5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   The Government are clearly not going to take any lessons from us, but I wonder whether they would listen to one of their own. Lord West of Spithead was a Security Minister under the previous Labour Administration and then First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, so he knows a thing or two. He has said very clearly that in his expert opinion, this deal is “irresponsible” and that it will damage our strategic interests. Who are we to believe: the Labour party or my old boss, Lord West?

   Hansard source
2. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The answer is none, because Mauritius has no navy and practically no coastguard. With which means will Mauritius defend a territory that is hundreds of kilometres away? It cannot possibly do so.

   Hansard source
3. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief: Impact on Farming

   22. If she will meet with representatives of the farming industry to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on that sector.

   Hansard source
4. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief: Impact on Farming

   Given the Prime Minister’s clear commitment to growth that benefits every community in every corner of the UK, his Ministers will no doubt be disturbed at polling showing that four fifths of farmers have postponed or delayed investment since the Budget. Is it not time for a rethink of this policy—if not on grounds of fairness, then on grounds of investment, productivity and economic growth?

   Hansard source
5. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

   Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack

   I congratulate the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) on securing this important urgent question. I welcome the Minister to his new role, although I will never be able to rival his literary quotations. This attack on Jaguar Land Rover is extremely concerning. The impact on that world-leading business, and on its suppliers and workers, has been significant. I hope that the whole House agrees that we must use the full force of the state to crack down on cyber-criminals. I appreciate that the Minister is constrained in what he can say, but when were the Government and the National Cyber Security Centre informed of the attack? What kind of support are the Government and law enforcement agencies able to offer Jaguar Land Rover? How much longer do the Government expect the disruption, which is impacting on the supply of vehicles, to continue? The attack is just another in a series against British brands and iconic institutions—the Minister says that 40% of our businesses have been affected—including the attack earlier this year on Marks & Spencer. Will he elaborate on what the Government are doing to prevent future attacks? Has he identified who is responsible for the attack? Can he rule out its being a state-sponsored attack? If the group responsible for the attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer are linked, what progress have law enforcement agencies made in pursuing them?

   Hansard source
6. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation

   I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he agree that another problem with the lack of four-day county cricket during the August period is that it is pushed to the margins, which impacts on batting development for future test players, as they are playing in the colder conditions of the early season, and inhibits the development of spin bowlers, who struggle at that time of year? We are perhaps inhibiting some player development in both batting and bowling for our future test stars.

   Hansard source
7. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation

   Does the hon. Member agree that it is now 20 years since the last televised Test series—the greatest Test series of all time—and that since then participation has gradually declined? Is that not clearly an indication that fewer people are being exposed to the joys of this fantastic game?

   Hansard source
8. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   Order. We do not refer to Members by name, but by constituency.

   Hansard source
9. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   Order. Before we move on to the next speaker, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it is not in order to impute false or unavowed motives to any other individual hon. Members in this place.

   Hansard source
10. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. I wasn’t anywhere, and I have forgotten nothing. Will Members please be careful about the language they use in the Chamber?

    Hansard source
11. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. This debate has to be fair on both sides. I will not have Members referring to the Prime Minister by name.

