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

1. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

   US Department of Justice Release of Files

   There are two issues here, one of which is the connection of a Member of the House of Lords to a convicted paedophile, but let us not forget that he is not the only recent Labour appointee who has been connected to a convicted paedophile; Lord Matthew Doyle, who was appointed only recently, has also maintained a persistent connection with a convicted paedophile. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it is not enough to refer the matter to the Cabinet Secretary, and that the police should be called immediately? We are seeing misconduct in public office, and this goes all the way to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The possibility of the destruction of evidence and the obscuring of a future prosecution is now increasing, and that is being masked by the Government.

   Hansard source
2. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

   US Department of Justice Release of Files

   With the cash for questions scandal or the recent sexual harassment cases in Westminster, the police were called by the Government, proactively. Why, in this case, are the Government conducting an inquiry without informing the Met police? If they are not conducting their own inquiry, will they get on with calling the police straightaway, because it is inevitably going to happen?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   China and Japan

   The Prime Minister’s position seems to be that if a bully is big enough, rich enough and powerful enough, the pragmatic thing to do is to pay into his protection racket. Can he at least show some sign of moral compass by accepting the fact that China is a repressive, brutal, communist, totalitarian state that dishonoured all the provisions of the Hong Kong agreement?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   US Department of Justice Release of Files

   Can the Minister not see that it is in the Labour party’s interest, as much as it is in the national interest, that this issue of stripping Mandelson of his peerage should be resolved as soon as possible and that wider legislation is brought in subsequently? The Minister may be a little young to remember when the late John Prescott compared Mandelson to a scorpion in a jam jar that he was holding, but can he explain to the House the fatal fascination of Labour leader after Labour leader appointing this man to post after post, given his chequered record of corruption and multiple resignations?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

   China and Japan

   The Prime Minister will be aware that some 80% of the sanctioned dual-use items that Russia needs for the drones and missiles it is firing at civilians and children on a daily basis come from China. He says that he raised that matter. Did he get any assurance that China will stop supplying Russia?

   Hansard source
6. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Indefinite Leave to Remain

   Order. Many Members want to speak in this debate. We will try to get them all in, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has to realise that every time he takes an intervention, there is less time for speeches.

   Hansard source
7. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Indefinite Leave to Remain

   Order. Many Members wish to speak. We will try to get you all in, but I have to impose an immediate three-minute time limit. Every intervention means that somebody at the back of the queue might not get in at all, so do bear that in mind, but we will try and get everybody in, starting with Cameron Thomas.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   China and Japan

   What absolutely unites everybody in this place is absolute outrage at the treatment of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen whose only crime is to campaign for democracy and to ask the Chinese to obey the spirit and letter of the solemn agreement that we made with them before the 1997 takeover. The Prime Minister said at the weekend that he had raised the case of Jimmy Lai “respectfully” with the latest Chinese emperor —“respectfully”? Does the Prime Minister not realise that the Chinese only accept strength—that everything is a deal—so why did he not say to them, “There will be no Chinese embassy until you stop spying on us in this House, you give an absolute assurance to us on Diego Garcia, and, above all, you free Jimmy Lai now”?

   Hansard source
9. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

   US Department of Justice Release of Files

   Does the Minister think that the deep involvement of Mandelson with Epstein shows that Epstein’s victims were not only women and girls but may have included young men?

   Hansard source
10. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    China and Japan

    In spite of the somewhat thin economic gruel with which the Prime Minister has returned, he was absolutely right to visit China. If I may return to the issue of human rights, particularly Jimmy Lai, did the Prime Minister say, as the whole House would have wished, that this British citizen—nearly 80 years old, held in solitary confinement and denied the chance to practice his religion—should surely receive clemency and be returned to the United Kingdom? Or did the Prime Minister merely deliver a written note?

    Hansard source
11. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is right to say that the other place must modernise its disciplinary procedures, but that kicks the Mandelson can down the road. This is not the first time this modern-day Icarus has flown a little too close to the sun, usually over money; we all remember the Geoffrey Robinson mortgage loan, which of course occasioned an earlier resignation—

    Hansard source
12. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    And the Hinduja passport, yes. Where I disagree with the Minister is in conflating the updating of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and the bringing forward of legislation—which is allowed—to remove Mandelson’s peerage. I am absolutely certain that, were the Government to bring forward a Bill, which need not be complex and hybrid as he suggested, it could be rushed through this House in a day, such is the appetite to make the point.

