5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

   We have heard Ministers in this House and elsewhere make claims about Israel and aid. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the Co-ordination of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre figures, which show that 4,200 trucks of aid are entering Gaza a week, meeting the targets agreed, as the 20-point plan is being implemented? Will she thank the COGAT team for their work in getting aid in, including those officers attacked by Hamas terrorists on 7 October who remain committed to improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza? Does she agree that the best way to ensure that more aid gets into Gaza is for the UK to work with partners to implement the international stabilisation force and to secure the elimination of Hamas?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Budget Resolutions

   This Government are trying to tell the public that this Budget was all about taking tough decisions to deliver change, about raising taxes to support the NHS and about pursuing growth and backing business. Those are commendable aims, but it is simply not the reality of what was delivered in the autumn Budget. This was a Budget for benefits paid for by hard-working people. Last year, taxes were hiked by £40 billion, borrowing went up, inflation went up, unemployment went up and living standards fell, but at least we were promised by the Chancellor that this was a one-off. She categorically said that she would not be coming back for more. But like the promises made during the general election, that was just not true. Then, as Halloween approached, we had briefing after briefing, that infamous press conference, markets affected and consumer spending depressed, particularly in the hospitality sector, all leading to one Cabinet Minister reportedly saying that “The handling of this budget has been a disaster from start to finish.” I wonder who that could have been. Now we have another £26 billion in tax rises to fund more welfare, because the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to stand up to Labour MPs and make the real hard choices. At the previous Budget and spending review, big promises were made to the public about how the Labour Government would solve the challenges in the NHS through a financial settlement that they said would improve patient care, including by bringing waiting times back to the 18-week standard within five years. We warned at the time that that money would be swallowed up, in large part by decisions of the Government’s own making. The then chief financial officer of NHS England said that it would go almost entirely on pay awards, national insurance contributions and drug price increases. What does Labour actually have to show for that? Elective care waiting lists have fallen by less than 2% since October last year. Meanwhile, waiting lists for community health services and diagnostic scans are rising. Waits to start cancer treatment are increasing. Trauma and orthopaedic waits are up; ophthalmology—up; neurosurgery—up; gynaecology—up. Winter pressures are growing, and long waits in A&E have hit record highs. The truth is that the Labour Government do not have a plan for the NHS; they have fallen into the classic Labour trap of thinking that issuing a press release about cutting waiting lists will magically make it so, just because they are in charge. I am afraid that is not how government works. What has the Secretary of State been focused on? A top-down reorganisation of the NHS—which not only did he not tell anyone about before the election but he explicitly said he would not do. As Conservatives, we support the principle of cutting duplication, reducing bureaucracy and saving on administration costs. The House will remember that a recent Conservative Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), reduced in a single year the number of civil servants in the Department for Health and Social Care by around one in six. Let us be clear: this is yet another announcement made by the Government without any plan for delivery. For months, not one Minister has been able to answer any of our questions about how much NHS restructuring will cost or who will be expected to cover redundancy packages. For months, integrated care boards have been warning that frontline patient services were at risk because they simply do not have the money to do what is asked of them. For months, staff were left in limbo, not knowing whether their job would still exist or for how much longer. We welcome the fact that the Budget finally provided some clarity, but shifting money between years means significant risk. The NHS is already behind on its efficiency targets. If this reorganisation falls short of its goals—no small risk given the Government’s performance—there is an even more significant shortfall to make up in future years, which will hit patient care. There are other elements of the Budget that we welcome for the health service. Focusing on improving productivity is the right thing to do, but whether the extra investment will make any difference in the grand scheme of things remains to be seen. Neighbourhood health centres can be cautiously welcomed. They build on the great success of the Conservatives’ efforts to bring care closer to where people live through the community diagnostics centre programme. However, has Labour truly learned the lessons of all the private financial initiative deals that it botched back in the 2000s, which NHS trusts are still paying for decades later? Will the Government simply move resources around or will there be genuinely innovative new ways or working, joining up services and improving the patient care experience? I hope that it is the latter, because shuffling the deck chairs into new buildings will not deliver the benefits that patients deserve. Despite those few bright spots, it simply is not right for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and others to justify this latest tax grab by saying that it is to protect the NHS. As the NHS Confederation noted, this year’s Budget did not have a health focus. That means that we are left with a lot of unanswered questions. The Office for Budget Responsibility specifically raised two risks to health spending. The first was the doctors’ strikes, which the Health Secretary has failed to resolve, despite making that sound very easy to do when he was in opposition. I will give him credit, because he did briefly end them, for a few short months, but only by caving in to the demands of the British Medical Association, in return for no productivity or modernisation reforms. We warned him that giving in to the trade unions would only see them come back for more—and indeed, here we are, with patients and taxpayers paying the price, and no end in sight. The OBR confirmed that strikes have already cost £500 million, and warned about further strikes. Now it has been confirmed, just before Christmas—the worst time of year for it—that the doctors are out again.

