Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Firearms Licensing

   My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is important that the Government and the civil servants supporting them consider the wider impacts of these changes if they are implemented. Firearms legislation has been crucial to keeping people safe and there are practical, workable measures that the Government could take to improve it, but this proposal is not one of them. It will make it harder for those who work in our rural communities to do their jobs. The Government must listen to the evidence, to those who have responded to the consultation and to the Members across the Chamber. I urge them to abandon these plans because they will not work and they will severely impact jobs, the economy and our rural way of life.

   Hansard source
2. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

   Firearms Licensing

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Scotland has been talked about quite a lot here today. Policing in Scotland is separate, but the proposed changes would affect Scotland, and it is worth having a look at some of the figures associated with Scotland. Figures from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation show that there are something like 68,000 active participants in shooting in Scotland, and many of them are in my Dumfries and Galloway constituency—it is not quite a gun by every fireside, but it is not far away. Much of the shooting in my area is not about toffs; it is not about people helicoptering in to shoot grouse. Obviously, there will be some people who use guns as tools of the trade, but it is mostly very much locals—locals who enjoy rough shooting, keep dogs and will go out of an afternoon in the beautiful Galloway hills and may fire off only one or two cartridges at pheasants, which are of course a non-native species. Shooting is also a great driver of tourism in my area. The area struggles, because it tends to be “go-through”—we have the port of Cairnryan, which is very close to the Northern Ireland constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—but we are trying to make it “go-to”, and shooting is one of the things that can help us with that. BASC puts the total economic activity in Scotland from shooting at around £760 million. That is not an inconsiderable sum considering the economy of remote and rural Scotland. It is a big number, but I like to bring it down to a smaller scale. I think of businesses such as D&W Countryways in Newton Stewart—a small shop that sells various items of clothing that people need when they are out and about, because we do occasionally get rain in Dumfries and Galloway. It also sells shotgun shells and associated items. That business would potentially disappear under this new burden, because the number of shotgun owners would reduce dramatically. That would leave a gap on the high street, and we have no end of difficulties with our high streets at the moment. We also have places such as the Penninghame estate, which, unusually, is a converted prison. It is trying to bring in high-end shooting parties. That is a great generator of the thing we lack most of all in Dumfries and Galloway: jobs. Depopulation is what kills areas like mine. When remote and rural Scotland suffers depopulation, it tends to be disastrous. Those jobs help insulate us from and protect us against that. With deference to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), I do shoot but I have not been shot. I would like to keep it that way, if at all possible. As a schoolboy, I saved the life of someone who managed to shoot themselves—to be clear, the round that he shot himself with was stolen. The issue is that it is very difficult to legislate to prevent criminals from doing things. Obviously, they tend to ride roughshod over the law. We have heard from hon. Members that shotgun and firearms owners tend be among the most punctilious, careful and law-abiding people. They tend to avoid any involvement with the police; in fact, very often the only contact they will have with the police is when the police come to check up on their firearm certificate. As such, we are possibly looking at—to coin a phrase—the wrong target, and I wonder what problem we are trying to solve. Obviously, there are horrendous incidents, which are very difficult to prevent, and we must think about the people who are victims of those things, but we have some of the tightest regulations in the world already. I know how tight they are: when I was renewing a shotgun licence and the police came to interview me, they asked me where I kept the shotgun and I jokingly said, “Under my wife’s side of the bed, because no one ever goes there.” The officer said, “Shall I note that down?” and I said, “No, let’s not go there.” This is a really serious matter. The tone of the debate is tremendous, but let us not pretend for one second that this is a tidying-up exercise. The proposed change is really quite profound, and the move to merge sections 1 and 2 would have a deleterious effect on shooting, and thereby on the rural economy. The key message I am picking up—I hope the Minister might touch on this—is that better enforcement trumps more law for the sake of more law. There is no point in us passing laws here and saying, “Never mind the quality, feel the width.” The danger is that we pass the law that, unfortunately, we pass most often in this House: the law of unintended consequences. There are better ways to address the nut that we are trying to crack.

   Hansard source
3. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Firearms Licensing