    Hansard source
13. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Topical Questions

    T3. The provisions of the Armed Forces Bill extend anti-drone permissions to the UK armed forces and UK bases. RAF Croughton is a US air force base in my constituency. Will the changes give US personnel the same updated authorities that are being extended to the UK armed forces?

    Hansard source
14. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

    Ukraine

    Our Ukrainian friends want not just to physically rebuild after this devastating war, but to recover with a modernised, reformed economy that can attract investment and support their entrepreneurial population. This is something Britain can help with, given our strengths in defence and technology and, indeed, as a global financial centre. So may I ask the Government to fully lean into these efforts alongside our allies, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the private sector, because an economically strong Ukraine is good not just for Ukraine’s future security, but for ours as well?

    Hansard source
15. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Topical Questions

    Ministers stress how keen they are to remove obstacles hampering defence innovation, and nowhere is that more important than in my South West Devon constituency, which is home to the majority of Plymouth’s national centre for marine autonomy. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has spent the past 12 months or more looking into how to remove licensing obstacles for autonomous vessels such as underwater drones. Given that Plymouth’s marine autonomy sector is set to receive a share of the £250 million defence growth deal, will the Secretary of State commit to putting further pressure on the Government Legal Service—or whoever else it will take—to get the legislation in place to update the MCA’s workboat code 3 as a matter of urgency?

    Hansard source
16. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Support for Defence SMEs

    Domo Tactical Communications in my constituency manufactures drones and communications equipment used around the world. It is having some problems engaging with the Ministry of Defence on sovereign capability, and the previous Minister of State for Defence Procurement was due to visit the company in my constituency, but that meeting has since fallen through since the reshuffle. The Minister confirmed on 25 November that he would visit. Can I ask that the meeting is arranged as soon as possible, please?

    Hansard source
17. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    China and Japan

    I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, but it is utterly reprehensible that he began it by accusing the previous Government of isolationism—the same Conservative Government who—[Interruption.] The Business and Trade Secretary is laughing, but let me tell him this. That same Conservative Government led the world in our response to the invasion of Ukraine and signed the vital strategic alliance of AUKUS—[Interruption.] The Business Secretary asks how many free trade agreements we did. We signed Britain’s biggest post-Brexit trade deal—the CPTPP—bringing us closer to the 11 Indo-Pacific nations, including Japan. I know about that deal because I signed it myself. I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to collaborate more with our long-standing ally Japan, but let me turn to China. Of course Britain should engage with China. Even though the Chancellor was not allowed to go, even though it is an authoritarian state that seeks to undermine our interest, even though it spies on us—sometimes within the walls of this building—and even though it funds regimes around the world that are hostile to our country, China is a fact of life, a global power and an economic reality. Let me be clear: it is not the Prime Minister engaging with China that we take issue with. What we are criticising is his supine and short-termist approach. I am sure that the Prime Minister means well, but his negotiating tactic has always been to give everything away in the hope that people will be nice to him in return. Before the Prime Minister had even got on the plane, he had already shown that he would do anything to demonstrate his good relationship with China. China, however, uses every interaction to improve its own position. The Prime Minister looked like he enjoyed his trip—in fact, it looked like a dream come true for a man who was virtually a communist most of his life. Apart from the Labubu doll in his suitcase—which I hope he has checked for bugs—the Prime Minister has come back with next to nothing. We all want cheaper tariffs for Scotch whisky, but if the Prime Minister had bothered to speak to the whisky industry, as I did two weeks ago, he would know that what it really needs is cheaper energy and lower taxes. The Prime Minister also got us visa-free travel, but China already offers that to other countries. It is not big enough for a prime ministerial visit. The worst thing was the Prime Minister claiming a glorious triumph with the lifting of sanctions on four Conservative MPs, as if he had done us a favour. Let me tell him this: those MPs were sanctioned because they stood up to China. They stood up against human rights abuses, and they stood up against a country that is spying on our MPs in a way that the Prime Minister would not dare to do. Those Members do not want to go to China. The Chinese know that. They know that they are giving him something that costs absolutely nothing. Why can the British Prime Minister not see that? I say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House that, like with the Chagos islands, the Prime Minister has been played. China is about to build an enormous spy hub in the centre of London—a ransom he had to pay before he could even get on the plane. I would never allow Britain to be held over a barrel like that. Yet again, the Prime Minister has negotiated our country into a weaker position in the world. His entire economic policy is to tax businesses more, regulate them harder and make energy so expensive that we deindustrialise, and then we can import Chinese wind turbines, solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles—all manufactured in a country that builds a coal-fired power station every other week. Did he speak to the Chinese about that? What did the Prime Minister’s trip achieve for Jimmy Lai? Nothing. Did China promise to stop fuelling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine? It does not sound like it. What did this trip achieve for the Uyghurs who are being enslaved? Absolutely nothing. Has China agreed to stop its relentless cyber-attacks? We all know the answer to that. The reality is that China showed its strength, and Britain was pushed around, literally. It is no wonder that President Xi praised the Labour party; the Conservatives stood up for Britain—we do not get pushed around. Britain is a great trading nation. Of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones—[Interruption.]

