Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

   Conflict in Sudan

   Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and underlining the importance of this matter by allowing further discussion on Sudan in the House. The Minister is doing a very good job, but the whole House needs top-level, prime ministerial involvement in this matter, just as Sir Tony Blair and my noble Friend Lord Cameron were involved when they were Prime Minister. We are witnessing wholesale slaughter. Today is not about money and humanitarian aid, but about impunity. These murderous thugs are bragging online about their part in the ethnic cleansing that is taking place. We need to keep very strong records, so that we can hold to account as many of these people as we can, and we need more action at the UN, where Britain holds the pen. We need to demand access for an African Union-UN delegation to El Fasher, so that they can meet the leaders of the RSF, and we need to prepare international sanctions to be visited on all its leaders.

   Hansard source
2. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

   Engagements

   I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for joining me at a recent event in Parliament to support the work of Prostate Cancer Research, a charity of which I am an ambassador. He and I both believe that introducing a targeted national screening programme for prostate cancer is the right thing to do and would save lives. Does he agree that the recent compelling results of the 162,000-patient European trial support the case, and that that evidence, alongside data from Prostate Cancer Research and others, should be given significant weight by the UK National Screening Committee?

   Hansard source
3. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

   I begin by echoing the thanks expressed to Members in all parts of the House and in the other place who have contributed to the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to the excellent work of Baroness Finn, Viscount Younger and Lord Vaux, whose detailed and constructive engagement made the Bill stronger, more balanced and more effective. This Bill is about protecting taxpayers’ money, ensuring fairness for those who play by the rules, and giving our public bodies the powers that they need to tackle fraud and error wherever they occur. Every pound lost to fraud is a pound taken from taxpayers, public services and the people who rely on them. Tackling fraud and error and sending a clear message to fraudsters that they will not succeed is vital, and this Bill took an important step towards doing that, but there was more to be done, and our colleagues in the other place have done a brilliant job of scrutinising the legislation. I acknowledge that the Government have been incredibly constructive in their approach. Thanks to the determination of Conservative and Cross-Bench peers, a number of important concessions have been made, improving the Bill. I will touch on several of the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 1 concerns the power of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to conduct proactive investigations. When the Bill was introduced, the PSFA could act only when invited in by another authority. That risked preventing it from acting, even when there was credible intelligence that fraud was taking place. Our Conservative colleagues in the Lords rightly identified that gap, and brought forward an amendment that would empower the PSFA to act proactively where there were reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, without waiting for a formal request. That ability to act swiftly and decisively is essential if we are to stop fraud before more money is lost. The Government’s amendment in lieu reflects the principles in Lords amendment 1, ensuring that the PSFA’s new powers operate in a clear and accountable framework. This is an important issue, so we welcome that concession, which strengthens the PSFA’s ability to intervene early and protect taxpayers’ money. Lords amendments 30 and 31 relate to oversight and accountability, and would ensure that with new powers came clear lines of ministerial responsibility. Conservative peers raised legitimate questions about how serious investigative powers in the Bill would be authorised, particularly those based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The principle is simple: when Government officials are to exercise significant powers, Ministers must remain accountable to Parliament for how those powers are used. Following discussions, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31, which we have accepted as a compromise, on the basis that the initial guidance is subject to a “take note” debate in Grand Committee. That would allow Parliament to consider and scrutinise the guidance in full. I would be grateful if the Minister could, in his closing remarks, confirm that this remains the Government’s position. I apologise if he said so already and I did not quite catch it. Let me turn to Lords amendment 84. Modern fraud prevention increasingly relies on technology, including artificial intelligence and data-driven eligibility checks. Used well, those tools can help to identify patterns and protect public funds, but they must be used responsibly and transparently. Lord Vaux, Viscount Younger and Baroness Finn raised fair concerns; they said that the use of AI or automated eligibility indicators should never amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion on their own. Technology might inform decisions, but it must not replace human judgment, so it is welcome that the Government have listened. Their amendment in lieu makes it explicit that before any intrusive action is taken, such as amending a benefit or launching an investigation, the information must be reviewed by a suitably qualified human officer. We believe that ensures that we get the best of both worlds; we harness innovation to protect the taxpayer, while retaining human judgment to safeguard individuals. Lords amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism and its impact on vulnerable people and financial institutions. The amendment would task the independent reviewer of the mechanism with assessing how the system takes into account the additional needs of vulnerable people, whether it risks benefits claimants being prematurely de-banked, and the cost to banks and financial institutions of complying. Throughout the passage of this Bill, Members—including Conservative Members—have emphasised the need to protect those who may be more vulnerable, including people facing financial hardship and those with disabilities. We are disappointed that the Government are not backing Lords amendment 43, but it is reassuring that they have committed to ensuring that all the points made in both Houses are fed directly into the work of the independent reviewer. We understand that a meeting will be set up between Members and the independent reviewer after Royal Assent so that these issues can be explored in detail. We will continue to push to ensure that Ministers deliver on those promises, but we hope that this engagement will ensure that the review proceeds with a full understanding of Parliament’s concerns about proportionality, cost and fairness. As the Minister rightly said, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75 is essentially a technical correction. We have no issue with it, because it tidies up the text but does not alter the substance of the Bill. Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 97, which concerns the issue of reasonable force by Department for Work and Pensions investigators. We do not believe that it was the Government’s intention that DWP investigators should use force against individuals—that power rightly rests with the police, who are trained in its use and accountable for it. However, that was not clear in the legislation as originally drafted. The explanatory note stated that “This power will be limited to using reasonable force against things not people”, but that was not specified in the Bill. After we raised this issue in Committee in the Commons, Lords amendment 97 sought to clarify that DWP officers may use reasonable force only against property, not against people. The Government’s amendments in lieu are a compromise, but the Bill does now distinguish between the use of force against people, and the use of force against property for investigators who are not constables, which was the clarification we were looking for. In summary, thanks to the thorough work of colleagues in both Houses, the Bill today is better than when it was first introduced. It gives the Public Sector Fraud Authority the power to act proactively, embeds ministerial accountability, ensures the responsible use of technology, protects vulnerable people, and provides clarity on how enforcement powers may be used. There remain areas in which we think the Bill could be further strengthened—there is still nothing in it to tackle sickfluencers, nor were amendments requiring the Government to review the whistleblowing procedures in the civil service accepted. It is regrettable that the Minister missed those opportunities, but it is welcome that the Government were at least willing to listen in other areas, and we had some very good debates on the bits that the Government have not accepted. Although we will not oppose the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the Lords’ amendments, this Bill must not be the limit of their ambition. It is the latest step in cracking down on fraud and error, but we need to see continued effort, action and enforcement from this Government, because the message must be clear that fraudsters must not, and will not, succeed. Every pound stolen through fraud is a pound lost to the taxpayer, our public services and those who do the right thing. That is why we will keep pressing for vigilance, transparency and fairness as this Bill becomes law.

