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

1. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said on amendments 46 to 50. I too am surprised that the Government are not seeking to enshrine the right to a veterans railcard on the face of the Bill. While it is laudable that they want to ensure that those long-fought-for discount fare schemes remain for young, elderly or disabled people, I believe that not making the veterans railcard a statutory discount is a backward step and will send a particularly strong message to that community, who we know are quite agitated by a lot of what is being done by this Government, particularly around the prosecution of veterans for previous conduct. Not to use this Bill as an opportunity to put this provision on the statute book is a retrograde step. I want to pay tribute to the former Member for Plymouth Moor View, Johnny Mercer, who drove putting the veterans railcard in place in the first place through the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. He said at the time that it underlined the “debt of gratitude” that we owe to our veterans. They are ultimately men and women who have fought hard for our country, and the opportunity to receive that discount in perpetuity—whether they have served one day or 100—is something that we should be proud of as a country and should seek to enshrine in legislation. The same goes for the opportunity for serving personnel to travel with their families. I will be very surprised if the Government vote against the amendment: that would send a very clear message to our veterans community that they are valued more greatly by the Conservatives than by Labour. Although I am sure there is no ill intent behind the omission of the veterans railcard in the Bill, we have to think about the messaging and the political point that is being made. It would be relatively easy to put the veterans railcard in law so that it cannot be changed in the future, and I would support that. As has been said, the Bill does not prevent it from being added later, but I wonder why we are not seeking to enshrine it in law now.

   Hansard source
2. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I appreciate what the Minister is saying but, if that is the case, surely we should just remove the whole clause. If the Government do not seek to remove any discount schemes, why do they need three discount schemes, and none of the others, on the face of the Bill? It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction there.

   Hansard source
3. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that there will still be opportunities for people taking part in remembrance events. However, there are additional matters such as the poppy train, which comes up through the south-west with Great Western Railway. While such things may be worked through in conjunction with the Secretary of State, they are put on by a privately owned franchise rail company. Is the Minister effectively saying that it will be down to the individual business units to decide what happens within their railway scope, or will it be in guidance through the licence or something else? There are many things that have been provided by privately owned franchises that the Bill does not confirm will take place once the railways are state owned.

   Hansard source
4. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

   It is worth reminding the Committee that the idea has also been used on a domestic route. Not that long ago GWR had a scheme with Nectar, and the points I accrued while travelling up and down to London for various engagements used to service me with a bottle of gin once a year. I am not necessarily saying that I support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, but it is worth putting on the record the fact that it is not so farfetched an idea. It certainly made me use GWR’s app, even if I did not use anything else.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

   Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Trussell Trust was founded in this country in 2000, under a Labour Government, and that the Department for Work and Pensions did not recommend that it be offered as a solution to families in need at the time? It is one thing to talk about food banks, but it is important to ensure that we acknowledge when they were first set up in this country.

   Hansard source
6. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

   Well, without having the statistics in front of me right this second—[Interruption.] No, let me finish. We had the global pandemic, when there was a huge need for food banks. In fact, it was the Conservative Government who invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in food banks to ensure that nobody went without. The council for which I was a cabinet member at the time used the funding from the Conservative Government directly to ensure that poverty did not increase over the covid pandemic. If numbers went up, we have to ensure that that fact is reflected.

   Hansard source
7. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

   No one has ever told me that they would adore to hear me speak in this place! I completely appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I too have been doing some research while this debate has been going on. It is worth noting that those food bank numbers have increased because they only count Trussell Trust food banks, so the more food banks join the Trussell Trust network, the more those numbers go up. In my city, where, as I may have mentioned, I held the cost of living portfolio during the pandemic—[Interruption.] There’s no need to yawn! My city did not need the additional food bank that was set up, and it ended up having to send food away. If that food bank had joined the Trussell Trust, it would have added to those numbers and distorted the figures. While I am not saying that there might not have been an increase, I believe it is worth recognising that particular point.