    Hansard source
18. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    China and Japan

    Mr Speaker, I am not worried about the Business Secretary; the entire business community thinks he is a joke and does not know what he is talking about. As I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. That requires a Prime Minister and a Government who put our national interest first.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Support for Veterans

    We had hoped to see the Minister for the Armed Forces today, but we accept that he is on manoeuvres. More seriously, we learned last week that the Prime Minister’s interest in British Army veterans once even stretched to working with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner to help prosecute them. What is the Minister’s reply to the subsequent comment from General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said of those actions: “If that’s the Prime Minister’s moral stance, then one has to ask questions about how compatible that is with his job of making decisions about putting soldiers in harm’s way in the national interest for the defence of the realm”? What is the answer to the former Chief of the General Staff?

    Hansard source
20. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Support for Veterans

    Let us try this for detail. Why should any British soldier, past or present, or those who commanded them, owe loyalty to a Labour Government who contain an Attorney General who once willingly represented Gerry Adams, or to a Prime Minister who once wrote a legal treatise on how best to prosecute them under the European convention on human rights? Why, before he was elected to Parliament, did our Prime Minister agree to take formal legal instructions from Phil Shiner, a man hated throughout the British Army for his years of false claims against veterans, for which he was convicted as a fraudster and struck off? What kind of politicians support our soldiers by helping to sue them?

    Hansard source
21. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Topical Questions

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that the Veterans Minister, who is still here, may have inadvertently misled the House earlier. According to House of Lords legal records, from 29 to 31 October 2007 in the al-Jedda case against British soldiers held before the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the applicants were represented by several QCs, including the now Prime Minister, who were instructed—it is in the records—by Public Interest Lawyers, Phil Shiner’s law firm. Would the Minister or the Prime Minister care to correct the record?

    Hansard source
22. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

    The Opposition recognise the importance of this Bill and the shared international ambition to protect the world’s oceans and marine ecosystems. We support the principle of effective global co-operation in this area and we want this legislation to succeed. However, it is precisely because of the Bill’s significance, its reach across the devolved Administrations and its potential financial and regulatory consequences that it demands the highest standards of scrutiny and clarity. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of questions for the Minister today. I hope that, in that same constructive spirit, she seeks to answer them fully. We know that the Government tabled quite a number of amendments to the Bill on Report in the House of Lords. Those amendments are before us today. It is rather disappointing that the Government needed to do this at such a late stage in the Bill’s passage. As my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, tabling amendments at such a late stage was not conducive to the best Lords scrutiny. Does the Minister accept that the work with the devolved Administrations that led to the tabling of these amendments should have taken place earlier? Are lessons going to be learned for future legislation? On the new clauses on consultation with Scotland and Northern Ireland to be inserted after clauses 9 and 12, can the Minister confirm that this definitely does not stray into legislative consent territory? Can she also set out what would happen if Scottish or Northern Irish Ministers did not approve of measures during the consultation process? Regarding the new clause to be inserted after clause 12 relating to the new regulation-making power, what would happen if, say, the Scottish Government decided to take a divergent path or set up a system that put themselves at odds with the UK Government’s position? Is there a risk to the operability of the system there? The Government’s own impact assessment found that this Bill would generate compliance costs for those involved in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources and related digital sequence information. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those costs are not prohibitive to the very research we are hoping to promote through the Bill? While there are still many unanswered questions about enforcement, it is hard to see how the compliance, licensing and enforcement will be cheap. What level of resource is going to be put into enforcing the regime? A Ways and Means resolution is required for this Bill precisely because it will lead to costs to the public purse, so what assessment have the Government made of the value for money in this respect, and what is the cost-benefit ratio? The final-stage impact assessment also refers to potential future costs if emergency legislation is needed to respond to any further decisions made by the convention on biological diversity. Can the Minister clarify the parameters? What are the Government anticipating, how much money do they assess might be involved, and are they planning to ensure that the risk of unintended consequences is mitigated? It would be impossible not to mention the tension between the Government’s ambitions with regard to this Bill and their surrender of the Chagos islands, which may well see the dismantling of an exemplar marine protected area. Can the Minister tell us exactly what undertaking Mauritius has given to the MPA? Will she identify any red lines that the Government have clearly set out, and will she tell us precisely what continuing role Britain will play in MPA management in respect of the terms of the treaty? For example, have the Government had any discussions about preventing damaging Chinese trawler boats from accessing the MPA? We all share the objective of protecting our oceans and safeguarding biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction —indeed, that is why it was a Conservative Government who first signed up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—but good intentions on their own are not enough. The House is entitled to clear answers on scrutiny, devolution, operability, cost, enforcement and value for money, as well as honesty about how the Bill sits alongside the Government’s wider actions on marine protection in the British overseas territories. Until Ministers can provide that clarity and reassurance, there remains a real risk that a Bill designed to lead internationally will instead create uncertainty at home. I urge the Minister to respond fully to the questions raised today, so that the House can be confident that this legislation is workable, proportionate and worthy of the ambitions that the Government have for it.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

