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

1. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

   I welcome the strategy. The Minister will well know that children from homes in which domestic violence is prevalent are all too often conditioned to believe that that is the normal way for relationships to operate. Through changes to the national curriculum in particular, will she ensure that teachers encourage children to come forward with examples of what has happened at home and elsewhere in their families? In that way, we can deal with these matters where they start: in the home.

   Hansard source
2. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   15th Anniversary

   With permission, I will make a statement about the report on the first 15 years of the Backbench Business Committee. As Members will be aware, the Backbench Business Committee came out of the Wright reforms presented to this House, all bar one of which have been implemented. The only one that has not been implemented is the requirement for a House Business Committee, but I will leave that to the Leader of the House to consider in the future. I pay tribute to my two predecessors as Chair of the Committee: Natascha Engel and Ian Mearns. They led the Committee with appropriate dignity and initiated many different reforms in this place. I have had the pleasure of serving on the Committee for 14 of its 15 years, so I have witnessed at first hand the excellent work they did. Our role is very simple: to encourage debates on a wide range of subjects that the Government do not necessarily wish to be debated in the House. We also have a duty to ensure that requests for debates have cross-party support, to use the time as effectively as possible. We also allow for Select Committee statements to take place, and I remind Select Committee Chairs that they can apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on reports they produce, which may lead to a motion on the Order Paper if they so wish. There is a slight problem with this, which I recommend the Leader of the House looks at seriously. At the moment, the Standing Order requires such statements to be within five working days of the publication of a Select Committee report. We would like to see that extended to 10 working days, to allow more flexibility for Select Committee Chairs to make appropriate statements to the House on the work they have done. I turn to the issue of substantive motions, which are divisible motions that the House can consider. Between 2010 and 2012—the first two years of the Committee—63% of the debates in this Chamber were on divisible motions. In the last two years, that figure has reduced to 25%. In our Committee’s report, we have summarised how that has changed over the years. I think there is a reason for that: divisible motions are not binding on the Government, and there is hardly ever a vote on them—they are normally nodded through. I urge the Leader of the House to look at this. Could we have a framework for action on the motions passed by this House? What action are the Government prepared to take on those, and will they report back to the House? At the moment, generally speaking, we are confined to Thursdays for Backbench Business debates in the Chamber. One of the suggestions we have made in our report is that we should be given more time between Mondays and Wednesdays, possibly with 90-minute debates either before or after appropriate Government time, to allow Back Benchers to have debates on issues that they wish to discuss. I have to say—and today is another day when it has happened—that our debates are often curtailed by urgent questions and statements from the Government. That is unfair on Back Benchers who are here to take part in important debates that they have sponsored. Indeed, there are often visitors in the Public Gallery who have come to witness those debates. We need to do something about that, to prevent Backbench Business debates from being curtailed and colleagues having to give short speeches. On Westminster Hall, we have the opportunity to allocate the 90-minute debate on Tuesday morning and debates on Thursday afternoon. We have suggested once again—I hope the Leader of the House will look at this sympathetically—that we bring forward the debates on a Thursday afternoon from 1.30 pm to 12.30 pm and from 3 pm to 2 pm. That would allow Members to get away and close Westminster Hall at an earlier time, which would be much more convenient for staff; we often have rejections of offers—unfairly, in my view—for the second slot on Thursday afternoons. Given that we look rigorously at the applications submitted, I also suggest that it would be helpful if we looked at more allocation on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in Westminster Hall so that we can ensure that there is sufficient support across parties to make sure those debates are balanced. That is obviously in the hands of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, and I respect that. The Procedure Committee has made certain recommendations. It does not have to wait for a Government motion to be put, but can apply for time under the Backbench Business Committee for a business of the House motion. I am not accusing the current Government of this, but it has often been the case that a Government have frustrated the Procedure Committee when it wants to make changes by not making time available. I alert the Procedure Committee to that opportunity. Equally, one of the things that we are looking at—I would want to work with the Leader of the House on this—is the allocation of more topical debates. At the moment, we have a six-month waiting list for debates. That means that by the time those debates come up, the topicality has often gone. If we could get to a point whereby we could announce a topical debate on a Tuesday, have bids before our meeting and then announce the result of that for a Thursday, that would really give the debate a topical timing. However, I believe that would require a change in Standing Orders. One of the issues that we have often had complaints about is the fact that our Backbench Business Committee is the only Select Committee in the House that has to have elections after every King’s Speech and state opening. That means that there is a delay after the King’s Speech until a Chair and Committee members are elected, at just the time when there is often an opportunity for general debates, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. May we change that so that the chairmanship is continuous throughout the life of the Parliament? There is a further issue: the reform of private Members’ Bills. I have piloted three such Bills through this place to successful conclusion. However, they are dependent, frankly, on a raffle—if a Member is successful in the raffle, they will do well. One of the things that the Procedure Committee recommended when I was on it, and that I am glad to see it is still recommending, is for the Backbench Business Committee to be able to consider prioritising for the first four sitting Fridays the bids for private Members’ Bills that are well-founded, have cross-party support and for which detailed work has been done, rather than someone getting drawn in the lottery of the ballot and then deciding what they are going to do. I think that would be better way of making law. I will not continue any longer, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to any questions that colleagues may have.