   Thank you very much for chairing the debate, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), my constituency neighbour, on opening it in such a measured way, which I think has been noted by all of us. I need to start by declaring my interests. I hold a firearm certificate and a shotgun licence. I believe that I am still a member of the Countryside Alliance; I have not checked recently, but it is very good at taking the direct debit. I also represent a rural community. That is not a formal declaration of interest, but it is why I am here today. In my constituency, there is, overwhelmingly, a mixture of bafflement and anger. People are baffled because they cannot see what problem the Government are trying to fix with this potential legislative change, and they are angry—very angry. I recognise that it may not be the Government’s intention and that we are talking about a consultation, so it is early stages, but this feels like another ignorant attack on rural communities, with no proper interest as to the adverse consequences caused. We have heard many excellent speeches today, and I will do my best not to repeat the points that have already been made, but I want to start by acknowledging that this is a deeply emotive issue, because every death caused by a gun—or any other weapon, for that matter—is in itself a tragedy. However, we are legislators and it is our duty to put aside emotion, focus on the facts and take a rational approach, even if that can sometimes lead us to slightly uncomfortable and emotive responses, so let us try to do that. It is the first principle of government, when considering curbing individual liberties, that the Government must have cause and that the benefit sought must significantly outweigh the damage caused as a result of the removal of liberty, so what is the issue that the Government are trying to deal with here? The quick answer is public safety, but how much crime has been committed by legal holders of shotguns? Of all crime, it is a vanishingly small percentage. In fact, 0.00006% of crime is undertaken by legal holders of shotguns. I am told that homicides with legally owned shotguns averaged 3.8 per annum over the last decade, so people have a significantly higher chance of winning the lottery than of being a victim of homicide with a legally held shotgun. It is about a one-in-15-million chance. To put that in context, 50 people tragically lose their lives every year because of faulty cooking appliances and 40 lose their lives because of accidents with ladders. We are talking about an average of 3.8 people tragically losing their lives as a result of legally held shotguns, so that is the size of the prize: reducing a long-term average of 3.8 deaths per year—but to what? It will not be to zero, because any system will contain a remaining risk. Sensibly, we all recognise that no system would be 100% successful, other than a system that removed all shotguns from the public, and we know that even if the Government were successful at removing all shotguns, other forms of lethal weapon are readily available. There are more than 200 deaths per annum as a result of knives. For as long as we like to cook food and eat it, knives will be available, so even if the Government were successful at reducing the number of fatalities because of legally held shotguns, it does not necessarily follow that there would be a reduction in the number of killings. We are talking, at best, about a partial reduction in the number of killings from a maximum of 3.8, and yet the potential cost of the proposals that the Government are considering is enormous. We have already heard from right hon. and hon. Members that there would be a huge impact in the form of a need for increased police resources. People like me apply for a firearms licence, and at the moment about 3,700 of those are renewed each year, which places a significant administrative burden on our police forces. On average, 150,000 shotgun licences are renewed annually. Even if we look just at the economic cost of the application fee, that would amount to an additional cost of £7 million, and that is before the cost of the police resources. Many people will think that it is not worth the candle and will give up shooting because it is simply too onerous. Other Members have already talked about the potential loss of about 20,000 full-time equivalent jobs and a loss to the economy of getting on for £1 billion.

   Hansard source
4. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Firearms Licensing

   My right hon. Friend is of course right. I do not have the data—I am trying to stick with data in the argument I am constructing—but the principle he mentions is a sound one. If we focus our resources in the area where the risk is greatest, we are likely to have a better beneficial impact. [Paula Barker in the Chair] The Countryside Alliance estimates that the measures will have a huge impact on the value of shooting to the economy, with a loss of about £875 million. And for what gain? This is the difficult bit, because I am going to consider the value of a life. Of course, in one sense, every life is priceless, but in policy terms, we already attribute an economic value to life. In my other job as shadow Rail Minister, I asked the Office of Rail and Road to give me the economic cost of a saved life on the railways; the answer is £4 million. It is worth spending £4 million on a piece of infrastructure if, over the course of its use, it saves a life. That is the rule of thumb for rail. For road transport, it is actually much less than that. I am not suggesting that every death has the same value economically, because as a society we would be prepared to pay a lot more to prevent a violent murder than even a tragedy on the railway. But that is the level of magnitude at which, in policy terms, we as legislators have decided the economic value of a life sits. However, with these measures, the Government appear to be proposing a change in the law that will have an impact of several hundred million pounds—getting on for £1 billion—in order to reduce the number of deaths from a maximum long-term average of 3.8 to some number less than that, but still well above zero. On any rational basis, there is simply no argument that holds water that suggests the price of 20,000 jobs and an economic hit, particularly to the rural economy, of close to £1 billion, in order to save a percentage of 3.8 lives over the course of a year, is a credible policy position. I recognise that what I have said is deeply uncomfortable, because we are talking about real people who suffer from tragedies. I join everyone in my deepest sympathy for people who have been affected by this issue in their family, or among their friends, but as a legislator it is my duty to look beyond that. That is why I have set out the data—to help the Minister approach this issue in the right way. I have said that my constituents are baffled, but they are also angry, because this feels like a tin-eared approach to the rural way of life. The measures fail to understand the community connections that bring rural communities together, and it feels like a Government who would propose them have no idea of who we are or how we live our lives. It feels like the Government do not understand and do not care—or perhaps they do, which would be even worse, but instead disapprove of our way of life. It feels like an attack on the rural way of life and economy without justification. The previous Conservative Government, as has been mentioned, did not consult on the proposed change to the law for a very good reason: it is a terrible idea.

   Hansard source
5. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Firearms Licensing

   Speak for yourself.