    I thank the Minister for answering my question on the potential for the Scottish Government to take a different approach to implementing the Bill. If ongoing conversations are under way, will the Minister tell us whether an indication has been given by the Scottish Government that they want to implement the Bill in a different way?

    Hansard source
24. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Indefinite Leave to Remain

    Thank you, Ms Lewell, for chairing the debate today. The House has had a great many opportunities to discuss indefinite leave to remain and its impact on people, including debates in this Chamber on consequential matters such as those working in the healthcare sector and BNOs. Underpinning all these debates is the principle of what constitutes a fair migration system and what does not. Many Members have made impassioned arguments about what they believe would make a fair system. However, Members who have participated in previous debates on this matter will be well aware that I must respectfully disagree with some of their proposals, particularly any that would create weaker criteria around indefinite leave to remain. The petitions seek either to maintain the five-year period or to provide exemptions to the rules that the Government have set out regarding potential changes to the receipt of benefits. If we were to follow the suggestions in the petitions, the Government’s proposals on settlement would be left in tatters and wholly ineffectual. When the proposals were announced, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said that there was much in them that we supported—partially because much in them was familiar from the amendments we tabled during the passage of the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. Having spent many hours in the Public Bill Committee discussing that legislation nearly a year ago, I can say with absolute certainty that a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed, and it is something that we continue to support. The right to citizenship and permanent residency should go only to those who have demonstrated a real commitment to the UK, and a 10-year period is clearly more reflective of the level of commitment that many in this country would accept as a reasonable timeframe, in terms of both contribution and time to settle. The British people want and demand tougher action on immigration. We believe that this is a perfectly reasonable alteration to the existing system that puts more robust measures in place to ensure that settlement is based on the long-standing contribution that many of us would expect. Even though we have seen reductions in net migration, with the Office for National Statistics stating that “decreases in work-related and study-related immigration” continue to follow policy reforms from early 2024, the immigration figures remain historically and exceptionally high, and far greater than before the pandemic. The Government must take action to reduce immigration, and they must do so imminently, recognising that the timeframe for these changes is dictated by a significant cohort. Between 2015 and 2020, total grants of settlement were never over 100,000. In the years either side of that, with the exception of 2010—the last year of the previous Labour Government—they were never more than 200,000.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Indefinite Leave to Remain

    There has been a lot of passionate debate today, and well-meaning suggestions for changes or exemptions to the Government proposals were passionately advanced. Some were related to salary, to age or to people’s grasp of the English language; some referred to people’s community contributions, to the make-up of a person’s family or to people’s role in public services. Compassion is infinite, but this country’s resources are not. We need a system that is fair for UK citizens, including those who are currently struggling to get on the housing ladder.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Indefinite Leave to Remain

    I will carry on. Between 2015 and 2020, total grants of resettlement were never over 100,000. In the years either side of that—except in the last year of the previous Labour Government—they were never more than 200,000. In contrast, the Government’s own settlement consultation sets out estimates showing far greater numbers of people being granted settlement between 2026 and 2030. It projects that the peak could reach as high as 620,000 in 2028, with as many as 2.2 million receiving settlement over that period. That is simply not sustainable.