   Hansard source
3. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   15th Anniversary

   The reality is that the sponsor of the debate is responsible not only for the content of their speech, but for encouraging the press to get involved and promote the debate. The debates can be on a wide range of topics. One of the great things about the Backbench Business Committee is that we consider things that most people have never even thought of as possible debates. Importantly, it is therefore incumbent on the individuals who propose the debates to promote them appropriately.

   Hansard source
4. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   15th Anniversary

   Our standard position is that for a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate, eight speakers are required. That is, I think, a reasonable number for a 90-minute debate. Four should come from the Government side and four from the Opposition—that is the combined Opposition, not restricted to one party. For Chamber debates, it is perfectly reasonable that we look to get 15 speakers with, broadly speaking, a balance between Opposition and Government Members. In this Session, 70% of the Chamber debates have had time limits imposed on Back-Bench speakers, and I suspect this afternoon will be another such debate, so we do get enough speakers. There was one debate I well remember—I will not name the colleague, who is no longer in this place—where the Member came along with a huge list of something like 85 Members who wished to take part. He stood up and spoke, and no one else had come along to speak. After that, I have been very conscious that we have to ensure that people sign up not only to agree to the debate, but to turn up and speak.

   Hansard source
5. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   15th Anniversary

   The reality is that it is for the Petitions Committee to come forward with those debates. Of course I would strongly support the Petitions Committee having time in the Chamber—as long as it does not detract from the Backbench Business time that is available. Equally, if the right hon. Member and colleagues wish to come forward with an application on the subject that he raises, I am sure that our Committee would look at it very sympathetically, particularly as it was such a well-attended debate.

   Hansard source
6. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   15th Anniversary

   I am grateful for the question from our honorary season ticket holder at the Backbench Business Committee. As is stated in the report, prior to the 2019 general election, the hon. Member appeared before the Committee no less than 44 times with applications. He has continued to do that, and of course he is the top Member for number of applications before the Committee, and we are always pleased to grant appropriate ones. I am encouraged that large numbers of MPs, including new ones who have never been before the Committee, come with an application that is well supported across the House. I think the message has got out that this is the one of the best ways that Members can get a debate on an issue that affects them.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   Christmas Adjournment