   Hansard source
8. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

   I will start by repeating something that the Secretary of State said at the start of the debate. He made much of the need to set against anger and division, so I am going to appeal to everyone’s better nature. Ultimately, the removal of the two-child limit was not in the Labour party’s manifesto, so until recently it was not something to which the Government had committed—in fact, it was ruled out by the Chancellor. I have sat through the entire debate and I have to say that it is a bit rich of Government Members to lecture us today, when in 2024 the limit was clearly good enough for the Labour party, including the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It is also worth pointing out that we keep hearing the figures 4.5 million and half a million. It seems that the removal of the two-child limit will reduce the 4.5 million people who the Government say are in poverty by just half a million. It will be interesting to hear the Minister comment on that. The debate has been caricatured as being rich Conservatives versus everyone else, but nothing could be further from the truth. We believe in a safety net, but we also believe in personal responsibility. Many of us on the Opposition Benches grew up on benefits. I am one of those people, and I was in fact worse off when the Labour Government came into power in 1997; they scrapped the child benefit and replaced it with working tax credit, and my mum supported my dad’s business and did not go to work in her own right while she raised her four children.[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 4WC.] (Correction) When I am asked why I am a Conservative, that is what I say—and I have checked that this afternoon to ensure that I am factually accurate. We are speaking up for those who work hard and have high bills, as well as housing and food costs, but who are paying tax because they do not qualify for universal credit. I want to make one final point before I come to the body of my speech. Lots has been said about free school meals this afternoon, but when I recently questioned the Department for Education on whether it has any record of the number of councils making the most of the auto-enrolment for free school meals, I was told that the Government do not have the figure. They might wish to go away and look at that. I absolutely appreciate that auto-enrolment helps the most vulnerable, but if the Government are not taking account of the levers in their hands to improve that system, then they need to do some work. Having done my bit of ad-libbing, I will make some progress with my speech. Fundamentally, maintaining the two-child limit is about fairness—fairness to working parents who do the right thing, fairness to working parents who make difficult choices and fairness for families who live within their means.

   Hansard source
9. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

   No, I am going to make some progress. We are talking about men and women who are working long hours in shops, schools, offices, construction sites and care homes right across the country. Why should families in receipt of universal credit have to avoid the difficult decisions about how many children they can afford, unlike those who are not in receipt of it? Compassion is often framed in terms of supporting the most vulnerable, and rightly so—indeed, I have highlighted my own personal conviction on this in previous debates—but as one a colleague in my previous council career told me, “The left has no monopoly on compassion, Rebecca.” Compassion cuts both ways. We must remember the millions of hard-working families across the UK who are not on large salaries yet fall outside any thresholds for universal credit—the families who earn the same for going to work as their neighbours do on universal credit. It is unfair to these parents to make them bear a double cost: raising their own children and subsidising other people’s.

   Hansard source
10. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    No, I will not give way; I am going to make some progress. These mums and dads are the backbone of our economy, and we cannot afford to let them down. Scrapping the cap reduces incentives for parents to look for a job or work longer hours. Why would they bother going to work, or working more, when they could get more in benefits? A strong economy must provide incentive structures that help people to do the right thing, and we tamper with these fundamental structures at our own peril.

    Hansard source
11. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    I also speak for the 60% of the population who do not think we should be scrapping the cap. No doubt a large proportion of those people are also in my constituency. As Conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. Our welfare system should be a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has argued so powerfully. As I have alluded to, it seems that we are not alone; that principle of fairness is echoed across the country, with a recent YouGov poll finding that 57% of respondents believe that the cap should be retained. The situation is particularly stark for self-employed mothers, who can only access statutory maternity allowance —a flat rate that falls far below what their peers can receive via their employer. I recently met one self-employed mother who told me that she is seriously weighing up whether to have a second child because she and her husband simply cannot afford it right now. This is a deeply personal dilemma, fraught with conflicting emotions. Equally, those not on benefits who have more children do not get paid more wages—they just have to absorb the extra costs within their budgets—so this idea that we need to give people more money because they have more children does not always make sense. However, this Government are determined to give families on universal credit a free pass; as a result, those families will not have to make those kinds of hard choices. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, for 70% of the poorest households currently subject to the two-child limit, any money they stand to gain from the scrapping of the limit will get partially or fully wiped out by the household benefit cap. How do the Government square that circle when they have been quoting the headline figures for poverty? As has been raised numerous times today by Opposition Members, if Labour truly followed its own logic on child poverty, it would also need to scrap the household benefit cap, at even greater cost to the taxpayer. Conversely, 40% of those affected by the two-child limit will be exempt from the overall household benefit cap, because they have at least one claimant or child receiving health and disability benefits. This means that households with six children will get an additional £14,000 every single year. For larger families in particular, the financial gap between going to work and being out of work will shrink significantly. We are trapping good people in a bad system. Shockingly, one in four full-time workers would be better off on benefits than in work—that is 6 million workers across the UK whose neighbours on combined benefits are receiving more income than they are. It is no wonder that every day 5,000 people sign on to long-term sickness benefits. According to the Centre for Social Justice, a claimant who is receiving universal credit for ill health plus the average housing element and personal independence payment could receive the equivalent of a pre-tax salary of £30,100, and a family with three children receiving full benefits could get the equivalent of £71,000 pre-tax. How is this fairness? At best, scrapping the cap is a sticking plaster that does not tackle the root causes of poverty. We know that work is the best route out of poverty—in fact, if this Government hit their ambitious target of increasing employment rates by 80%, that could lift approximately the same number of children out of poverty as scrapping the two-child limit. Instead, this Bill will be yet another strain on our ballooning benefits budget. If it had been retained, the two-child limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 2026-27, rising to £3.2 billion in 2030-31. Instead, the bill is being passed on to all those families I have spoken about already.