    Hansard source
27. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Indefinite Leave to Remain

    No. I think we can all understand why people want to achieve settlement more quickly, but the policies we set must be based on what is right for our country. We should maintain our resolve, and ensure that changes are enacted without creating loopholes or alternative routes beyond what the Government have set out. The approach is wholly responsive to the current situation, and reflects the fact that we need much stronger policies that deliver a fair system for British citizens and those who have already legally settled in the UK. I want to re-emphasise the points raised when the policy was announced, which include the point that the thresholds for earnings to demonstrate net contribution set out in the consultation must be sufficiently high to ensure that those who are granted settlement contribute to this country. Furthermore, the Government’s own work has highlighted some of the mechanisms people use to take advantage of existing immigration rules, so have the Government been developing strong rules to ensure that adjustments to the baseline for behaviour, such as volunteering, represent a significant contribution? If we do not have sufficiently strong criteria for what constitutes working in the community, I fear the proposals risk being undermined. The British people care fundamentally about fairness. The British people demand stronger borders. Immigration has been far too high for far too long. Too many people refuse to accept that simple fact. As has been said, if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw ever more people on to a path that starts with anger and ends with hatred. We need an immigration system that is fair and proportionate and does not take taxpayers for a ride. For too long the right to remain in the UK has been seen as an automatic entitlement. It has become a conveyor belt to citizenship, when UK citizenship should be a privilege that is earned through commitment and contribution to our country. The Conservatives believe that the UK is not a dormitory or a hotel, but our home. We must make changes to indefinite leave to remain, both to respond to the levels of immigration and so that we can have a fairer system for the future.

    Hansard source
28. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    China and Japan

    In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister mentioned Scunthorpe steelworks, where hundreds of my constituents are employed. We welcome the Government’s support to date. Was he able to discuss Jingye’s ownership with his Chinese opposite number, and can he give any positive assurances to my constituents about their long-term future?

    Hansard source
29. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Support for Veterans

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whose job is it to protect and enhance the moral component of fighting power?

    Hansard source
30. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    China and Japan

    I just want clarification on the Members of this House who were formally sanctioned. The Prime Minister said: “President Xi said to me that means all parliamentarians are free to travel to China”. Does that mean that they are no longer legally sanctioned, and did he get that in writing?

    Hansard source
31. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    When the Prime Minister sacked Lord Mandelson as the American ambassador, Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and I pointed out to them that for the whole time he was our ambassador he had been subject to politically fatal kompromat, which left him open to leverage—as it finally played out. I said that if we had found out he was spying for Russia or China, we would be turning every single aspect of his time in office inside out, to find out the truth, and the Government said, “Well, he’s been sacked.” Does the Minister regret the fact that, following Mandelson’s sacking, the Government did not do the sort of due diligence and inquiries that might have unearthed the documents from the Department of Justice?

    Hansard source
32. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Operation Banner Veterans

    11. What steps he is taking to support veterans of Operation Banner.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Operation Banner Veterans

    Today was my brother’s birthday. He was a veteran who died at age 36, and he would be proud that today I am talking about the 250,000 veterans of Operation Banner. Those veterans put their lives at risk to fight to keep us safe and free and they deserve our support, so will the Minister explain why the Government no longer believe those veterans deserve to be protected from more years of lawfare?

    Hansard source
34. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    China and Japan

    The SNP Scottish Government undertook a secretive trip to Beijing last year, and caught a case of renminbi fever while they were there. They are now blundering around on the world stage, desperate for Mingyang to put money into Ardersier. Notwithstanding the jobs issue, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take cognisance of national security issues? We do not want jobs at any cost, and we cannot allow wind farms to have Chinese kill switches fitted.

    Hansard source
35. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Topical Questions

    T4. Last year, the Government sold off our fishing rights in return for access to the EU’s Security Action for Europe defence fund, but they did not get a penny in return. The Prime Minister, who is in the Chamber, now says that he wants to renegotiate. Will the Secretary of State please explain what lessons he has learned from the failures in negotiations last year?