    Hansard source
12. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    There have been some fantastic speeches from Opposition Members standing up for British interests, so I will not go on at length, but I wish to make a few points. This surrender Bill is madness. The Government have decided, against the security and financial interests of the United Kingdom, to surrender territory to which there was no claim to a country that has no historical or cultural connection to it. They are doing so because, in the words of the Prime Minister, “If Mauritius takes us to court again, the UK’s long-standing legal view is that we would not have a realistic prospect of success.” Let us be clear: there is no legal or moral obligation to surrender the Chagos islands to Mauritius. Labour is the worst negotiator, spending tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to surrender the Chagos islands, bunging billions to its unionised paymasters on day one of forming a Government, and showing a lack of will on tackling welfare dependency. Whatever Labour touches, the costs to the taxpayer go up and the benefits diminish. This spectacularly bad deal will leave Britain less secure while British taxpayers stump up tens of billions of pounds for tax cuts in a foreign country—equivalent to 4% of the Mauritian budget and to £50 million for every constituency represented in this House. The staggering £35 billion cost is 10 times more than was originally claimed because of the Government’s creative accounting—even the UK Statistics Authority does not endorse the figure. It was arrived at by applying an assumed annual inflation rate of 2.3% over the 99-year lease period, despite inflation running at almost 4%. The total was then lowered again by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year through a Treasury practice called the social time preference rate, which reflects the fact that people value benefits received immediately more highly. It converts future costs and benefits into their present-day value rather than allowing for a more accurate valuation of future costs. The Government are happy to apply that rate in the case of their surrender deal, but will not use the same methodology to cost their affordable homes programme. What is worse is that the Government have refused to allow Parliament a separate vote on the financial obligations under this terrible deal—they could have done, but chose not to. That £35 billion could have been spent on new hospitals or schools or, in the case of my constituency, on infrastructure to support the thousands of new houses that the Government want to build. It could have been spent on tax cuts to stimulate the economy or even to plug Labour’s own financial black hole. Labour is cutting tax for Mauritians off the back of hard-pressed UK taxpayers. Then we get to the national security risks. Diego Garcia, located on the Chagos islands, is the UK’s most important military base in the Indian ocean. The geopolitical significance of the base cannot be overstated in a world in which China seeks to undermine us. We know that China thinks in a multigenerational capacity. It is a dictatorship that does not share our values, and this is the blink of an eye in terms of how it plans its future. China has made no secret of its intent to deepen its relationship with Mauritius. It is an increasingly hostile state towards the UK, and it knows too well that Mauritius is key to supporting its long-term strategic goals. Furthermore, Mauritius has signalled that it is working more closely with Russia on research and development, and with Iran on developing closer relations. Mauritius has gone on public record stating that it is grateful to the Chinese for playing a critical role in its pursuit of international recognition of Mauritian sovereignty over these islands.

    Hansard source
13. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I will not. While the Government and the Prime Minister are trying to paint this as a good deal, they know that Beijing, Moscow and Tehran have watched closely and have all taken note. Finally, it is not just this country’s taxpayers who recognise that this is a bad deal. Lord West of Spithead, former First Sea Lord, Chief of the Naval Staff, and Labour Security Minister, said that ceding the Chagos islands to Mauritius would be “irresponsible”, risk our strategic interests, and undermine the fundamental principles of international law. Why do the Government prioritise any interests other than Britain’s, and foreign sovereignty over that of the UK? The Bill will leave Britain poorer, weaker and exposed. It is a betrayal not just of UK interests but also of British Chagossians, and it does not deserve a Second Reading.

