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

1. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

   I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I cannot disagree with anything she has said or with the clear passion with which she said that the Government wish to tackle antisemitism in this country. However, I put it to her and to the House that the scale of the emergency that we are facing is absolutely alarming. I speak to Jewish constituents who are living in fear, and they have reported to me that they are removing all visual identifiers of their Jewish faith. The Secretary of State opened her statement with the statistic that almost three in five Jewish young people and half of Jewish teachers have experienced or witnessed antisemitism. That requires a hyper-urgent response. Although I appreciate the Secretary of State’s undertaking to report back in a year’s time, can she give greater confidence that there will be month-by-month, or even week-by-week, tracking of the way these actions and recommendations are actually implemented, to give British Jewish communities the faith that the urgency is absolutely there, and so that we do not potentially find ourselves, in a year’s time, wishing that we had done more?

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, as always. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made. I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the draft regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. British house building is being buried by cumbersome and expensive regulation. Layers of protocol regulation and fiscal burdens are stifling house building and inhibiting economic growth. The industry needs relief, not red tape, so I am concerned to find the Government proposing to increase planning fees and add yet another straw to the camel’s already broken back. I have reminded multiple Ministers of the excessive costs and regulations that developers already find themselves saddled with. I will keep on doing so for as long as the Government fail to relieve the industry. According to the Home Builders Federation, house builders already face more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face more than £23,000 per property in regulatory costs, including £7,770 for building regulations, £5,700 for biodiversity net gain and £10,200 in costs linked to the future homes standard—and that is not the end. Indeed, under this Government’s watch, house builders will have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000 per property, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site-specific elements, such as nutrition mitigation requirements. Taken together, the cumulative impact of the policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that for many companies it no longer makes economic sense to do so. This has been evidenced recently by Taylor Wimpey’s decision to stop building new homes in London. Its chief executive, Jennie Daly, attributed this decision to the fact that in London: “Baseline viability is…fundamentally broken”. She said that reward for development has “just evaporated” in some cases. It is clear that the greatest barrier to unleashing a new wave of house building in England is viability. It is even clearer that the biggest damage to viability comes from state regulation and taxes. The Opposition therefore oppose efforts to increase additional up-front costs for developers. We will seek to divide the Committee on that point. It is not just the Opposition who recognise the disproportionate impact of the policy on developers: the Government’s own impact assessment estimates an increased fee revenue of £143 million to £190 million a year if fees are increased to 90% cost recovery, as proposed by the regulations, with average undiscounted impacts amounting to costs of £141 million for businesses every year. It is also not businesses alone that are affected, with another £3 million of additional costs for householders as a result of the fee increases. The fact that house building is already so expensive rather begs the question of why the Government are doing this. What defence can the Minister possibly present? In both the explanatory notes and in the other place, the Government have claimed that increasing fees will strengthen capacity and capability across the planning services for a more efficient and speedier system. The Minister also made that claim in his speech. Why? <span id="7" class="column-number" data-column-number="7"></span>Local authorities all over the country are increasingly hard pressed financially, not least those that are the victims of the Government’s malicious so-called fair funding review. It would be no surprise to find the extra money funnelled elsewhere as the Government try to keep up with funding cuts, increased taxation and social care costs. After all, the money the policy will raise is not ringfenced. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, the Minister said the Government “expect” that the money will be ringfenced and spent on planning. Those of us who have been in this place for a little while know that is classic Government-speak; it is not the same as requiring local authorities to do what the Minister wants them to do. We therefore cannot guarantee with any certainty that this change will benefit the planning system or that the money raised will even go towards planning applications. A system that is not working does not need more barriers, such as hiked-up costs; it needs streamlining and simplifying. It needs fixing, not taxing. The Opposition would welcome a simplified system, clearer fee categories, improved planning system performance and speedier decisions, but we believe the policy does not deliver on any of those targets, because greater cost to developers means further weakened viability. Before we seek to divide the Committee, I hope the Minister will take the time to address our concerns and answer a few of the questions they generate. Most importantly, will the Minister commit to a full review of building regulations to identify the most burdensome costs and red tape to cut before bringing into force any additional layers of expense? We on the Opposition Benches would be more than happy to help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) announced in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago, we have a plan that, all in all, will cut the cost of delivering and therefore buying a new home by up to £50,000. Will the Minister also commit to a planning system that supports rather than restrains the market, by exploring how we can avoid even more red tape in the future and end the culture of regulatory layering that currently pervades Whitehall? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions. I encourage all Members present to vote against this cost to business and householders, and to back British house building instead.