   Hansard source
3. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Budget Resolutions

   Well, we did not spend tens of billions of pounds in pay rises just for the same old problem to come back. There should have been proper reform, and conditions for those pay rises, but the Government did not make that happen, and here we are again. The NHS Confederation has also warned that local services cannot continue to absorb the costs of ongoing strikes by the BMA without consequences for patient care. I pay tribute to frontline staff, who have been trying to keep everything going. I remind the Secretary of State that we have the answer: ban doctors from striking, like the Army and the police, and introduce minimum service levels, using the legislation that our Government passed. That would protect patients and taxpayers, so why won’t he do it? Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will make things much worse, because it reduces the vote threshold for calling a strike, and there will be no minimal service levels. In addition, the Government have shown that they cannot stand up to the unions. By pushing up inflation, the Budget will make it harder to reach pay settlements across the rest of the NHS workforce. Even an additional rise in NHS pay of just 1% of what the Secretary of State included in his pay review body evidence would create another £1.5 billion hole in his budget. Is he confident that he can head off wider industrial action with a 2.5% offer, especially given that benefits are rising much faster under this Government? The OBR has also raised the unknown risk of increasing drug prices. My understanding is that the spending review assumed that spending on branded medicines would rise by 25%—or £3.3 billion—between 2025-26 and 2028-29. In winding up, will the Minister clarify what happens when the negotiated price costs more than what was assumed in the spending review? The rest of the money is surely intended to be used to deliver more care and to cut waiting lists, so are frontline services at risk?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Budget Resolutions

   We will see what happens. It would be interesting to know exactly where the money will come from. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State just said that if the prices go up, there will be no cuts to the NHS budget, but where will the money come from? Which other part of the national health service and social care will the money come from? We will have to wait and see. The Budget last week made no mention of social care. After all, Labour’s only plan is to delay coming up with a plan for a few more years, despite the urgency and the scale of the challenge. Many of us entered the cross-party talks in really good faith, and they were encouraging, but we have only met once. Surely we should be getting on with it. The message was loud and clear that we want to work together, but we want to get on with it. Please can we have another meeting, so that we can get on with tackling this really important issue? It is not quite true to say that social care is unaffected by what was announced. The increase in the national living wage will be welcomed by those on the lowest incomes, but the Nuffield Trust estimates that it will cost the social care sector £1.2 billion. The sector is already struggling with last year’s national insurance contributions hike, so who will pay for this? Will there be funding cuts to other parts of the health budget? Will self-funders have to fork out yet more again, or will it be passed on to local authorities, inevitably leading to council tax rises? What impact will this national living wage increase have on wider pay in the sector?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Budget Resolutions

   I am asking the question of who is going to pay for it. There is no detail in anything this Government do. They are full of plans and no delivery. The sectors I have been meeting are asking those questions—where is the money coming from?

   Hansard source
6. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Budget Resolutions

   My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me tell the House, from 16 years of working in the hospice movement, primarily as the head of fundraising, that if you are suddenly asked to find nearly £100,000 overnight, it is almost impossible. It is therefore not surprising that hospices up and down this country are cutting the number of beds that are available. In some instances, up to 40% of beds are being cut, and those people will end up having to be in hospital beds, putting more pressure on our hospitals as we go into winter.

