full of our best and brightest—our custodians for the future. We talk about supporting them, and I want to do that; however, I also want to recognise the support that they are giving back to us already, at their young age. Whether it is Rosie Burt, who ran a gruelling 50k ultramarathon in aid of Macmillan Cancer Support, or the young farmers organising their charity Halloween tractor run on 1 November to raise money for the Cynthia Spencer hospice, they give so much back to our community already, and I think it is very important that we recognise that. That is why I am so hurt and saddened that in the face of such optimism from this younger generation, we are having to fight so hard against the Government to make them realise the impact of the choices that they have made. We have already rehearsed the family farm tax, the family business tax, the issues with SFI, the increase in national insurance contributions and the fertiliser tax. Rather than speaking about rejoining the EU and the options on the table, or about electoral reform, as the Prime Minister is doing, why not prioritise these decisions that can make a massive difference to our farmers here and now? I urge the Minister to take the message back to the Prime Minister that this is what we should be focused on. As we have said, farming is a vocation, and it needs long-term planning and certainty for the future. At Prime Minister’s questions today, the <span id="1216" class="column-number" data-column-number="1216"></span>PM talked about the EU summit bringing a better deal for farmers, but the proof ultimately will be in the pudding. We have had zero details about the upcoming sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. We have asked the relevant Minister numerous times to come before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to answer questions, but we have been refused on numerous occasions. The SPS agreement is very important, because we will potentially be moving to a system of dynamic alignment, and that will have a massive impact. We are well ahead in this country on matters such as precision breeding and on our animal welfare standards. We all want to understand exactly what this deal will mean, and I do not think it is right that we are not being given a chance for full scrutiny before it comes around. The market is talking about the importance of implementation periods. Our farmers need to know what is happening and when. Again, I urge the Minister to give us more transparency on the future SPS agreement. Forgive me if I am slightly concerned about these matters, given that the Government have sold us out on our fishing rights and we could not even agree Security Action for Europe funding. I want to finish on a more positive note. While many farmers are struggling as a result of the Government’s decisions, they are none the less very industrious, and want to come up with measures to support themselves. One great measure that I think we could all support is that of Ben Aveling, of Radmore farm in my constituency, who is trying to encourage support for farmers by bringing back the Sunday roast. The idea is that we can all sit together and chat as a family while also buying British products. I think we should support that wholeheartedly. Can we please recognise that?

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Support for Farmers

    Yesterday, the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and I were once again out and about in the fields, talking to our hard-working farmers, this this time in Newbury. We spoke to them about the many hardships they face at the hands of this Labour Government. Week after week, from farm to farm, the message is the same: farmers are exhausted; they are worried; and they feel incredibly betrayed by this Labour Government. They do not feel that the Government are on their side or value the work that they are doing. They feel that the Government have turned their back on rural Britain. I welcome the debate, because it gives us an opportunity to say out loud in the House what every farmer in the country already knows: on Labour’s watch, it is our hard-working farming families who are paying the price. Let me begin by addressing the fiasco that has been the sustainable farming incentive. As I said in this place just last week, I cannot stress enough how badly the SFI has been mishandled under this Labour Government—it has been a complete and utter debacle—and once again our hard-working farming families are the ones suffering. Let there be no doubt: this did not come out of the blue; there were plenty of warnings. The Government, having closed the scheme in March 2025, caused chaos, huge anxiety and additional financial pressure for our farmers.

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Support for Farmers

    What Government Members do not seem to understand is that when a highly sought-after scheme is closed, which is exactly what happened under this Labour Government in March 2025, demand inevitably builds up. That was coupled with the budget being reduced significantly. There was 18 months of this Government sitting on their hands, enabling demand to build. What was the result? When the scheme finally opened, it became a competitive scheme. On this Labour Government’s watch, it was “first come, first served”; those who got in were those who could press “send” the fastest. This Labour Government knew what the consequences would be, as was reported in <em>The Times</em> yesterday, but they carried on regardless. The result: approximately 40,000 farmers tried to get into the scheme, but only 12,200 were successful. The application window was slammed shut after just five and a half hours, all because the money had gone. Last week, I stood in this Chamber and asked the Farming Minister very simple questions, but there were no answers. I will try again, so that he can address these in his summing up. The expiring agreements were worth more than £520 million, yet the SFI budget was cut to just £310 million. Where has the additional £210 million <span id="1197" class="column-number" data-column-number="1197"></span>gone? It is vital that clarity and reassurance be given to our farmers. When will the Minister open SFI27? It is not good enough to say, “As soon as possible”; we need clarity. What will the Minister do for those who have agreements that are expiring, to stop the cliff edge in their cash flow? What budget has the Minister set aside for SFI27? We must all remember that this situation comes on top of the Government’s disastrous decision to reduce de-linked payments dramatically, far more quickly than was ever agreed, to a measly £600 per farming business. I suspect that it costs the Government more in administrative charges to distribute those payments than it benefits each farming holding. Our farming businesses now feel the pain, financially and emotionally, as they struggle with their cash flow. SFI is not some isolated incident; it is part of a pattern. Before Labour broke the SFI scheme, it crushed the family farm with its disastrous family farm and family business tax. Before the election, those on the Government Benches looked farmers in the eye and told them that they had no plans to change agricultural property relief and business property relief. In Labour’s very first Budget, which was its first opportunity to show rural communities up and down the country that it cared and understood them, it did not. It brought out the family farm and family business tax—a vindictive tax that strikes family farming businesses at their worst moment. Each and every Labour MP who voted again last week to keep the family farm and family business tax should be ashamed of themselves. The narrative is, rightly, that there has been a partial U-turn—the threshold at which the tax applies has been raised from £1 million to £2.5 million—but that simply does not go far enough. Now, bizarrely, a person’s marital status can raise the threshold to £5 million. That seems ridiculous. Once the farmland, the farmhouse, the growing crops, the stocks, the machinery, the crops in store and the livestock have been valued, the value of a traditional farming business will be well above the £2.5 million threshold. That exposes any hard-working family farming business to an inheritance tax liability that they simply will not be able to afford. This was completely ill thought through. That brings me to the Liberal Democrat motion before us, which only states that they regret “the Government’s changes to Agricultural Property Relief”. It makes no reference to business property relief. I thought that we were aligned on this issue, but clearly we are not. Many farming businesses rely heavily on business property relief. It covers trading assets not covered by agricultural property relief, including machinery, livestock, harvested crops and any rural diversification projects, including farm shops and holiday lets, so I am incredibly surprised that the Lib Dems do not also regret the Government’s changes to business property relief.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Support for Farmers