   I beg to move, That this House has considered matters to be raised before the Christmas adjournment. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Members, their staff and all the staff here in Parliament a very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, and a happy, peaceful, prosperous and, above all else, healthy new year. As the nights are drawing in, we will undoubtedly all be lucifugous by the spring—explanations of that will come later. Let me turn to local matters in my constituency. When the Conservative party took over Harrow council back in 2022, it was mired in corruption, there were backlogs in road, pothole and pavement maintenance, and basic services were not being delivered to residents, who pay a high level of council tax. Well, things have changed. The administration is now spending more than £40 million across three years on the highways budget, and it is very apparent on our roads and pavements that things have changed. We have also rolled out one hour of free parking across the borough. That is the most generous parking allowance anywhere in London. Fly-tipping, which I know is also the blight of many other areas of the country, is being addressed. In the past year alone, more than 1,000 fines were issued to the culprits of fly-tipping. The council has even reopened phone lines so that people can call and actually speak to a human being at the council, which was not possible for many years—I welcome that. In Rayners Lane, the council is tackling the scourge of double parking and stopping those who think that they can simply park their car in the middle of the road, lock it and go off to the shops. Thanks to Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, there is now an enormously successful red route. More than 500 fines were issued in the first week, and awareness of the scheme rules is growing. I just hope that, when he visits Rayners Lane, Santa Claus does not park in the middle of the road, because he will get a ticket. To tackle fly-tipping, the council has introduced one free annual bulky waste collection for every household. That is making a huge difference. We know what it is like when people want to dispose of freezers, wardrobes or sofas. We want them to be cleared up quickly. As well as the bulky waste collections, there are drop-and-go sessions for which the council sets up a recycling centre in a car park, so that residents can drop off their waste. That is extremely popular and has reduced fly-tipping—people can see the difference. However, those who dump rubbish on the streets of Harrow or elsewhere should suffer the penalties for doing so. Harrow suffered criminal fly-tipping that was similar to, but not as large as, that in Oxfordshire. It is vital that residents continue to report fly-tipping and that action is taken. There could have been even better news for residents in Harrow this week, as we were all looking forward to confirmation that Harrow’s first special educational needs and disabilities school in more than a generation will be built. The money to build and operate the school was delivered under the previous Conservative Government, but in common with so many other projects, when this Labour Government came into office they froze the proposal and we have been struggling to get clarity ever since. Indeed, the Budget was supposed to have been an early Christmas present for residents, but it has turned into a nightmare before Christmas. Certain Labour Members—not Conservatives—were told about the bubble and squeak medley of the announcement last week. Money was announced to improve existing SEND facilities in mainstream schools, while the Government are now minded to cancel the new school that had been promised by the previous Labour administration in Harrow. The much-needed SEND school at 265 The Ridgeway, where the previous Harrow Labour administration wanted to build flats, is in continued limbo, with alternative funding to be provided—you could not make it up. The school needs to be built urgently, because children are being sent for an hour and half each way to specialist schools miles outside the borough, which is costing the council an incredible amount. That is bad news for their education and their mental health. Spades could be in the ground now and the school could be opening soon, but we need the money and we need the school built now. Similarly, hon. Members will have heard that the Labour Mayor of London is breaking yet another manifesto promise by closing police front counters across the capital, including in Harrow and in Pinner. It is unacceptable that the mayor can promise before the election that everything will be better with a Labour Government and a Labour mayor, while knowing the state of London’s finances, and then blatantly break that promise. As one of our local councillors put it, the pantomime villain in this endless saga is the big baddie—the Mayor of London. Police front counters are a vital safe haven for women and girls. Those who have unfortunately been sexually molested or raped need to go somewhere safe to report the crime committed against them. In the case of Pinner, the front desk was being run by volunteers, so there is very little saving. I urge the Government and the Home Secretary to step in, and to join the thousands of residents who have signed my petition and the petition organised by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), to keep the front desks open at the police stations in Harrow and Pinner, as was promised. Hon. Members who have attended these debates before will know that I have campaigned constantly for step-free access and lifts in stations in Harrow for a long time, and that campaign continues. When I was first elected, I took up the cudgels on this, and there is now the good news that Canons Park station has finally been shortlisted for a feasibility study. I hope that that happens. However, we still await news about Queensbury station and, more importantly, Stanmore station. Stanmore is designated as step-free, but in reality passengers face a choice of 48 steps to the main entrance, 16 steps via the car park, 24 steps at the side to the bus stop or the so-called step-free route, which is 140 metres long and includes a steep ramp that even the Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson could not complete unaided. For the past six or seven months, my office has been working to get Stanmore delisted as step-free and obtain a proper definition of what step-free means, so that we can then work to get lifts or adaptations installed. I urge colleagues who face similar problems to contact my office so that we can work together. While I am on the subject of transport, Transport for London continues to blame the September 2024 cyber-attack for the backlog in private hire vehicle and private carriage office licences, which is unacceptable and is delaying many of my constituents in gaining work. The new Piccadilly line trains have been delayed again, and are not expected until late next year. Graffiti on the Bakerloo and Central lines continues to get worse, despite the head of TfL claiming that vigilantes from Looking for Growth were painting graffiti on to then clean it off, which is a completely ridiculous position. Homelessness in England is increasing. Crisis found record levels of homelessness, with more than 300,000 individuals and families experiencing its worst forms in 2024, which is an increase of 22%. London has the greatest homelessness pressures, and one in 50 Londoners and, sadly, at least one child in every London classroom is homeless. As we approach Christmas, many of us will be doing our shopping, seeing family and loved ones, and maybe turning the heating up a bit, but let us think of those sleeping rough: cold, wet and often hungry, on a park bench or in a shop corner, in sub-zero temperatures overnight. There are no official stats on how many homeless people are, sadly, dying in their sleep, but one has only to imagine the harsh and life-threatening conditions that they have to endure. There are steps that can be taken, and I invite the Government to take them. My oven-ready Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which is yet to be implemented, could help. My private Member’s Bill, which had an unopposed Second Reading, is still waiting for its Committee and Report stages and conclusion, but we can take other steps. Local authorities have to meet rising costs so that victims of domestic abuse are not forgotten and hospital discharges and the plight of temporary accommodation are not ignored. I thank the team at Crisis and all the other charities for the work that they do to help homeless people. I represent Harrow East, which is the most diverse constituency in the country, with someone from every faith and country in the world and speakers of every language spoken on earth, so I deal with a large chunk of matters related to the Home Office. However, it has not helped that my staff have been told not to chase cases for upwards of a year. They will get no updates for 12 months, and even longer in some cases, so I am left flabbergasted and discombobulated by the position. The Government must be thorough in their checks, but it does not do much for my constituents, their family members or my staff to be told month after month, “I’m sorry, but there is no update.” My office recently met Home Office officials to manage expectations and make it clear that I am not going to stop chasing the applications until they are decided overall, not just closed. Indeed, in my role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, I have been continually raising the issue of the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations. I note that a written ministerial statement about that is on the Order Paper, but we have other issues, such as lithium-ion batteries, solar panels, modern construction methods and other technologies, that come into the proposals. I know you want me to wind up, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have three quick points. On Iran, let the Government come forward and proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety, as they promised when they were in opposition. On India and Bangladesh, let us ensure that there are free and fair elections that include every single party; in my humble opinion, the outlawing of the Awami League is an outrage. I am delighted that we have reformed the Azerbaijan all-party parliamentary group, and we are looking for increased trade, which was worth £888 million in the last 12 months alone. I was delighted to captain the House of Commons bridge team this year to a commanding victory over the House of Lords. I was even honoured with the award for the best-played hand. My partner, the former MP Aaron Bell, left me in a very difficult contract, but I managed to make it. While we sit on these green Benches and praise and thank everyone, we must always think about the incredible team behind us. My team in my office this year has dealt with more than 12,000 individual cases, bringing the total to almost 100,000 cases since I was elected in 2010. I thank my entire team: my wife Nicola; Hattie Shoosmith, who has now gone off to Dubai; Matthew Goodwin-Freeman; James Thomson; Rhys Benjamin; James Bourke; and Gabriele Montone for their work. I hope they have a good rest over Christmas and are ready to do it all again next year. One member of my team, Rhys Benjamin, is off to Australia—hopefully he will see some cricket and see a turnaround of England’s fortunes in the Ashes. Merry Christmas.