   Hansard source
7. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

   Budget Resolutions

   I understood from the Secretary of State’s 10-year plan that he wants more involvement from the private sector. Perhaps the hon. Member needs to have a conversation with the Secretary of State and see how that goes. In fact, if he wants, he can invite me along, because I would be quite happy to observe that conversation. Finally, the Budget did not mention any of the issues that matter to many of our constituents, such as mental health, the hospice and palliative care sector—although I do welcome the announcement of the framework and look forward to seeing it—dentistry and general practice. What about the Government’s upcoming plans and strategies? The workforce plan is delayed. The cancer plan is delayed. The independent review of maternity and neonatal services is delayed. Nothing new was announced, suggesting that any resources to deliver those plans will have to come from existing budgets. What are this Government actually doing for the NHS—not just press releases and reviews, but actual action? It is more money without a plan for reform and no strategy to end the strikes or help patients and staff this winter. They cannot deliver the reforms to social care the country needs because the Prime Minister came into office without a plan and does not have the backbone to make the tough decisions. They are still too distracted with working out how to abolish NHS England to cut waiting lists. The Secretary of State claims Labour is investing in the NHS, but that suggests we get some kind of return on our money. It is clear that Labour does not have a plan to achieve its targets. This is a Budget where taxpayers are being asked to pay for benefits, not the NHS, and the Government need to own that. Of course, we wish them well. We want them to cut waiting lists, we want care to improve, and we want patients to get better quicker, but their actions do not match their rhetoric, and their plan is little more than an objective, with no method for getting there. For the sake of all our constituents, I hope the Health Secretary can put his leadership ambitions to one side and focus on the job he has, not the next one he wants, because if he fails to deliver, this will be his last.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

   Topical Questions

   Today is UAE National Day, marking 54 years since its full independence. In that time, it has become one of our nation’s staunchest allies and a key investor, benefiting constituencies up and down the country. Will the Minister join me, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, in congratulating the UAE and recommitting to this key strategic relationship?

   Hansard source
9. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Angiolini Inquiry

   The House is rightly united in horror at what happened to Sarah Everard and in sympathy for her family. Returning to an earlier exchange about vetting, which I understand will be coming up in the next stage of the Angiolini process, can the Minister tell us whether it will examine the effect of extreme pornography online and of toxic masculinity influencers online, and whether there is any prospect that a vetting process would enable people to be, at the time of recruitment, spotted as having watched this stuff and commented favourably on it, even on the dark web?

   Hansard source
10. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Criminal Court Reform

    The Government deserve credit for taking seriously a serious report into a serious problem, but is it the Justice Secretary’s preference that the changes he has outlined to jury trial will be permanent or that they will recede when the problem of backlogs recedes? In relation to judges alone deciding either-way cases, he knows that Sir Brian’s recommendation is that the presumption should be that there would be judge-only trials for cases where the sentence may be three years or less, but that presumption could be rebutted. Is it the Government’s intention that that should be a presumption and not a definitive rule? Finally, he knows that Sir Brian also recommended that plea hearings be pushed back to allow for advice on guilty pleas to be given more clearly and more fully, and that is likely to increase the number of guilty pleas preventing cracked trials. The Justice Secretary has talked about extra funding for the criminal Bar, but will he focus that funding so that people can be advised early and we can avoid those cracked trials?

    Hansard source
11. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Gambling: Regulatory Reform

    In the light of that, some two years ago it was recommended very clearly that a gambling ombudsman should be set up. So far, across two Governments, nothing has happened on that. That is needed to check that all these elements are being dealt with at the same time. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that that should be one of the first acts that the Government should get on with right now?

    Hansard source
12. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Budget Resolutions

    As a matter of interest, why did Labour Chancellor Hugh Dalton resign?

    Hansard source
13. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Gambling: Regulatory Reform

    Order. Can I suggest eight minutes to start? I call Gareth Snell.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Gambling: Regulatory Reform

    I call Lee Dillon. It seems he is not here, so I call Cameron Thomas.

    Hansard source
15. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Criminal Court Reform

    In his report, Sir Brian Leveson made a number of recommendations to reduce the Crown court backlog. Many of those recommendations are welcome, but curtailing the right to a jury trial is not one of them. Will the Secretary of State instruct his Department to publish the modelling it will have undertaken, so that we can see how much of an effect on the backlog each individual recommendation will have, and this House can take a view on the efficacy of his legislation before we vote on it?

    Hansard source
16. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Sudan: Ceasefire

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for her answer, and for seeing the volunteers from the emergency rooms last week. We are advised that during his visit to the White House, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman asked President Trump to help stop the slaughter in Sudan and come up with a plan of action, and President Trump agreed to do so. As Sudan is a UK lead at the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that this issue is on the agenda the next time the President and our Prime Minister have one of their telephone calls?

