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

1. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Poverty Reduction

   Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is good to see you back after the summer recess. The hon. Lady can fling around the stats all she likes, but the facts are clear and bleak. Under her watch, youth unemployment has gone up; nearly a million young people, and rising, are not in work or education, including over 40,000 more young women. A generation of brilliant young people are going on to benefits, rather than into work. The Government’s jobs tax and their unemployment rights Bill were guaranteed to reduce opportunities for young people. We have had the winter fuel U-turn and the welfare U-turn; why not a U-turn to help young people?

   Hansard source
2. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Topical Questions

   I welcome the right hon. Lady back after the summer. She said recently that it had been “a bumpy…few months”—an understatement, in my view. Last time we stood here, she had just completed a rather humiliating climbdown on her welfare savings plans. She set out to save money, but ended up spending it. You couldn’t make it up, Mr Speaker, but here we are: the number of benefit claimants has hit a record high; the sickness benefit bill is heading up and up; and still the right hon. Lady has Back Benchers and Cabinet colleagues calling for even more spending on welfare. The Chancellor is busy doing her sums in advance of the Budget, so can the right hon. Lady tell us how much lifting the two-child benefits cap will cost?

   Hansard source
3. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Topical Questions

   I asked the right hon. Lady a simple question, but I fear that she does not know the answer; she certainly did not reply to it. What is clear is that Labour wants to spend more on welfare. So do the Liberal Democrats, and so does Reform. Only one party here is telling the truth about the welfare bill: the country cannot afford it. May I urge the right hon. Lady to take up my proposals? Will she stop giving people benefits for common mental health problems such as anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and give them help instead? Will she stop giving personal independence payments to foreign citizens who have not paid into our system and free cars to people who do not need them? Will she stop people scamming the benefits system over the phone and on the internet? Will she keep the two-child benefits cap, and get the benefits bill under control?

   Hansard source
4. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Borders and Asylum

   Does the Home Secretary believe that the rights of the people coming over the channel in dinghies should take precedence over the rights of local residents in places such as Epping, as her lawyers argued for in court and as the Education Secretary said in an interview at the weekend?

   Hansard source
5. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

   Borders and Asylum

   In her statement, the Home Secretary set out that the Government would establish an independent body to process asylum appeals. That will work only if it is delivered at pace, resourced and well-staffed, so can she set out when that independent body will start recruiting arbitrators and support staff and when it will be operating at full pelt? Will it operate seven days a week? If in a year’s time we come back from next summer’s recess with immigration rates higher than this year’s, will the Home Secretary take personal responsibility for that?

   Hansard source
6. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

   Borders and Asylum

   Home Secretary, please: we have a tinder-box situation in Epping. We have the Bell hotel, with alleged sexual and physical assaults, and now twice-weekly major protests, some of which became violent, with injuries to police officers. Appallingly, last week the Government successfully appealed against the injunction on the hotel, prioritising the rights of illegal migrants over the rights and, indeed, safety of the people of Epping. Our community is in distress. The situation is untenable. This week the schools are back. The hotel is in the wrong place, right near a school, and many concerned parents have contacted me. When will the Home Secretary and the Government listen to us, address this issue and do the right and safe thing: close the Bell hotel immediately?

   Hansard source
7. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Borders and Asylum

   The Home Secretary is right to talk about tackling the push and pull factors—something we worked towards tackling when we were in government, despite challenges with bringing forward the use of third countries. That is because we need both a deterrent and a place to send people whose country of origin we either do not know or we do not have a returns agreement with. It is no surprise to me that arrivals have increased since that scheme was scrapped. I understand that a period of reset is happening in Downing Street, so how long before we can expect her to come to the Dispatch Box to introduce a third-country scheme?

   Hansard source
8. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Middle East

   I am deeply concerned by the misery, suffering and death in Gaza. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the work he is doing with friends and allies in the region, which is a key part of solving the problem. I also support a two-state solution, but is he not concerned that the ultimatum regarding unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state risks entirely disincentivising Hamas from negotiating any hostage release or ceasefire over the coming weeks and months?