   Hansard source
8. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

   Christmas Adjournment

   With the leave of the House, I thank the other 25 Back Benchers and the three Front Benchers who have contributed, who have made this such an interesting debate for all those who have sat through all of it. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for managing the debate so that we actually got everyone in who wished to contribute. It remains for me to wish Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, the whole House, all our staff and everyone who makes this place tick a very Merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and a happy, peaceful, prosperous and, above all else, healthy new year. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered matters to be raised before the Christmas adjournment.

   Hansard source
9. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

   I will address another aspect of this strategy: how it relates to male survivors of crimes considered to be violence against women and girls. My ten-minute rule Bill earlier in the year called for a dedicated strategy for tackling interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys, so that male survivors of rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse, forced marriage and honour-based violence receive the justice and support that they deserve. I recently met the Minister, and I thank her for her time; the discussions were very positive. I have also spoken to the Victims Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), about how to shape the strategy to support male survivors. What provisions are there in this strategy to support male survivors? Will a dedicated strategy to help male survivors be published next year?

   Hansard source
10. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Ukraine

    May I start by associating myself with the remarks from the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) regarding the loss of Lance Corporal Hooley this Christmas? Given the situation in Ukraine and the possibility of a Russian redeployment and reconstitution of its forces in the event of any peace settlement, the Schwerpunkt of any future Russian belligerence may be more difficult to fix than to strike. We clearly require some sort of continuous on-land deterrent to ensure that we maximise our sensor-to-effector opportunities across all domains, including space. What progress has he made in digitising our kill chain, developing our AI solution, getting inside Russia’s OODA—observe, orient, decide, act—loop, and ensuring the effectiveness of the eastern flank deterrence line? When will we see a tangible output?

    Hansard source
11. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Business of the House

    May I, too, wish you, Mr Speaker, your team and Members across the House a very merry Christmas? Given the significant demand for new homes, my constituency has seen a large number of developments in recent years. However, some developers are building and selling homes, then moving on without completing the work, leaving residents in limbo, with roads unadopted and water companies unable to take on sewerage systems. Yet these developers continue to profit from building further on our green spaces. Developers such as Vistry Group, who do not attend meetings and rarely reply to correspondence, are failing residents in areas such as Saighton Camp and Wrenbury. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this issue, so that Members across the House can consider mechanisms to hold those developers to account?

    Hansard source
12. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Business of the House

    Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and all the staff in the Speaker’s Office a very merry Christmas, and may I thank you for all your kindness and courtesy throughout the past year? However, I must say to the Leader of the House that this Christmas, my constituents in Romford are increasingly afraid to walk through the town centre; reports of violent crime and street robbery are becoming a regular occurrence. Despite the huge precept that we pay to the Mayor of London—it is an average of £500 a year, per household—we simply do not get the police we pay for. Inner London always takes priority. Indeed, the whole Greater London region has become plagued with petty theft, shoplifting and violent crime, especially on Transport for London services. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on these pressing issues, which affect the daily life of my tax-paying, law-abiding constituents in Romford?

    Hansard source
13. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Christmas Adjournment

    I bring greetings to all Members of this House from my constituents in Romford, a town that I am proud to represent in my 25th year as a Member of Parliament. Having been born and brought up in the town, I can tell the House that we are proud of our Essex roots, although we are unfortunately part of Greater London, instead of Essex. Nevertheless, we are determined to reassert our identity as a proud part of the great English county of Essex. On Friday, I will be hosting the carols round the Christmas tree for my local churches, scout groups and schools at Margaret Thatcher House in Romford. Everybody is welcome to come and celebrate our proud Christian heritage. However, we enter 2026 with a lot of issues that we are simply not happy about—the Leader of the House knows, because I raise them with him every Thursday. They include the Gallows Corner roundabout, which is a disaster because of the Mayor of London and Transport for London’s complete incompetence and failure to deal with the junction and rebuild the flyover much faster, which is affecting everybody in the Essex and east London area. We need action on that, because it is making people’s lives quite miserable. The Mayor of London is also reducing our police counter hours in Romford—all our police stations are already closed except the main one, but now the hours there are reducing. We also have a boom in HMOs—houses in multiple occupation—in Romford and across the borough of Havering. Homes are being built without the consent of local people, causing much anger and creating disruption for families in many residential streets. We also have the ongoing situation on the Oldchurch estate. Sanctuary housing has failed to deal with the issues facing the residents of the estate, where unacceptable conditions exist. That housing association has completely failed to do an effective job for the tenants who pay its wages. That is another issue that I ask the Leader of the House to raise on behalf of my constituents. Finally, the Building Safety Regulator has failed to act swiftly on cladding on the Mercury Gardens estate and the Axis estate at the back of my headquarters. It is causing unbelievable stress for the residents of flats, because they are trapped as leaseholders, unable to sell their properties until the matter is resolved. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you a merry Christmas. Thank you for your kindness and courtesy, and thank you to all the Speaker’s staff for all they have done over the year. I am here because I love my country and I love my constituency, and this House must always put our country first.