    Hansard source
12. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    No, because I believe the hon. Gentleman’s Minister will want to have a fair share of time as well. When it comes to reforming welfare spending, the Prime Minister has shown extraordinary weakness of resolve. Scrapping the two-child cap is simply a political decision to placate his Back Benchers, costing taxpayers billions. It is unaffordable for a welfare system that is already on its knees, and damaging to the very work incentives his party promotes. Indeed, no one voted for it at the general election. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, “28 million people in Britain are now working to pay the wages and benefits of 28 million others. The rider is as big as the horse.” Let us look at this through the eyes of hard-working parents and individuals. Many of their businesses and workplaces are already being hit by Labour’s damaging tax rises. These are people with a work ethic—they willingly shoulder the burden of supporting their families without relying on the state—but their commitment to doing the right thing is being thrown back in their face. The Conservatives are the only party truly standing by hard-working families. We are the only party serious about bringing the welfare bill under control and protecting taxpayers from yet more unavoidable costs. Keeping the cap is about fairness, responsibility and respect for the sacrifices that parents make every single day. To scrap it flies in the face of that.

    Hansard source
13. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Iran

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Development and Commonwealth Office if she will make a statement regarding the situation on Iran.

    Hansard source
14. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Iran

    The brutal crackdown on brave Iranians fighting for their basic rights and freedoms continues. The reports are shocking. We have now seen that tens of thousands have been killed and hundreds of thousands injured. Some are even saying that 30,000 people have died. These are warlike casualty rates, yet the condemnation and response are weak. What are the British Government doing, with our allies, to neutralise the regime’s tools of repression? The Government have announced new sanctions—the Minister has spoken about that—but what is being done to crack down on the sanctions evasion that is fuelling the Iranian regime’s repression, including in oil sales and cryptocurrency usage? What steps are being taken to weaken the regime’s terrorist proxies? Are the Government tracking the regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems and institutions are not facilitating or hosting funds that are being used to target Iranian citizens in Britain with hostile attacks? The EU has chosen to proscribe the IRGC. What is the Government’s response? The Jonathan Hall review concluded nearly nine months ago, so when will emergency and essential measures to take action against the IRGC come to Parliament? We cannot wait, and the Conservatives will support emergency legislation. The build-up of US naval and air force assets in the middle east has been well documented and reported, and it has prompted some reported contacts between the US and Iran. Will the Minister say what discussions have been held with the US Government about their intentions? Is the UK involved in any contacts between the US and Iran? What plans is the Minister making for British assets and the protection of personnel and British nationals in the region should the US decide to strike? Is there a scenario in which the UK might be involved in potential action? How will Ministers ensure that they are at the table, and what planning and co-operation are under way to assess any commercial disruption within the region should action materialise? This is not the time to be silent. Britain must stand up for the Iranian people and confront this vile, despotic regime with strength and resolve.

    Hansard source
15. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Town and City Centre Safety

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate. The Government promised to strengthen neighbourhood policing. We have heard many well-intentioned but sadly empty words from Labour Members as their actions in London fall far short of the mark. Nowhere did they tell Londoners during the mayoral or general elections that they would cut £260 million from London’s police service, and yet that is exactly what they are doing. Bromley might be one of the safest boroughs in London, but our town centres and villages still face acute policing challenges, from antisocial behaviour and shoplifting to car theft and burglary. We are simply not receiving the policing resources our community needs to tackle the issues. Together with the £22 million funding cut for Bromley council, my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill are being unfairly punished by this callous Government. As part of Mayor Khan’s sweeping cuts to the Metropolitan police, he is closing all but two of the 24-hour police counters across London. In doing so, he is breaking his manifesto promise to retain at least one 24-hour front counter in each borough—just as, incidentally, he is breaking his promise to protect the green belt. Bromley, despite being a major town centre with a busy nightlife, is one of the areas set to lose its round-the-clock police station service. On the evening of 23 March, lights will be turned off at Bromley’s police station. It will be a huge blow for public safety, further undermining confidence in the Met and hindering our brave police officers from doing what they do best, which is keeping our people safe. Regardless of the outcome of any changes, I will keep fighting this closure all the way. If we do not stand up and say, “Enough is enough,” Sadiq Khan will break more manifesto promises and come back for even bigger cuts to policing in Bromley. It is clear that our town and city centres are not safe under Labour.