   Hansard source
9. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Middle East

   Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. The law of armed conflict is hardwired into the behaviour of our military, and we should demand the same of our friends and allies. Israel is our friend and ally. What assurances has the Foreign Secretary therefore had from his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence that they have gained from their Israeli interlocutors the assurances that we need that the 40 or 50 incidents involving the IDF on the west bank and in Gaza since 2023 will be brought to a proper conclusion, and that any wrongdoing is held to account?

   Hansard source
10. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Ukraine

    I, too, congratulate Admiral Sir Tony Radakin and Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton and wish them well. A big “Well done” is also due to all involved in the Type 26 deal, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I ask the Defence Secretary to cast his mind back to March, when I asked the Prime Minister whether it would be folly to put British troops into Ukraine without a US backstop—without a guarantee from the White House—and the Prime Minister agreed that it would indeed be folly. Does that remain the Government’s position?

    Hansard source
11. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Draft Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am sure we are all delighted to be here—I could sense the excitement in the room when Members read the subject matter. The Opposition commend the Government for their efforts to bring about a greater degree of fairness in local government audit. This has been a challenge for many years, in particular as a result of many larger audit businesses stepping away not just from very small public bodies, as the Minister described, but even from large local authorities, where the fees have not been large enough to justify the risks. A slew of big names, with which we are all familiar, have departed from that area of work. We should recognise that efforts have been made over the years to address that problem. In my time in government, I was involved in launching Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd as a means by which local authorities, working together, sought to increase the supply of effective and accredited auditors to undertake this work, but all of us, whether we represent areas with larger metropolitan authorities, or rural areas where small parish meetings sit within the audit envelope of a large local authority, are conscious of the importance of transparency. Because there is a large degree of consensus on this subject, we will not oppose the regulations this evening.

    Hansard source
12. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Middle East

    Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he specifically raised delivery of aid in his discussions with his US counterparts? The United States is a hugely important actor in that regard: it has the potential to be positive in improving the existing arrangements, but it also has the potential to be a blocker. His interaction with the US can make the difference.

    Hansard source
13. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Bank Facilities in Moffat

    I rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents who are users of the Bank of Scotland Moffat branch. Earlier this year, out of the blue, the Bank of Scotland announced the closure of all five of its branches in my constituency, along with many others across Scotland, leading, in my view, to that bank giving up on rural communities. Moffat was particularly affected because it is 23 miles from the next nearest branch in Dumfries, has a high elderly and vulnerable population, is a tourist town that attracts many visitors, and has a large number of businesses that rely on cash. The petition states: The petition of users of the Bank of Scotland Moffat Branch, Declares that residents of Moffat and Upper Annandale and visitors to the area will be left without banking services and access to cash by the proposed closure of the local Bank of Scotland branch in Moffat, thereby causing significant concern and worry for the local community, particularly the elderly and vulnerable, and local businesses, particularly in the hospitality industry, who rely on this these banking services; further that the petition organised locally by Evelyn Atkins calling on the Bank of Scotland to reverse the closure decision has garnered over 3,000 signatures from the local community and visitors to the town. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to call on the Bank of Scotland to keep its Moffat Branch open and to ensure that the residents of Moffat and Upper Annandale have proper access to cash and banking facilities. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003104]

    Hansard source
14. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Lisbon Maru Memorial

    I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate and the fact that we were able to have a debate in the House specifically about VJ Day. It is an issue that the events in the far east and some of the horrors that happened there are not known as well as they should be. I was not aware of this specific incident until I heard the hon. Lady mention it previously, so I commend her. Does she agree that we must continue to bring out all the facts about the events in the far east, where Scotland played a particular role, so that people understand the contribution and the sacrifices that were made?

    Hansard source
15. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Health and Disability Benefits: Spending Estimate

    It is good to see the Minister back after the break, but I am sorry to hear that there are still no plans to reduce spending on personal independence payments. He has said that he is collaborating with people who would not be working with him on his review if there were to be any reductions in the levels of benefit or eligibility. Given that veto on cuts to PIP, I implore him again to consider the benefits to which PIP is a gateway, such as Motability, disability premiums, council tax discounts and blue badges. Will he promise at least that those entitlements could come down?

