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

1. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

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

   The Government have united the SAS Regimental Association, the Special Boat Service Association and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association against the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, with the SAS Regimental Association dismissing the legislation as “incoherent, contradictory, imprecise and muddled”. They are rightly concerned about the potential impact of the Bill on special forces recruitment and retention, and yesterday the Government voted down the Opposition amendment that would have given Parliament proper oversight of this. As the Bill begins its passage through the other place, will the Secretary of State work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that Parliament has sufficient oversight of special forces recruitment and retention?

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Support for Farmers

   On the point about maintaining domestic food production, the Minister will no doubt be aware of the problems facing the pig sector. We have had tens of thousands of pigs backed up on farms, contracts cancelled, and farmers losing up to £50 a pig. What discussions have the Minister and colleagues had with the pig sector, and what plans do the Government have to support our Great British pig farms?

   Hansard source
3. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process, the Ayes were 295 and the Noes were 111, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it. [The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.] Before we move on, just a note to the Minister: I am sure that he meant to refer to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton. I call the shadow Minister.

   Hansard source
4. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   Order. I urge the hon. Lady to stay within the scope of the Bill. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), escaped me leaping to my feet by carefully tying his comments to the provisions of the Bill; I trust she will do likewise.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   Order. I admire the right hon. Member enormously, but I might have to give him the same warning about staying in scope this afternoon.

   Hansard source
6. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Mr or Madam Deputy Speaker, but should use our names. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable. Clause 1 Repeal of discriminatory provision concerning the making of appointments Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

   Hansard source
7. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Support for Farmers

   I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Support for Farmers

   Order. Members will be able to see that many of you wish to contribute. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Terry Jermy.

   Hansard source
9. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

   E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

   I thank the hon. Lady for calling this very timely debate. Does she agree that this is a particular problem where policing borders meet? My constituency is under the West Mercia jurisdiction, but in Cofton Hackett, a village that has an acute problem with e-bikes, the bikes often originate in Birmingham, which is under the jurisdiction of West Midlands police. It feels as though some areas fall between the cracks and that this e-bike problem is increasingly without consequences.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Royal Mail: Performance

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. She is clearly delivering for her constituents in a way that Royal Mail is not. Royal Mail is clearly failing in its universal service obligation, and it is clear from comments across the House that there is universality in those failings. From my own casework, I came into this debate well aware of the widespread failures affecting our postal services and knowing that action is long overdue. After hearing the compelling story shared by Members from across the House, I believe it is undeniable that we cannot wait any longer, and that answers are well overdue. It is only 65 days until Christmas. It is not quite time to put the tree up, but for service providers and logistics teams, it is right around the corner, and mailbags will surge. We all know that Christmas is one of the most demanding times of the year for the postal services, especially for our hard-working postmen and women. I too want to express my thanks to them. I do not think any of us are frustrated with our hard-working posties. There are failings with management. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) pointed out, all year round, posties are a lifeline for some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and sometimes they are the only person they will see or have social contact with.

    Hansard source
11. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Royal Mail: Performance

    The hon. Member is correct. The current model is not working as it should, which is having social implications and, clearly, adversely affecting the service even further. It is crucial that that is addressed. As we get close to the Christmas period, the busiest time of the year—as shoppers complete their final online orders and families send gifts and cards to loved ones, friends and family—the country needs confidence that postal services will deliver. If they can deliver, that is one worry ticked off the list at a busy time of year, but in recent years, many of us and our constituents have found that there is a certain elusiveness to the post all year round. My constituents have the recurring experience of receiving no post for two weeks, followed by a large bundle of outdated letters, with hospital appointments missed—we have heard many stories on that theme today—DVLA reminders overdue, credit cards reported lost in the mail, and even legal issues rumbling on because court summons and other documents are not received in time.

    Hansard source
12. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Royal Mail: Performance