   Hansard source
6. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

   I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions during the passage of this Bill. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who has argued with true passion against the Bill, drawing on her own experience as well as her sound principles. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), my right hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke on Second Reading, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who spoke in Committee this evening, and pointed out with customary clarity the flaws in the reasoning of Labour Members. We have all seen the strength of feeling among MPs who support this Bill, but passion does not make a policy right. Children are a blessing, but they are also a responsibility. Parents up and down the country work long hours and make sacrifices to bring up their children. Many couples question whether they can afford one child, let alone three, four or five. They make tough but responsible choices, yet this Bill means they will be taxed to fund other people who make choices they know they cannot afford, and that is fundamentally unfair. It is unfair to people who make responsible decisions, unfair to people who decide to live within their means and unfair to the people who cannot get a job, let alone afford to start a family, because this Government are wrecking the economy with ever higher spending and higher taxes. People do not get a pay rise from their employer when they have another child; they make their money stretch further. However, for people on universal credit, this Bill means their benefits will rise by thousands of pounds for each extra child they have. Some families are about to get tens of thousands of pounds extra. A single parent with five children will be able to get £10,000 more, and an annual income just from benefits of over £45,000 untaxed. To get the same through work, someone would need to earn £60,000. I heard that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is standing behind the Chair, was due to talk about welfare reform this evening. I say to him and all Labour Members that anyone serious about welfare reform or about ending the welfare trap would vote against a Bill that makes benefits pay this much more than work. Anyone serious about fiscal responsibility would not vote for a Bill that adds £3 billion a year to the ballooning welfare budget and costs £14 billion over the next five years. That money is not just sitting there jingling in the Treasury bank account waiting to be spent on this; it will have to be taken from a small business desperately trying not to let staff go, from a family already struggling with food and energy costs, or from the next generation through higher borrowing. However Ministers dress it up, someone else will pay. Labour Members have said that this Bill cuts child poverty. What they generally mean is that it reduces relative poverty, a statistic that tells us nothing about whether children’s lives are actually looking up. They ignore that relative poverty tends to look better when the country gets poorer, which is exactly what their policies are doing to this country. They have done it before and they are doing it again—taxing more to spend more, killing growth and killing jobs. What really makes a difference to children’s lives is having their parents in work, but what are the Government doing about that? They are making it less likely. Under this Government, we have seen—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not want to hear it, but we have seen the fastest increase on record of children growing up without a parent in work. Unemployment has gone up every month; now it is at its highest for five years. This debate is about more than just one policy; it is about two different visions for our country. Labour’s answer to every challenge is the same: spend more money. Labour Members see people as victims of circumstance, and their instinct is always to compensate rather than change the circumstance. We see it differently. We know that children are better off if the country is better off; if there are more jobs, higher wages, lower inflation and stronger growth. Look at the moments in our history when living standards rose for everyone. It was when people were motivated to strive, ideas were turned into businesses and hard work reaped rewards. That is how countries get ahead and their children thrive. [Interruption.] I do not expect the argument that I am making to be popular in this Chamber, although—[Interruption.] I am not expecting Labour Members to like what I am saying, but it is popular out there in the real world. I know that every other party represented here wants to expand the state—not just Labour, but the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, Plaid, and who knows how Reform will vote tonight? I can see one Reform MP is here; maybe somebody will help his colleagues to find their way to the right Lobby tonight. I think Reform now says that it would keep the cap, but it still does not back it in principle; it is just a question of timing. Well, well. The Prime Minister has decided that the time is now because he needed to save his skin. He is not a Prime Minister who will take the tough decisions to control the welfare bill and make work pay, because that would require a backbone and the support of his Back Benchers. Only Conservatives are prepared to make the argument for welfare savings and stand up for principles like fairness, personal responsibility and living within your means. Other parties compete to be more generous with other people’s money; we do not. Conservatives believe in a country where work pays, responsibility is valued, and welfare is a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. That is the difference not just over the two-child cap, but over the direction of Britain itself.

   Hansard source
7. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

   The Prime Minister has today said that the independent ethics adviser will now investigate. Is this not another example of how poor his judgment is? Initially saying that the Cabinet Office could investigate someone who is now a Cabinet Office Minister was ludicrous; that was never going to be independent or comprehensive. The U-turn today is just so that his Chief Secretary had something to talk about in response to today’s urgent question, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) dragged him to the House for. Why is the Prime Minister’s judgment constantly so bad?

   Hansard source
8. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Firearms Licensing