    Hansard source
14. 18 Dec 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Local Government Reorganisation

    This is a disgraceful decision that damages our democracy and sets a dangerous precedent. To borrow a phrase, is the Minister afraid? Frightened? Frit? What does she say to my constituents whose fundamental right to have their say at the ballot box is now being taken away?

    Hansard source
15. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Puberty Suppressants Trial

    I welcome the care with which the right hon. Member has approached much of this, and I appreciate that he has before him some very difficult decisions, especially because of the way the report was written. But I must come back to the simple truth that these are very young children, and decisions will be made for them—I appreciate by parents, taking that element of consent—that are genuinely irreversible. Whatever happens, we will see eight, nine, 10-year-olds grow up to be 18, 20, 25-year-olds—at least we hope we will—who have effectively been experimented on. Some of those children will resent greatly not just the system and their parents, but those who allowed this to happen, and here I identify the Department for Health and Social Care, not necessarily the Secretary of State himself. What provision is he putting in place to ensure that should those children wish to bring legal action against the Department, against those who took these decisions at a time when they were not able to give any form of informed consent, they will be able to have redress and their day in court?

    Hansard source
16. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    On 12 November, I raised with the Prime Minister the alarming statement from nine former generals who attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they said would erode trust in the justice system and is a threat to national security. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister has met with those nine former generals and whether that has changed his approach to attacking veterans?

    Hansard source
17. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

    The Minister’s statement did not seem to say what the contribution to the EU will be, but media reports suggest £570 million. By opening our borders, we will have youth workers and others coming to the UK at a time of rising unemployment. Could he confirm the amount that will be paid? Will it be more than what will be raised through the family farm tax, which the Budget said will only raise up to £500 million a year, even at the end of this Parliament?

    Hansard source
18. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

    Thank you for calling me, Sir Alec. As you are aware, I am not a member of the Committee and I therefore have no right to vote, but I do have the right to speak, which I am now exercising. My interest in this topic, in parliamentary terms, goes back a very long time. I am not and never have been an animal rights activist; I am an animal welfarist, and in my mind there is a fundamental difference between the two. I do not, and never will, condone any illegal activity, including violent demonstration of any kind—I want to place that firmly on the record. In my constituency, I have Discovery Park, the former Pfizer establishment at Sandwich. It is an absolutely excellent life sciences establishment, embracing some 100 to 150 small and medium-sized life sciences businesses. The Minister said in her opening remarks that life sciences are vital to the future of this country, and she is absolutely right. I have no desire to impede the work of our life sciences sector—far from it; I would like to enhance it, particularly at Discovery Park in Sandwich. Some 40 years ago, I was the founding chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. I had the huge privilege at that time of working with Professor Michael Balls, to whom the hon. Member for Bristol East referred. who then led the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. Our commitment and desire was to seek—bear in mind that this was 40 years ago—validated alternatives to the use of animals. It has always been my view that animals have no place in a laboratory. Having said that, we also recognised that we do not solve a problem by moving it from A to B. As some would have done then—indeed, as some would do now—simply shutting down animal experimentation in this country might give people a warm glow, but it would only move the problem from the United Kingdom to other countries, where the research would be carried out under worse conditions. There would be no animal welfare gain. The commitment has to be to validate alternatives, and to move as swiftly as possible to in vitro and other methods of research, rather than in vivo. That is what we should be heading for. It therefore saddens me that, having made a commitment to animal welfare, this Government should, as their first practical measure of any kind, seek to diminish animal welfare, rather than enhance it, by trying to include in national infrastructure an item that has no place in that legislation at all. By the way, I do not share the view of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, about the 2023 Act; it was a good and necessary piece of legislation. There are arguments to be had about its scope; nevertheless, the fundamental principle was correct. What the Committee is being asked to do this afternoon is not correct. The road map has been referred to—great, we apparently have a road map, when the engine has not even started. There has been no significant animal welfare gain under this Administration since they took office, and their very first measure is one that seeks to dimmish the welfare of animals. That cannot be right. I therefore urge the Committee to reject this measure this afternoon. This instrument has to have a full and proper debate on the Floor of the House of Commons. That is a debate in which I would like to participate and then be able to vote. In conclusion, I am and always have been wholly wedded to the validation of alternative methods. That is what is needed, not this half-baked measure.

    Hansard source
19. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Engagements

    Q8. May I compliment the Prime Minister on the work that he has done on Ukraine, and wish him well over Christmas on that topic? Pubs are at the centre of rural communities in areas such as North Yorkshire, but they are under more pressure than ever before. May I urge the Prime Minister and the Government to look again at the rates issue, and to look at how to relax transitional relief for those pubs, many of which will otherwise close?

    Hansard source
20. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify whether his earlier remarks mean what I think they do, which is that even if it had not been for the guidance of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government would have wanted anyway to have repealed the legislation of the legacy Act? It is a political decision. Given that he said that he did not believe that there would be convictions at the end of the process, does that not mean that there will be several, if not many, trials? If no one is convicted at the end of the process, how does that help anyone? How does that avoid just torturing the people put through a trial?