    Hansard source
36. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

    I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks for what must have seemed a very thankless task in the Select Committee. This is a slightly odd legislative vehicle, but the motion is a practical mechanism used by the last Government to allow for continued progress on railway improvements to create Northern Powerhouse Rail, and it was moved across three Sessions of Parliament. The Conservative Government of the day decided to carry over this Bill to use it as a wrapper to support Northern Powerhouse Rail. The project was championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) during his Administration, so it is no surprise to me that the Government have followed his lead in their proposal to carry it over again. Back in May 2024, Parliament reduced the scope of a much wider Bill to focus solely on NPR, so the issue now before this House is in fact a very narrow one: whether there is a collective will to progress development of a roughly 15-mile stretch of track as part of this Government’s plans to progress Northern Powerhouse Rail. The House is also being asked to agree to the establishment of a new Select Committee. That obviously matters because the Bill is a hybrid Bill, and it is through the Select Committee process that outstanding petitions from those directly affected will be considered. It is also the structure through which any additional provisions brought forward by the Government to reshape the Bill will be scrutinised, and those newly affected, if there are any, by any proposal will be given the opportunity to be heard. If this Bill is to be properly repurposed, it clearly makes sense that the work of the associated Select Committee carries on. The Opposition accept the rationale for allowing the current process to survive the end of this parliamentary Session to give the Government further time to continue their work. However, while we agree that they should continue with the Bill, it is with increasing concern that I look at the lack of progress they are actually making. We are a year and a half into the Labour Administration, and all we got a couple of weeks ago was a fanfare announcement that Labour would commission consultants’ reports on how Northern Powerhouse Rail could be built. There are not just a few reports, but £275 million of reports every year of this Parliament—£1.1 billion of them—but no sign of any significant building works. Real progress has been kicked down the road, perhaps because the Secretary of State knows that she does not have the money to do what she has promised. His Majesty’s Treasury has capped Northern Powerhouse Rail at £45 billion, yet that was the claimed cost back in 2019. That was before covid, since when, as we all know, costs have soared. She knows that she does not have the money, so she distracts her Back Benchers with castle-in-the-air planning, with the taxpayer picking up the bill. I asked the Secretary of State a fortnight ago for clarity, transparency and even an indication of how the funds were to be reconciled, and she huffed and she puffed, and said she would not be lectured, but she did not answer the question. We are none the wiser as to how the Government expect to fill the gap. What cuts will she be forced to make, and are they to the high-speed section? Perhaps she could tell the House today. It would have been better for the public to have had such clarity nearly three weeks ago than the spectacle of the Secretary of State signing bits of paper on her rail tour of northern cities. We want to see these schemes come in on budget and in a timely manner, and addressing local concerns so that communities are not just spoken to, but listened to. To get the best possible result for taxpayers, the Government need to avoid overly onerous environmental mitigations that impose huge costs for minimal benefit. They talk of deregulation to speed up the process, but where is the action to deregulate? We need to see the Government choosing supply chains based on cost and performance, with value for money for the taxpayer right at the heart of their decision-making process, bringing costs down while speeding up construction. However, the Government are not doing this hard work, and we need a Government with sufficient backbone to be honest about what they can afford to achieve. There is no sign of that. It is on actual delivery that this Government will be judged—not just by me and by the Opposition, but by the public, who, right now, are being let down.

    Hansard source
37. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

    I am the first to accept that there are serious lessons to be learned from the delivery of HS2. However, the Secretary of State has so far failed to mention how she proposes to deliver all that she has promised within a financial cap of £45 billion, given that the estimate for the works back in 2019 was, I think, £46 billion—from memory. What is she not going to do in order to stay within the Treasury’s £45 billion cap?