    Hansard source
17. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Budget Resolutions

    My right hon. Friend worked in the hospice sector, and particularly the children’s hospice sector, long before he came to this place. Does he agree that the pressures on hospices, which are basically run by charitable contributions, have not been taken into account in all the Budget measures introduced since this Government came to power?

    Hansard source
18. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Criminal Court Reform

    The idea that we have to scrap jury trials to save jury trials is simply farcical. A legal framework 800 years old is being upended, and not to reduce backlogs or save money; this is a reframing of rights and of where power lies, taking power away from the people. Does the Lord Chancellor accept that jury trials—being judged by one’s peers—protects the vulnerable and enables fairness, and that as the Mother of the House said, this decision will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice?

    Hansard source
19. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Angiolini Inquiry

    I associate myself with the remarks of everybody who has paid tribute to Sarah Everard and her family. I remember where I was when I heard the news; I know that it shook many of my constituents, as it shook all of us. The Minister says that in the spirit of respecting Lady Elish, she is going to go away and look at the recommendations in detail. The question of funding has been raised by women’s charities. Does she think she has enough money to do this now, or is she going to need more? I am sure we will support her on that.

    Hansard source
20. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Criminal Court Reform

    I am glad to see that the Justice Secretary has finally come into work today. When 12 prisoners were mistakenly released after the introduction of his brilliant new checks, he did not bother to come to Parliament to inform the country; then, when I asked his Department whether it is paying compensation to terrorists in prison, he did not show up; and when the news of his plans to scrap jury trials mysteriously emerged in the press last week, he was nowhere to be seen. Like the prisoners under his watch, he has been a man on the run—the “Lammy dodger” of this sorry charade of a Government—but today we are blessed with his presence. His past is catching up with him, because the best opponent of the Justice Secretary’s plans to curb jury trials is the Justice Secretary himself. In 2020, he said: “Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.” In 2017, in his report into prejudice in the criminal justice system, he found that juries “act as a filter for prejudice”, but now that he has become the Justice Secretary, he is scrapping the very institution he once lauded. Which is it? Will the real David Lammy please stand up? It is not just the Justice Secretary. Who can guess which Labour MP said that taking away jury trials “would be a wholly draconian act”? It was his own junior Minister, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). And what about this one? Who said there should be a “right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”? Any ideas, Mr Speaker? Who else? It is the Prime Minister this time. Do this Government have no shame? Yesterday, the Justice Secretary boldly claimed that if the medieval barons were around today, they would support his changes. Then again, English history has never been his specialist subject, has it? Eight hundred years on from Magna Carta, we have another unpopular leader who does not listen to his subjects and who levies eye-watering taxes, and a state that locks people up for what they say. Well, I say that the link between British citizens and the administration of justice is as important as ever. It is a link that serves as a check on an occasionally overbearing state. Our ancestors did not stop bad King John, only to be undone 800 years later by this Prime Minister and his court jester. And all of this because the Justice Secretary cannot manage his own Department. This morning, in England alone more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty. In fact—[Interruption.]

    Hansard source
21. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Criminal Court Reform

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning, more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty in England alone. In fact, over 21,000 court days have gone unused this year. Why? Not because there are too many juries, but because the Justice Secretary will not fund the sitting days. Had he done so, the backlog would have shrunk by up to 10,000 cases, but the fact is that it has risen this year. The truth is that scrapping juries is a choice. This Government could find the money to bear down on the backlog of asylum claims and to spend more on benefits, but not to fund the courts to sit round the clock. Last year, the entire budget for courts and legal aid was £5.5 billion, which is almost exactly the same amount of money—£5.4 billion—that we spent on illegal migrants. He defends their rights under the European convention on human rights, but not our rights under Magna Carta. And for what? He cannot even guarantee that in four years’ time these changes will have reduced the backlog. With this Justice Secretary, it is justice delayed and justice denied. Much of the rest of the package announced today is sensible, but why has it taken 17 months? The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have all said that jury trials are not the problem.

