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

1. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

   Business of the House

   I was pleased to welcome pupils from Annan academy in my constituency to Parliament last week and to hear directly from those young people that many of them had actively participated in a consultation by SNP-led Dumfries and Galloway council to voice their opposition to an ill-thought-out proposal to cut free musical instrument tuition in local schools. I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that not only are the Annan pupils right that music tuition should not be only for those who can pay for it, but that they are to be praised for speaking out on an issue that directly affects them and that we should encourage all young people to do the same.

   Hansard source
2. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Chris Philp

   Dawn Sturgess Inquiry

   I thank the Security Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let me set out straightaway that the Opposition of course fully support the Government’s work in keeping our country safe. I think I agree with and support everything the Security Minister said in his statement. I particularly welcome the additional sanctions that he announced on certain members of the Russian security services. I join the Security Minister in remembering Dawn Sturgess, who lost her life as a result of this reckless and barbaric attack. Leaving highly dangerous chemical weapons lying around was a reckless undertaking by those Russian agents, and Dawn Sturgess’s death lies squarely at their door. I pay tribute to Sergei and Yulia Skripal for the bravery they have shown when faced with targeting by agents of the Russian state, who came to this country specifically with the purpose in mind of killing them. I also pay tribute to the emergency services and security services, as the Security Minister did, who responded so bravely, and some of whom, such as Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, were themselves harmed as they responded to the attack. The emergency services and security services, on that day and in the days following, distinguished themselves greatly, and I know the whole House will want to thank them for the work they did. The chair of the inquiry concluded, as the Security Minister said, that this operation would have been signed off or agreed to at the very highest level of the Russian state by President Putin himself. I think that makes the important point that Russia is a dangerous and hostile state, and that Vladimir Putin is a dangerous and hostile leader—a man who, as this inquiry has found, personally sanctioned the assassination of civilians on British soil. Of course, the atrocities that the Russian state and President Vladimir Putin have perpetrated are not confined to those we are discussing today. We have seen, on its own soil, the Russian state murder domestic political opponents such as Alexei Navalny. We have seen them shoot down civilian airliners, and we have seen them interfere across Africa. We have seen Putin support former President Assad of Syria in persecuting civilians in Syria, including supporting the use of chemical weapons. So we should be in no doubt at all about the threat that Russia and President Putin pose not just in Russia or Ukraine, but on our soil and across the whole world. I think there is a lesson there for the way in which we in the west collectively consider the Ukraine conflict, which the Security Minister spoke about. I think the actions we have been discussing are one of many reasons that we in the west should be steadfast and unwavering in our support for Ukraine. The lessons of history are quite clear: appeasement does not work, and showing weakness when faced with aggressive dictators simply emboldens them. I hope people in our Government and other Governments, particularly the American Administration, keep that in mind as they conduct negotiations in the coming days and weeks. I know that, quite rightly, the Security Minister will not be able to comment on details, but the House would appreciate an update and assurances about the work being done to protect us domestically against Russian threats. He did not mention cyber-threats in his statement —[Interruption.] I do apologise. He did mention them, and we know that Russia repeatedly and deliberately targets both governmental infrastructure and private sector IT infrastructure. So far as he is able to provide one, an update on the work he is leading to counter that would be welcome, as would any indication about whether we are proactively engaged in degrading Russia’s capability in that area. I appreciate that there are severe limitations around what he can say, but any indication he can provide to the House would be very much appreciated. The lessons we can draw from this episode relate not just to Russia, but to any state where we have intelligence or information that they are engaged in aggressive hostile acts. We know, of course, that it is not just Russia: other states, including China, are engaged in different but potentially equally damaging espionage and other activity on our soil. The lesson that this episode teaches is that we cannot be complacent. We cannot, for example, prioritise economic links above national security. We need to be on the front foot when it comes to these threats. In that spirit, and drawing that lesson from this episode, perhaps the Security Minister can explain to the House why China is not in the enhanced tier of FIRS, which in my opinion it should be, and why the Government appear to be contemplating granting planning consent for a super embassy for China on a very sensitive site close to sensitive communications infrastructure, and from which it is very likely China will conduct large-scale espionage activities? The lesson that this episode teaches us is that we cannot be complacent, and we must be active and energetic in protecting our national interest. In general terms, I fully support the direction of travel the Security Minister has set out, and, of course, the Opposition will support him personally and the Government in the work they are doing to keep our country safe.