    Hansard source
21. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Puberty Suppressants Trial

    The Secretary of State deserves our sympathy for having to negotiate such an ethical minefield. Will he tell us whether the data exists from all the people who had puberty blockers under the old regime? He mentioned having met one person for whom they had worked well and one person for whom they were a disaster. Surely it should be possible to do a systematic survey of the dozens, if not hundreds, of people who went through that. Might that be a more constructive and less dangerous way forward?

    Hansard source
22. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

    May I thank the Minister for the work he did in another capacity on behalf of the victims, and the relatives of the victims, of the infected blood scandal? He did a very good job, and he reached out to us in a much-appreciated, non-partisan way. This statement is entitled “UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations”. Is it his understanding, as the Minister for EU relations, that the people with whom he is having dealings are still bent on the creation of a federal United States of Europe? [Interruption.] Do I detect some chuntering on the Government Benches to suggest that some people in this House might want to be a part of that?

    Hansard source
23. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Engagements

    Jimmy Lai is 78 and is a British citizen. He has already been in prison in Hong Kong for five years, simply for being a journalist. If he receives a further sentence on 12 January, he is likely to die in prison. Will the Prime Minister make it clear that his visit to Beijing can go ahead only if Jimmy Lai is released?

    Hansard source
24. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I simply say to the Secretary of State that it does seem like ridiculous haste when the Bill is going through the House right now. Surely to do this when he knows for a fact that there is already an appeal going on does, as has already been said, become abusive of the real purpose of a remedial order. I suggest to him that all the stuff about people being let off and the whole point about immunity is not the issue. The issue today is whether the Government are misusing their powers to rush something through that they could have dealt with through the passage of the Bill.

    Hansard source
25. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship. It would bring the entire process into disrepute if he is in fact acting on an unlawful basis.

    Hansard source
26. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?

    Hansard source
27. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Puberty Suppressants Trial

    If we were resting this judgment on purely clinical evidence, we would tell every child that whatever sex they were was immutable and could not be changed, and that if they took these puberty blockers they might well find that they had irreversibly changed the course of their lives. How is a child of 10 or 11 going to be capable of making that judgment? Whatever the Cass review says, in the end this is the Secretary of State’s judgment. I remember the covid inquiry repeatedly saying that it was wrong for Ministers to hide behind “the science”. Equally, there is no single clinical advice on this question: clinicians are as divided as the rest of society. We rely on the Secretary of State’s judgment. I am afraid that I think he has got it wrong.

    Hansard source
28. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

    In his white shirt and red tie, the Minister is doing a very good impression of Santa making an early visit. The announcements that he has made this afternoon are—I think—to be warmly welcomed, and he is to be personally congratulated on the good faith and patience that he has shown in his conversations with Maroš Šefčovič and others. That is clearly paying dividends. Does the Minister agree that those of us on the Opposition Benches who last week voted against the idiotic proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a customs union have been proved right and them wrong, because the evolution of the relationship within the guardrails of the existing arrangement are the way to go, preserving those new free trade deals and seeing them extended while encouraging businesses to trade with Europe?

    Hansard source
29. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Local Government Finance

    I thank the Minister and her officials for their work—it is the most painful task to have to pull all this together and they are all to be commended. I agree with her that multi-year settlements should lead to smarter commissioning, which should then deliver greater return on the money. She will know that the cost of delivering services in rural areas is higher—everyone across the House recognises that—so can she say what this proposed settlement will do specifically to address that and allow equity of opportunity in access to services, whether one is an urban or rural resident?

    Hansard source
30. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Richard Fuller

    National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

    For a Bill that proposes to raise taxation on working people by such a large amount, this has been a remarkably brief debate. But I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who correctly said that this was yet another anti-aspiration measure from this Government, and the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who made it clear that this was yet another example of Labour breaking its manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people. He also asked one of the key questions, which I hope the Minister will address in his reply: as this measure is due to come into force in three years’ time, what assessment have the Government made of behavioural changes, and can the Minister be assured that the amount in the OBR forecast is robust on a dynamic accounting basis? This is the final economic Bill of the year to be voted on in the House of Commons, and it is another Bill that targets people who are trying to do the right thing. The Bill is a bad measure. It is an anti-savings measure and it is an attack on prudence, so of course the Conservative party will oppose it. This final Bill, at the end of this full-on year of Labour government, leaves me with one fundamental question: why do the Labour Government hate the private sector so much? If you are a family farmer, the Labour Government will snatch your farm away from your children when you die. If you believe in private education, the Labour Government will put up a barrier at the school gate. If you save for your retirement, Labour will tax your every effort to achieve security in retirement. Why do the Labour Government take every opportunity to punish people who are trying to do the right thing? The Bill makes a mockery of the Government’s own Pensions Commission, set up in July this year, when it wrote: “Put bluntly, private pension income for individuals retiring in 2050 could be 8% lower than those retiring in 2025—undermining a central measure of societal progress.” Back in June, the Government recognised the problem of a secure retirement. Now, they are adding to the problem. I have a question about the numbers. It is interesting that this measure is scored by the OBR in that crucial year of 2029-30 at £4.845 billion, falling the following year to £2.585 billion. That is an important year, because that is when the Chancellor says she has put in all this headroom—how interesting. Does the Minister agree with the director of Willis Towers Watson, one of the world’s biggest advisers on pensions, when he said: “While earlier introduction would be unwelcome, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029/30—the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rule. £1.6 billion of revenue in that year is a temporary gain which will be returned to taxpayers who pay employee contributions instead and claim back part of their tax relief”? On the £4.845 billion—the full amount—is any of that actually a fiction that will be returned the following year, as experts suggest it will be? The Bill makes it less attractive for employers to contribute to private sector pensions. We all know that there is less certainty in the private sector, because that is where defined contribution schemes predominate, whereas in the public sector, greater certainty is given by a defined benefit scheme. In the public sector, there is also benefit because the contribution from the employer to employee pensions is much higher than in the private sector. In the public sector, employer contributions are equivalent to 27% of earnings, on average, according to research by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, but in the private sector the average contribution is only 8%. Why are the Government proposing to make it harder for private sector employers to contribute to the pensions of their employees? The Bill actively exacerbates the differences. By the way, it does nothing to tackle the unfunded £1.5 trillion liability of unfunded public sector pensions, which will fall on taxpayers. The Bill is yet another example of the lack of private sector experience on the Government Front Bench. This Government are the least business aware Government in our country’s history. They are taxing and regulating growth out of our economy. Labour Ministers are punishing workers who want to save more for their retirement, and making it harder for their employers to help them to do so. While they can rely on their cushy, gold-plated public sector pensions, private sector workers are worse off.