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is in the same spirit as a comment by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who mentioned an example of NHS letters being prioritised. There is a pressing need for Royal Mail to look at best practice from all parts of the country and ensure that it is part of its standard methods of operation, so that it delivers for its customers and our constituents. We know that a malfunctioning postal service has a profound domino effect on many important aspects of residents’ lives. In March, it was announced that Royal Mail will deliver 219 million letters late this year, despite the seventh stamp price rise in four years. That statistic will come as no surprise to the Members here today—it has been cited by many and it solidifies their constituents’ lived experiences—but predictability should not be mistaken for acceptability. Our constituents should not have to tolerate this escalating issue, so I ask the Minister to outline today a tangible plan to deliver a swift solution, rather than continuing to pass the buck to Ofcom. I am aware of Ofcom’s role as the regulator, but the Government cannot expect this nationwide problem to fall exclusively on Ofcom’s shoulders. I suspect that the Minister has received that message loud and clear from Members across the House today. What action are the Government taking to materially address the service problem? Do they believe that Ofcom is still fit for purpose with regard to regulating postal services? Those are difficult questions to answer, but my constituents—all our constituents—want answers to them. The Minister has made it clear that frank discussions are being held with the CEO of Royal Mail, and Royal Mail has emphasised that its “Quality of Service Improvement Plan” sets out—allegedly—a clear path towards meeting Ofcom’s new delivery targets. We saw how important this issue is when it was raised at Prime Minister’s questions today. But what good are more discussions and promises if they are never fulfilled or fail to improve the service? Does the Minister believe that the operational issues with Royal Mail are being addressed quickly enough? What discussions have taken place concerning not only the implementation of the improvement plan, but the success achieved so far? Royal Mail is a key piece of British identity, with more than 500 years of history. It has endured challenges and played a key role in some of our nation’s most difficult times. It is a service to appreciate, but such recognition is warranted only when an acceptable standard of service is provided. The purpose of this debate is to highlight the unacceptable service being supplied by Royal Mail and to fast-track finding a solution. Will the Minister share the immediate steps that she will take to ensure that Royal Mail’s service is corrected and customer confidence restored?

    Hansard source
13. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    Finally, Mr Speaker—at last, after two and a half years, this Government have found it within themselves to do the right thing, after exhausting all the alternatives. We have arrived at this destination far later than we should have. Jackdaw was first approved by us in 2022. When in government, we approved it in line with the law as we saw it at the time, and we were confident that we would win the appeal in the Court of Session and ensure that we could get British gas into British homes as soon as possible. But then entered the former Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who, in one of his first acts as Secretary of State, pulled lawyers from the appeal, ensuring and guaranteeing that it would fail. There was absolutely no reason to do that. Approving Jackdaw is about security, jobs and our economy. At every moment up to today, this Government have chosen to prioritise their own self-interest—and winning a by-election in Holborn and St Pancras—over the interests of the British people. Jackdaw alone will provide enough resources to heat 1.4 million British homes—homes that will no longer need to rely on expensive and high-carbon emitting liquefied natural gas imports. Today we have heard the Secretary of State and the Minister talking about the pragmatism of the national interest. More gallingly, we have heard them talking about supporting British workers. If the Government are serious about a new, pragmatic approach and serious about British jobs and British businesses, that surely means the forthcoming energy independence Bill will not contain measures to ban any new licences in the North sea—a purely ideological but unfathomable decision. If they really believe that a new pragmatism is needed in the North sea, that presumably means that the Chancellor will be announcing next week that he will be removing the energy profits levy. This decision is welcome, but it should not have taken this long. Labour’s dither and delay over the past few years—and, indeed, the past few months—has cost us dear, with jobs lost, more businesses relocating and deindustrialisation. There is a reason the leader of the GMB union described this Department as the Department for P45s. We have had oil downturns before, when global prices fell and jobs were lost in the UK. When it happened under our watch, we stepped up: we maximised recovery, cut taxes and turned the North sea into the most investable basin in the world. Today, there is no global downturn—prices are soaring across the world, and the oil and gas industry is expanding. Only in Britain, we now have a made-by-Labour, made-by-Miliband downturn. We have the only Government in the world who say, “Jobs being lost? Let’s speed that up.” We are the only country not maximising recovery and the only country choosing, in the middle of an energy crisis, to ban licences and exploration. Yet today, the workers in our oil and gas industry are to be thankful that after two and a half years of uncertainty, this Government—kicking and screaming—have finally done the right thing. I have no doubt that there will be more kicking and screaming from some of their Back Benchers today. Perhaps the prospect of more tax revenue will appease them—specifically the over £4 billion of tax receipts. That is revenue that we know the Chancellor desperately needs. Today is a good day—finally. In the spirit of the Secretary of State’s new-found pragmatism, let us see a serious and pragmatic change of direction. Will the Government now approve Rosebank, lift the ban on exploration and new licences, end the crippling energy profits levy, and get Britain drilling?