    Hansard source
16. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Taxation: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

    Last week I was lucky enough to host a roundtable with some SMEs from Bromley, including the excellent Martin from the Crown and Anchor. They said to me that this Government’s policies, including the jobs tax, are restricting their ability to grow and to hire young people. Would my hon. Friend agree that abolishing business rates would give small businesses the boost that they need to thrive?

    Hansard source
17. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Taxation: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

    I know that my hon. Friend is talking specifically about businesses and enterprises, but on that last point, the decisions taken by the Government are also impacting charitable institutions. Indeed, I have met some in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill that are having to let charitable staff go, which is having a further impact on the NHS.

    Hansard source
18. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Changes to Jury Trials

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have been reading the Labour party manifesto, but without much luck. Can the Justice Secretary tell the House on which page the promise to restrict jury trials appears? Was it on the same page as digital IDs and all the tax rises?

    Hansard source
19. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Changes to Jury Trials

    Not waving but drowning. Forty of the right hon. Member’s colleagues—the number is rising—say that restricting jury trials is “madness”. He says that he will not listen to them, judges, lawyers or the victims of crime, so perhaps he will listen to these esteemed voices. “Jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 517.] That was the Minister for Courts and Legal Services. “There must be a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”—that was the Sentencing Minister. “Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You do not fix the backlog with trials that are…perceived as unfair.” That was Justice Secretary himself. If even he knows that this is a bad idea, how long must we wait for the 14th U-turn from this miserable Government?

    Hansard source
20. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Victim Support Services: Funding

    The Prime Minister said that passing the Hillsborough law would be one of his first acts in office, but last month the Government arranged to bring the Bill to the House for its remaining stages twice, only to pull it at the last moment on both occasions. The Prime Minister has made a promise to the Hillsborough law campaigners that he cannot keep without breaking the assurances that he gave to the intelligence agencies. It is another fine mess from Mr Forensic. Can the Minister guarantee that the Bill will complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament before the end of this Session—yes or no?

    Hansard source
21. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Separation Centres Review

    I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the publication of this important review. The Government commissioned Jonathan Hall to produce his report following the very violent attack on three prison officers last April by Hashem Abedi—the man behind the Manchester arena atrocity. I pay tribute to the vital work done by the brave men and women of the Prison Service. We should be frank about why separation centres are necessary. They house the most dangerous and radicalised terrorist offenders in the country. Charlie Taylor wrote in 2022 following an inspection: “The centres were designed to be used for prisoners from any political or religious viewpoint, but so far, they have only been used for Muslim men”. That should not be a surprise, because Islamist extremism is by far the gravest threat that we face, and attempts to pretend otherwise are not only cowardly but enormously counterproductive. MI5 says that 75% of its counter-terrorism work is focused on Islamists, and 61% of terrorist prisoners are Islamists, yet the figures show that only 10% of Prevent referrals are Islamists. The Justice Secretary was clear about the Islamist threat, but even then he felt the need to caveat his comments by saying that extremism in the prison estate takes many forms. Of course it does, but time after time, we hear people in positions of authority refer to acts of terrorism, antisemitic violence, and the poison of intolerance and hatred, without the bravery or honesty to name the ideology behind it all. Its name is Islamism, and it has no place in our country, but if we are afraid to be honest about it, we will never defeat it. Mr Hall has said that in prisons, “The impact of Islamist groups has been underappreciated for too long by the authorities.” He has reported that Islamist gangs in prisons are too often viewed “purely through the lens of good order and discipline”, and governors believe that they “can sometimes provide a degree of calm and stability”. He has revealed that “prison officers sometimes appeal to the wing ‘emir’ for their assistance in maintaining good order.” When will prison inspectors be directed to investigate Islamist extremism? Will the Justice Secretary ensure that known problems, such as gang-enforced sharia courts in prisons, are investigated and reported on? Will he publish information on the number of religiously and ideologically motivated incidents in prisons? The problems for prisons caused by our human rights laws are well documented. The Justice Secretary said that he would consider whether new laws are needed to limit litigation based on article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Making full use of the Sir Humphrey lexicon, he said that he was exploring the full range of options, but promised nothing concrete, and—as is obligatory in this Government of human rights lawyers—he pledged fealty to the European convention. Let us consider the recent case of Sahayb Abu, an ISIS terrorist who planned to “shoot up a crowd” of civilians and is serving a life sentence. He was held in a separation centre and made subject to greater restrictions following the Abedi attack. He used article 3 of the convention—which the Justice Secretary did not mention—to argue successfully that his prison, HMP Woodhill, did not take into account his mental health. Will the Justice Secretary tell us how many prisoners are in the process of suing the Government, under the prison rules and European convention on human rights, to escape separation centres and close-supervision centres? What is he doing to prevent them from being awarded compensation? When will he decide whether he needs to legislate to limit the application of article 8? What will he do about article 3 claims like the one made by Sahayb Abu? Should not the Justice Secretary be open about the reality of his commitment to the ECHR, which he repeated today? It means rights for criminals and terrorists like Sahayb Abu and Hashem Abedi, but danger for prison officers and the wider public. The Justice Secretary can say what he likes about legislating—perhaps, after careful consideration, and in the fullness of time—to avoid litigation based on article 8, but the simple truth is that, as long as we remain in the ECHR, he cannot guarantee a thing. And that is why we must leave.