    Hansard source
22. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Criminal Court Reform

    Apologies, Mr Speaker. Why did the Justice Secretary not start by reforming the Probation Service and court listings, and by tackling delays from late prison transfers? Why has he still not taken up the Lady Chief Justice on all the sitting days that she has offered him? Lastly, why on earth does this Justice Secretary think he has a mandate to rip up centuries of jury trials without even a mention of it in his party’s manifesto? The Justice Secretary, in his twisted logic, says he is scrapping juries to save them, but be in no doubt: if he gets away with this, it is the beginning of the end of jury trials. He is already in retreat. Let us unite to send him packing for good.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

    Cyber-attacks: Global Response

    In the past 12 months, nationally significant cyber-incidents have doubled, many backed by hostile foreign states, as the Minister will know. The National Cyber Force is clear that offensive cyber-operations play a part in ensuring our national security, so given the environment in which our adversaries are co-operating, will the Minister continue to deepen our co-operation with our Five Eyes partners in this domain, not least because I know at first hand how much they value the particular capabilities that the UK brings to bear in this area?

    Hansard source
24. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Richard Fuller

    Budget Resolutions

    Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start my comments on the subject of this debate, let me say that I am aware, and I think a number of right hon. and hon. Members are aware, that since you presided over the opening of this debate last Wednesday, you have been subject to abuse online, with a series of presumptions on your ethnicity and your place of birth. I would like to say—I think on behalf of all of us here—that you have presided over this debate fairly, competently and in the best traditions of this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Whereas—what a colossally inept and incompetent Budget process this has been. The public believe they have been misled, seasoned journalists have been shamefaced, and the head of the OBR has resigned. This is a Budget not guided by principle or a road map for the future, but by a sleight of hand on the British people. It is a Budget that means even lower growth in real disposable incomes for households up and down the country, that increases taxes and increases borrowing rather than controlling them, and contains a total of zero measures that will have any impact on economic growth. Yet after all the chaos, after all the briefings, and after all the kite flying, leaks and resignations, the core theme of the Budget remains what it has always been: a Budget for “Benefits Street” paid for by raising taxes on working people—a Budget delivered by a Chancellor who is out of her depth, enabled by a Prime Minister who is out of touch. Held captive by Labour Back Benchers, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister decided to put party before country, but despite all the pandering, their careers are still held captive. This Budget is the most expensive botched hostage rescue operation in British history. This Budget process has raised important issues of accountability. Labour’s election manifesto said: “Labour will not increase taxes on working people”. But this Budget extends the freeze in tax thresholds for a further three years. Last year, the Chancellor said: “we now wipe the slate clean” and that she would not need to come back for more. But this Budget increases taxes by a further £37 billion and borrowing by a further £57 billion over the next five years. The Chancellor held an unprecedented breakfast address to the nation. But the BBC’s Chris Mason said: “the words on the day left an impression not at one with the facts we were later to discover and which the chancellor knew at the time.” Yesterday, the chairman of the OBR resigned. Many in the country believe the Chancellor should reflect and make the same decision. This could have been a Budget for alarm clock Britain: for the people who work hard to create a better future for their families, their children and grandchildren—the sort of people who believe in an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, and who think it is unfair for the Government to increase their taxes to pay for more benefits; for the people who understand personal responsibility, especially when it comes to having children, and do not see why people on benefits should not have to make the same choices that they have to make.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Richard Fuller

    Budget Resolutions

    The hon. Lady needs to recognise that people are struggling because of decisions made by this Government. The people do want better public services, but they do not understand why, after the Government handed out a 15% pay hike to train drivers, more trains are running late this year compared to last year. People are striving to make ends meet as prices rise, perhaps putting a little aside to create a better future for their children, and they say that this Budget will make their lives worse, not better. The verdict is in: by more than two to one, the public think that this Budget is unfair, and only 2% think it will make them better off. They are right. This Budget attacks the strivers in our society—the engines of our economic growth. It confirms the devastating attack on family farms when we need greater food security, increases taxes on dividends when we need to encourage risk taking, discourages saving for retirement, and widens the division between pension protections for public sector and private sector employees. It deals a blow to start-up businesses that want to share their success with their employees, and raises taxes on working people, breaking the Labour party’s own manifesto promise. This Budget makes it clear that the Labour Government do not believe in personal responsibility, do not understand the spirit of enterprise, will punish aspiration and are too weak to make the hard choices that our economy so desperately needs if it is to get back on the right track.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Richard Fuller

    Budget Resolutions

    Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to reflect on the fact that, when she stands in the next election, real household incomes will have gone up by just a quarter of the rate they went up by under 10 years of Conservative government. If we are to fund the defence of our nation against greater threats, enable young people to have the same security in their retirement as pensioners have today, and maintain public services, we have to create wealth. This Government offer no hope of wealth creation, but the Conservative party does. A society that encourages people to succeed and take the risks that underpin success; a society that expands individual freedom and the scope for personal responsibility; a society that is prepared to make sacrifices to make the lives of our children and grandchildren a little better—we will build that wealth-creating society by bringing down energy costs, cutting spending, cutting taxes, backing business and getting Britain working again.