   Hansard source
3. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Topical Questions

   Tomorrow will mark a year to the day since the Government launched the plan for change, to great fanfare, with its milestones, its mission boards, and its dashboards that never materialised. We have now found out that the five mission boards have been deleted from the latest list of Cabinet Committees. Has there been any change at all from the plan for change?

   Hansard source
4. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Local Elections

   Order. The hon. Gentleman has used the word “you” three times. I am not imposing or cancelling elections anywhere.

   Hansard source
5. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Local Elections

   Order. The point of urgent questions is that they need to be short. The Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson also had limited time. Please can Members make their questions succinct, and can the Minister make her answers succinct too?

   Hansard source
6. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Local Elections

   I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that it was not a point of order but a continuation of the urgent question, and it could have been put to the Minister earlier. However, he has put his point on the record.

   Hansard source
7. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Business of the House

   I call Martin Vickers, in place of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

   Hansard source
8. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Business of the House

   Order. May I gently say to the hon. Member that this matter may well be sub judice and that the House therefore needs to tread very carefully when discussing it?

   Hansard source
9. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Camden Nursery Sexual Abuse Case

   Before we come to the statement, I should inform the House that the case concerned is still technically sub judice until sentencing. However, the Government have made the judgment that the House should have an opportunity to consider this matter, as it raises issues of national importance, and the accused has pleaded guilty. Mr Speaker has therefore granted a limited waiver so that Members may discuss the issues raised in the context of the case. Members should not speculate about sentencing issues and should also be cautious about prejudicing any ongoing investigations.

   Hansard source
10. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Digital Exclusion

    15. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of digital ID on levels of digital exclusion.

    Hansard source
11. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Digital Exclusion

    I thank the Minister for his scripted answer. Digital ID is a terrible idea. If the Government are going to pursue it, what assurances can he give me, in a tiny bit of detail, about what the Government will do to ensure that people are not, through a lack of technological skills or financial exclusion, disadvantaged in accessing Government services?

    Hansard source
12. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Topical Questions

    T6. The Information Commissioner’s Office revealed that Lord Alli’s pass to No. 10 was requested by a staff member of the Labour party. Was it the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff who made the request?

    Hansard source
13. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Local Elections

    Mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jury and now cancelling elections—these are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, aren’t they?

    Hansard source
14. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Business of the House

    The Severn Area Rescue Association, known as SARA, is a volunteer-led lifeboat and inland search and rescue charity. It does fantastic work in north Worcestershire, along the route of the River Severn, and in the constituencies of many hon. Members. Although I welcome the Government’s announcement in the Budget last week that the requirement for vehicle excise duty will no longer apply to these organisations, will the Leader of the House support me in my endeavours—I have written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs calling on the Government to reintroduce the flood team maintenance grant—to alleviate the pressure on such charities?

    Hansard source
15. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Camden Nursery Sexual Abuse Case

    This case is appalling, and it is right that the thoughts of us all are with the families affected and that the Government should do everything they can to prevent such cases from occurring in future. When does the Secretary of State expect the findings of the review to come forward? What additional steps are the Government looking at to ensure that parents and anyone with safeguarding concerns can report them much more easily?

    Hansard source
16. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    National Infrastructure: Cyber-security

    14. What steps his Department is taking to help improve the cyber-security of national infrastructure.

    Hansard source
17. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    National Infrastructure: Cyber-security

    The United Kingdom is increasingly and uniquely vulnerable to malicious cyber-activity targeting national infrastructure and democratic institutions, including Parliament itself. That poses a serious risk to our national security. Experts have warned of a critical data leak, a new scale of severe blackouts, transport disruption and even Government being brought to a halt. What action is the Minister’s Department taking to ensure that the Government are prepared and sufficiently resourced to meet this pernicious national security threat?