    Hansard source
22. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Separation Centres Review

    Order. Before I call the Opposition spokesperson and other Members, I note that the Hashem Abedi case, to which passing reference was made, is sub judice. Members should avoid reference to the specifics of such cases.

    Hansard source
23. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Point of Order

    I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of that point of order. I have not received any notice that any Minister intends to make a statement on this matter. However, Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s point of order and will no doubt pass it on.

    Hansard source
24. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that there are many colleagues in the Chamber and I can understand how passionate this debate is, but let us try to keep the noise down when colleagues are contributing.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    Order. As so many Members wish to contribute, Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit, which will start at five and a half minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
26. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    Order. “You”, Mr Slinger—I have mentioned this to you so many times. Let us start again.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Topical Questions

    T7.   It has been reported that lawyers—some of whom now sit in this House and in the other place—have relied on the European convention on human rights to support the prosecution of patriotic Brits who fought for their country. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is yet another example of activist lawyers and unaccountable judges in Strasbourg shamefully pursuing veterans who were doing their duty, and will he, like the Conservatives, commit to withdrawing from the ECHR?

    Hansard source
28. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Prison Estate: Safety

    10. What steps he is taking to improve the safety of the prison estate.

    Hansard source
29. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Prison Estate: Safety

    We know that drugs on the prison estate is a perennial problem when it comes to the safety of officers and other prisoners. Governments of all colours have been trying to tackle that for some time. The situation is particularly acute in the open prison estate, due to the different resourcing and the different layout of those prisons. In some places, we have more than 40% of prisoners failing drug tests on arrival in the open estate. Will the Secretary of State consider a policy that says, “If you fail a drug test on arrival, you will be sent straight back to the closed prison you came from”?

    Hansard source
30. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Town and City Centre Safety

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate. Town and city centres are the lifeblood of our local communities. They are crucial for people, local businesses and our economy, yet under this Labour Government it increasingly feels as though our town and city centres are being not supported but attacked—attacked by a jobs tax that raises the cost of employing people, by surging business rates that punish employers and enterprise, and by relentless pressure on pubs and small businesses, the very places that make our high streets sociable, welcoming and safe. The result is plain to see: businesses are closing. And when businesses are closing, confidence drains away. Thriving town centres are not just about economics; they are about safety. Communities with busy, successful high streets are more likely to report crime, look out for one another and defend what they value. That brings me—

    Hansard source
31. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Town and City Centre Safety