   Hansard source
3. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

   I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity on that point but, to take him back to what I said in my speech, the Government expecting something to happen is not the same as their requiring it to happen. If that does not happen, what steps will the Government take to make sure that it does?

   Hansard source
4. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   We all want to secure the future employment prospects of those working in our world-leading oil and gas sector, and one of the richest possible opportunities for that is transitioning them into working in deep geothermal in constituencies such as mine across the country. However, despite repeated cross-party meetings with Ministers, going back years now, I am afraid that we are still billions and billions behind the money being invested in this technology in other parts of the world. Does the Minister agree that it would be crazy not to create a set-aside fund, from the money that has been announced today, that is purely dedicated to developing deep geothermal in our country?

   Hansard source
5. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   This has been one of the most interesting, wide-ranging and perhaps unexpected debates that I have had the pleasure to listen to in this House, with fascinating contributions from the hon. Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon. As we conclude Second Reading, I am pleased to reaffirm our support from the Opposition Benches for the changes before us. The provisions that are being repealed go against our principles of religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law. To single out Roman Catholics and Jews and prevent them from carrying out the responsibilities of public office solely because of their faith is not a distinction that has any place in modern Britain. As a Roman Catholic, I find it extraordinary that such a restriction has remained on the statute book for so long, but this is not ultimately about any one faith; it is about the fundamental principle that a person’s religious beliefs should not prevent them from discharging the responsibilities of public office. As an Opposition, we are also clear that constitutional change, however sensible, should be approached carefully. We therefore welcome the narrow scope of the legislation and look forward to confirmation from the Minister regarding the preservation of the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the established Church. There remains a sensible distinction between the Prime Minister retaining their formal constitutional responsibility for advising the sovereign and, where appropriate, delegating active involvement in the appointments process. That respects equality before the law and the particular constitutional position of the established Church. We can respect the traditions and institutions that have shaped our country while ensuring that they are updated to remove discriminatory or outdated practices. Two hundred years ago, I would not have been permitted to enter this Chamber or to speak from this Dispatch Box. Progress towards equality has been made throughout our history, and I welcome this latest step. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I am therefore pleased to support this Bill.

   Hansard source
6. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Access to Justice

   The Government’s Bill will undoubtedly open up the prospect of reopened coroners’ inquests into deaths that occurred during the troubles. What confidence does the Secretary of State have in the Northern Ireland coronial service to deliver truth and justice—and, importantly, access to the truth—for victims and veterans compared with the coronial system in England and Wales?

   Hansard source
7. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   Like Mr Speaker, I was angry and frustrated to find that the Secretary of State was not making the statement. I first learned that the Secretary of State was in my constituency when I saw her on TV this morning; that is being completely disrespectful to another Member. The decision on Jackdaw is a victory for common sense. It is also a victory for the voters of Aberdeen South, who sent a clear message to this Labour Government in what was the most important by-election this year. Will this decision streamline the process for other North sea developments? We need a pipeline of projects coming through to protect jobs and to keep the lights on.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

   Engagements

   This week, <em>The Sunday Times</em> reported on its front page how Ministry of Defence police attempted to prosecute five members of the SAS over bogus allegations made by our enemies. They arrested the soldiers and subjected them to continuous—and frankly incompetent—investigation for three years while they were fighting ISIS on our behalf. That action has travelled like a shockwave through Hereford, destroying morale and undermining one of our best fighting units. Nobody wants to put soldiers above the law, but will the Prime Minister speak to the Defence Secretary and stop British agencies acting with credulous complicity with enemies that are trying to use lawfare against our soldiers?

   Hansard source
9. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 Draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026 Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026