   Hansard source
4. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

   Conflict in Sudan

   (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s approach to the worsening conflict in Sudan.

   Hansard source
5. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

   Conflict in Sudan

   Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The atrocities of recent days, including in El Fasher, are beyond horrifying. The suffering inflicted on the Sudanese people by this war is an affront to humanity. Red lines have been crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that cannot be allowed to stand, especially by the UK as the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council. Britain needs to use its influence to co-ordinate robust and stronger international action to tighten the screws on the warring parties, press them into a ceasefire and end this barbaric conflict. The Government must go further and upgrade our support for those documenting evidence of these heinous crimes. Can the Minister confirm that that will happen? Will the Minister introduce more hard-hitting sanctions on the key operators and take concerted action to deter entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful conflict? Are actions of this nature being co-ordinated with international partners, and what progress has been made to build up organic civilian political groups so that Sudan can move back to a civilian Government after the ceasefire? It is essential that we have a credible day-after plan as soon as possible. On the dire humanitarian crisis, are the changing territorial positions of the warring parties having an impact on the ability to deliver aid, and if so, what is the plan to counter this? We note the announcement earlier this month—I think last week in Bahrain—of the £5 million being provided for emergency aid support for the survivors of sexual violence in El Fasher. The whole House will recognise the importance of getting aid to them, so what can the Minister say about the delivery of that urgently needed aid? How is that happening? What discussions have the UK Government had with the Sudan quad in recent days? How does the Minister define the UK’s relationship with the quad, now and moving forward? Can the Minister share his latest assessment of the region’s wider ability to manage the fallout from this terrible conflict? Have the Government carried out an assessment of what different outcomes from this conflict would mean for the security of the Red sea? Those carrying out the atrocities in Sudan need to know that the whole world is watching them and can see what they are doing, and that there will be consequences.