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to the deer management course that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) also attended last December, which was hosted by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. For transparency, I should also say that I am a member of the Countryside Alliance and of BASC, and both those memberships predate my election to this place. I myself shoot, and I am a shotgun certificate holder. However, I have come to this debate to talk not about my own passion for shooting—even though I am my own MP—but about the importance that shooting has for my constituency. Some 477 constituents signed the petition, and I have had many emails from fellow shooters in the constituency, as well as from those considering taking up shooting, having their first go at a clay ground and applying for a shotgun certificate. Indeed, I cannot exemplify the importance of shooting to my constituency better than my constituent Stuart, who said that you only need to spot the game feeders in the fields from any train passing through Buckinghamshire to see how important shooting sports are in the constituency. Of course, it is not just shooting sports that would be affected by the changes in the petition. As others have said eloquently throughout the debate, yes, it is about shooting sports; yes, it is about the clay grounds; yes, it is about game shooting; but it is also about farmers, pest control and predator control. It is about things like deer management, and if we did not have deer management and people willing to get a firearms licence to stop our countryside being overrun—people who often get called out by the police themselves to deal with a deer that might have been knocked over in the road and need humanely dispatching—we would be in great difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) concluded by saying that the wider economic impact is not just on those who hold a shotgun certificate or a firearms licence; it is also on people such as David and Nicky Florent in my constituency, who run—despite its name, it is in Buckinghamshire—the Oxford Gun Company in the village of Oakley, which is a gun shop and shooting ground. They do sell not just shotguns, rifles, cartridges and ammunition, but the clothing ranges, boots, glasses, ear defenders and everything else that goes into shooting at large. That would be at risk if the change that is being consulted on by the Government, and that this petition is about, goes ahead. As others have said, this change could lead to a huge number of people saying, “It’s just not worth it any more.” They would not put themselves through the process of renewing a shotgun certificate or even getting one in the first place. After the last significant reform of the licensing regime—back in 1988—there was a decline of about a third in the number of participants in shooting. Estimates out there suggest that this change from section 2 to section 1 would lead to a similar reduction in the number of people wishing to put themselves through the process of renewing their firearms licence.

   Hansard source
9. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Firearms Licensing

   I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman; he puts it very well. Someone said earlier that holding a shotgun or a rifle is a privilege. Yes, it is a massive privilege, but it also comes with an absolutely ginormous responsibility, and I believe that everybody who legally holds a shotgun certificate or firearms licence takes that responsibility very seriously. They have often been taught from a young age the proper safety protocols around handling a firearm, and the importance of keeping it locked away and of cleaning it, which is important for one’s own safety when handling a firearm—if it is not clean, that can lead to significant problems. We should acknowledge just how seriously legitimate, legal, properly licensed shotgun and rifle owners in this country take their responsibilities. We all want a safe system; for those of us who have the privilege of owning a shotgun or a rifle—I do not have a firearms licence, and I have never applied for one—it is imperative that there is a safe system underpinning that, because it protects those who own them as well as those who do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) went through the statistics in considerable detail, so I will not repeat them. It is worth acknowledging that our hearts go out to anyone who is affected by or a victim of a tragedy at the hands of someone wielding a firearm illegitimately—whether they somehow cheated the system and got a certificate or not. However, fatalities involving legally held firearms are extraordinarily rare: around one in 15 million annually, as other Members have said. The significance of that, which I do not think anyone else has mentioned in the debate, is that that falls far below the Health and Safety Executive’s intervention threshold of one in a million. That is not to say that there cannot be proportionate, evidence-based reforms to the licensing system. In many respects, there probably should be, to tweak it and make it safer. But what I do not see—I do not think anybody in the debate has advocated this—is that merging section 2 into section 1 will solve any problems or make anybody in our great country safer. It would, however, bring considerable cost and bureaucracy. I am lucky, with Thames Valley, to have one of the better-performing police force firearms licensing departments in the country. But as others have said, some forces have been found considerably wanting when it comes to new grants and renewal lead times. On the other side of the coin is the enormous financial cost to our economy: shooting is worth £3.3 billion each year in its own right and generates £9.3 billion of wider benefits. My constituent Scott believes that merging sections 1 and 2 could cost £1 billion a year and 20,000 jobs, and evidence from the Countryside Alliance looking specifically at alignment between sections 2 and 1 shows that it would reduce the total value by £2.38 billion in the first year, with a loss of between 13,600 and 17,400 full-time jobs. This debate is looking at a live consultation. I urge the Minister to stop and reflect on what she has heard this afternoon and what the shooting community in my—and I dare say in everybody’s—constituency is saying on this matter. As she goes through the process of reforming police forces, per se, she should perhaps pause any conversation on the changes until we know what those police forces will actually look like. I have heard arguments on the other side of the debate about a national firearms licensing scheme, and particularly that the existing system has local officers who, although they cannot know every certificate holder or licence holder in their constituency, are closer to the people they are licensing. The Minister should look at the bigger picture—where we have significant change to the policing landscape—and pause, look at the evidence, and understand the potential for significant damage to both safety and the economic survival of this sport and of wider conservation activity. Finally, a lot has been said about this being an urban versus rural matter, but I do not believe that it is. My constituency is entirely rural. Yes, there are many shotgun certificate holders and firearms licence holders in my constituency, and there are clay grounds, many shoots and lots of farms. But if we look at the number of certificates issued across the country, this is just as important to many people who live in our cities. Every year, 21,000 certificates are issued by the Metropolitan police to London residents. This matters to people who shoot, no matter where they live. They might go to a game shoot or a clay ground in the countryside but live in our cities. This is far bigger than just a rural issue.