    Hansard source
14. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    At the start of this Parliament, I could not have imagined that we would be asked to consider a Bill that is so uniquely detrimental to our national security, the British taxpayer, the British Chagossian people and the environment. Not only are we ceding sovereignty of a critical overseas territory, but we are paying a huge financial cost for the privilege of doing so. We have heard much today about the cost of this deal—a cost that the Government claim is £3.4 billion over 99 years, but in reality it is many times greater. This deal is unique: it will leave the UK strategically weaker in one of the most contested regions of the world, which is likely to shape the future direction of geopolitics, at a time when the world is more volatile than ever, with 2024 seeing the greatest number of conflicts around the globe since the second world war. Allow me to start with the finances of the deal. It took a freedom of information request for this Government to level with the British people that this deal would in fact cost £35 billion, with some analysis even suggesting it could be as much as £47 billion. It would have been far better for the Government to have come clean over the true cost of the Chagos deal, rather than trying accountancy tricks to pull the wool over our eyes. I would like to put into context the sheer scale of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money: it could be used to pay for 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers; it is over half the annual schools budget; it is the estimated cost of the entire Hinckley Point C nuclear reactor project; it would pay for 70 hospitals, or a 5% cut on income tax—the list could go on and on. We knew this anyway, but it is worth reiterating that when the Prime Minister negotiates, Britain loses. The hard-working people of Chester South and Eddisbury deserve a better return for the tax they pay, and they ought not to have to watch as this Government sign away British sovereign territory. Adding to that, the omission from the Bill of a money authorisation clause, removing Parliament’s ability to vote on sending billions of pounds to Mauritius, is completely wrong. That leads me to the strategic implications of the Bill. The Diego Garcia base is one of seven permanent points of presence within the Indo-Pacific region. Owing to its position in the middle of the Indian ocean and proximity to shipping lanes, it is vital for our national security and regional influence. It is a key base from which our armed forces can protect us from hostile states and non-state actors and activity. From a security standpoint, it is deeply concerning that we are losing sovereignty over this base and the influence that we could exert from it. According to the treaty, the UK is compelled to notify the Mauritian Government on certain aspects of military activity in and around the base. This does not make us safer. Think back to earlier this year when our American allies conducted strikes against Iran. What if the UK were to support our allies in such action? This deal would require, as we have heard, for us to expeditiously inform the Mauritian Government of our actions. I appreciate that the Minister has clarified that no advanced notification is required, although one might ask why we should have to inform Mauritius at all, expeditiously or not. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the provisions under annex 1, paragraph 2 also extend to special forces operations, and, if so, what guarantee there would be that highly sensitive security information would not end up in the hands of our adversaries. China, Iran and Russia have all welcomed the deal. As the shadow Minister highlighted, the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius congratulated the Government of Mauritius and the Deputy Prime Minister in a press conference following the deal’s announcement, thanking China for its support throughout the process. China does not do geopolitical favours, so its support should cause the Government to pause and reflect. Iran has also welcomed the deal and we know that it is forging closer ties with Russia, so perhaps in his closing remarks the Minister can share with the House how Ministers have somehow come to a different conclusion and deduced instead that all three of those geopolitical threats are opposed to the deal. But it is not just the huge financial cost or the significant security implications of the deal that are deeply concerning, but that it has ignored the voices of British Chagossians. In June this year, I met people from the Chagossian community who came to Parliament to speak with MPs. Their message was very clear: they feel let down by a lack of transparency and consultation, and are deeply uncertain about their future. It is not surprising that they feel ignored and betrayed, given that the former Foreign Secretary met them only once—once—on a deal that is so significant for them. The Government must put that right and take the opportunity to implement a recommendation put forward by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee and International Agreements Committee, outlined in the report that looked at the treaty. They urged the Government to “Enhance Chagossian engagement by establishing a formal consultation mechanism with the Chagossian community to monitor the Agreement’s implementation and ensure their meaningful inclusion in decision-making.” Will the Minister confirm whether that recommendation has been implemented? The deal provides British Chagossians with no guaranteed rights of return to their homeland. I therefore ask the Minister to state clearly whether the Government have negotiated an agreement in which British Chagossians’ rights to visit the Chagos islands are left entirely in the hands of Mauritius, and whether it is feasible that they may be refused the right to return or even visit. That would be wholly unacceptable. Further, the Chagos trust fund, established as part of the UK-Mauritius treaty and financed by the UK, is to be distributed solely under the control of Mauritius, yet the Bill contains no provisions to monitor whether the rights of British Chagossians are upheld or to create any statutory oversight of the trust fund. Have Ministers secured from the Government of Mauritius any firm commitment that British Chagossians will have a formal role in the oversight and decision making regarding the fund? Indeed, why was a model of joint governance not agreed, ensuring that British Chagossians themselves have a voice in how the fund is governed and can benefit directly from it? Added to all this, the deal currently risks leaving a pristine marine environment unprotected. The waters around the Chagos islands are home to 220 species of coral, 855 species of fish and 355 species of molluscs. These waters have been fully protected since 2010 by the UK Government. Although it is welcome that there is a commitment to continue with a marine protected area, we do not know what levels of support Mauritius will put into the MPA. Indeed, there are real concerns that the Mauritian Government do not have the capabilities to monitor, enforce and protect these waters, with no assurance that there will be no fishing and trawling in them. From the eye-watering costs to the grave security risks, the betrayal of British Chagossians and the environmental damage this treaty risks unleashing, this is a uniquely bad deal. It asks us to pay more, risk more and gain nothing in return. For the sake of our national interest and our duty to the Chagossian people, I cannot support this Bill.

    Hansard source
15. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Hydrogen Supply Chains