   Hansard source
6. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

   House Building: London

   Of course I will, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his excellent speech, much of which I agreed with, especially about using the TfL space. The TfL chairman is Sadiq Khan and, as Mayor of London, he is responsible not only for TfL but for house building in London. If we look at some of his promises in 2016, he said his first priority would be tackling the housing crisis. His first manifesto promised a step change in new housing supply, and that 50% of new homes would be affordable. Here we are nearly a decade later, and he certainly has not delivered that step change. House building has in fact ground to a halt—it is down 73% in London over the past year. The Government have had to step in to water down City Hall’s anti-growth affordability targets, because there is no way of avoiding it: despite Sadiq Khan’s boasts, he has comprehensively failed to build. After nine years at the helm, Sadiq Khan has nothing to show for it. Four fifths of homes built last year, as previously mentioned, were approved under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty. The average home in London cost £483,000 in 2016. Today, it is about £560,000. The average rent cost £1,292 per month in 2016. Today, it is £2,252. As has been discussed, it is not a question of money: Sadiq Khan has been given nearly £9 billion to deliver on housing in London. It is not a question of powers; he has strategic planning powers in London. Instead, it has been about bad policy. His London plan is onerous and expensive to adhere to, and his affordability targets have acted as a tax on house building. The Government know this. Instead of addressing the problem, they are dancing around the issue. They scrapped a mandated review of the London plan after independent experts found it to “frustrate rather than facilitate” building on the brownfield sites that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup discussed. The Government have cut the community infrastructure levy but kept the more expensive mayoral levy. Instead of taking powers away from the failing mayor they are rewarding him, giving him power to call in developments of 50 homes on green-belt sites. Instead of removing the obstacles to building on brownfield sites they are weakening green-belt protections.

   Hansard source
7. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

   House Building: London

   I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is worth re-emphasising that the mayor has had responsibility for delivering housing in London for nine years and has fundamentally failed to deliver on his promises. On weakening green-belt protections, which matters so much to those of us representing outer London boroughs, it is a bizarre decision to effectively block building on vacant former industrial sites in inner London near tube stations, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and instead force thousands of homes on to poorly served farmers’ fields in Bromley. If the Government want to meet their housing targets, they need to realise that Sadiq Khan is not a builder—he is a blocker, and the record proves it.

   Hansard source
8. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Conflict in Sudan

   Order. I understand the importance of this urgent question, but we have substantial business to get through today, so I ask that questions are short and, Minister, that answers are just as short and on point.

   Hansard source
9. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Curriculum and Assessment Review

   Before we come to the statement from the Education Secretary, I should inform the House that Mr Speaker is disappointed that this announcement was widely trailed in the media this morning, before this House had an opportunity to hear directly from the Government. I remind the Government Front Benchers that the expectation set out in the Government’s “Ministerial Code” is that: “When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.” I know that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is looking into how that expectation is currently observed and whether it continues to meet the needs of the House, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that work. Furthermore, engaging directly with Mr Speaker on such announcements is no substitute for the courtesy that this House deserves.

   Hansard source
10. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Curriculum and Assessment Review

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
11. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Curriculum and Assessment Review

    Order. Ms Trott, you have run over your time. I hope you are going to conclude very quickly.

    Hansard source
12. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Curriculum and Assessment Review

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
13. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Curriculum and Assessment Review

    Order. This is a statement—you must have a short question. Please finish quickly.

    Hansard source
14. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Curriculum and Assessment Review

    Order. We have just 30 minutes remaining, so colleagues will have to be brief.

    Hansard source
15. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Curriculum and Assessment Review

    Now for a short question masterclass from Sir Desmond Swayne.

    Hansard source
16. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of what is not really a point of order. He has most definitely made his point.

    Hansard source
17. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of order. I have received no notice that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will have heard that point of order and, I am sure, will take the hon. Member’s views into account.