   Hansard source
10. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Building Safety Regulator

    When announcing reforms to the Building Safety Regulator last June, the Secretary of State’s Department promised to “enhance the review of newbuild applications, unblock delays and boost sector confidence”, but in London, where demand is highest, house building has fallen to its lowest level since 2009, which was under the last Labour Government. At gateway 2, towards the end of quarter 4 of 2025, there were still 740 live cases. On top of that, where decisions were made on applications, the vast majority were invalid, withdrawn or rejected; 67% were not classed as approved for one reason or another. That is not success, is it?

    Hansard source
11. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Building Safety Regulator

    With all due respect, the Government need to do an awful lot better than that. They hide behind the claim that there is a clear downward trend in live gateway 2 applications, but the reality, according to the Government’s own statistics across all categories, is that the number of live applications in London has fallen by a mere 6% in the last 12 weeks. That is hardly a reason to celebrate, is it? Will the Government admit that they, Sadiq Khan and their under-delivering reforms are hindering building, rather than helping to get London building?

    Hansard source
12. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

    The steps taken by the former head of Labour Together to smear journalists when they dared to look into the murky finances of this Labour think-tank are nothing short of chilling. No longer head of Labour Together, he is now serving as a Minister in the Cabinet Office, which is the Department currently looking into his actions, so he will be marking his own homework. When is the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office going to be sacked, if he will not do the decent thing and resign?

    Hansard source
13. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

    An additional concern that I have with the appointment of Peter Mandelson is that the American Government had compromising information in the form of the Epstein files. I wonder what consideration was given to the appointment of an ambassador who would be going into sensitive negotiations with a foreign Government knowing that that Government had compromising information. Will the Minister confirm that those considerations and that information is in scope of the disclosures?

    Hansard source
14. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving

    Clearly, the system needs reform, but many families that have managed to get through the system and get an EHCP will be concerned by the announcements and the uncertainty today. I note that the Government anticipate that by the end of this decade there will be a reduction in children with the highest need. Does the Secretary of State believe that that will be due to a reduction in their need or in provision?

    Hansard source
15. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Local Government Reorganisation

    What about the cancelled mayoral elections, such as those in Sussex and Hampshire? Do not the same arguments that the Secretary of State has made apply to those elections, or is he just afraid of our candidates, Katy Bourne and Donna Jones?

    Hansard source
16. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

    Regular updates are all well and good, and they are appreciated, but they are a classic Whitehall strategy for disguising managed delay. When we get the first tranche of documents, will the Minister ensure that it is substantial and deals with the two key issues: first, what the Prime Minister knew at the point when he appointed Mandelson, what the agencies knew and what the propriety and ethics team advised the Prime Minister in relation to Mandelson’s connection with the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, at the point of appointment; and secondly, the details of the dodgy, shady-looking Palantir deal involving Alex Karp, the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson?

    Hansard source
17. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving

    In April 2024, a much-needed SEND school at Bitham Park in Westbury in my constituency was given the green light by Wiltshire council and the Department for Education, with a planned in-service date for later this year. The Labour Government put that plan on pause. Is it the Secretary of State’s intention for that school to go ahead? If so, will she provide a timeline?

    Hansard source
18. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Leasehold Reform

    According to the Government’s own statistics, 84% of respondents to their consultation said they felt that the system for challenging unfair charges for managing agents and other lease arrangements was not fit for purpose. The Conservatives agree—that is why we legislated to address this in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has had a few distractions recently, but he has told the House that he is committed to addressing this matter. Can he tell all our leaseholder constituents by when the Government will enact that legislation, which we passed with his party’s support?

    Hansard source
19. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Grey-belt Land

    The Minister has set out clearly for the House the key plank of development strategy under the previous Secretary of State: re-designating large parts of our green belt as grey belt. Housing delivery is collapsing, but a recent report identified that London already has capacity for 460,000 additional homes on brownfield sites. At the mayor’s rate of delivery, that is an 83-year supply of housing development plots. Rather than focusing on releasing green belt for development, why do the Government not instead focus on building those homes that already have planning permission, and could be built on brownfield sites tomorrow?