    Hansard source
38. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026 Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. The two sets of regulations together set out the new tiered business rates system for the 2026 financial year. In plain English, the first set of regulations defines who gets which business rates multiplier under the new system, and the second sets out how much large premises will pay. Of course, ahead of the election the now Prime Minister said that there would be a new regime of “permanently lower business rates”. Indeed, the Chancellor said at the Budget, referring to these measures, that these business rates were at their lowest level since 1991. The reality is proving somewhat different. Businesses are facing major increases, and claims to the contrary are false. Their bills are going up. That is why I, along with the shadow Housing Secretary and shadow Business Secretary, have written to the Office for Statistics Regulation, as it is statistically misleading to make the claim of record low taxes on the basis of the multipliers, as those are not the tax rates. I was pleased to have confirmation on Friday that the Office for Statistics Regulation is looking into this matter as we speak. I will now turn to the regulations. In their first Budget, the Labour Government chose to cut back retail, hospitality and leisure rate relief introduced by the last Conservative Government from 75% to 40%. That was a tax raise of £1.1 billion a year. Through these measures, they have axed that relief in its entirety, which means higher bills. The Government have also locked in automatic inflation-linked rises every single year. What will the result of that be? The Office for Budget Responsibility expects business rate receipts to increase by £3.5 billion next year, a 10% increase in a single year. For small and medium-sized businesses, that is incredibly challenging. The bill of the average independent pub will rocket from £4,000 in 2024-25 to nearly £10,000 by 2028-29, a rise of 144%. The position of shops, hotels and restaurants is even worse than that. At this point, it is usual for Ministers—indeed, for this Minister—to claim that the last Conservative Government would simply have abolished the relief overnight. Of course, that is utter nonsense, and I welcome the opportunity to get that on the record. It is simply a desperate attempt to deflect from what we can see are the bad political choices that the Chancellor and her Ministers have made. As the Conservative Party manifesto said, we would: “Continue to ease the burden of business rates for high street, leisure and hospitality businesses”, and our record is one of supporting the sector and the people creating jobs across the country. Under the new system set out in these regulations, combined with the revaluation, businesses across retail, leisure and hospitality face much higher bills, and fewer will benefit compared with the 40% relief, because under that scheme, as is set out in the explanatory notes, local authorities had more discretion over which premises benefited from the relief. Will the Minister tell us what the Government’s estimate—the Valuation Office Agency will undoubtedly have provided one to the Treasury— of the number of businesses that will not get the relief under the discretionary powers that were there in the first place? The rates of the small and standard multipliers are set in separate regulations, so I will not dwell on those, but two months on from the Budget, we have already seen a partial reversal of the plans the Chancellor set out, despite the promises of lower multipliers and lower bills. Ministers may point to their pubs and live music relief as if it solves the problem, but it does not: it is a sticking plaster when there is a major wound that the Chancellor has caused. It covers just 38,000 out of 750,000 hospitality and leisure businesses—barely one in 20—and it excludes restaurants, cafes, shops, hotels, theatres and all the venues that will have been in touch with members of the Committee. One in four pubs will still pay more overall, even after that relief, and guess what? That relief is only temporary—indeed, a sticking plaster. The Minister previously said there would be no further support for the wider sector. We all hope that he has to come back to the House with that package soon enough, or perhaps the Chancellor will actually do it herself when she delivers her spring update. The draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026 set the rate for the new high value multiplier. The standard multiplier will be 48p, and the high value multiplier will be 50.8p—an extra 2.8p in the pound. Big online warehouses, with a rateable value of at least £500,000, are supposedly the target, but twice as many retail sites, often acting as anchors for our high streets, will now face this higher rate. That is not what Labour promised before the election. It said it would replace the business rates system, raising the same revenue in a fairer way and levelling the playing field between high streets and online giants. Will the Minister explain why the Government are targeting anchor retail stores that are so important to our wider high streets? Of course, these higher rates come on top of higher employment costs, increased alcohol duties and the new tourist tax on hotels and bed and breakfasts, which UKHospitality warns could cost consumers £518 million, if the mayors take up the powers given to them by the Government. We would take a very different approach. We would deliver permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses of up to £110,000, helping around 250,000 small businesses, and we would pay for it by controlling the welfare budget. We believe in backing those taking a risk, employing people and investing.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Support for Defence SMEs

    I associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed to the families of Lord Wallace, Lord Flight and, of course, Captain Philip Muldowney. Last June, from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to deliver the defence investment plan by the autumn. He failed to do so. At our previous oral questions in December, he promised to work “flat out” to deliver the DIP by the end of the year. He failed to do so. With continual dither and delay, it is no surprise that reports last month indicated the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. The DIP is well overdue, so can the Secretary of State confirm that it will finally be published this month?

    Hansard source
40. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Topical Questions

    Last August, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius said that when his Government take sovereignty over the Chagos islands, nuclear weapons could no longer be stored there. In last week’s Chagos debate, in answer to our repeated questioning as to whether that was true, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry replied three times by reading annexe 1 of the treaty, whereby it grants “unrestricted ability to…control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”. Does the use of the word “weapons” in that sentence of the treaty definitely include nuclear weapons?

    Hansard source