    Hansard source
18. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Ministers are responsible for their responses to Members’ questions, so that is not a matter for the Chair, but no doubt those on the Government Front Bench will have noted his question.

    Hansard source
19. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. As an experienced Member, he knows that while statements are made on the initiative of Ministers, there are other ways for Members to raise matters in this House.

    Hansard source
20. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    Can the hon. Member confirm that he has actually notified the Secretary of State that he intended to raise this matter?

    Hansard source
21. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    Well, that would be good protocol. All correspondence from Members to Ministers should be dealt with promptly, and no doubt those on the Treasury Front Bench will have noted this and will ensure that Back Benchers get answers to their correspondence in good time. Bill Presented Railways Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Secretary Heidi Alexander, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Steve Reed, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Douglas Alexander, Secretary Jo Stevens and James Murray, presented a Bill to make provision about railways and railway services; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 November, and to be printed (Bill 325) with explanatory notes (Bill 325-EN).

    Hansard source
22. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Employment Rights Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
23. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Employment Rights Bill

    I call Justin Madders. After his speech, there will be a five-minute speaking limit for Back Benchers.

    Hansard source
24. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Employment Rights Bill

    For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Anneliese Midgley.

    Hansard source
25. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Employment Rights Bill

    Success has many mothers.

    Hansard source
26. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for housebuilding in London. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank all hon. Members who enabled me to secure this important debate. It could not be more timely, as house building in London has collapsed. In the first nine months of 2025, construction began on only 3,248 homes. Molior London predicts that just 9,100 homes will be built across 2027 and 2028—that is under 5% of the Government’s target for London. London is supposed to deliver more than a quarter of the Government’s 1.5 million homes target, but given the construction slowdown, that target appears to be dead in the water. That is the inevitable consequence of the Mayor of London’s disastrous London plan and the Labour Government’s anti-growth policies. Three things have gone wrong. First, Sadiq Khan’s London plan has comprehensively failed to get London building. With more than 500 pages and 123 planning policies, the London plan makes it more complex and expensive to build in London. A 2024 review found that it takes seven weeks longer to determine major planning applications in London than in the next four largest cities. Sadiq Khan’s planning requirements also add to the cost of building in London. For example, the London plan goes beyond the national energy requirements, imposes carbon targets, and has policies on overheating and energy statements. Whatever the merits of those policies, they all add to the cost of building homes. In places, Sadiq Khan’s planning policies actively restrict house building. For example, the London plan effectively bans house building on large swathes of industrial land, often within walking distance of public transport.

    Hansard source
27. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    I agree that we should have a brownfield-first approach, seeking to protect our green belt and countryside wherever possible. I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern and her representations on behalf of her constituents. The Home Builders Federation warns that the London plan’s net zero requirements are imposing carbon offset payments of £3,000 a home. Even when building on brownfield land is allowed, it is fraught with problems. The mayor requires 50% of homes to be affordable, which, given the remediation costs on those sites, makes development unviable. Altogether, the London plan review in 2024 found that Sadiq Khan’s policies frustrated, rather than facilitated, development on brownfield land. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government stopped the mandated partial review of the London plan a year ago, saving their mayor’s blushes. Secondly, Sadiq Khan’s affordable homes target has made many housing projects unviable in London. By demanding that 35% of homes built privately are affordable, he has made house building unviable in London.

    Hansard source
28. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    I appreciate the hon. Lady’s defence of her mayor, but I do not believe that most would recognise her statement.

    Hansard source
29. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    Since May 2022, Bexley council has built 1,836 homes. Of those, 619 are affordable, making up 33% of all new housing, so I do not agree with the statement the hon. Gentleman just made.

    Hansard source
30. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    I absolutely agree, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making one of his well-respected interventions in this important debate. We have to make sure that across the country, we are building the homes that people want to live in and that people can afford, including people in older age. Demanding that 35% of homes built privately are affordable has made house building in London unviable. The higher 50% target for industrial land also applies to public land, which, again, has effectively blocked development in the capital. This policy may seem like a good way to get London building more social housing, but it has hugely backfired. The policy is effectively a tax on house building. It makes some development unviable and deters investment. It ultimately means fewer homes and higher costs. If a developer cannot afford the target, they face six burdensome checks on the project’s viability before, during and after construction.