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is also a pleasure to take part in a debate on energy in which there is such a cross-party consensus. It is very rare in debates on energy these days to get such agreement on the way forward and on what we should invest in. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate and the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) for his very able opening speech. It is also rare that we actually learn something in these debates, but I have learnt quite a lot this morning, which is a surprise. The hon. Member for Worcester talked about the vitally important part played by gas in our energy system both today and moving forward, as well as blending, which is something we need a resolution to in the very near future, as I have heard in my discussions with National Gas and others. I urge the Government to make their decision on what the future might be as quickly as they can. That would be good for everybody. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) spoke about hydrogen buses. He was followed by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) in talking about Wrightbus and the issues around refuelling hydrogen buses. That is something that my constituents know about only too well. The city of Aberdeen was the first city in the United Kingdom to have a fully hydrogen bus fleet. However, it has been off the road since July 2024 because of issues with the refuelling station and the lack of available alternative supply. Although there are significant issues that need to be resolved, the future could and should be very bright indeed for hydrogen-fuelled buses. The hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the opportunities across our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are absolutely right: every community, I suspect, has some industry, business or body involved in the development of hydrogen as a technology and energy source of the future. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) raised the important point about ammonia and fertiliser, which is not spoken about enough in these debates. We focus far too often on the energy use of hydrogen and not its added benefits. I often speak about my own experience of the energy industry. Coming from Aberdeenshire, I have been surrounded by those working directly or indirectly in the oil and gas industry—it is inescapable. Where I am from, the importance of supply chains and economic value to local communities is obvious: everybody knows it, sees it in their high streets and hears about it from their family and friends employed in the sector. However, the oil and gas industry has not succeeded in telling that story beyond the north east of Scotland. In reality, 200,000 jobs across the United Kingdom are reliant on the oil and gas sector and supply chains. The industry touches every constituency in the country. All that is to say that the conversation around the significance, impact and resilience of supply chains is vital. The future of hydrogen in this country is central to our decarbonisation is central to our decarbonisation ambitions and sustainable future, as well as our industrial future, but it is also shrouded in uncertainty. The commitment and investment in using hydrogen as a solution in hard-to-abate industries, heavy manufacturing, long-distance transport and high-temperature processes began under the last Government. When we were in government, we kick-started the world-leading hydrogen economy and launched a hydrogen strategy and a 10-point plan. We recognised the significance of hydrogen to decarbonising and the importance to the economy of the supply chain across the country. That supply chain—from utilities to manufacturers, transport, distribution and storage, and from monitoring and control to the fabricators of fuel cell components, end users and decommissioning—plays a vital role in securing a future for hydrogen in the UK and adding value to local economies. We identified attractive opportunities for the UK supply chain on electrolysis package manufacturing, electrical equipment, materials manufacturing and more, with the UK supply chain capable of attaining a market share valued between £4 billion and £5 billion. If the UK aspires to be a world leader in green technology, as I think we in this House agree we should, we must underpin that aspiration with a strategy to bring down industrial prices. The Government—indeed, any Government—should be ambitious for UK industry, as the Government say they are, in order to make industry in the UK great. This cannot be achieved without cheap energy and energy abundance, which can be secured with hydrogen. British industry cannot be competitive with expensive electricity and with businesses and manufacturers suffering under the burden of levies, as they currently are. We should bring down industrial prices, build new nuclear, eliminate levies on manufacturers and embrace energy abundance. Let us all agree to aspire to manufacture, innovate and export technologies that will drive the world closer to global climate solutions. Hydrogen is at the heart of that. From steelmaking to shipping, hydrogen’s versatility makes this fuel an exciting prospect and component of our future energy mix. Yet major uncertainty is hanging over the system when it comes to whether hydrogen will be used for home heating. With a decision not due until 2026, the future of hydrogen remains somewhat in limbo. Regardless of the outcome when it comes to hydrogen for domestic heating, the gas grid remains essential. It could be repurposed to transport hydrogen to industrial clusters, power stations and transport hubs. We cannot and must not abandon this vast, valuable national asset. When it comes to distribution, pipelines, road tankers and even ships will be needed to move hydrogen. The existing gas grid could play a transformative role, if it is repurposed effectively. From production to storage and from distribution to utilisation, hydrogen in the UK heralds a wealth of opportunity. It is incumbent on this Government—and, indeed, on any Government—to create a landscape where the manufacturing industry can thrive and profit and where domestic production capacity can grow. The hydrogen supply chain does not exist in a vacuum; it builds on the legacy of the oil and gas supply chain—the infrastructure, engineering expertise and global logistics that have powered the UK for decades. With the right approach from the Government, it will do so for many decades to come.