    That brings me to Stockton, which has a great high street and incredible local businesses. I always encourage people to support Stockton, but I would be negligent in my duty if I did not acknowledge the challenges it faces—challenges that did not arrive overnight. Over decades, Stockton’s Labour council has allowed the town centre to decline and become home to unacceptable levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. When disorder grew, enforcement weakened. When problems became visible, excuses multiplied. The council’s priorities tell their own story. Instead of employing more civic enforcement officers or street wardens—the people who provide visible reassurance—the council has expanded layers of management on six-figure salaries. It has recently emerged that Stockton-on-Tees borough council spent £15.8 million on recruitment consultants in just three years. Money that could have gone into keeping the town centre safe was instead swallowed up by consultants and questionable spending decisions. Councils have a duty to spend public money wisely, and in Stockton that duty has too often been neglected. At the same time, instead of using all the powers available through public space protection orders to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, the council’s soft approach has allowed far too much of it to go unchallenged. Worse still, Stockton’s Labour council volunteered itself as an asylum dispersal authority, taking on a completely disproportionate number of asylum seekers. For many years, Stockton has had one of the highest ratios of asylum seekers to residents in the entire country. Those asylum seekers are largely housed near the town centre, placing pressure on accommodation, public services and integration, and leaving large numbers of lone men congregating in the town centre, causing understandable concern for residents and businesses alike. The situation has been compounded by the council’s permissive approach to housing. It has allowed large numbers of houses in multiple occupation, bedsits and bail accommodation to cluster around the town centre. The result is predictable: people stop visiting, businesses close and crime goes unreported. That creates a doom loop, and Labour councils across the country have perfected it. What we now see nationally is Stockton scaled up. Since the Labour Government came to power, there are 1,318 fewer police officers on our streets and more than 3,000 fewer people working in policing overall. That is not an accident: it is a choice. Police chiefs warn of a funding shortfall of £500 million. In my local force, the Labour police and crime commissioner says there is a £2.4 million gap—the equivalent of 40 police officers. Even when offenders are caught, punishment is increasingly optional. Labour’s early release policies mean that criminals are back on the streets sooner—sometimes within weeks—so shopkeepers see the same faces returning, residents see the same behaviour repeated, and police officers see their work unravelled by decisions taken far from their communities. The consequences are clear: shoplifting is rising and the robbery of business property has surged. The Government tell us that crime is under-reported; if that is true, it only strengthens the case for more police, not fewer. The Government point to measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, but targets mean little if officer numbers are falling. Warm words do not patrol streets. Conservatives believe that safety is not a luxury, but a foundation on which everything else depends. That is why we back our police. That is why we are committed to recruiting 10,000 more officers. That is why we support visible, proactive policing in the places that need it most. Before the Minister tells us once again that a strategy is in place, may I ask a very simple question? Will she commit today that no police force will lose yet more officers as a result of the Government’s next spending review, or should communities prepare for even fewer police on the streets? That leads me to a second, unavoidable question: does she expect communities to feel safer when there are fewer police, criminals are being released early and Labour councils refuse to use the powers they already have to tackle antisocial behaviour, or is managed decline now official Government policy? Fewer police, early release and unenforced laws are not unfortunate side effects; they are policy choices, and our town centres are paying the price.

    Hansard source
32. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Topical Questions

    Could I return the Secretary of State to the issue of jury trials? I have received an email from a constituent who is a practising barrister, who points to the issues, which have already been mentioned, of poor prisoner transport, the cap on sitting days and the condition of many courtrooms. Could the Secretary of State focus on delivering improvements in those areas, and abandon the proposals to limit jury trials?

    Hansard source
33. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Iran

    Thankfully, Iranian influence is in decline in the south Caucasus and central Asia, but one country in which it seems to be in the ascendancy is Georgia. Does the Minister share my concern about allegations that there are up to 13,000 Iranian companies registered in Georgia, with 700 registered to one small building in one small village? There is potential sanctions-busting and sanctions-evasion activity going on there. That money feeds into the Iranian regime and funds its malign and malevolent activity across the world. Will the Minister take that up with the Foreign Secretary, and investigate whether Iran is funding its regime by using Georgia as a back door to the Black sea?

    Hansard source
34. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Clauses 156 to 162 will place a statutory ban on promoting tax avoidance arrangements that have no realistic prospect of success. The clauses also set out the civil and criminal penalties. The Opposition absolutely support the Government’s efforts to tackle tax avoidance and tax evasion, both of which are variations on a theme. It is important to remember exactly what they are. Tax planning is to be encouraged; tax evasion should lead to being sent to prison; and as for tax avoidance, we should try to persuade people not to use the letter of the law to avoid the spirit of the law in their tax planning. However, some concerns, which I hope the Minister can answer, have been raised with us about the clauses. Clauses 157 and 162 define what is meant by “promotion”, as well as other key definitions that are applicable to these clauses. Those definitions are welcome, but the Chartered Institute of Taxation has flagged concerns about the wording. For example, the clauses use the terms “marketed” and “likely to be” marketed but never define what they mean. The intention to prevent ineffective tax avoidance arrangements at source is noble, but “likely to be” marketed is too loose. What evidence would constitute an arrangement being classed as likely to be marketed? What evidence would an adviser need in order to show that advice was not likely to be marketed? Clarity is needed because the provision, if left unchanged, could accidentally catch normal tax advice. Will the Minister therefore commit to tightening up the wording of the clauses and providing specific details, either before Report or in any follow-up regulations? Secondly, how can the Government prove that someone is promoting arrangements that have “no realistic prospect” of success? Will it be for individual officers of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to determine, or will clarity be provided in the statutory instrument that will eventually follow? I ask because, as the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out, the term was not in the draft Finance Bill. Originally, the Government wanted to introduce a new criminal offence of failing to notify a tax avoidance arrangement under the rules on disclosure of tax avoidance schemes. We welcome the fact that the Government have consulted and, following the responses from industry, have decided to change tack. However, the new terminology of “no realistic prospect” of success was first raised only on 12 November last year. That was followed by a consultation that the industry has described as “very short, limited and confidential”. Will the Minister and HMRC therefore consider running a more open consultation?