    Hansard source
27. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Budget Resolutions

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for intervening, but this is my intervention, not his. Why was he part of a Cabinet that stood by and punished his colleagues for voting against the two-child benefit cap? Why do we now see this sudden conversion and revisionism? Why does he think that most people in this country who were polled are against the removal of the child benefit cap?

    Hansard source
28. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Topical Questions

    The White House has expressed concerns about sensitive cables that run under Royal Mint Court, as have the Dutch, Swiss and Swedish Governments. I understand that the Foreign Office has denied the presence of such cables to the US Government, and the Cabinet Office has denied it to the press. Will the Foreign Secretary stand up and make it very clear to the House of Commons that no such cables run beneath or near the site—yes or no?

    Hansard source
29. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    Order. As so many Members wish to contribute, the speaking limit has now dropped to three minutes.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    Order. The terms “you” and “yours” should not be used, and interventions need to be short, so quickly get to the point.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way to you, Mr Hoare, and the rest of us want to hear what he has to say.

    Hansard source
32. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    Order. Before I come to the next motion, I have been informed that certain Members are taking photographs in the Lobby while we are in session. Members know that taking photographs is strictly prohibited. The Members names have been given to me. I expect them to come and apologise before the evening is out. If any of those photos is published, there will be severe repercussions. 51. Inheritance tax (pension interests) Question put, That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year about the charging of inheritance tax by reference to benefits payable under a pension scheme on the death of a member of the scheme.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Budget Resolutions

    I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me advance notice of his putting this point on the record. I am not sure that it is a sin, or whether he will be absolved of it, but it has been noted.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Gambling: Regulatory Reform