    Hansard source
31. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    I absolutely agree. We need to unlock brownfield sites in the interests of current and future generations that want to own a home. If there is any surplus profit in the situation I was describing, the developer will lose it, but if they make a loss, the number of affordable homes required will not be reduced. For a decade, London Conservatives have warned that this policy will harm house building. Today, we see the consequences. Sadiq Khan’s failed London plan has created a perfect storm, compounded by failing demand, policy costs and regulatory delays.

    Hansard source
32. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    I am going to make a bit of progress, because I have been up and down quite a lot, and I am not fit enough to keep doing it. Under this Labour Government, more and more first-time buyers are unable to afford a home, and they are the primary market for new builds in London. Over 3,700 new homes are sitting unsold. This is not a market where developers will build more. The Labour Government were wrong to slash first-time buyers’ stamp duty relief, costing first-time buyers up to £11,250 more in taxes. That is why the Conservatives’ plan to abolish stamp duty is the right one, and the Labour Government must rule out further market-suppressing tax rises. Developers also face excessive policy costs—section 106 payments, community infrastructure levy payments, mayoral community infrastructure levy payments, carbon offset levies, biodiversity net gain requirements and the new building safety levy. The collective cost of those demands makes it too expensive to build. To make matters worse, on top of the burdensome London plan, the well-intentioned post-Grenfell Building Safety Regulator is now delaying building in the capital. It has rejected 70% of building safety designs, and some completed projects have had to wait 18 months for approval before people can move in.

    Hansard source
33. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    I appreciate the argument the hon. Lady is trying to make, and I am about to come on to some suggestions to hopefully help the Government. The mayor has had strategic planning powers in the capital for nine years, and he was awarded £9 billion of affordable homes money by the previous Government. We have to be clear about where blame in the capital lies.

    Hansard source
34. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    Again, I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make. I have already outlined the Bexley position in response to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), so I do not need to go back into that—Bexley has been delivering affordable homes. What can be done now? I am afraid that the recent measures announced by the Government and the Mayor of London—without consulting London’s 32 boroughs—to unlock house building are too little, and potentially too late. They will give developers only temporary, targeted relief from the community infrastructure levy on brownfield sites, but not from the more expensive mayoral levy. The changes to the affordable homes targets do not go far enough; at 35%, demand is still placed on industrial and public land, acting as a blocker on these sites that could host thousands of homes. While a temporary fast-track route for homes that provide 20% affordable housing is welcome, it is a minor amendment to a system that has ultimately failed. More concerning are the proposals to give the Mayor of London the power to call-in applications for 50 homes or more and for developments on green belt and metropolitan open land. It is undemocratic to withdraw planning powers from local communities. It will backfire, eroding the little remaining public trust in the Greater London Authority, and it will confirm to outer Londoners that Labour’s plan is not to unlock building on well-connected brownfield sites, but to concrete over our precious remaining countryside.

    Hansard source
35. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I understand the argument that he is trying to make. Ultimately, my position is that the way to get truly affordable homes is not by setting artificial targets; it is by building more homes across London. That is how we bring prices down and unlock home ownership for more Londoners across the capital. Why should Sadiq Khan, who has comprehensively failed to get London building, be given more powers? As I have outlined, his London plan has made it too difficult and complicated to build in London, and as a result, Londoners face higher rents and unaffordable housing prices. Now he wants to build on the green belt, while brownfield sites near tube stations sit empty. This is completely unacceptable. Sadiq Khan and the Labour party may boast about his house building record, but the reality is that four fifths of the homes that were built in London last year received planning permission under Boris Johnson. The same is true of the majority of homes that were started last year—they were approved under Boris Johnson, not Sadiq Khan. We are nine years into Sadiq Khan’s mayoralty, and his predecessor is still building or unlocking more homes than him. The answer is not to build on the green belt, and it is not to let houses in multiple occupation conversions run wild or to take more powers away from local communities. It is to make it easier and cheaper to build in London again, and that means scrapping Sadiq Khan’s failed planning policies. Home ownership should be a dream that is open to everyone, but in Sadiq Khan’s London it is frankly not. It is a moral imperative that the Government step in to fix his mistakes.