    Hansard source
35. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I wholeheartedly agree. The more we discuss it in public, the more the general public will realise that avoiding tax is a very bad thing. Anything that highlights that point is to be welcomed, so I strongly urge the Government to do the right thing so that we can make this prohibition work and protect advisers who may simply have made an error. Clause 159 lays out the civil penalties, including a financial penalty of up to £1 million if the prohibition is breached. Additionally, it sets out an individual fine of £5,000 that can be issued for each person who has participated in the arrangements. We agree with the Government’s aim of creating a deterrent, but given how steep the sanctions are, there is a concern that the 30-day window for making representations is not enough of a safeguard. At the moment, that is the only recourse: a person cannot make a formal appeal to the tax tribunal. Subsequent clauses, which the Committee will discuss later, include a “reasonable excuse” defence. Not having such a defence leaves open the possibility that the bad behaviour of one rogue actor will lead to the prosecution of the wider organisation. Will the Minister and her officials agree to take those points away and consider tabling a new clause on Report?

    Hansard source
36. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I think we all agree with the sincerity of the intention, but the problem is that there is always a grey area at the boundary. The question is how we define that area so that we make certain that a legitimate person does not get wrongly drawn in, while a bad actor gets away with it.

    Hansard source
37. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    We would all agree that there is certainly a need to enhance HMRC’s ability to catch promoters of tax avoidance schemes. According to HMRC, there is currently a tax gap of about £500 million related to marketed avoidance schemes sold to individuals. HMRC has identified approximately 20 to 30 active promoters responsible for that. It seems that clauses 163 to 173 would theoretically affect only those engaging in highly risky schemes that HMRC has already disapproved of. We support the work of HMRC to protect the public from those groups and the overarching principles that drive these clauses but, on closer inspection, the scope of the proposals is wide. We have concerns that the proposals could inflict collateral damage on legitimate actors in the wider markets. Clause 163 outlines the process that HMRC undertakes to officially deem a person as a certified promoter. The big issue, however, is the difficulty of completing the process to officially certify what a promoter actually is. These promoters can be notoriously difficult to catch because some of them are based offshore and hide behind complex corporate structures, so although we support the purpose of clause 163, we are not entirely certain that it will achieve its intended result of tackling promoters offshore. Clause 164 has the same problem: it outlines how HMRC will require people who engage with promoters to disengage by issuing them with a promoter action notice. Will the Minister outline whether the Government are considering further steps to make the clauses enforceable? What steps are being taken with other countries to catch promoters not residing in but operating in the UK? That is an important point. Clause 165 is about the notification of a personal business that HMRC reasonably suspects is enabling a promoter. It is sensible to have that soft approach—to be followed, if necessary, by harder enforcement action later in the process. Our concern, however, is about the chilling effect that a preliminary notice might have on a legitimate actor. Once a recipient receives a preliminary notice, they may choose to pre-emptively sever ties with somebody whom HMRC has flagged as a suspected promoter, despite the fact that a preliminary notice is based on suspicion and is not an official conclusion. That means that preliminary notices will require a lower threshold of evidence in comparison with a promoter action notice, with no judicial oversight. In its technical consultation last year, UK Finance raised the fact that that could affect financial institutions as well. Clause 166 is similar. It specifies the information that an authorised HMRC officer and recipient of a preliminary notice or promoter action notice can disclose. Following the issuance of a notice, the investigation process keeps a suspected promoter completely unaware. That potential overreach could have chilling effects on people whom HMRC merely suspects. As clause 165 states, a person may sever ties with an entity being investigated even if that entity is only under suspicion. I encourage the Minister and officials to consider the safeguards that can protect legitimate actors from that prospect.