    Hansard source
20. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    This is a short Bill, but it involves potentially raising and spending a huge amount of public money, so in the interests of thorough scrutiny, I will speak to Opposition amendments 3 and 4 to clause 2, concerning the use of public finance for exports that may ultimately be re-exported to sanctioned destinations. Our amendments would prevent the Government from providing export finance or insurance where there is reason to believe that goods may be re-exported to Russia, or to any other country subject to UK sanctions. In such cases, the Secretary of State’s financial commitments would be capped at zero. These amendments are not abstract. They respond to a very real problem in our world today that has been highlighted by independent analysis. For example, Sky’s Ed Conway has done extensive reporting showing that although direct exports to Russia have collapsed since sanctions were imposed, goods of UK origin are still reaching Russia through third countries. Exports to states such as Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Uzbekistan have surged by extraordinary amounts—sometimes more than 1,000%. Obviously, these are not normal market movements; they are clear indications of diversion routes being used to circumvent sanctions. These are not just trade flows on a spreadsheet. Sky News has shown that components of UK origin have been found inside Russian military equipment used on the battlefield in Ukraine. Among the items that have been identified in Russian systems are British-made microchips found in Russian drones, UK-origin electronic components inside Russian missiles and dual-use technology that should never have been able to reach Russia under the sanctions regime. Those components were not exported directly from the UK to Russia; they were routed through intermediary countries, often the same countries to which UK exports have suddenly spiked. President Zelensky has publicly raised concerns that UK goods are still making their way into Russia, despite sanctions. That is why we believe that amendments 3 and 4 are necessary. They represent a simple but important safeguard. The UK must ensure that its export finance system does not inadvertently support supply chains that undermine our sanctions regime. In the case of Russia, we must be absolutely certain that no UK-backed goods are being diverted in ways that could support its illegal war against Ukraine. The Minister has spoken about the need to expand UK Export Finance’s capacity and to support small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. We agree that export finance has an important role to play, but it must be deployed responsibly. I am sure that the whole Committee agrees that public money should never be used in ways that conflict with our foreign policy or national security objectives. Our amendments would ensure that the Government exercise due diligence, and that UK Export Finance support is aligned with the UK’s sanctions framework. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a constructive and proportionate proposal, and will want to support it tonight. New clause 2, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, is about the steel industry. We can all agree that steel made in the UK is a strategic foundation sector for the United Kingdom. It supports thousands of skilled jobs and underpins supply chains across manufacturing, construction and defence. We did not oppose the Government’s emergency legislation last April, although we warned that it was rushed, and that the Government did not have a proper plan. Nearly a year on from that emergency legislation, and nearly two years into this Government, we are still waiting for the long-promised steel strategy. The Government have still not been able to agree a deal with the Chinese, despite the Prime Minister’s visit to China. There has been secret meeting after secret meeting between Ministers and Jingye—meetings on which the Government have refused to update Parliament. New clause 2 would simply require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of the increased financial assistance limits on the UK steel industry. That report would set out, first, the amount of financial assistance provided each month to UK steel undertakings under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and secondly, the number of full-time equivalent steel jobs that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would have been lost without the increased limit. It is a straightforward accountability measure. If public money is being used to support the steel sector, Parliament and the public deserve to know how much is being spent, why it is necessary and what outcomes it is delivering. The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of steel, and we agree that steel is very important, but without a clear strategy or transparent reporting, it is impossible to judge whether interventions are effective, and whether they represent value for money. How do we know that we are not providing a limitless amount of funding that will crowd out support for other industries, and how can we assess whether it is good value for the taxpayer? New clause 2 would not constrain the Government’s ability to act; it would simply ensure that support is justified, targeted and effective. I hope that the Minister will recognise the value of this additional transparency and accept the new clause. I turn to amendments 1 and 2, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We believe that they are sensible and straightforward. If the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking is likely to be present in the supply chain of a business receiving export-supported goods, obviously the amount of public financial support should be zero. That is surely the only responsible position that this House can take. We are inherently supportive of the need for transparency in supply chains, and will support the amendments. I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Providing transparency on the amounts that are allocated across the whole United Kingdom would seem to be helpful assistance to this House.

    Hansard source
21. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    The hon. Member makes a very important point, and I know that the House will be eager to hear how enthusiastic the Minister is about all the amendments that have been tabled. I am sure we will shortly hear whether he supports them, or why he does not and why he will urge his colleagues to vote against them this evening.

    Hansard source
22. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    I sense that this is an occasion when the House would appreciate it if I were quite brief, but I am grateful to set out our support for the principles of the Bill, and we will not oppose it on Third Reading. The Bill raises the statutory limits in a way that will enable the Government to provide UK industry with additional support, and as His Majesty’s official Opposition we of course want exports to grow, investment to increase and UK firms to thrive. We also believe that public money must be used responsibly, transparently and only where it is genuinely needed, which is why we regret that the Government opposed our amendments this evening. The Government did not accept our amendments, but we will continue to press for greater transparency around these large sums and expenditure of public money. We will press for stronger safeguards and a more coherent industrial strategy, particularly in the steel sector. We want British businesses to succeed, and exporters to have the support they need. We want public money to be used wisely and in the national interest, so while we will not oppose the Bill today, we will continue to scrutinise closely the work of the Department.

    Hansard source
23. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Topical Questions

    T6. From his time at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State will be well aware of issues with agricultural planning, so will he guarantee to the House that he will take urgent action to unblock the system and unlock tens of millions of pounds back into the rural economy?

    Hansard source
24. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving

    I welcome the ambition to look again at the funding formula that so disadvantaged children in my constituency. I also welcome the additional provision for children with SEND in mainstream settings, but for many children, that is not appropriate; they need a specialist setting. One of the biggest problems I have locally is a lack of places in our special schools. In Bridlington, a plan for a new 120-place school was approved in May 2024. Can we ensure that officials in the Department work with my local authority to get that school built at the earliest possible opportunity?