    Hansard source
16. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Health and Disability Benefits: Spending Estimate

    But with no possibility of any of those entitlements coming down or any of the spending being reduced? We have 1.25 million foreign nationals claiming universal credit, most of whom are not in employment. I hope that the Minister does not plan to co-produce his plans with foreign nationals—although, knowing Labour lawyers, I expect they will say that the European convention on human rights demands that they do just that. Does he think that subsidising more and more foreign nationals is what the British social security system is for? If not, will he restrict sickness benefits to British nationals only, as we have argued for?

    Hansard source
17. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Borders and Asylum

    In her statement, the Home Secretary mentioned that the National Crime Agency had disrupted 347 immigration crime networks. Can she tell us how many gangs were smashed during the same period?

    Hansard source
18. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Borders and Asylum

    I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The Government have now been in office for well over a year, and I think it is fair to say that not even their kindest friends would say they think it has gone well, but listening to her statement, it sounds like she thinks everything is fine and that if there are any problems, it is somehow somebody else’s fault. Is she living in a parallel universe? After over a year in office, she must now take responsibility for what is happening under this Government. It was interesting to note that, during her statement, she did not mention her favourite phrase from a year or so ago—namely, that she was going to “smash the gangs.” I wonder why she was so silent on her previously favourite catchphrase. The answer is that it is not going very well. She mentioned National Crime Agency disruptions. Let me gently point out that 84% of those National Crime Agency disruptions that she cited a few minutes ago are classified as not being high impact, and National Crime Agency arrests for organised immigration crime actually went down by 16% in the last financial year. That is hardly smashing the gangs. In fact, the NCA’s arrests for organised immigration crime in that financial year were only 26—a drop in the ocean compared with the tens of thousands crossing the channel. It was also rather conspicuous that the Home Secretary did not mention even a word about the numbers illegally crossing the English channel. I wonder why that was. I wonder why she forgot to say a single word about that. The reason, I am afraid, is pretty clear. Far from smashing the gangs, so far this year, 29,000—to be precise, 29,003—illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. That is the worst year in history, and it is up by 38% compared with last year. That is not success; it is failure. Things are not getting any better; they are getting worse. This Government are failing and everyone can see it. That is why there are protests up and down the country, and where those protests are peaceful, I support them. That is why 75% of the public think the Government are handling immigration and asylum badly. That is a shocking figure; let it sink in. Let me turn to hotels. In the nine months before the last general election, 200 hotels were closed down, including the Bell hotel in Epping, but since the election the numbers in asylum hotels have actually gone up by 8%. Had that previous trend of closures continued, there would be no asylum hotels open at all today. I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that she will not reduce hotel usage simply by shunting asylum seekers from hotels into flats and houses in multiple occupation, which are desperately needed by young people. Will she give the House that categoric assurance? Last week the Home Secretary’s lawyers said that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of local people in places such as Epping. When this was expressly put in those terms to the Education Secretary yesterday on “Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips”, she shamefully agreed. Those statements are a disgrace. Does the Home Secretary realise how angry that makes people feel? It speaks of a Government not on the side of the people in this country. It means the Government appear to care more about the rights of illegal immigrants than our own citizens. Will she apologise for what her lawyers and the Education Secretary said, and will she undertake to ensure that Ministers and their lawyers will never say that again? The Home Secretary talks about her returns deal with France. It has been reported that the deal will return only about 50 people a week, amounting to 6% of arrivals. Does she accept that allowing 94% of illegal arrivals to stay will act as no deterrent at all? If she does not accept that figure of 50 a week, will she tell the House exactly how many immigrants crossing the channel will in fact be returned under her deal? She may recall that back in July we were told by the Government that the first returns would happen “within weeks”. Will she confirm to the House that the number that has actually been returned so far is precisely zero? The Home Secretary said to the House a couple of minutes ago that there would be security checks on those people reciprocally taken from France into the UK, but will she confirm that her agreement with France says expressly that the French Government will not provide the UK Government with any information at all—any personal data about those migrants—so if there are criminal convictions or suspicions about extremism or terrorism, the French Government will not provide information to us? If that is true, as her agreement says, how can she possibly conduct security checks? The Home Secretary talked about tweaks to family visa rules. Let me be clear about the Opposition’s position on this. If someone enters this country illegally, they should not be allowed to bring in any family members. In fact, everybody entering this country illegally should be immediately removed, to their country of origin if possible, and if that is not possible, to a safe third country such as Rwanda—a scheme which she cancelled just days before it was due to start. The public expect that approach—an approach which she cancelled—because the numbers crossing the channel so far this year have been the worst ever; the worst in history. It is not just that the numbers are high. Hundreds of migrants, having crossed the channel and living in those hotels, have been charged with criminal offences, including sexual assaults on girls as young as eight years old and multiple rapes. This is not just a border security crisis; it is a public safety crisis as well, and people up and down this country are furious. That is why they are protesting, and that is why 75% of the public think this Government are failing on asylum and immigration. If this Government were serious about fixing this problem, they would know that little tweaks here and there are not enough. Tweaks to article 8 are not going to be enough. Tweaking the family reunion rules is not enough. Returning maybe 50 people a week, if we are lucky, to France is not going to be enough. Intercepting maybe a few boats—worthy though that is—is not going to be enough. The only way these crossings will stop—the only way we are going to get back control of our borders—is if everybody crossing the channel knows that they will be returned. We tabled a Bill in Parliament a few weeks ago to do that. We had a plan to do that: the Rwanda Bill. We need to go further by disapplying to immigration matters the entire Human Rights Act 1998, not just tinkering with article 8. If the Government were serious, that is what they would do. If the Home Secretary really wants to control our borders, and if she really wants to get down the record numbers that have been crossing on her watch, she would back our plan, disapply the Human Rights Act in its entirety to immigration matters, and ensure that every single person crossing the channel is immediately removed.