    Hansard source
38. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I agree. At the end of the day, we want to nail down people who have promoted those dodgy things, but at the same time we are a country with justice. If it takes more than 30 days on a regular basis to respond to such things, it is absolutely right that we would have longer time in order to help—but as with all such things, it is always a fine balance. Clause 167 outlines the appeal process for people who receive a promoter action notice. Under the clause, the recipient can only appeal if they are not providing a critical service to the promoter specified, or the goods and services are not being used wholly or partly for the promoter’s avoidance arrangements. The Association of Taxation Technicians has outlined the unfairness of that, given that promoters are able to challenge HMRC’s core allegations at a tribunal. Recipients, on the other hand, will only be able to address the technicalities of the arrangements, with no opportunity to have the wider picture taken into consideration. The recipient may just be an unwitting enabler, unable fully to appeal the notice. Therefore, will the Minister again outline how the Government will ensure that individuals can appeal against the notices? Clause 168 outlines the civil penalty regime. Under the Government proposals, the recipient of a promoter action notice will be required to pay £1,000 per day for non-compliance. A recipient of a promoter action notice may challenge that at a tribunal, which is good. However, there is no suspension period provision. Should a recipient challenge HMRC at a tribunal, the penalty of £1,000 per day will still apply as the tribunal considers the appeal. As the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants pointed out, the first-tier tribunal can take a significant amount of time. Therefore, is the Minister certain that HMRC has the resources to compensate for the increased workload? Will he consider implementing a suspension period provision? At the end of the day, if that drags on for too long, a provider could be put in financial jeopardy of business failure. Finally, clause 170 sets out when HMRC can report a recipient of a promoter action notice to a regulator, representative or trade body. I agree that regulators, and representative and trade bodies should be involved in the informative process, as their integrity and reputation could be at stake, too. However, the clause echoes similar concerns of mine regarding clauses 167 to 169. It means that reporting a recipient to the regulator in combination with publishing recipient details, as well as applying civil penalties, would all run concurrently before the recipient has even had a chance to reach a tribunal. Again, will the Minister outline what discussions have been had to ensure that there is not excessive duplication?

    Hansard source
39. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Clauses 174 to 185 relate to anti-avoidance information notices. They also provide that they can be issued to connected persons, third parties and financial institutions. The make mostly technical amendments, but there are two technical amendments that we believe are missing from this grouping. Rather than go through every clause, I will concentrate on two. First, clause 182 restricts how recipients may disclose or publicise anti-avoidance notices. We follow the logic of this clause, as one would want to prevent people who receive a notice from tipping off the promoters or specified persons being investigated. However, what we would not want is for recipients of a notice, who often will not be the main targets of HMRC, to be prevented from accessing professional or legal advice. The wording of the clause, whether that be the title or the text, insinuates that this is not an option that is available. Therefore, we feel that clarity is required from the Government. The Chartered Institute of Taxation recommends adding the words: “making representations against the notice” to clause 182(2). This is a sensible recommendation, and I hope that the Minister will see it as such and commit to looking at adding these words before the Bill returns on Report. The other issue that has been raised with us is regarding clause 183. This clause sets out which categories of information cannot be required under anti-avoidance notices. More simply, this means that material that may be legally privileged between a lawyer and a client would be exempt from these notices. That is important, and we are not arguing that the Government should remove that exemption. However, the point has been made to us by industry bodies that legal professional privilege does not extend to advice provided by tax advisers or accountants. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is the expert on the Government Benches, looks up and—I hope—understands that point. That is despite the fact that a person would ask for advice on tax policy from an adviser or an accountant in the same manner that a person would ask for legal advice from a lawyer. Again, we understand that this clause is about tackling tax avoidance and the promoters of it. However, without additional exemptions it could result in people or entities being disincentivised from seeking advice from tax advisers or accountants based in the UK. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the rationale to protect legally privileged material but to exclude other types of advice from the list of exemptions, and to say whether the Government would consider—again—introducing changes to this clause to level the playing field.

    Hansard source
40. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for explaining what the clauses are all about. We are slightly worried about what they do not set out, which is the threshold for HMRC to pursue a criminal conviction that would result in a prison sentence. Prison sentences should be reserved for the most serious breaches. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide more clarity in any correspondence that may be published. Clauses 191 to 196 set out the civil sanctions for non-compliance with an anti-avoidance information notice. As we heard, the sanctions will consistently apply a fine of up to £5,000 for a breach, as well as daily penalties for continued breaches. Additionally, clause 196 allows for the daily penalty to be increased if the person continues to offend for more than 30 days since the original notice. Overall, these are important deterrents and strong sanctions to ensure that bad actors pay the price. At the same time, they seem to be fairly balanced with the safeguards in clauses 197 to 206. We are therefore generally content with the drive and execution of these clauses.

    Hansard source