    Hansard source
36. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    House Building: London

    This has been a healthy cross-party debate, even if we have disagreed on some of the diagnosis. I thank the Minister for his response. I hope he will take away some of the points that have been raised on a constructive basis. I think we all agree that we have to get London building on brownfield again. People have a right to somewhere they can call home. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for housebuilding in London.

    Hansard source
37. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for securing this debate. Given that he represents the constituency I was born and raised in, I follow his contributions in Parliament more than he probably realises. His contribution today was as knowledgeable and constructive as everybody has come to expect. I will comment on two points from his contribution. The first point is around the high street shops that we all see being used as a front for moving money, criminal gangs or hiding assets. When I was the Lancashire police and crime commissioner, that was a huge concern not only for the local communities, because of the damage it does to their high streets, but for the police in terms of being able to actually shut down different elements of organised crime gangs. The second point, which is linked to that, is the cryptocurrency element and finding out how the money—the cash—that has been generated in the UK by organised crime gangs disappears. I have sat in the room with the economic crime units of the Lancashire constabulary, looking at the cryptocurrency maps, and I could see where the dead ends suddenly appeared. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for his long-standing work in this area and his articulation of how there has been a cross-party effort for a considerable time, particularly from the 2016 G8 onwards. It is always daunting to respond from the Dispatch Box with such an esteemed and experienced colleague sitting behind me. We recognise that financial services are integral to the economies, employment and prosperity of many of our British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as has been outlined today. The sector underpins livelihoods, sustains local public services and contributes significantly to overall trade within our shared British family, and we want to see it thrive. From Gibraltar to Bermuda, those jurisdictions have been world-class financial centres. They attract investment, foster innovation and connect our economies to global markets. That success should be celebrated and, of course, accompanied by sound regulation and transparency to ensure that success can continue. Registers of beneficial ownership have been one of the most powerful tools in our fight against economic crime. They have enabled law enforcement here in the UK and in our overseas territories to track and expose those who seek to abuse our financial systems for criminal gain. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, those registers have been vital in tracing hidden assets, enforcing sanctions and going after dirty money, but there is clearly much more work to do on successfully and fully implementing them across all the overseas territories. Gibraltar already leads with a fully public register of beneficial ownership; the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands have now published legitimate interest registers; and others are due to follow in the next year or two. However, as has been recognised by my right hon. Friend and others, there is a significant delay. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and the new illicit finance campaign announced in 2024 all point to one shared goal—a clean, competitive and transparent financial system across the British family. There can be no place for dirty money, either at home or in British territories overseas. The British family stand united against illicit finance. Together, we can ensure that our financial centres remain engines of good growth, rooted in trust and respected across the world. We want the financial services of our overseas territories and Crown dependencies not merely to survive but to flourish. However, they must be anchored in openness, accountability and the shared values that define our global reputation. I look forward to hearing the Minister answer the questions that have been posed by hon. Members, particularly on the Government’s approach to the countering illicit finance summit. At what point will the Government push harder for further measures?

    Hansard source
38. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Violence against Women and Girls

    This Government talk about better protection for women and girls while actively passing changes to our sentencing laws that disgracefully mean that more than 90% of grooming offenders and 60% of rapists sent to prison will get their prison time cut. Was there an assessment of the impact of those changes on women and girls specifically? Can the Minister point to a single organisation representing women and girls that supports cutting prison time for sexual assault or grooming to one third of the sentence?

    Hansard source
39. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Engagements

    Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency is under threat of closure, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. There have been a number of expressions of interest in taking over the whole site. If one of those passes the test of due diligence, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that the Government will back the project and allow the continuation of operations at the refinery?

    Hansard source
40. 5 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Conflict in Sudan

    I have asked this before, and I will ask the Minister again: when will the Government publish their Africa strategy, covering both north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa? I fear that there will be other conflicts like this one, and as the UK, the US and the French have divested politically, economically, diplomatically and as regards the provision of aid, we have seen others fill that vacuum, such as China, Russia, proxies and terrorist groups. Unless the US, the UK, the French, and other partners and allies get together, and get back into Africa to support fragile Governments and stop them becoming failed Governments, we are likely to see our adversaries advance all over Africa—including in Commonwealth countries—and we are more likely to see more bloodshed, rape and torture and what one of our UK papers has called “hell on Earth” in Sudan.

    Hansard source