    Hansard source
19. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Transnational Repression in the UK

    We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Alex Sobel will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, which must be brief questions, not full speeches. Can I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee member and not the Government Front Bench? Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

    Hansard source
20. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Borders and Asylum

    The Government appear to be conflating the terms “illegal immigrant” and “asylum seeker.” The UK has rightly in the past taken in asylum seekers, including Ukrainians fleeing persecution, but they are different from those who are crossing the channel illegally, the vast majority of whom are men aged 20 to 30 who appear to have no children or families crossing with them. I have three questions for the Home Secretary: does she agree with the Prime Minister’s comments that the UK has plenty of housing to accommodate illegal immigrants; will she rule out the use of houses of multiple occupation; and will she rule out the use of social housing for illegal immigrants?

    Hansard source
21. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Borders and Asylum

    The Home Secretary has spoken about tweaks to the rules and regulations, and potentially to interpretation of the law. The problem with that, of course, is that our courts will also interpret the law, and may go against what the Home Secretary wants to do. Will she set out what changes to the law she will introduce to ensure we stop the illegal migrants coming to this country?

    Hansard source
22. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Borders and Asylum

    The Home Secretary has touched on it a couple of times, but I am yet to hear from her about the scope of the Government’s asylum accommodation programme, which is currently rated “amber”. Despite the fact that 29,003 asylum seekers have arrived by small boat so far this year, the scope of the programme, following its strategic refresh, will mean the creation of only 5,000 bed spaces by the end of 2026, spread across three accommodation pilots. Where will those three pilots be, how many bed spaces will each have, and at what stage is each one?

    Hansard source
23. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Unemployment Trends

    1. What assessment she has made of trends in the level of unemployment.

    Hansard source
24. 1 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Unemployment Trends

    On the House of Commons dashboard, the data for my constituency shows that universal credit claims increased dramatically by 20% in just one month. Claimants increased by over 2,000—from 10,344 to 12,415—from May to June this year. Given this recent increase in economic inactivity, what evidence does the Minister have that the Government’s employment support programmes are successfully moving people from out-of-work benefits into sustained employment?