   I thank the Minister for her kind words and welcome her formally to her new role. May I also welcome the new hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras to her first delegated legislation Committee? I am sure that she will come to enjoy them as much as I have in the past two and a bit years. The three draft statutory instruments bring Northern Ireland’s voter ID and spending rules into line with the rules that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, mainly England. As such, we do not oppose the measures. When they were debated in the other place last month, my noble Friend Lord Caine raised a number of questions on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I wonder whether the Minister could provide us with an update on the Government’s latest thinking. Although we welcome the fact that the veteran card is being added to the list of acceptable identification, some veterans in Northern Ireland may still be reticent about holding one or being identified as a veteran, given the security concerns. Of course, that is no reason not to grant electors the option to use a veteran card if they wish to do so, but what work have the Government done to assess the possibility that veterans in Northern Ireland may be reluctant to carry such a card and use it as voter ID? Likewise, my noble Friend said that the Representation of the People Bill will amend legislation to allow the use of non-photographic bank cards, and queried whether Ministers had made an assessment of the impact on electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. He pointed out that it was a Labour Government who legislated in the early 2000s to move from paper ID to photo ID for Northern Ireland, given the historical experience of high levels of voter personation there. The Minister in the other place replied: “There are no plans for that to happen in Northern Ireland, given the wider context”.<span id="vol859_col367" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="2" data-column-number="367" data-volume-number="859" data-external-id="D35EBF93-4D2B-455E-8F21-09F78550350C">—[<em>Official Report, House of Lords, </em>14 September 2026; Vol. 859, c. GC367.]</span> I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that remains the position. Last year, when previous regulations were debated, the Minister gave assurances that the Government would use every measure at their disposal to ensure that the 87,000 retained electors would not be removed from the register. Those regulations provided a framework for auditing and engaging such electors. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made to date, especially as next year will be the sixth year of the retention period? Assurances were also given by the Minister in the other place that the extended retention period would be used by the Government and the chief electoral officer to ensure that the register is as complete as it can be. What assurance can the present Minister give that that is the case, and that a more robust system will be in place to ensure that 6% of the electorate is not at risk of being taken off the register? Turning to spending limits, we agree that bringing limits in line with the rest of the UK is sensible, but my noble Friend Lord Caine also highlighted that the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government recently announced a review of candidate spending limits, with the implication that <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>they are too high. Will the Minister update us on that situation and on whether we are likely to need to revisit those changes soon? Finally, as we debate the changes to electoral regulations in Northern Ireland, it is worth briefly bearing in mind the wider electoral changes that the Government have announced. First, there is the votes at 16 policy, which is in my view a bad idea. Last month, the Minister in the other place indicated that the Government are considering what measures may need to be updated to ensure that the 48,000 16 and 17-year-olds—

   Hansard source
10. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 Draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026 Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026

    I appreciate your guidance, Sir Edward. I was just asking whether the Government could update us on what they would do for the 48,000 16 and 17-year-old voters who will require ID should they become eligible to vote. Secondly, in an era of ever more sectarian politics, with which Northern Ireland is sadly all too familiar, the Prime Minister has announced plans for a commission on electoral reform, which he appears to have rather prejudged by also committing himself to a manifesto pledge on electoral reform. The Government seem to want to remove from the voters of Northern Ireland the power to sack MPs. Will the Minister agree that changing the voting system in Northern Ireland should not be done without a referendum on the issue? The draft instruments bring Northern Ireland’s voter ID and spending rules in line with those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. As such, we do not oppose the measures, but it would be useful if the Minister updated the Committee on a number of important issues.

    Hansard source
11. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

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

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

    Hansard source
12. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Support for Farmers

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

    Hansard source
13. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

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

    Hansard source
14. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.<span id="1174" class="column-number" data-column-number="1174"></span>

    Hansard source
15. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

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

    Hansard source
16. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

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

    Hansard source
17. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
18. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

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

    Hansard source
19. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
20. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

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

    Support for Farmers

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

    Hansard source
22. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Support for Farmers

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
23. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Support for Farmers

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

    Hansard source
24. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

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

    Hansard source
25. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Royal Mail: Performance

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

    Hansard source
26. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Royal Mail: Performance

    The hon. Member is correct. The current model is not working as it should, which is having social implications and, clearly, adversely affecting the service even further. It is crucial that that is addressed. As we get close to the Christmas period, the busiest time of the year—as shoppers complete their final online orders and families send gifts and cards to loved ones, friends and family—the country needs confidence that postal services will deliver. If they can deliver, that is one worry ticked off the list at a busy time of year, but in recent years, many of us and our constituents have found that there is a certain elusiveness to the post all year round. My constituents have the recurring experience of receiving no post for two weeks, followed by a large <span id="432WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="432WH"></span>bundle of outdated letters, with hospital appointments missed—we have heard many stories on that theme today—DVLA reminders overdue, credit cards reported lost in the mail, and even legal issues rumbling on because court summons and other documents are not received in time.