    Hansard source
18. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Local Elections

    I disagree with all of this. I believe in strong local councils that are truly democratic and reflect local communities. My amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill last week was about my borough of Havering, whose identity is linked to Essex. Will this delay allow the Minister to look again at the possibility of Havering being part of Greater Essex—with certain conditions, I accept—and not part of Greater London? If there were a referendum in my borough, I have no doubt that the people of my constituency would rather be linked to Essex than to inner London. Will the Minister please reconsider the arrangements for my borough of Havering?

    Hansard source
19. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    EU Relations

    I am sure people will be pleased to hear that the Labour party is going to honour some of its manifesto commitments. Last week, it was announced that the Government’s attempt to join the new EU defence fund had failed. This is a major setback for our relationship with the EU, and it is a major embarrassment for the Government. Since that time, no Minister has come to the House to explain what on earth has gone so horribly wrong, so perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can tell us: what has gone so horribly wrong?

    Hansard source
20. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    EU Relations

    I admire the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s chutzpah in answering. He pretends that this was in some way not a defeat, but a victory—many more such victories, and we are lost. The House will remember that in May, No. 10 trumpeted a new agreement with the EU, which gave the EU privileged access to our fishing waters for 12 years—12 years—to “pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”. Now that the EU has killed off that deal with what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rightly describes as an unreasonable demand for £5 billion, are we going to get our fish back?

    Hansard source
21. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Topical Questions

    A few weeks ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about Chinese ownership of critical national infrastructure, including the possible acquisition of Thames Water. I have not had a reply, but since then The Telegraph has been briefed by the Government that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would block such an acquisition. Can he confirm to the House that he will use his powers under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to launch an investigation before any Chinese acquisition of Thames Water is allowed to proceed?

    Hansard source
22. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Topical Questions

    Well, someone was briefing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. I thank him for his answer, but on the same theme, the electricity distribution network for London and much of the south-east, as well as the gas distribution network for about 5 million people in our country and the water supply for about another 3 million, are currently under Chinese ownership. That includes the power supply for the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall and many security capabilities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us whether he has reviewed the national security implications of these legacy acquisitions? If not, will he commit to doing so?

    Hansard source
23. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Venezuela: US Military

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for securing this urgent question. Venezuela may be thousands of miles away, but instability there has a direct impact on the safety and prosperity of the British people here. The restoration of democratic institutions is essential if Venezuela is to escape the political, economic and humanitarian crises imposed on its people by Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian regime. The Maduro regime is propped up by the same axis of authoritarian states that undermine the rules-based international order and foster instability around the world. We know the shocking level of smuggling that comes out of Venezuela, and at a moment when our allies appear to be taking quite decisive action, the world is watching how Britain responds. What discussions are taking place with President Trump’s Administration about the objectives and scope of any imminent US military action? What would be the implications for the wider UK-US defence partnership, particularly our joint counter-narcotics operations? The House will also expect clarity on how the Government intend to hold the Maduro regime to account. What further diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions and co-ordinated international action is the UK pursuing to support Venezuelans fighting for a peaceful, democratic transition? Will the Minister also update the House on the Government’s position regarding Venezuela’s provocation and aggression towards Guyana, the risks of escalation and the steps being taken with CARICOM—Caribbean Community—partners? Finally, given the scale of organised crime linked to the regime, what additional measures are being deployed to disrupt drug flows, money laundering and criminal networks that threaten communities here in the UK? Are Interpol and our intelligence partnerships being fully leveraged? Britain cannot afford to be a bystander. The Government must demonstrate clarity, conviction and leadership at this critical moment.

    Hansard source
24. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Ely: Railway Upgrade

    I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I very much support the case she is making. Given that the previous Government, in October 2023, did secure funding for this, it is deeply regrettable that the Labour Government have cut it. Does she agree that if we are to unlock the growth potential of Cambridgeshire as a whole and in particular Fenland, and to connect that to Cambridge’s growth potential, we need Manea, March and Whittlesea stations to be better able to connect to the economy in Cambridgeshire?