    Hansard source
25. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Black Country Day

    The hon. Lady makes an important point about the history, landscape and geography of the Black Country and the fact that our roots are in industry. She makes a very good point about how we can reuse our brownfield sites—for example, for the battery and energy storage system. Does she agree with me that we should focus 100% on reusing brownfield industrial sites before we start damaging our precious greenbelt with things such as battery energy storage systems?

    Hansard source
26. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Black Country Day

    I thank the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for securing this debate and giving us, as Black Country Members of Parliament, and you, Ms Vaz, the opportunity to highlight some of the lot that is the Black Country at its best. I do not think that 90 minutes is long enough to talk with the passion that we all would like to convey, or name-check all the wonderful organisations and individuals who make up the Black Country’s history, present and no doubt future, but I know that we will all give it our best shot. Held every year on 14 July for over a decade now, Black Country Day is a time to honour and celebrate the incredible spirit of our region, from our tight-knit communities to our thriving businesses and tourism and remarkable industrial heritage. Today gives us the opportunity to share a little bit of it with all the people who have decided to tune into Westminster Hall on Parliament TV. My constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills was not historically part of the Black Country. Its incorporation came in April 1974 as part of the major reorganisation of local government in England. Its name originally comes from the urban district council, that class of local authorities that was abolished by the 1974 reforms. Having previously come under Staffordshire, we were absorbed into Walsall borough council and hence joined the Black Country. Although we have a Staffordshire past, the Black Country is very much our present and our future, though I acknowledge that many in parts of my constituency still look, and rightly so, to Staffordshire and enjoy the historical and familial connections, which I for one will never forget. The Black Country is renowned for its contribution to the industrial revolution. From the late 18th century onwards, the region developed into a major centre for coalmining, iron smelting and steel production. During the 19th century, the Black Country became noted for its iron and steel industries. Wrought iron production, chain making and the manufacture of locks and nails were central to the region’s economy. Those industries became essential to Britain’s railway, maritime and construction sectors. As you know well, Ms Vaz, as a Walsall MP yourself, in parts of Walsall our major contribution as a borough was the leather industry. The origins of Walsall’s leather industry lay in the middle ages, and it continued to grow in the 17th and 18th centuries. I will use this opportunity to speak about the lorinery trade, which is what it is known as. Many of the town’s leather goods trade pioneers were bridle cutters; by settling in Walsall, they could call on the skills of local loriners for their bits and buckles. In the early 19th century, leatherworking became an important local trade, providing employment and manufacturing opportunities right across the borough, including in my constituency. After 1840, the development of the town’s leatherworking industry gained pace. The coming of the South Staffordshire railway to Walsall in 1847 gave a boost to the trade, and by 1851 there were 75 firms making bridles, saddles and harnesses. Horses were an essential part of Victorian life. There were around 3.3 million horses in late-Victorian Britain, which provided a huge market for Walsall’s manufacturers. In the last decades of the 19th century, the Walsall leather trade entered a golden age of prosperity: exports boomed and Walsall firms sent their products all over the British empire—sadly, foreign wars were a particularly lucrative source of trade. At the turn of the 20th century, Walsall was home to nearly a third of Britain ’s saddlers and harness makers, and it remains best known today for making saddlery and harness, yet from 1900 those trades began a long decline as, one by one, the traditional roles of the horse were challenged and replaced by the engine. The great age of the horse had ended. Walsall firms had to adapt to this changing world, or they would have disappeared. Some had been making light leather goods, such as travelling bags and hatboxes, since the 1870s, but from 1900 onwards they concentrated more on that type of work. Since the 1960s, the light leather goods trade has met with tough competition from overseas producers, and Walsall’s surviving leather goods firms have concentrated on the luxury end of the market. Goods for some of the world’s most famous brand names are made in our borough. Indeed, one of Walsall’s most famous clients was Her Majesty the late Queen Elizabeth. The late Queen was rarely seen without her Launer handbag. I must share this little story, although most people have probably seen the sketch: in the famous platinum jubilee sketch with Paddington Bear, the Queen pulled a marmalade sandwich out of one of her bags, which was proudly made in Walsall—the bag, not the sandwich. I believe the Launer handbag is still a favourite of many royals. Walsall is not known only for its handbags. Canals and waterways were critical to the Black Country’s industrial success, and they remain integral to our local communities today. We have regularly hosted the Inland Waterways festival of water in Pelsall in my constituency, and we have the Canalside festival each August in Brownhills. Our canals, rooted in our industrial heritage, play a key role today, providing wildlife corridors and opportunities for walking, cycling, and simply enjoying being outdoors. Our canals are a good example of how the region has adapted to changes over the years. Canals were critical to the Black Country’s industrial heritage, enabling the transportation of raw materials like coal and iron to local furnaces and workshops. The Wyrley and Essington canal, which dates back to an Act of Parliament—the Birmingham Canal Navigation Act 1792—runs through a large part of my constituency. Originally built to transport coal from the mines near Wyrley and New Invention, it was later extended to Wolverhampton and Walsall, terminating at Ogley junction near Brownhills. The Wyrley and Essington canal is affectionately known locally as the “curly Wyrley”, which derives from the fact it is a contour canal, twisting and turning to avoid gradients, and thus the need for locks. On the subject of transport, it would be remiss of me not to draw a link between the role canals played in our past and the role transport will play in our future. Transport connectivity is essential to our communities, unlocking opportunities and access to jobs and education. That is why it is vital that the Government honour the commitment of the previous Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, to deliver the train station in Aldridge, which I am always talking about, and will continue to do so. As we look to the future, improving transport links and, most important, delivering that train station, will unleash opportunities, enabling us to rediscover the vim and vigour of our industrial spirit, with access to good jobs, better connectivity and opportunity for the next generation as well as our own. I will conclude by wishing everyone a happy Black Country Day, even though it was actually last week, but that is the way Westminster Hall debates work. I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury was able to secure this day for the debate. It has been an absolute pleasure to participate and to have this really important opportunity as a Member of Parliament to celebrate the heritage of the area that I am deeply honoured to represent.