    Hansard source
14. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for introducing the Bill, which closes a vile loophole in the law. I am grateful for her leadership in bringing together in this room a group of people who are all fully behind her, and I commend her work. A child-like sexual abuse doll is a replica of a child’s body made for perverse sexual use. Someone who imports one, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, can be prosecuted under the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. However, as the CPS has acknowledged, simply possessing one is not an offence. The law stops a parcel at the border, but not the person who receives it. The Bill is therefore proportionate and has the Opposition’s support. The Bill creates offences of making, possessing, importing and supplying, with a maximum sentence of five years—the same as for indecent images of children, which is exactly the right comparison. It provides for seizure and forfeiture, notification requirements, liability for directors and reach for UK companies abroad. The defences are sensible: for those investigating crime, for unsolicited receipt and for those who had no reason to know what they had. The burden of proof—which is, again, on the defendant—mirrors the indecent images regime, and that is right. The definition is targeted, too: this is a ban on sexualising children’s bodies. Why does it matter? The Lucy Faithfull Foundation warns that the dolls normalise and legitimise sexual behaviour towards children. Some argue the opposite: that they could be a safe outlet for paedophiles. However, there is no evidence at all that these vile objects prevent offending. When the evidence is uncertain and the potential victims are children, the burden must lie with those who permit the product, not those who protect against it. The Government have said that police have encountered those dolls while investigating suspected child sex abuse and when monitoring registered sex offenders. The Bill therefore rests on the judgment that a replica of a child made for sexual use has no place in a decent society. Technology is moving fast, as we have already touched on briefly in the debate. These products can be made to order and are becoming more realistic. The Bill covers “a doll or other object” —a physical object. Can the Minister confirm that that would include a robot or any AI-enabled physical product made to resemble a child for sexual use? The term “making” includes adapting something so that it becomes a doll, but how does the Bill apply to someone who 3D-prints a doll, or—this is a gap in the Bill—supplies the files to allow such 3D printing? They themselves are not producing it, but are providing the core content that allows that doll to be 3D-printed in an individual’s home. I have not tabled amendments in Committee, but I am considering doing so on Report on both those points, unless the Government reassure me that they are not needed or table such amendments themselves. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that. Will there be guidance on what the “reasonable person” test is for police, Border Force and prosecutors, so that it is applied consistently and legitimate items such as medical or training models clearly fall outside the offence? We do not want paramedics or others to be unable to train with the items that they need. The Bill gives no commencement date. Will the Government tell us when they hope to bring it into force, and what resources Border Force and the police will have to enforce it? One passing point raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham was that the Bill extends only to England and Wales. I expect that the Government want to push for equivalent protection elsewhere given how many of these products are being imported. Parliament has repeatedly legislated to protect children, and it is at its best when we work as one country. Finally, I urge the Government to consider requiring anyone who is found to own such a device to be placed on a sexual risk order, even if they are not imprisoned. There is no need for a conviction for someone to be placed on a sexual risk order. That is vital, because anyone from the National Crime Agency or a chief constable can apply for one, and it would recognise that, even if an individual has not yet offended against a child or fully meets the need for imprisonment, we can take action. There is no question that anyone interfering in any way with an object like this has some sort of malign intent. I came into politics to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and no one is more deserving of protection than a child. This Bill is a small step, but it is the right one, and we are proud to support it. In this room, we are making clear that child-like sexual abuse dolls have no place in our country. A child’s body is not a product. Owning a child-like sex abuse doll is morally indefensible. There is no innocent reason to own one, and those who do are degenerates who are normalising the sexual abuse of children. They must be treated as the danger they are.

    Hansard source
15. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

    I thank the Minister for confirming that any doll that is 3D-printed will be included. Could she confirm whether those who produce the files that allow those individuals to create one at home, and enable their criminal behaviour, will also be covered? If not, would she write to me to confirm it and look into how it might be done?

    Hansard source
16. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for making that point. She is essentially giving the National Crime Agency and police forces across the country an additional reason to enter the homes of potential offenders and those who are planning a crime. It is absolutely vital that we move to prevention in this area, because the reality is that there are too many children and adults across this country whose lives have been forever harmed by this. It is something they will live with for ever. The hon. Member is not just tackling a doll but providing a preventive power to go in and catch people before they escalate, and she is therefore protecting children. I thank her ever so much for doing so.

    Hansard source
17. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Access to Justice

    As this is the Secretary of State’s first Northern Ireland questions, may I welcome him to his place? Victims and survivors of the troubles will, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, be deeply concerned to hear that on Monday police intelligence documents produced in the High Court in Belfast referred to the ongoing existence of the IRA. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House: is it the Government’s understanding that the IRA is still active?

    Hansard source
18. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Access to Justice

    With all due respect, I was not asking the Secretary of State to comment on the case; I know that he cannot. I was asking him to tell us what the Government’s considered opinion is on whether the IRA is still active. That is important, because one of the documents produced on Monday revealed—

    Hansard source
19. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Access to Justice

    This is for context. The document revealed that the Secretary of State was told by the police, “it is possible that dissident republicans have already accessed the firearms in the Garvaghy Road area, and it is possible that in the event of police removing protesters, firearms may be used to attack police.” It would not interfere with the court process for the Secretary of State to tell us this: is it his understanding that the IRA has rearmed?