    Hansard source
25. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
26. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
27. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clauses 2 and 3 stand part. New clause 1—Removal of two child limit: report on effects on children in households subject to the benefit cap— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the effects of this Act on households and children. (2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include an estimate of the total number of households, and the number of households in poverty, which will not receive— (a) an overall increase in benefit support from the abolition of the two child limit from April 2026 due to being subject to the overall benefit cap, and (b) the full potential increase in benefit support they would have been entitled to from the abolition of the two child limit from April 2026, but for the fact that they became subject to the overall benefit cap following any increase provided through the abolition of the two child limit, and the assessment must include the total number of children in such households, and the impact on the number of such households in poverty. (3) The estimates made under subsection (2) must include analysis at the following levels— (a) country, (b) county, (c) local authority, and (d) parliamentary constituency.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effects of the Act on households and children, including the number who will either not receive an increase in benefit support, or the full potential increase, because they are subject to the benefit cap. New clause 2—Report on the effects on households with a disabled family member— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the effects of this Act on the number of households in poverty with more than two children that have at least one disabled family member. (2) The assessment under subsection (1) must also consider— (a) the cumulative impact of changes to universal credit since July 2024 on households in poverty that have at least one disabled family member, and who are affected by this Act, and (b) any changes in the standard of living for households with— (i) three or more children, and (ii) at least one person in receipt of the Universal Credit health element, arising from implementation of this Act.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment of the effects of the Act on households in poverty that have at least one disabled family member. New clause 3—Review of the impact of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, review the effect of this Act on— (a) overall levels of child poverty in the UK; (b) levels of destitution and deep poverty among households with children; (c) households in receipt of Universal Credit which include children; (d) educational outcomes for children in households affected by poverty; (e) physical and mental health outcomes for children in households affected by poverty; and (f) longer-term impacts on economic participation, workforce skills, and demand on health and welfare services arising from child poverty and destitution. (2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the conclusions of the review.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the effects of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes. New clause 4—Assessment of the impact of the Act on child poverty— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the effects of this Act on children and child poverty. (2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider households with three or more children which are subject to, or as a result of this Act become subject to, the benefit cap. (3) The assessment must estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of— (a) implementation of this Act, and (b) implementation of this Act if households were not subject to the benefits cap. (4) The Secretary of State must consult the following organisations in undertaking the assessment— (a) Child Poverty Action Group, (b) End Child Poverty Coalition, (c) Save the Children UK, (d) The Children’s Society, (e) Barnado’s UK, (f) Action for Children, (g) Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and (h) any other organisation that he deems appropriate. (5) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of the assessment.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effects of this Act on children and child poverty in consultation with a number of relevant specialist organisations and also assess the cost of removing the cap.

    Hansard source
28. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
29. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
30. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    Order. I remind Members to speak specifically to the amendments.

    Hansard source
31. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    Order. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he has strayed some distance from the Bill.

    Hansard source
32. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    No, we are going to return to the amendments to the Bill.

    Hansard source
33. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    I call the Minister.

    Hansard source
34. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
35. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Grey-belt Land

    7. What definition his Department uses for grey-belt land for housing developments.

    Hansard source
36. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Grey-belt Land

    Bromsgrove golf course is in open countryside. It is a beautiful, green open space and one of the most popular golf courses anywhere in the country, and it contains more than 20,000 trees. Does the Minister really think that it is suitable for development, particularly at scale? Will he rule out development on such golf courses? If not, will he meet me and members of the golf club to discuss their concerns?