    Hansard source
27. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Royal Mail: Performance

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is in the same spirit as a comment by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who mentioned an example of NHS letters being prioritised. There is a pressing need for Royal Mail to look at best practice from all parts of the country and ensure that it is part of its standard methods of operation, so that it delivers for its customers and our constituents. We know that a malfunctioning postal service has a profound domino effect on many important aspects of residents’ lives. In March, it was announced that Royal Mail will deliver 219 million letters late this year, despite the seventh stamp price rise in four years. That statistic will come as no surprise to the Members here today—it has been cited by many and it solidifies their constituents’ lived experiences—but predictability should not be mistaken for acceptability. Our constituents should not have to tolerate this escalating issue, so I ask the Minister to outline today a tangible plan to deliver a swift solution, rather than continuing to pass the buck to Ofcom. I am aware of Ofcom’s role as the regulator, but the Government cannot expect this nationwide problem to fall exclusively on Ofcom’s shoulders. I suspect that the Minister has received that message loud and clear from Members across the House today. What action are the Government taking to materially address the service problem? Do they believe that Ofcom is still fit for purpose with regard to regulating postal services? Those are difficult questions to answer, but my constituents—all our constituents—want answers to them. The Minister has made it clear that frank discussions are being held with the CEO of Royal Mail, and Royal Mail has emphasised that its “Quality of Service Improvement Plan” sets out—allegedly—a clear path towards meeting Ofcom’s new delivery targets. We saw how important this issue is when it was raised at Prime Minister’s questions today. But what good are more discussions and promises if they are never fulfilled or fail to improve the service? Does the Minister believe that the operational issues with Royal Mail are being addressed quickly enough? What discussions have taken place concerning not only the implementation of the improvement plan, but the success achieved so far? Royal Mail is a key piece of British identity, with more than 500 years of history. It has endured challenges and played a key role in some of our nation’s most <span id="433WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="433WH"></span>difficult times. It is a service to appreciate, but such recognition is warranted only when an acceptable standard of service is provided. The purpose of this debate is to highlight the unacceptable service being supplied by Royal Mail and to fast-track finding a solution. Will the Minister share the immediate steps that she will take to ensure that Royal Mail’s service is corrected and customer confidence restored?

    Hansard source
28. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    Finally, Mr Speaker—at last, after two and a half years, this Government have found it within themselves to do the right thing, after exhausting all the alternatives. We have arrived at this destination far later than we should have. Jackdaw was first approved by us in 2022. When in government, we approved it in line with the law as we saw it at the time, and we were confident that we would win the appeal in the Court of Session and ensure that we could get British gas into British homes as soon as possible. But then entered the former Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who, in one of his first acts as Secretary of State, pulled lawyers from the appeal, ensuring and guaranteeing that it would fail. There was absolutely no reason to do that. Approving Jackdaw is about security, jobs and our economy. At every moment up to today, this Government have chosen to prioritise their own self-interest—and winning a by-election in Holborn and St Pancras—over the interests of the British people.<span id="1120" class="column-number" data-column-number="1120"></span> Jackdaw alone will provide enough resources to heat 1.4 million British homes—homes that will no longer need to rely on expensive and high-carbon emitting liquefied natural gas imports. Today we have heard the Secretary of State and the Minister talking about the pragmatism of the national interest. More gallingly, we have heard them talking about supporting British workers. If the Government are serious about a new, pragmatic approach and serious about British jobs and British businesses, that surely means the forthcoming energy independence Bill will not contain measures to ban any new licences in the North sea—a purely ideological but unfathomable decision. If they really believe that a new pragmatism is needed in the North sea, that presumably means that the Chancellor will be announcing next week that he will be removing the energy profits levy. This decision is welcome, but it should not have taken this long. Labour’s dither and delay over the past few years—and, indeed, the past few months—has cost us dear, with jobs lost, more businesses relocating and deindustrialisation. There is a reason the leader of the GMB union described this Department as the Department for P45s. We have had oil downturns before, when global prices fell and jobs were lost in the UK. When it happened under our watch, we stepped up: we maximised recovery, cut taxes and turned the North sea into the most investable basin in the world. Today, there is no global downturn—prices are soaring across the world, and the oil and gas industry is expanding. Only in Britain, we now have a made-by-Labour, made-by-Miliband downturn. We have the only Government in the world who say, “Jobs being lost? Let’s speed that up.” We are the only country not maximising recovery and the only country choosing, in the middle of an energy crisis, to ban licences and exploration. Yet today, the workers in our oil and gas industry are to be thankful that after two and a half years of uncertainty, this Government—kicking and screaming—have finally done the right thing. I have no doubt that there will be more kicking and screaming from some of their Back Benchers today. Perhaps the prospect of more tax revenue will appease them—specifically the over £4 billion of tax receipts. That is revenue that we know the Chancellor desperately needs. Today is a good day—finally. In the spirit of the Secretary of State’s new-found pragmatism, let us see a serious and pragmatic change of direction. Will the Government now approve Rosebank, lift the ban on exploration and new licences, end the crippling energy profits levy, and get Britain drilling?