    Hansard source
16. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alberto Costa

    Developments near Lutterworth and its Surrounding Villages

    I rise to present a petition from 241 residents of South Leicestershire who share my concern about the threat of gross overdevelopment in Lutterworth and its surrounding villages. I declare from the outset, as a proud constituency-based MP, that I live in the affected area. The petition highlights proposals such as the proposed Tarmac quarry near Misterton, which is not in the county council’s mineral plan; plans for large-scale warehousing at Lutterworth East and Gibbet Hill, which is not in Harborough district council’s local plan; a proposed giant battery storage site between Lutterworth and South Kilworth; and the reduction of affordable housing in Lutterworth East. A minimum of 40% the housing was to have been affordable, but that is now changed to a minimum of just 10%. That will deprive hundreds of families of much-needed affordable homes. Those proposals threaten the character of our historic Lutterworth market town and our wonderful Leicestershire villages. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of South Leicestershire: Declares that current proposals such as Tarmac’s proposed sand and gravel quarry near Misterton, which is not an allocated site in Leicestershire County Council’s mineral extraction plan, large-scale warehousing developments at Lutterworth East and near Gibbet Hill, which are not compliant with Harborough District Council’s Local Plan, and the proposed giant battery storage and electrical substation between Lutterworth and South Kilworth, which raises health, safety, and noise concerns, and the reduction of affordable housing at Lutterworth East from a promised minimum of 40% to a minimum of 10%, denying families access to affordable homes, threaten the character of our historic market town and villages. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to intervene if necessary to ensure that relevant county and local planning policies are applied in respect of Tarmac’s proposed sand and gravel quarry near Misterton, the warehousing developments at Lutterworth East and near Gibbet Hill Roundabout, and the proposed giant battery storage and electrical substation between Lutterworth and South Kilworth, and to the proportion of affordable housing in new developments. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003109]

    Hansard source
17. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Defence Industrial Strategy

    I congratulate the Minister on his promotion. I have just returned from the US with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where we reviewed disruptive technology from AI to quantum and saw how it has a chance to change the defence industrial base. What consideration of that fast-moving technology is there in this defence industrial strategy?

    Hansard source
18. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Defence Industrial Strategy

    The Government said over the summer that the Dreadnought programme was on track, despite the fire last year at Barrow, the challenges of covid and the other Government programmes that are running delayed. However, there is a lot of latitude in saying that the programme will be delivered in the early 2030s. Is the Minister able to clarify in which year the first vessels will be in service? That has significant implications for the length at sea of existing submariners.

    Hansard source
19. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    NATO Defence Spending Target

    The Defence Secretary says that the Chagos giveaway will amount to no more than 0.2% of our defence budget. Does that not suggest the cost of the Chagos giveaway will in fact come out of the defence budget?

    Hansard source
20. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

    As I have indicated previously, I have my doubts about whether the terrorism label is most suited to a group that is certainly criminal, certainly violent, and arguably seditious, in its attacks on the assets of our military, but I have a positive suggestion to make. Will the Minister undertake fully to brief the Chairman and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I used to chair but on which I now no longer serve? If they were able to see information that the Minister cannot share publicly and say to us that they were satisfied with the terrorism designation, I for one would find that reassuring.

    Hansard source
21. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Omar al-Bayoumi: Arrest and Extradition

    Does the Minister accept that ever since the Saudi nationality of the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers became known, there has been deep suspicion about the role of the then Saudi Government in the atrocity that took place? To what extent do the Government believe that the nature and attitude of the Saudi Government have changed over the past 24 years?

    Hansard source
22. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Defence Industrial Strategy

    Now that the killer in the Kremlin has reinstated the serious prospect of all-out war on the continent of Europe, does the Minister accept that this places a premium on national autonomy in our procurement process? In future with procurement issues, will the Government make it clear to what extent we can proceed with acquiring the necessary munitions, irrespective of what is happening to the allies with whom we might normally co-operate?

    Hansard source
23. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Indefinite Leave to Remain

    Order. I do not need to point out that this is a very popular debate. I remind hon. Members that if they wish to be called to speak, they should please stand. To give you an indication, something like four minutes each should allow us to get everybody in, given the numbers who wish to speak, so please bear that in mind.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Indefinite Leave to Remain

    Order. This is just a gentle reminder that we are aiming for four minutes. I will not impose a formal time limit unless I have to, but it would help if we could keep close to four minutes.

    Hansard source
25. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    The UK needs a vibrant and fluid private rented sector. We need it to deliver communities that are happy and cohesive, and to deliver fairness, stability and security for families. I have been looking at the Government’s position on the Bill, and I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for the work he has done on it—or is he the right hon. Member?