    Hansard source
37. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Firearms Licensing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing what has been a really balanced and thoughtful debate. I hope that the Minister has found it useful and will take lots of useful comments from it as the Government move forward with their plans. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on firearms licensing and the reforms we need to strengthen public safety while retaining the trust of responsible shooting communities. I begin with a case that has been referred to by hon. Members in this debate: the tragic Prosper case in Bedfordshire, which revealed serious vulnerabilities in our current licensing system. An individual, Nicholas Prosper, obtained a shotgun using a highly convincing forged certificate, which appeared legitimate to a lawful vendor. On the following day, he went on to commit a triple murder within his own family. That was on my doorstep in north Luton. Police later confirmed that he had also planned an attack on a local school, prevented only through the swift actions of Bedfordshire’s officers. Just last week I again met with a member of the extended Prosper family—someone whose life has been utterly shaken by this tragedy. Listening to their grief, their unanswered questions and their determination that no other family should ever endure such devastation has shaped my contribution to this debate. It took courage for them to speak out and to speak to me about something so profoundly painful; I am grateful, and I am hopeful that their experience will help drive the reforms needed to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. For that family and for our wider community, change must be about preventing real, life-altering harm and ensuring that the system designed to keep people safe cannot be exploited again. It is important to acknowledge that that case was not an isolated vulnerability. There has been at least one further attempt to use a similar forged certificate; fortunately, it was spotted by a vigilant registered firearms dealer, whose professionalism prevented a potentially catastrophic situation. However, we cannot depend on vigilance and instinct alone—public safety must rest on systems, not luck. At the centre of this issue lies the national firearms licensing management system. It is an outdated platform, unable to provide real-time certificate validation and no longer fit for the demands placed upon it. The Home Office is now tendering for its replacement, which is expected in mid-2027. Crucially, the new system will introduce real-time online certificate verification, akin, in my mind, to the MOT checking service that people are familiar with, and is strongly supported by the police, licensing experts and responsible shooting organisations. The replacement platform will enable wider modernisation, new digital licensing formats, stronger anti-fraud measures and a public portal allowing certificate holders to update basic information themselves. Those changes will reduce pressure on police forces, improve data accuracy and support a move to a more efficient and secure licensing environment. Serious concerns remain in the interim, however. The seven-day review mechanism is helpful, but it cannot eliminate the risks exposed in Bedfordshire and across the country. If a firearm is transferred before police notification, there is a dangerous window in which harm can occur. Bedfordshire police made clear to me in our interactions that the system must be capable of validating a certificate before the transfer proceeds, in order to make the secondary market much safer, and I agree. Some have suggested that the solution lies in a far more radical structural change: merging the section 2 shotgun licensing regime with the stricter section 1 system used for rifles and higher-powered firearms. I understand why people reach for a radical change in the wake of tragedy—it happens after every tragedy, and we have the strictest gun laws in the world as a result. Constituents understandably want reassurance and decisive action to ensure it never happens again, but the evidence simply does not support the approach being proposed by Government, for all the reasons explained by hon. Members here today. Shooting organisations and licensing specialists tell me that merging section 1 and 2 would not materially improve public safety. Both regimes already require rigorous background checks, suitability assessments and medical scrutiny. Tragedies have arisen from failures in the system, outdated technology and administrative gaps, not from the distinction between certificate types. A merger would generate significant unintended consequences: increased strain on already overstretched police licensing teams, slower processing times, higher costs for responsible shotgun owners, and damage to rural economies, game management and conservation work. At the same time, I must highlight the unacceptable licensing delays that residents and shooting organisations consistently report—delays that are particularly acute in my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, which falls under the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire firearms licensing unit. That unit is now formally recognised as the worst performing in the country: some applicants are waiting up to two years for renewals or grants, placing livelihoods, rural businesses, conservation activity and community clubs under real pressure.

    Hansard source
38. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Firearms Licensing

    I absolutely agree. My constituents, like the hon. Lady’s, want a system that works, that is swift and that is safe. The delays coincide with rising licensing costs, meaning that responsible, law-abiding certificate holders are paying more while receiving a poorer service. That is not sustainable, and any reform must ensure that those who follow the law are not unfairly penalised by the overstretched system. Crucially, merging regimes would not address the real vulnerability: the absence of real-time verification. I would be grateful if the Minister in her summing up could assure us that she understands that distinction and will take on those views as she moves forward with the legislative proposals. Across Bedfordshire, more than 1,000 residents, including nearly 300 in Mid Bedfordshire alone, have signed the national petition calling for section 1 and section 2 licensing to remain separate. Their message is clear: we must focus reforms on the real risks, not on measures that burden those who already comply with the law. A modern verification system will improve public safety; a structural merger of shotgun and firearms licences will not. I want to put on record my thanks to Bedfordshire police for their professionalism, insight and commitment to preventing further loss of life, and for the compassion they have shown to the Prosper family and the wider community. Their insight into the system’s shortcomings must shape the reforms that follow—we must empower them, not encumber them. Can the Home Office Minister now set out the precise timetable for delivering real-time verification, what interim safeguards will be put in place before 2027, and how both technological and legislative reforms will be accelerated? Our objective must be to ensure that what happened in Bedfordshire can never happen again. We owe that to the Prosper family, every family in the county and every community in the country—but we also owe it to the responsible shooting community to ensure that regulation is proportionate and supportive, rather than a block to their participation in country sports, conservation and stewardship. Before I conclude—I should have said this up front—I declare an interest: I have worked closely with BASC on this issue and I have been on a deer management course with BASC to improve my knowledge of firearms. I am not a firearms licence holder, but I have in the past held shotgun licences.

    Hansard source
39. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Firearms Licensing

    While we are on the topic of Bedfordshire, will the Minister reflect on the lessons that have been learned from the Prosper case? I went into it in some detail. It is of concern to not only my constituents but constituents in Luton—the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is here—so I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on it. In particular, what can be done to improve controls on the secondary market and the onward sale of guns?

    Hansard source
40. 23 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor

    Defence will be a key pillar of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. In my Huntingdon constituency, we are lucky to have RAF Wyton. It is in the middle of a very ambitious project, Project Fairfax, which will use surplus Ministry of Defence land. The MOD signed a memorandum of understanding with Huntingdonshire district council last year, and Homes England is a key part of that. Will the Minister meet me and the chief executive of Huntingdonshire district council to discuss how we can best supercharge these growth plans and make good progress on them?

    Hansard source