    As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. For transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Regulation of gambling must be a careful balance to avoid unintended consequences. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to take a gamble on this regulated industry, and on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people, who are at risk of gambling harms. She took an ideological position instead of a practical one. Despite clear warnings, she chose to fuel the black market, where there are no protections for problem gamblers, and to jeopardise thousands of jobs and livelihoods in the regulated sector as a result, as we have heard today. Labour’s tax raid was not just anti-gambling industry; it was anti-consumer and, we believe, anti-common sense. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this debate, so that we can properly interrogate the facts and the impact that the Chancellor’s actions will have on the more than 22 million people across the country who safely enjoy a flutter each month. To put that number into context, it is more than 34,500 people per constituency represented in this House—enough to enjoy a majority anywhere in the country. Whether or not Members like gambling, the facts are clear. The highly regulated gambling sector in the United Kingdom supports tens of thousands of jobs, contributes billions of pounds in tax each year, and sustains industries and sports, from horseracing to the high street betting shops that sit firmly in the fabric of the communities that we all represent. The choices the Chancellor has made will, according to modelling by EY, result in an estimated 16,000 job losses throughout the UK. Those will be particularly concentrated in areas where large operators are based, such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme, before filtering through to betting shop closures on high streets throughout our constituencies. The Labour party has so far failed to explain how those missing jobs and business rates will be paid for—perhaps by even higher welfare spending and taxes. We are all aware that, particularly in recent years, the debate about gambling and its regulation has been dominated by those who see gambling exclusively through the lens of harm. It is, of course, right to support those who struggle with addiction, and I am proud to support a range of specialist charities in that space that do fantastic work on the frontline, helping people across the country. However, the vast majority of punters enjoy a bet safely each week. We cannot and should not build a regulatory system that assumes that every person who gambles is high risk. That is simply untrue. It is the nanny state on steroids from the left of British politics. From buying a weekly National Lottery ticket to a casual acca with your mates on the 3 o’clock kick-offs and beyond, there is a spectrum of risk and reward, as well as exposures, the complexities of which we must appreciate and understand. The oversimplification of the issue does far more harm than good. We can learn how that happens from neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands. At the start of this year, the Dutch Government raised their gambling tax on gross gaming revenue from 30.5% to 34.2%—a much smaller rise than that which this Government have announced, with another rise planned. The Dutch Government combined it with much tighter restrictions, strict spending caps, deposit limits and sweeping advertising bans. Within months, the Netherlands has seen regulated gambling revenue collapse by around 25% and tax receipts fall significantly, despite the higher rate, which has left a €200 million shortfall. The percentage of gamblers using regulated sites dropped below 50%, and the Dutch regulator itself reported that illegal gambling sites now receive more visits than regulated ones, with searches for the “100 best illegal gambling sites” surging. That is the reality of the situation in a comparable European country. Over-regulation and excessive taxation have driven gamblers to the black market. We can see the same pattern developing here in the UK, with even the OBR highlighting that the black market will gain from those tax choices. That is before we even consider debating outstanding issues such as affordability checks. In the black market, there are no affordability checks, no safer gambling tools, no self-exclusion and no protection at all for punters. We can see that moralistic and heavy-handed regulations simply displace gambling into the unregulated sector, rather than reducing gambling rates and risks of harm. The sector could not be clearer: once punters have entered the black market, they are unlikely to come back. That would be a lose-lose situation for the Government that could result in lower tax revenue and fewer jobs, a loss of revenue for bookies and sports that rely on their sponsorship, and a loss of consumer protections for the public. Sadly, however, that is where the Government are now heading fast. There is another area where the Government’s policy is simply not functioning: the new statutory levy. The industry has spent the past three years implementing more than 60 measures from the gambling White Paper. The statutory levy, introduced in April this year, is one of the most significant and most costly. Operators have now made their first payments under the mandatory system, totalling more than £100 million, but there is still no clarity about how charities such as Gordon Moody, GamCare, Betknowmore UK and others that do fantastic work in the treatment and prevention space can actually access any of that. We have warned the Government about that, privately and publicly, for many months. That is why we did not feel that we could support the gambling levy legislation as drafted. To date, only UK Research and Innovation has published basic guidance. Organisations that were promised long-term certainty have no idea how, when or even if they will be able to bid for levy funds to continue their vital work. Frontline charities supporting people suffering from gambling harms tell us that they cannot plan ahead, cannot recruit or even retain staff, and in some cases cannot continue services at all because the system remains so opaque. Before the Government bring down another wave of major reforms, impose the most aggressive tax rises in Europe, and throw operators and charities into further uncertainty, should they not first ensure that the levy is actually up and running properly? Should they not ensure that charities with experts who have decades of experience are not forced to close because of the ongoing ideological madness in Westminster, which has stacked the deck against those with more pragmatic views about gambling and how we prevent harms? It makes no sense—literally none—to introduce new burdens when the existing regulatory framework is still incomplete and not functioning as the Government promised. Perhaps if the Minister could get his ministerial colleagues to properly engage with anybody in the sector, the Government might have a clue about what is happening: they are gambling with lives. Protecting consumers means keeping them in the regulated domestic market if they choose to gamble: that is a very simple truth. I am all in favour of bashing the bookies—it is a long-established British tradition—but I want it to be done by the punter, not by this anti-fun Labour Government. Hon. Members should already know that British operators, although not perfect, prevent the use of credit cards, enforce 18-plus age verification, operate GamStop self-exclusion, display prominent safer gambling messages, use data to identify markers of harm, adhere to the strict advertising rules that are in place, and provide stable funding for research, education and treatment. The unregulated market that the Government are fuelling to the tune of £6 billion in extra stakes does none of that. Once someone has moved into that unregulated environment, there is no longer any meaningful ability to protect them from gambling harms. Will the Minister personally review the commissioning of prevention and treatment to ensure that it is being managed fairly and that charities are not being deliberately excluded? Will he commit to a formal review, across the House, of affordability checks and of the pilot that has been extended by the Gambling Commission? Does he believe that the £26 million of funding given to the Gambling Commission is sufficient to stop the growth of the black market? Lastly, what message does he have for the thousands of employees at risk of losing their jobs this Christmas because of Labour’s tax raid?

    Hansard source
35. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Criminal Court Reform

    In the event that a volunteer magistrate makes a mistake and jails someone for two years, that person’s automatic right to a rehearing will have been removed. Can the Justice Secretary confirm whether he believes this is efficiency, or just easier wrongful imprisonment?