    Hansard source
20. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Support for Veterans

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State twice refused to answer questions about documents referred to in judicial review proceedings in the High Court in Belfast that refer to the ongoing existence of the IRA. Can you confirm that there is no parliamentary rule, including the sub judice rule, that would have prevented the Secretary of State from answering those questions?

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Topical Questions

    The Government propose to abolish Healthwatch and bring its functions inside the Department and local NHS bodies, but patients need an independent champion who can challenge things when they go wrong. What savings does the Minister believe will result from abolishing Healthwatch? How will she ensure that this does not result in the loss of an independent voice for patients?

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Maternity and Neonatal Care

    On maternity, two things will stick with me. First, there was the briefing from Donna Ockenden on her report, which was shocking. The other was listening to bereaved mums saying how they are tired of telling their story over and over again, and I hope we can find a better service for those parents; equally, there was the treatment of dead babies in the mortuary in Nottingham. Will the Secretary of State update us on the work being done to ensure that those shocking things never happen to any family ever again?

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    I will now call the Front-Bench spokesman for each party. I suggest that the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition speak for eight or nine minutes and the Minister speaks for 10 minutes or so, and then there will be time for Fleur Anderson to speak for a few minutes at the end, and for me to put the question.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with “Erskine May”, page 488, which makes it clear that when you have not been present for the bulk of the debate, it is not polite to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman who has the floor now needs to bring his remarks to a conclusion to give maximum time to the Minister.

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    Before I call Fleur Anderson to wind up the debate, let me say that the Minister has stepped in for the Aviation Minister, who I appreciate is on other ministerial business and has committed to writing to a number of colleagues to deal with specific issues. I want to put it on the record that that commitment has been made, and I expect it to happen.

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

    I will call Melanie Onn to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

    I do not think you get a chance to wind-up, Melanie, in half-hour debates, but as we have extra time, you can have 30 seconds.

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    House of Lords Reform

    I remind Members to bob if they want to be called to speak. I see that a number of Members are bobbing, so I will give priority to those who applied early to speak in the debate.

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    House of Lords Reform

    I shall call the Front Benchers from 5.10 pm. As you can see, a lot of people are standing, which gives you a feel for how long you have got. So, it is three or four minutes each, I am afraid.

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    House of Lords Reform

    Order. We have time for only one more Back Bencher from the Government side.

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    House of Lords Reform

    I call Kit Malthouse. Kit, I can give you a minute if you want.

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    10. What plans she has to improve continuity of care in the NHS.

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    Has the Minister read the Norwegian population study published in the British Journal of General Practice, which says that people who see the same doctor over many years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need emergency care and 25% less likely to die? It has been two years since the Government made the pledge to bring back the family doctor, but the basic structure of general practice has not changed. Can we see some changes in the next GP contract negotiations to bring back the system we used to have, in which everyone has their own doctor?

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Shivani Raja

    Funeral Services: Regulation

    Any regulation of the funeral sector must avoid unnecessary administrative burdens on small, local providers. How will the Department ensure that any proposed regulatory framework is proportionate and does not unfairly increase costs for independent funeral directors across my constituency and the country?