    Hansard source
27. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Gene Editing

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of gene editing. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I secured this debate as gene editing provides immense opportunities to the United Kingdom in boosting growth in our agricultural sector, in supporting our world-leading life science industry and in better protecting our environment for future generations. Being able to diverge from the European Union on the regulation of gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity, but there is much concern that the Labour Government’s EU reset will pause or even reverse the progress made in the UK in setting out a new path to regulate that exciting technology and, in doing so, will sacrifice a key opportunity to help our farming community. Almost all our domestic animals and plants are the result of thousands of years of selective breeding. Gene editing is best thought of as a modern enhancement of that technique. It is often referred to as precision breeding. It allows scientists to make changes to a plant or animal’s DNA, cutting the DNA strand and then adding, deleting or altering sequences to give beneficial traits, which make for things like disease and drought-resistant crops, or indeed more nutritious crops.

    Hansard source
28. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Gene Editing

    The hon. Gentleman is a champion of the farming community. He and I, in my previous role, often discussed farming issues, and we both hugely support the importance of food production as a key part of our food security. He is right to draw attention to the fact—I will come to this—that gene editing and gene modification are often confused, when they are very distinct. The crucial point to share with the House is that the changes in gene editing are limited to those that occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding. That is the distinction I will come on to with gene modification. By using gene editing, we can get to a desired trait more quickly. Science therefore accelerates something that could happen naturally, as opposed to being an artificial intervention. Let me give an example of how gene editing can provide a win-win in practice in our farming community. I represent North East Cambridgeshire, which is the centre of UK sugar beet production. That crop has been severely impacted by virus yellows disease. At the moment, the only way to tackle it is by using a seed treatment, Cruiser SB, which is toxic to pollinators such as bees. Given the downsides for nature, the treatment needs to be granted emergency authorisation on a year-by-year basis. The last time that the authorisation was not made available was in 2020, and 25% of the national sugar beet crop was lost. Without authorisation of something that is accepted as damaging to nature, the crop fell by a quarter, which is a severe consequence. That led to an economic loss of about £67 million, in an industry involving 10,000 jobs. After some years of approval the current Government have decided that authorisation will again not be available in 2025, which has left the sector with a lot of uncertainty. But instead of requiring us to choose between nature and crop yields, gene editing provides a better solution. Under the previous Conservative Government, a £660,000 grant was made jointly to British Sugar, the agricultural biotechnology company Tropic, and the world-leading plant science institute, the John Innes Centre, to fund gene editing research into sugar beet resistance to virus yellows disease.