    Hansard source
26. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    Well, he deserves to be the right hon. Gentleman. He has been doing the hard yards; he has done loads of work on this Bill. I am sure he was disappointed that he did not get to lead the Department—congratulations to the new Secretary of State—but I have no doubt that the opportunity will come in the near future. I would just say: be patient for the moment. While I have no doubt that the Bill is full of good intentions, it is poorly though through and counterproductive. In fact, I am assuming it is poorly thought through, but it is entirely feasible that the measures within it are well though through, and are designed to undermine the private rented sector. It is inept, either by accident or on purpose—I will go with inept by accident, because that is more in keeping with the Government’s actions in this Department. The Bill is clearly a mishmash of measures on issues that are Back-Bench hobby horses—issues that those on the Front Bench do not have the authority or the courage to put to bed. It is entirely counterproductive, as has been recognised and highlighted by their lordships in the other place. The Bill risks driving private landlords out of the sector, reducing the supply of private rented accommodation and pushing up rents for those in the private rented sector. Limiting the supply of such accommodation means limiting the options for tenants in the private rented sector, and leaving them worse off. We do not need to look very far to see what happens when Governments get this wrong. In Scotland, fixed-term tenancies were abolished, rent controls imposed and regulations tightened, and what was the result? Fewer landlords, shrinking supply and the fastest rises in rents in the UK, with Edinburgh and Glasgow facing steeper rent rises than ineptly Labour-run London. The Labour Government in Westminster are about to make the same mistake, because Government Back Benchers are, for whatever reason, obsessed with “fixing” an already highly successful sector. The private rented sector has the highest satisfaction levels of any tenure type—higher than levels in the social rented sector or among owner-occupiers.

    Hansard source
27. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    The hon. Gentleman makes the classic statistical error of assuming that his inbox is representative of all the people in the sector. Has it not occurred to him that people who are happy in their private rented accommodation do not tend to write to their MP, saying, “Apropos of nothing, I just want to let you know that I am happy”? I have it on good authority from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—my good friend and colleague—that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) is not doing a terribly good job of championing the social rented sector in his constituency. He seeks to deny the private rented sector, while simultaneously denying people the social rented sector. I am not sure where he thinks people in his constituency should live. The point is that the Bill is a mishmash of incoherent proposals, which, instead of being designed to improve the private rented sector, are designed to keep angsty Back Benchers happy, but Front Benchers are already starting to learn that they cannot pay political Danegeld to their Back Benchers. I give the Front-Bench team due notice: their Back Benchers will be insatiable. They will take whatever red meat they are thrown, and they will ask for more. We have already seen this, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the proposed changes to social security and disability benefits. The Front Benchers had plans, but their Back Benchers had other plans, and guess who won? Those showing courageous leadership on the turbulent Back Benches. The Government will see the same again on this issue. The Opposition understand that a good tenure mix is good for the UK. We took measures to improve the private rented sector, but we made sure that we did it in the right order. We made sure that the courts were ready.

    Hansard source
28. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    It is interesting that on the one hand, we have voices on the Front Bench saying that we did not do anything in government, while at the same time, voices on the Labour Back Benches say that we were doing something.

    Hansard source
29. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    No. Perhaps Labour Members should co-ordinate their criticism. The previous Conservative Government understood that there is a need to reform the system, but that every part of the system needs to be ready. That is why we made sure that the justice system was ready first before we started making changes to the legal frameworks, giving tenants, landlords and courts the time to adjust. However, the Labour Government have abandoned that discipline. The changes put forward by their lordships came about through careful consideration of the provisions in the Bill and their implications in real-world scenarios, not the fantasy world of many Labour Back Benchers. The Labour Government were defeated in the other place on several important amendments. There is a pattern to the Government’s defeats: time and again, Ministers accepted a principle but when it came to taking action to deal with the principle, they fell short. I will give some examples from amendments on Report in the other place. Amendments 87 and 88 in the name of Lord Keen would raise the standard of proof for financial penalties to “beyond reasonable doubt”. The principle is clear: setting serious penalties requires having serious evidence. The noble Lord Keen made the case powerfully in the other place, yet the Government still refuse to act. In doing so they are introducing a huge degree of uncertainty for both landlords and councils, and uncertainty is toxic to the provision of homes in the sector. Making these changes will reduce the housing supply.