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Manufacturing Skills

    It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing time in this House for this really important topic. I have heard a lot of very good speakers, and I agree with their sentiment. Although we may not always agree on every policy issue, I do agree that our best years are ahead of us. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was a director of the local enterprise partnership in the west midlands. I remember my first ever meeting, in which I spoke to the chair of an FE college, who told me that the time between what his college could deliver and what businesses said that they wanted was about three years. That told me two things, as a small business owner: that the skills landscape is incredibly complex and difficult for businesses to navigate, and that demand plays a huge role. I will talk about demand in a bit. The UK’s manufacturing sector is hugely important, accounting for roughly 8.5% of total economic output across the country, and employing roughly 2.6 million people. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) mentioned the Lunar Society, because I was a member of a modern-day Lunar Society—in fact, I helped to write its constitution. I was pleased that she put that on the record. I am the proud Member of Parliament for Meriden and Solihull East, a constituency in the heart of the west midlands. We are also a UK manufacturing powerhouse, because we are the home of Jaguar Land Rover. The west midlands remains the UK’s leading manufacturing region, and Jaguar Land Rover is right at the heart of that. The region contributes £10.4 billion and employs more than 200,000 people. The shadow Chancellor and I recently visited Rolls-Royce, which has a huge facility in the west midlands. I invite the Minister to visit it, because it does a huge amount of work. I know it is said that the UK does not manufacture anything anymore, but I reject that; I do not think it is true. I saw at first hand engines and control panels being built for some of our most important and sensitive projects, and met a number of apprentices, who showed how important apprenticeships are. I am proud that the previous Government over 14 years created more than 5.2 million apprenticeships. As shadow Minister of State for Education, I regularly hold meetings with businesses, further education colleges and others who are very concerned about skills shortages in the manufacturing sector. In July, I hosted a roundtable in Parliament with Enginuity, a charity focused on closing skills gaps in the UK’s engineering and manufacturing sector. It was clear from the businesses we met that they expect the Government to do much more to help support manufacturing, and help engineering businesses to recruit the best talent. We spoke at length about some of the findings in Enginuity’s recent “Mind the Gap” report. Its research found that around half of surveyed SMEs reported skills-related issues in the past year, with 36% experiencing skills gaps and difficulty recruiting workers. It estimates that the failure to plug that gap in manufacturing skills costs the UK economy £5.2 billion annually. That is clearly an important area that needs to be fixed, we must all agree. I would like to know about the Minister’s relationship with the DFE and how she works to ensure that the advanced manufacturing workforce is skilled, not just at NEET-level but throughout careers and lifelong learning. I am confident about the future of the UK’s manufacturing sector. It is a growing industry that will offer varied and exciting jobs for the future, but there are significant challenges coming manufacturers’ way as a result of Government policy, which we already see. Yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote in The Times about the prospect of Britain facing “economic catastrophe and moral failure” because a generation of young workers has been written off to a life on benefits. I agree, because youth unemployment is now 16.4%. When the Conservatives left office, it was 14.2%, so there has been a significant increase. There are currently one million 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. I welcome the Government’s focus on reducing that number, because we will support them in the right policies; unfortunately, however, it is the view of His Majesty’s Opposition that the Government’s approach to tackling that grave injustice is entirely wrong. I have talked about demand in this sector. The drastic shortage of jobs in sectors such as manufacturing is a result of the Government’s policy platform. I did not once hear Labour Members talk about the impact of national insurance, tax and the reduction in the national insurance threshold, or that the cost of employing an apprentice has gone up so much that is has become challenging for businesses to take them on. Where they are employed, the opportunity cost means that fewer apprentices are taken on, as a result of such policies. It is obvious to us that the Government’s tax policies are making it harder for young people to get into good jobs. That is not just the view of the Opposition. Huw Pill, chief economist at the Bank of England, agrees that higher national insurance contributions and the Government’s increase in the national living and minimum wage have priced out entry-level workers, many of them young people.

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Manufacturing Skills

    I reject the framing of the question. [Laughter.] No one finds youth unemployment funny. Many business owners talk to me about what happens when a young apprentice is interviewed. They say that if they have a 25-year-old with experience versus an 18-year-old with no experience, that hinders the prospects of hiring them. That is the reality. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is a conscientious MP, so I encourage him to pose that question to his small business owners in the way I framed it.

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Manufacturing Skills

    No, I am going to carry on. When met with reality, the Government’s plans in this space fall far too short. The Government have made lots of noise about recruiting targets. I just noticed that the Government announced 40,000 new construction placements every single year. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the same or a different version of the announcement made in a Government press release in August 2025, which mentioned “40,000 future builders, bricklayers, electricians, carpenters and plumbers”? Government by press release is one thing but recycling old press releases is something else. Those apprentices deserve better. There has also been no mention of the impact of the Government’s fiscal policies. Just as we were having this debate, I saw a headline saying job vacancies are at their lowest in 12 years. There are 176,000 fewer jobs now than when Labour took office. Members have mentioned the Education Secretary’s ambition to close off academic options and offer more vocational options for the 14-to-16 age group. I am deeply sceptical of that policy, and the Opposition are calling for an evidence-based approach. When a previous Labour Government introduced similar reforms, fewer children from poorer backgrounds ended up going into academic subjects. They were funnelled into vocational work. We believe that plenty of people who would have been able to get into higher-quality jobs were funnelled off at a lower age, so we are deeply sceptical. The policy announcement is welcome, but we are yet to see significant detail. Many of the headteachers I spoke to last week asked how their teachers will be trained to deliver vocational subjects and where the funding will come from. We are incredibly proud of the reforms instituted by the previous Conservative Government, which have meant that England’s education delivery is among the best and most resilient in the world, according to the programme for international student assessment rankings. When I meet people from the advanced manufacturing sector, they laud the fact that a knowledge-rich curriculum has helped young people to gain critical and analytical skills, including in numeracy. We are really worried that some of the Education Secretary’s announcements will undermine opportunities for young people. The criticism comes not just from the Opposition. Jon White, the chief financial officer at building materials firm Huws Gray, has said that employers are struggling with a lack of incentives to hire younger people. He pointed to the Government’s narrowing of the gap in respect of the national minimum wage, which I have alluded to, and said that they should change the rules in respect of how employers can spend the apprenticeship levy. I hope the Minister can shed a bit of light on some of the questions around the apprenticeship levy. Making it easier for employers to hire young people is really important, which is why we have pledged to halve employer national insurance for young people aged 21 to 24, to help them get to into work. We have also offered more incentives to small businesses to take on young people. Small businesses are often lauded as the lifeblood of the UK economy and the high street, and they, not big businesses, are the greatest employers of young people across the country. We believe our approach will free up the business sector and manufacturing to employ more young people; I would welcome the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Topical Questions