    This is a Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate. The Liberal Democrats have had many opportunities to prepare for it, but their motion excludes a crucial issue: business property relief. I take the hon. Member at his word when he says that the Liberal Democrats are also concerned about the impact that business property relief will have on many of our farming businesses, but given the huge impact the issue has, I am very surprised that it is not included in their motion. Let me be clear: the Conservatives absolutely regret the continued roll-out of both the family farm tax and the family business tax, and we will continue to demand that the Government scrap both and put back in place the 100% relief on APR and BPR. On behalf of our farmers, our growers and our wider agricultural sector, we urge the Government to ensure that the Prime Minister does the right thing next week in the Budget and axes the family farm tax and family business tax.

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Support for Farmers

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is completely right to outline the impact of the statutory instrument that was voted on just this week, which all Conservative Members voted against. I was just about to come on to the point that this does not stop with the family farm and family business tax. As if the dramatic drop in de-linked payments, the SFI debacle and the family farm and family business tax were not enough, from 1 January next year Labour will hit farmers with yet another tax—the fertiliser tax—through the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Industry warns that this new fertiliser tax could pile up a further £75 a tonne, if not more, on current fertiliser prices. This is simply unfeasible. It adds an additional cost to many of our farmers at a time when they are already being pushed to breaking point. The fertiliser tax should not have been introduced, and the Conservatives voted against it last week.

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Support for Farmers

    I pleased that the right hon. Member, for whom I have great respect, has raised this point, but I will gently push back and say that we are two years into this Labour Government. He makes reference to a consultation that was started under the previous Conservative Administration, but we voted on the fertiliser tax this week, and it was predominantly Conservatives who voted against it. I have to say to the Liberal Democrats: where were you when we voted to stop the fertiliser tax? Not one Liberal Democrat MP voted to stop it.<span id="1199" class="column-number" data-column-number="1199"></span> Yet again, the Liberal Democrats are all over the place. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) said in a debate that I attended last week: “We Liberal Democrats support the carbon border adjustment mechanism.”<span id="vol_col7" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="7" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="4267839C-8071-4E98-9C9C-F08FC7F942D4">—[<em>Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, </em>12 October 2026; c. 7.]</span> However, in today’s motion, the Liberal Democrats propose that the House “notes that farmers are deeply concerned about surging input costs, the impact of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on fertiliser costs”, but they cannot bring themselves to be concerned enough to vote to stop it. Far from protecting our farmers in this House, the Liberal Democrats simply demonstrate that they are Labour enablers, helping those on the Government Benches bulldoze their plans through while outside this House, I suspect their leaflets will be portraying a very different message to their constituents to try to keep everybody happy, but we see through that. To conclude, the record of this Labour Government is clear for us all to see. They broke the SFI scheme and cut its budget. They taxed family farms and now are taxing fertilisers and assets. We have a Farming Minister who faints at the sight of meat. We have a countryside Minister who thinks that anyone who has a black Labrador and enjoys a warm pint in one of our rural pubs is far right. What an absolute nonsense. Farmers feed this nation—they deserve a Government on their side. It is clear that farmers can no longer afford another day of this Labour Government.

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentRebecca Smith

    Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

    I want to clarify something. About a year ago, a child-like sex doll was found in a woodland in Devon. Will the legislation protect somebody who found one and then had to call the police to report it? It feels to me that the defence is there, and that that is the case, but it would be worth putting on the record that were a member of the general public to find one, they would not be covered by the law—they would be protected by the defences in the Bill.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentRebecca Smith

    Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement

    <Question HRSContentId="{75451546-8955-4DCB-A0CB-DA6B331ABB16}">3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{CD4BA083-2F3F-4B5B-81DD-0F034EC03AB7}">What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentRebecca Smith

    Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement

    Yesterday’s vote on Third Reading on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has reopened the door to continual vexatious cases against Northern Ireland veterans, including Alan, Ewen and Ivar from my constituency. Will the Secretary of State continue to work on the Bill, which many agree is not perfect, to ensure that there are adequate protections against lawfare?

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Support for Farmers

    Order. I call John Lamont, after which the speaking limit will drop to four minutes.

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Support for Farmers

    Order. The hon. Member is obviously not giving way.

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Support for Farmers

    Order. I am now introducing a four-minute speaking limit.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Support for Farmers

    Order. Mr Gareth Snell, changing your seat in the Chamber does not mean I cannot hear or see you.

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Support for Farmers

    I call John Cooper, after whom we will drop the time limit to three minutes.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

  38. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Support for Farmers

    Order. Ms Collins, I was not summing up, because I was not speaking. “You” and “yours” do not count.

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Support for Farmers

    Order. We seem to have gained some time, so Charlie Maynard has five minutes. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”]

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Support for Farmers

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source