    Hansard source
36. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Cyber-attacks: Global Response

    The whole House and country should rightly be concerned about cyber-attacks, from malign cyber-activity directed at MPs and the Electorate Commission, to Chinese companies linked to global malicious cyber-campaigns. When will this Government stand up to China and address this threat? When will they send a strong message to the Chinese Communist party by blocking its super-embassy application and finally placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

    Hansard source
37. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Angiolini Inquiry

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and for coming to the House to speak to the incredibly disturbing and damaging issues outlined in today’s report. Over four years ago, the reprehensible abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard shocked us all. It forced the police to confront their failure to remove Wayne Couzens as a police officer. The crime was vile and abhorrent, extinguishing the life of an incredible young lady in the most awful way. We should never forget the impact of this crime, with Sarah’s mother describing the final hours of her life as a constant torment to the family. I know that Sarah, her family and her friends remain in the thoughts of the whole House and people across the country today. This incident underlines our responsibility to confront not only the problems outlined in this case, but to go beyond any single evil person and tackle challenges in our police and society more widely. Sarah’s murder had a profound effect on women. As the report outlines, women changed their travel plans, their routines and their lives out of fear for their safety. I am sure the whole House will agree that that is simply not acceptable. This reflection is critical. We will always support the police and have advocated the need to give them the powers required to tackle crime in our society. However, that support is predicated on a deep responsibility that extends beyond the responsibilities to which many in our society are bound. As the code of practice for ethical policing notes: “Effective policing is built on public trust and confidence. This depends on a policing profession that is ethical and professional in the way that it respects, listens, responds, improves and serves the public.” As the Minister will be aware, the terms of reference for part 2 were set and published in May 2023 by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). The scope appropriately asked the Government to cover the three broad areas set out by the Minister today: recruitment and vetting; police culture and standards; and the prevention of sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces. The report highlights our responsibility to ensure that women and girls feel safe in public spaces, where there is clearly a significant gap today. The Minister, in her role, rightly mentions some of the steps the Government are taking to tackle violence against women and girls. In that spirit, I recognise the important steps taken by the previous Government, which brought forward Operation Soteria, a programme highlighted by Lady Elish in her statement this morning, which sought to radically transform the way the police and the Crown Prosecution Service investigate rape, and which I understand the Government are implementing the principles of in training. This was among a range of other measures set out when the first part was published, but as was acknowledged we need to go much, much further. Therefore, I hope the Minister can follow through on what she outlined today and ensure that the violence against women and girls strategy is published, having been delayed over the past year. The Minister’s statement does not mention the use of data, a point the report suggests is lacking. Can she provide assurances that the Government, in the strategy, will have a comprehensive plan for implementing better data recording, encompassing and publishing a wider array of data pertaining to violence against women and girls? As shadow Policing Minister, I would also reflect on what we can do at speed to instil trust within the public that the police will tackle this problem. The dreadful murder of Sarah Everard did huge damage to public trust in the police, especially among young women. In particular, I refer to the proposals around officer vetting and conduct, which I expect to be raised in the second half of the report. The truth is that, for a variety of reasons that the Minister and I can both acknowledge, the measures to bring forward changes to our vetting and dismissal procedures have not been implemented at sufficient speed. Will the Minister therefore discuss with her ministerial colleagues the need to implement the changes swiftly once the legislation is passed? The inquiry report demonstrates the necessity of tackling violence against women and girls in our public spaces. Unfortunately, we know that there are survivors of grooming gangs who were failed by the police and local authorities, often in plain sight. I therefore implore the Minister to provide answers about the terms of reference and timings of the grooming gangs inquiry, and to ensure that there is justice for all those affected by these heinous crimes. Additionally, I ask the Minister about her level of confidence in implementing the recommendations set out in Lady Elish Angiolini’s report today. As Lady Elish rightly highlighted, this is a “whole-society” issue that requires a whole-society response. The Minister has herself highlighted some of the challenges in achieving cross-Government responses to the violence against women and girls strategy. I hope that she will now be able to drive forward the change needed to protect women and girls.

    Hansard source
38. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Homelessness: Funding

    Order. To accommodate all those who wish to speak, I ask Members to impose on themselves a four-minute limit.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Homelessness: Funding

    I am afraid that that was not a good example of a four-minute speech. Jim Shannon will show us how it should be done.

    Hansard source
40. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Homelessness: Funding

    We have three remaining speakers and 10 minutes, so you have about three minutes each.

    Hansard source