    I recently met pharmacists in my constituency, who expressed concern about the resilience of the supply chain, and specifically about wholesale suppliers spreading rumours, with the result that medicines are stockpiled, forcing up prices. In this case, it was Ramipril, but this is an issue across the board. It is the British taxpayer—our constituents—who suffer. Is the Secretary of State aware of this issue, and has she considered getting the Competition and Markets Authority involved?

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Richard Fuller

    East West Rail: Bedford to Cambridge

    Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission to speak on a matter that is of crucial importance to my constituents. The topic of this Adjournment debate is the impact of the East West Rail Bedford to Cambridge business case on North Bedfordshire constituency. I am very grateful to the Minister for being in his place; I have not have a chance to share some of my questions with him, so I would be very happy for him to write to me after the debate if he does not have answers to them tonight. What does East West Rail mean to North Bedfordshire? It is an opportunity that was lost. The concept of connecting Oxford through Milton Keynes to Bedford and Cambridge is a sensible one, but sadly it is a concept that in practice has gone very far off track. That is partly due to the legacy of the former Liberal Democrat mayor of Bedford borough, who supported a route through the town of Bedford and then north through rural North Bedfordshire. That route is long, hilly and incredibly environmentally damaging, and despite protestations, it must surely be much more expensive than any alternative. It has left my constituents scratching their heads about why we would build a railway line in such a damaging way. Since that time, my constituents across North Bedfordshire have faced a series of questions that remain unanswered and that are increasingly a source of irritation. The people who work at East West Rail are good people, and I have nothing against them, but I do have something against the project and how it is being progressed. The town of Clapham, just outside Bedford, will be cut in two by the development of the railway. The route takes a very sharp turn out of Bedford and goes up a hill, as part of the hilliness of this railway. Residents’ concerns about having a green tunnel to help somewhat with the environment stay in abatement. The villagers of Ravensden and Wilden are sadly getting increasingly resigned to the fact that a railway will carve through their rural landscape. At Chawston, which is a tiny little village, a substantial amount of land has been earmarked by East West Rail so that trains can pass. Finally, there are the villages of Roxton and then Tempsford, which is rumoured to be on the list to be a new town. Currently it is a village of 300 households. For North Bedfordshire, this railway will have a significant impact on the environment and on our rural life, but beyond that, the business case matters for a range of reasons. First, a substantial amount of public money—in the billions—will be invested to construct an entirely new rail route from Bedford through to Cambridge. As the Minister will know, we are just a week away from a Budget. It is perhaps the third Budget in a row where a Labour Government will come back for more taxes. He will know, as we certainly do, that looking after public money is a primary duty of us here in this House. If we are seeing a waste of public money, it requires as much additional scrutiny as can be done—certainly in government, but also beyond—and yet it has been a number of years since the last assessment of the economics of East West Rail was delivered by the company that was available for us to scrutinise. Incidentally, that assessment was pretty bad. When I say pretty bad, I mean bad, bad, bad from the point of view of public finances. Since then, there have been dramatic changes, and some that might help the case of East West Rail, but many—particularly with inflation—may move things the other way. My constituents are left in a position where they do not know whether this project will make any economic sense at all, and it started from a position where it clearly did not. I do not think that it is right that the people of North Bedfordshire should be left in the dark. I also, by the way, do not think that taxpayers should be left in the dark. That is why my purpose tonight is to convince the Minister that he and the Government owe it to the people of North Bedfordshire and to taxpayers to provide right now—tomorrow will do—the latest updated business case for the East West Rail project. The Minister covers lots of other forms of transportation and covers for rail for Lord Hendy in the other place, but he must know the importance that has been attributed to financial transparency in our rail projects specifically, and know not to wait until the deal is done. This is my key request to the Minister. I would like him to say that he has been convinced by the arguments about public money and that he has been convinced that allowing transparency of the business case is the right thing to do. It is his right and ability to do that, and I will explain to him why he should do it. First, this point of transparency was surely at the heart of the reviews of the oh-so-disastrously-managed HS2 project. You will remember that, Madam Deputy Speaker, as do I. Frankly, the taxpayers of this country will remember it for a long time. Rightly, Governments of the day had two reviews—Oakervee and Lovegrove—to try to find out how we could improve governance of our very important rail projects. I would like to go through some of that, because, sadly, it does not seem that Government have got the message on these things. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts. In the Lovegrove report, there was a response to a request that was made by local campaigners in July for the Government to release the business case. Annex A of the letter from the Government refusing the release said that while the outline business case was still being developed, releasing it would “be misleading” and that disclosure would produce “a chilling effect” on discussions between the Department for Transport, Network Rail and East West Rail. So providing information about the business case would be “misleading”. Well, who is it going to mislead? Do the Government think we are not smart enough to understand that numbers may change, and inputs may not remain the same in terms of their costs? Do they think we will not understand the numbers? It seems to me an unusual defence to say that providing the British people with information about how their taxes might be spent before those taxes are committed is somehow misleading—and what is the “chilling effect”? I do not see loads of private companies rushing up to provide competing rail services from Oxford to Cambridge. It does not hang together. According to one of the campaigners, “Lovegrove’s account of HS2’s Accounting Officer Assessments in 2019 describes a Department that kept spending money on an unaffordable project ‘on the basis that a process to determine its future was underway,’ while systematically failing to make clear to Parliament how immature the underlying costings actually were. He goes further, describing how the HS2 Board’s own information packs created ‘a veil behind which less good news becomes difficult to assess or even identify’—and that this was still true two years later, in 2021. The consequence, in his words, is that ‘the Civil Service failed to recognise the scale of the remaining intrinsic risk’ and gave ministers advice that ‘fails to give a good sense of the scale of the uncertainty.’” It is clear to me that the lesson from HS2 is that it is in the best interests of the Government to share information as a project is undergoing an evaluation of its financial costs, precisely so that the Government can avoid some of the mistakes that were identified in the HS2 project. If it was important for HS2, it is even more important for East West Rail, perhaps not in terms of scale but certainly in terms of relative lack of value. One of the ways in which the Government assess the value is through the benefit-cost ratio framework, and we do have information about that, dating back to 2023. Let me explain this to the House. A benefit-cost ratio of less than 1 is “poor”. There is nothing below “poor”. “Low” is 1 to 1.5, “medium” is 1.5 to 2, “high” is 2 to 4, and “very high” is greater than 4. When time is tight, public money is important, and one would hope that most of the projects are closer to the 4, 3 or 2. So where did East West Rail stand at the last count? Well, it did not stand at 4, or 3, or 2, or 1; it stood at 0.3. Basically, this is a railway project that wastes 70p in every pound, which is clearly “poor”. The East West Railway Company then came up with something called the theory of change to push the figure up—we can understand that; like other things, employment changes, new houses are built and so forth—which boosted it from 0.3 to 0.6. It is clear from the last time the public were given sight of the business case that this railway line project is extremely poor value for money. I think that that should concern the Minister, and it certainly concerns me. Over time, the milestones for the benefit-cost ratio got worse. In 2019, the benefit-cost ratio was 1.1 to 2.4. Now it is down to 0.3, although potentially it could be raised to 0.5 and potentially to above 1, so it is not doing very well on an absolute basis. An argument may be made that there is a social benefit to railways that goes beyond the financial benefit-cost ratio. Governments of all stripes—not just this lot; it was my lot before—have, as it were, counted other things in already. Perhaps it is possible to stretch it and say that there is even more public benefit, and I will come to what that may be in a minute. This is why the benefit-cost ratio causes even more concern. Let us just take a wander down the benefit-cost ratios of Britain’s railway projects in the recent past, so we can see whether East West Rail is an outlier or part of the pack with the usual returns. The benefit-cost ratio of HS2 was originally 2.3; it is 1.5 to 2.3. HS2 phase 1—the London to Birmingham part—had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2 to 1.7, which is getting close, but is still four times the benefit-cost ratio of East West Rail. For Crossrail 2, it is 1.7 to 2.7—way ahead. For the Bakerloo line extension, it is 2 to 3, and for Sutton tram link extension, it is 1.3. I challenge the Minister to find a railway project that is such a grotesque waste of public money as East West Rail. I do not think he will. This matters, because being honest about public money matters. We should be honest when something sounds like a really good idea, but when we actually put our mind to it and do the detailed work, it starts to look like a really bad idea. We really should have the courage—we need to have the courage in this House—and the Minister and the Government must have the courage to go back to first principles and say, “We