    Hansard source
25. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Ely: Railway Upgrade

    The Minister seems to be citing a lack of funding as the reason for the scheme not being funded, but when I spoke to the Rail Minister in his previous role as chair of Network Rail, it was a priority for Network Rail. Can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that schemes with a worse benefit-cost ratio were funded in the spending review? In other words, did the Government choose to fund transport schemes with a lower BCR over funding the Ely junction?

    Hansard source
26. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Pension Schemes Bill

    There is clearly a great deal of good in the Pension Schemes Bill; that is why it went through Committee relatively easily. I do not wish to be a dog in the manger about that, but instead to recognise the good in the Bill. I shall focus on the issues raised in new clauses 22 and 24. I do not pretend to be expert in these matters, but I do know injustice when I see it. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I fought for many years for the uprating of frozen pensions for ex-pat citizens overseas. That is a shame from which the reputation of this country will take a long time to recover, and I fear that we are about to endorse yet another such shame. There is absolutely no doubt in most people’s minds that the Pensions Act 1995 was flawed. This issue is an unintended consequence that was not foreseen. That it has taken this long to get to grips with it is wrong, but we now have the opportunity to set things right. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), in an excellent speech, set out the stall very clearly indeed. I have huge sympathy with her new clause. Were it to be called, I would vote for it without any question. The right hon. Lady made it very plain—it is indeed very plain—that there is no suggestion that any redress should be retrospective; there is no question of any vast back payments to those whose pensions have been affected. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about retrospection—by the way, I agree that retrospective legislation normally ends in tears—but the proposed measure is not retrospective in that sense. We come to how to get this right. It seems to me that the Government’s proposals are hugely complicated—unnecessarily so—and do not actually do the job. New clause 24, tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, who I know have put a lot of effort into trying to get this right, gives a get-out in the form of a lack of surplus, which I believe would enable those companies that have neglected their duties until now to carry on neglecting their duties. For that reason, my personal preference is for new clause 22. I represent the remains of the Pfizer empire in Sandwich. Not entirely surprisingly, I have therefore a significant number—one is a significant number, by the way—of constituents who were affected by the pre-1997 section in the 1995 Act. I find it quite appalling that companies of size and international importance that have been named today—including Pfizer in my own constituency, which is a good employer—should have put themselves in the position that they are in when in some cases, for up to 25 years, pensioners have not been rewarded in the manner to which I believe them to be entitled. As I say, for my money, Pfizer is an excellent company. It does good work and is a good employer, but somewhere along the line, in the back office—probably in the United States—a decision was taken not to uprate pensions. That is quite simply wrong. While I understand that the Minister comes to this issue with a reasonably open mind and a good heart, I do not think that his proposal does the job and I am not certain that the Opposition Front-Bench amendment does the job. I believe that new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Llanelli, would do the job. I hope that further and very serious consideration will be given to adopting that resolution.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    OBR: Resignation of Chair

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the resignation of the chair of the OBR.

    Hansard source
28. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    OBR: Resignation of Chair

    Richard Hughes was a respected chair of the OBR, and his departure is a matter of deep regret. The circumstances surrounding his resignation remain unclear—although for the Chancellor, it has clearly been a useful distraction from her own conduct. On Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing the details of the pre-measures forecast rounds, and members of the OBR board were clear to the Treasury Committee yesterday that that step was taken because of serious concerns about partial leaks and briefings about their forecasts. In relation to the market-moving briefings made on 14 November, which suggested that the public finances were, after all, in a better position, David Miles stated to the Committee: “I think there had been a misconception that there had been some good news. It didn’t exist.” The board members also clarified that those concerns were raised by Richard Hughes with the Treasury before the Budget, and that the information published on Friday was approved by the permanent secretary. What discussions did the Treasury, including the Chancellor, have with Mr Hughes immediately prior to his resignation? Mr Hughes said last week that he served “subject to the confidence of the Chancellor”. Did the Chancellor give Mr Hughes her full confidence? Was any pressure put on Mr Hughes to resign? Did the Chancellor approve the OBR’s publication on Friday and discuss it with the permanent secretary? I believe that the Minister has confirmed that, but perhaps he might do so again. [Interruption.]