    Hansard source
30. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    If the hon. Gentleman was going to criticise what I say, he should have at least listened to what I said. What I said was that extrapolating—

    Hansard source
31. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    No, no, get it right first time. What I said was that extrapolating from a Member of Parliament’s inbox is not a good way of gauging the full spectrum of opinion within a cohort of people. At no point did I say—and I would never say—that we should ignore the people who write to us, and no one should assume that we do. I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman would not, and I certainly do not. That is absolutely not what I said. The point I am making is that the Government’s argument was, “There aren’t that many people, and frankly they’re all posh, so we can ignore them.” That was basically the framing of their argument, but tell that to the extended families of people, typically of ethnic minority origin, who often live in close proximity to each other. There will be communities all across the country where the elders of the family have rented properties that have tenants in them, but because those properties are near where they live, they envisage at some point in the future members of their extended family moving into the properties in order to provide care for them. Disregarding and diminishing this as an idea just because it is something that the Government Front Bench accuse only the posh Members of the other place of doing is rather distasteful.

    Hansard source
32. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    There are always opportunities for abuse, but we cannot be closing off a provision that would be really valuable to many families around the country because there is a risk of abuse. If we were to do that, there would be loads of areas where Government would not legislate. We do not disregard an opportunity just because of the potential for abuse; we manage that potential for abuse. I will move on a bit more quickly as I want to ensure that all Labour Back Benchers get their opportunity to speak. [Interruption.] It is their legislation. Lords amendment 58 in the name of Lord Cromwell would reduce the ban on re-letting from 12 months to six months. That is a wholly pragmatic point. There is the idea in the Bill that a landlord would have to wait for 12 months, but if it is clear after six months that, despite genuine efforts—there is provision to ensure that efforts are genuine—there is no chance of selling, it is entirely reasonable that a landlord should seek to re-let. That is not as quickly as Members on the Labour Benches would do so; nevertheless, it is an entirely fair provision. The largest Government defeat in the other place came on amendment 59 in the name of Lord Young of Cookham, which is about the exemption for shared owners from the 12-month ban on re-letting. The Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he recognised that this area created challenges, but I urge the Government not to dig in their heels on the issue. The cohort of people envisaged by the amendment are often those most in need of flexibility—people who are not of significant financial means—and limiting their options when it comes to, perhaps, a distressed asset would be entirely wrong. I have no doubt that he recognises that. I urge him to move quickly to a resolution on this matter to reassure the Chamber and the other place that those people will not be disadvantaged by the Bill. The Lords amendments are well thought through. They attempt to take this mishmash of a Bill and knock it into some credible shape, providing protection for tenants and a bit of reassurance for landlords so that they can continue to provide a supply of private-rented accommodation to help people get on the housing ladder and to live in homes they love and value in communities that they cherish. If the Government choose to blindly ignore those amendments, I have no doubt that the Bill will have the effect of reducing the number of landlords, reducing the number of homes and increasing rents, which is the opposite of what any of us in the Chamber should want. That is why the Opposition will support the amendments.

    Hansard source
33. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Omar al-Bayoumi: Arrest and Extradition

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) did the House a service today in raising this important matter, but there are wider issues associated with the extradition treaty with America. The House will recall that the treaty was set up when Sir Tony Blair was Prime Minister to address terrorism, but in recent years, it has controversially been used for a much wider remit; from time to time, it has looked as though commercial and national advantage was sought from it. That suggests that the time may be right to review it. Will the Minister look at the matter carefully, and consider whether now is the time to do that?

    Hansard source
34. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Veterans: Support

    22. What steps he is taking to help support veterans into employment.

    Hansard source
35. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Veterans: Support

    From my proud support of the National Transition Event held annually at Silverstone in my constituency, I am aware of the work of Mission Community, a service charity tasked with the delivery of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs’ veterans industry engagement programme, which is designed to advocate for our veterans by working with industry trade bodies. What sectors will the Government focus on in their work so that veterans and their families feel the benefit, as well as that having a positive impact on our economy?

    Hansard source
36. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Cadets

    15. What recent steps he has taken to help increase the number of cadets.

    Hansard source
37. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Cadets

    I was in the King Edward’s school RAF combined cadet force, and until recently I was on the board of the West Midland Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association. I was pleased to learn of the Government’s lofty ambition to increase cadet sizes, but I was worried by the comments of the Public Accounts Committee, which said recently that there was a distinct lack of “detail and funding” to achieve those numbers. Without the funding and without the detail, these plans and numbers are meaningless, are they not?

    Hansard source
38. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

    Order. I urge the Minister to be a bit more succinct in his responses.

    Hansard source
39. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Defence Industrial Strategy

    May I ask Members to be brief, and the Minister to be even shorter?

    Hansard source
40. 8 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Point of Order

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I take it that he notified the hon. Member for Clacton that he intended to refer to him in the Chamber.

    Hansard source