    Hansard source
31. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Local Government Finance

    I represent a constituency with two district councils with prudently created reserves and a unitary council with high levels of debt. Understandably, residents in the district council areas are concerned that local government reorganisation will see their reserves usurped by any new unitary council areas—if they have not already had to spend that reserve due to decreased funding under the settlement. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that their prudence is not being penalised and that, under the local government reorganisation, any reserves from a council will be ringfenced specifically for the communities that they come from, rather than being used to reduce the debt of the new council?

    Hansard source
32. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on raising this important issue for debate today. He and I—as well as our hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) —represent stunning Hampshire constituencies, with renowned countryside walking routes and picturesque towns and villages. I still reckon I have the better deal, as my constituents have the “Costa del Hamble”, but I know that my right hon. Friend would definitely say the same about his patch. May I briefly respond to something that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), said? I do not know whether he planned it as an early Christmas present for me, but the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) walked in while he was speaking. That was a good thing to see. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has instilled in me a sense of déjà vu, which demonstrates the length of time that he has been campaigning on these issues for his constituency. We had a Westminster Hall debate before, and he is right that he cross-examined the Minister, who gave a very pithy response yesterday in the NPPF statement. I know that my right hon. Friend works very hard for his constituents, to make sure that he can get them the acquiescence that they seek from the Government. I congratulate East Hampshire council on developing a local plan and, now, taking the responsible step of renewing it. That shows the kind of leadership that is needed. However, my right hon. Friend raised a number of important points, and I hope that the Minister will answer them. First, he asked about affordability, and about the rise in speculative development because of the lack of five-year housing supply, but the new targets have completely ripped up and undermined the plan-led approach to spatial planning, which the Government are rightly seeking and which I would argue forms the backbone of the planning system. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said that planning is a huge issue in his postbag. I, too, have that issue, and I suspect that Members from across the House who made brilliant speeches this afternoon also have that issue in their constituencies. It is love of our communities and respect for their unique characters that brought us all here to the Chamber today. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and I know that our constituents are not against building more homes in principle—there is a clear need to build many more houses up and down the country; that is a simple fact—but people are asking for the right houses to be built in the right places, and for community resources and infrastructure to be invested in to sustain a growing population, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made in his contribution. That is why it is so important that we properly assess the impacts of housing development. When multiple housing developments are lumped together, they overwhelm communities, stretch scarce resources and dilute the character of our towns. Over time, people begin to lose their vital sense of belonging and communities lose their identity. The house building sector makes a substantial contribution to the economy. In 2023, new house building generated £53.3 billion in economic output across Great Britain, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in house building firms and their contractors, as well as the wider supply chain. But economic benefit depends on stability, confidence and deliverability, and an approach that relies on unrealistic targets, rising costs and declining affordability risks undermining the very industry the Government claim to champion. The impacts of housing developments manifest in numerous key areas. One huge concern, which I receive countless emails about from my constituents—no doubt all Members present can say the same—is the environmental impact of housing developments. The Government had the chance to address such concerns through Lords amendments 38 and 40 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which my Conservative colleagues in the other Chamber supported. However, the Government chose to ignore them, leaving unanswered questions about the environmental harm of their planning process. We know and agree that ripping up the green belt is not the answer. Once the green belt is lost, it is lost forever, and that is why my Conservative colleagues and I have called for the swift redevelopment of brownfield sites, something that—to give the Minister credit—he did address yesterday in the NPPF update. The Campaign to Protect Rural England’s “State of Brownfield” report showed that we have more brownfield land now than in previous years. It highlighted that in a substantial number of local authorities, there is enough brownfield land with planning permission to meet the housing targets set by the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need for at least the next five years. The Government’s plan for new homes disproportionately places the responsibility on rural communities to reach their target, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire outlined. The 2024 reforms to the national planning policy framework, introducing mandatory housing targets and a new standard method for calculating local housing need, redistributed top-down housing targets to rural areas from urban areas by Government diktat. As my right hon. Friend outlined, East Hampshire council’s targets doubled, while London’s housing allocations were cut by 11%, Birmingham’s by 38% and Coventry’s by 55%. In Eastleigh in my constituency, which has already built more than is required, the allocation is up by 42%, and in Fareham in the other half of my constituency, it is up by 62%. That is particularly concerning given that, as my right hon. Friend outlined, many younger people whom we want to achieve and get on the housing ladder want to live in metropolitan urban centres. I am pleased that the Government listened to the calls of the Conservative Opposition on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee. We called for an incentive for densification in urban centres; it was rejected by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), but now the Government have come forward with one, which we welcome. The point that my right hon. Friend made is that Government regulations and Government legislation are competing against each other. I hope that the Minister will answer my right hon. Friend’s challenge. The new NPPF will designate and allow urban densification, but housing targets in rural areas have massively increased, acting as a competing objective. Which is more important—the NPPF or the housing targets? If housing in towns, in which it is much easier to regenerate and to increase housing numbers, is to be increased, housing targets cannot be uplifted greatly in rural areas but reduced in urban centres.