    Hansard source
29. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for introducing the Bill, which closes a vile loophole in the law. I am grateful for her leadership in bringing together in this room a group of people who are all fully behind her, and I commend her work. A child-like sexual abuse doll is a replica of a child’s body made for perverse sexual use. Someone who imports one, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, can be prosecuted under the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. However, as the CPS has acknowledged, simply possessing <span id="9" class="column-number" data-column-number="9"></span>one is not an offence. The law stops a parcel at the border, but not the person who receives it. The Bill is therefore proportionate and has the Opposition’s support. The Bill creates offences of making, possessing, importing and supplying, with a maximum sentence of five years—the same as for indecent images of children, which is exactly the right comparison. It provides for seizure and forfeiture, notification requirements, liability for directors and reach for UK companies abroad. The defences are sensible: for those investigating crime, for unsolicited receipt and for those who had no reason to know what they had. The burden of proof—which is, again, on the defendant—mirrors the indecent images regime, and that is right. The definition is targeted, too: this is a ban on sexualising children’s bodies. Why does it matter? The Lucy Faithfull Foundation warns that the dolls normalise and legitimise sexual behaviour towards children. Some argue the opposite: that they could be a safe outlet for paedophiles. However, there is no evidence at all that these vile objects prevent offending. When the evidence is uncertain and the potential victims are children, the burden must lie with those who permit the product, not those who protect against it. The Government have said that police have encountered those dolls while investigating suspected child sex abuse and when monitoring registered sex offenders. The Bill therefore rests on the judgment that a replica of a child made for sexual use has no place in a decent society. Technology is moving fast, as we have already touched on briefly in the debate. These products can be made to order and are becoming more realistic. The Bill covers “a doll or other object” —a physical object. Can the Minister confirm that that would include a robot or any AI-enabled physical product made to resemble a child for sexual use? The term “making” includes adapting something so that it becomes a doll, but how does the Bill apply to someone who 3D-prints a doll, or—this is a gap in the Bill—supplies the files to allow such 3D printing? They themselves are not producing it, but are providing the core content that allows that doll to be 3D-printed in an individual’s home. I have not tabled amendments in Committee, but I am considering doing so on Report on both those points, unless the Government reassure me that they are not needed or table such amendments themselves. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that. Will there be guidance on what the “reasonable person” test is for police, Border Force and prosecutors, so that it is applied consistently and legitimate items such as medical or training models clearly fall outside the offence? We do not want paramedics or others to be unable to train with the items that they need. The Bill gives no commencement date. Will the Government tell us when they hope to bring it into force, and what resources Border Force and the police will have to enforce it? One passing point raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham was that the Bill extends only to England and Wales. I expect that the Government want to push for equivalent protection elsewhere given how many of these products are being imported. Parliament has repeatedly legislated to protect children, and it is at its best when we work as one country. Finally, I urge the Government to consider requiring anyone who is found to own such a device to be placed on a sexual risk order, even if they are not imprisoned. <span id="10" class="column-number" data-column-number="10"></span>There is no need for a conviction for someone to be placed on a sexual risk order. That is vital, because anyone from the National Crime Agency or a chief constable can apply for one, and it would recognise that, even if an individual has not yet offended against a child or fully meets the need for imprisonment, we can take action. There is no question that anyone interfering in any way with an object like this has some sort of malign intent. I came into politics to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and no one is more deserving of protection than a child. This Bill is a small step, but it is the right one, and we are proud to support it. In this room, we are making clear that child-like sexual abuse dolls have no place in our country. A child’s body is not a product. Owning a child-like sex abuse doll is morally indefensible. There is no innocent reason to own one, and those who do are degenerates who are normalising the sexual abuse of children. They must be treated as the danger they are.

    Hansard source
30. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

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

    Hansard source
31. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

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

    Hansard source
32. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Access to Justice

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

    Hansard source
33. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Access to Justice

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

    Hansard source
34. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Access to Justice

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

    Hansard source
35. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Support for Veterans

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

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Topical Questions

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

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Maternity and Neonatal Care

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

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

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

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

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

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

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

    Hansard source