    Hansard source
29. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    OBR: Resignation of Chair

    Do Ministers agree with the OBR’s opinion that leaks and briefings about the forecasts damaged growth? If so, what action was taken by the Treasury regarding those leaks? May I ask once again whether it was appropriate for the Chancellor herself to opine publicly on the OBR’s productivity forecast before the Budget, given that those matters should remain strictly confidential? As you know, Mr Speaker, I have written to the Financial Conduct Authority seeking a full investigation into matters relating to the Chancellor’s statements on the state of the public finances. I have also written again this morning to the permanent secretary at the Treasury, requesting a full investigation into all these matters.

    Hansard source
30. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    OBR: Resignation of Chair

    The Government seem to be keen to maximise the gravity of the OBR’s accidental leak while minimising the gravity of the Chancellor’s deliberate leaks. The Minister has twice frankly admitted not being aware of the case of Labour Chancellor Hugh Dalton, who resigned for inadvertently leaking to a journalist a single sentence of his 1947 Budget moments before it was due to be announced. Now that he has understood what actually happened then and that that was the paradigm case, does he think it holds any lessons or examples of conduct that the Chancellor ought to consider following?

    Hansard source
31. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Official Secrets Act and Espionage

    Having previously read out in this Chamber the relevant section of the Official Secrets Act 1911, I am pleased that the report concludes that the decision not to prosecute under the terms of that Act flies in the face of common sense. What also flies in the face of common sense is the Government’s previous position that China poses a range of serious threats but does not constitute a threat itself. Is that still the Government’s position?

    Hansard source
32. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Venezuela: US Military

    President Trump would no doubt argue that there is a parallel between this situation and George Bush senior’s invasion of Panama in late 1989, but does the Minister agree with me that it will be interesting to see, if something like this goes ahead, what sort of outcry there is from either Russia or China? If there is no sort of outcry, would that not suggest that there is some sort of understanding between these three major powers that they each leave each other to get on with, shall we say, unilateral actions within what they regard as their own spheres of influence?

    Hansard source
33. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Pension Schemes Bill

    The Minister has indeed been most accessible, and I am extremely grateful to him for the meeting he held with members of the ExxonMobil pensioners group. I am still being lobbied very hard by ExxonMobil pensioners who are concerned that whereas changes introduced in the Budget will benefit members of the FAS and PPF schemes, private defined-benefit scheme members will not benefit. He knows far more about the subject than I do, but can he not see that there is a feeling that they are being discriminated against? Is there nothing he can offer to make them feel somewhat more included in the beneficial steps being taken for members of other schemes?

    Hansard source
34. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Pension Schemes Bill

    The problem, as the Minister knows from our meeting, is that the trustees are rather hemmed in by not having the leverage or the freedom to act if the company itself—particularly if it is headquartered abroad—is disinclined to pass on any surpluses that it might have available.

    Hansard source
35. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Pension Schemes Bill

    May I applaud the hon. Lady’s speech? That is exactly what has happened to so many ExxonMobil pensioners in my constituency and beyond.

    Hansard source
36. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Pension Schemes Bill

    I applaud what the hon. Gentleman has said about the AEAT pensioners’ difficulties. It is quite shocking that, despite the fact that a previous Conservative pensions Minister, Paul Maynard, said that he would instruct his civil servants to work on a redress scheme, changes of Minister and Government have meant that the machine has carried on as before, even though a parliamentary Committee did an investigation, found in favour of the pensioners and said that they should get redress.

    Hansard source
37. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

    I was worried when the hon. Gentleman was not on my list.

    Hansard source
38. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

    Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate. I remind Members that they should stand if they wish to be called. Members can see the level of interest that there is in this debate. If everyone keeps their speeches to between three and four minutes, I hope we will get everybody in, but I will not impose an actual time limit yet.

    Hansard source
39. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

    We have 10 speakers to come and I have to start Front-Bench speeches at about 3.30 pm, so speeches will need to be nearer three minutes, I am afraid. I call Pippa Heylings.

    Hansard source
40. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

    Order. I am trying to avoid setting a formal time limit, but people will need to help me; I am afraid speeches will need to be sub-three minutes.

    Hansard source