    Hansard source
33. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made that point, I was about to make it, and the hon. Gentleman’s Liberal Democrat colleagues also made it, so there is universal acclaim for his claim, but it is also absolutely correct. I hope the Minister addresses that. As the amount of housing increases, community infrastructure and resources must be expanded accordingly. That means more schools, GP surgeries, train and bus stations, hospitals, paved roads, bin collections and street lighting, to name just a few of the essentials. The list goes on and on; those are just some of the things we need to consider when looking at where to build. We must get better at prioritising those vital services, while recognising that not every development is right for the area it is proposed for. We all know that under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, local authorities can secure investment to fund new services and infrastructure in the local area, but the system is struggling to keep up with demand. Over a third of all section 106 agreements took longer than 12 months to finalise. Some 76% of local authorities reported an average timeline exceeding a year, and in over a third of councils it was over 500 days. In 2024-25, 45% of local planning authorities had agreements finalised that had taken over 1,000 days to complete. Dose the Minister agree that in order to unlock some of the housing that is needed, we need a simplified and standardised method for section 106 notices across the country? [Interruption.] He says yes from a sedentary position. I look forward to his affirming that in his comments shortly, but we would support that.

    Hansard source
34. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

    I disagree with the hon. Gentleman slightly. I remember that in the last Parliament, under the Conservative Government, there absolutely was a commitment from Planning Ministers and Secretaries of State to prioritise brownfield development. That was announced during our time in government by the former Prime Minister but three, and by a number of Ministers in the MHCLG.

    Hansard source
35. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

    Well, I believe the hon. Gentleman will have watched the news. I would be the first to acknowledge that we had quite a few in the last Parliament, but there absolutely was prioritisation of brownfield sites first. We prioritised building houses where they were needed, not where they were not. What steps do the Government plan to take to protect rural communities feeling the adverse effects of increased housing development? If the Government are serious about building homes and maintaining public confidence in the planning system, they must take cumulative impacts seriously, plan infrastructure properly and ensure that developments work with communities, not against them—something that the Liberal Democrats and my party have been very clear will be removed by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the English devolution Bill. I have been very clear about my concerns regarding the Government’s housing targets and the credibility of the 1.5 million homes ambition, which is now being questioned by a number of experts. If the Government are serious about supporting the house building sector and securing its economic benefits, they must ensure that housing delivery is realistic, properly planned and supported by the necessary infrastructure. Crucially, this requires a far greater focus on the cumulative impact of development so that growth is sustainable, communities are supported, and the long-term economic and social benefits of house building are not undermined. Finally, Mr Twigg, I wish you, the Clerks and staff, the Minister, and even the Liberal Democrats a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

    Hansard source
36. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Engagements

    Q14. Labour’s tax rises mean lower growth and higher unemployment, and the reason for the tax rises is Government spending. The Prime Minister personally promised the country that he would limit spending increases to £9.5 billion a year, so what mandate did he have in his first two Budgets to increase annual spending 15 times faster, by £146 billion?

    Hansard source
37. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    Order. I remind colleagues that if they wish to ask a question, they should be bobbing, and that we should try to reduce chuntering from the Front Benches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
38. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    Order. I think the whole House can agree that this is a very serious and sensitive topic. I ask hon. Members to be mindful of their language and to ensure that they are not heckling while seated. I call David Smith, a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

    Hansard source
39. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    Order. Use of the word “you” is not appropriate. Would the hon. Member like to rephrase and quickly get to his point?

    Hansard source
40. 17 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    If I had heard any inappropriate language, I would have dealt with it very swiftly and dealt with that Member involved. No inappropriate language should be used in the Chamber. On such a highly charged, emotional and very serious topic, we need to double down and make sure that we are using the most appropriate language. Mr Francois, before you respond, please remember that you are also responding to me in the Chair. No doubt, you will not want to displease me either with any of your response.

    Hansard source