just don’t want to be part of continuing something that has started to look completely wrong.” Year after year, I make the case to Ministers of all parties to have that moment of courage of going back to first principles. Their first principle is that they should look after public money as though it is their own, rather than just fritter it away because someone else in the past said it was a good idea, and perhaps that is the consensus, so we have to stick with it because someone said. That is no way to have our Executive run this country, because it just leads us into all sorts of mistakes. My hope is that the Minister will be that man of courage. I look at him and I think, “I am in with a fighting chance.” In that spirit, I have some questions for the Minister. As I said earlier, I do accept—I did not have the chance to brief the Minister beforehand—that he may not have the answers to hand, but I would be grateful if he wrote to me. First, when the last business case was produced, the Government used a discount rate of 3.5%. The Treasury has now decided to lower that discount rate to 3%. As the Minister will be aware, if we lower the discount rate from 3.5% to 3%, we will give more credit to revenues in the future relative to costs in the near term, which is clearly the profile for a rail project. Will the Minister commit that when, and I hope it will be tomorrow, he publishes the current business case, the financial case or full cash projections—I do not mind which of those three options he chooses—he will in all those cases ensure he has provided the information so that a like-for-like comparison can be made? Basically, we need the numbers for the period in which he is discounting the costs and revenues, so that we can assess the impact of the change in the discount rate. Secondly, in coming to Bedfordshire the wonderful initiative of Universal Studios has an impact on East West Rail and vice versa. As I understand it, to handle the structural demand, Network Rail has lined up an estimated £650 million of funding to help with the track capacity extension required. That takes us back to the decision in 2020, when there was a straighter, more direct route south of Bedford, and there was going to be a station—a hub station—at Wixams. Now that Universal Studios is being built at Wixams, would it not make sense to look at creating that hub station for Wixams, rather than going into the town of Bedford and going north? This is a very significant change, and Universal Studios is going to have 10 million visitors a year. Tempsford may or may not be a new town, but taking a village of 300 people and building a town of 100,000 is big change. One of the problems is that East West Rail, desperate to justify its business case, may want to take credit for new housing growth at Tempsford. Frankly, I do not think East West Rail contributes very much—certainly not in the near term—to the growth of Tempsford, because that planning has been there for quite a long time. Will the Minister commit to ensure that the case for East West Rail is made to stand on its own merits, rather than trying, artificially and in my view wrongly, to claim benefits from other measures, such as Tempsford new town? East West Rail has built part of its railway. It has built the part from Oxford to Milton Keynes, which was opened to passenger traffic two years ago this month, in October 2024. As the Minister knows, since then not a single passenger has travelled on a train, because it cannot work out with the union whether or not there needs to be a guard to open and shut the doors. That is two years of zero passenger revenue against expectations, which will surely have an impact on the business case. Will the Minister commit to publishing an assessment of the financial impact of the failure to run a railway for two years on the overall financial case for East West Rail? Originally, East West Rail was to run trains on diesel. Then it was proposed to be electric. Then it was proposed to be battery. Now, it is proposed to be battery, electric and diesel. Can the Minister confirm whether East West Rail has finalised what form of traction it will use on its railway? It seems to me to be critical to know how it is going to pull the trains along on the line. I am not a railway engineer, but even I think that that is kind of a basic requirement. East West Rail needs to be forced to make a decision. I understand that it may not want to take a decision, but it really needs to. Finally, in closing, as I look to the Minister, who I trust to be a courageous man and a good man, I want to ask him a candid question. If he was given a proposal to spend billions of pounds on a railway to which he could say yes or no, and he was told the railway would be lose billions and billions of pounds, and he was told that on value-for-money terms it would be the worst railway built this century, and he was told that after 20 years of operation the company had still not decided on how to power its trains, and he was told that two years after opening its railway it still had not carried a single passenger, would he really give the project the go-ahead?

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Richard Fuller

    East West Rail: Bedford to Cambridge

    I do not think that the Minister has taken up my offer of releasing the business case tomorrow. If we go with the process that the Government are hiding behind, will the decision to go ahead by the Government, as well as the DCO from a planning point, have been approved by the time that case has been presented to the public?

    Hansard source