    Hansard source
29. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Gene Editing

    I very much agree. I will come on to public sentiment towards gene editing, which is extremely favourable, but it is helpful to have cross-party support because this is a win-win, as I have said. It boosts yields, helps farmers and reduces the cost of pesticide. It is also a huge benefit to nature. The hon. Member is right to praise the John Innes Institute, which is world leading. That is another reason why we should seize the opportunity that science offers.

    Hansard source
30. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Gene Editing

    The hon. Lady raises an important point. By embracing innovation in the technology, we can lead and, by leading, show the benefits to farming and nature that the EU may wish to follow. The EU regulation is cumbersome. It brings gene editing within the fold of gene modification. The pace of change is slow and its scope more limited. It is better to move ahead and show the benefits, rather than wait for the back-marker to see if they eventually come to the table and make the changes, many years after elsewhere in the world has moved on. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the pace of regulatory change and the sluggish nature of the EU. The opportunity of this technology is not far away. I mentioned a moment ago the grants that we had awarded for research into virus yellows disease. Researchers hope to have plants by the end of this decade that, if successful, will do away with the need for the harmful treatments and the dilemma that Ministers face as to whether to grant emergency authorisation. That would protect British sugar beet farmers from potentially catastrophic losses, while also increasing crop productivity and resilience, and at the same time increase sustainability and bring direct benefits to nature. I have long believed that there is an opportunity to see farming and nature not as opposites, but as complementary, and we can boost farming in ways that also are beneficial to nature. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about the public response, and he is right to do so. I am pleased to note that the public at large support gene editing because of its environmental and economic benefits. A recent study found support among the public at 70% across the population as a whole. Interestingly, that rose to 80% among generation Z, so there is widespread support among the public. But if we are to realise the benefits and capitalise on that public support, we need to get the regulation right. That brings me, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned a moment ago, to European regulation. Back in 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that gene-edited crops are subject to the same 2001 legislation as gene-modified organisms. Yet, as we touched on, the two techniques are very different and should not be confused. Gene editing speeds up changes that could occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding; it is unlike gene modification, which is where DNA from different species has been introduced to another, creating new types of plants and animals that could not have come about through natural methods. As a result, gene editing is a much lower and different risk, and should be treated in regulation differently from gene modification, but that is not the position of the European Union. Even the European Commission has realised that its regulatory approach is not fit for purpose, but progress is remarkably slow in changing it. While it is working on its own legislation, it will come years later and be more limited in scope than what we have done in the United Kingdom. After Brexit, the UK was able to diverge, which is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which removed precision-bred plants and animals from the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system. The Act created a new framework for their oversight and provided the Secretary of State with powers of secondary legislation. I commend the Government and the Minister on pressing ahead with the required secondary legislation to bring this new system in for plants, which is due to come into force in November. So why the need for this debate? This debate is needed because I fear that the current optimism is a high point in this journey and that we are about to see the UK surrender the advantage that will help our farmers and our nature, and that has been gained with the primary and secondary legislation in place. To prevent that, I am seeking assurances from the Minister in three key areas: implementation, further expansion, and funding. First, on implementation, the Prime Minister’s EU reset at the UK-EU summit included plans for sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. To achieve that, the EU has suggested that dynamic alignment will be required of the UK, meaning that all relevant EU rules will apply to UK goods. As a result, some experts have suggested that there would need to be a pause on the UK’s progress in taking forward more effective regulation of gene editing, and that we would need to then wait while the EU spends potentially years putting in place its own more limited reforms. Waiting would hold back centres such as the John Innes Centre, UK science and development, and give up our hard-won commercial competitive advantage in terms of the sector and the jobs it employs. I mentioned how important gene editing crops will be to areas such as my constituency, and to leading businesses such as British Sugar, which works with over 3,500 growers and is concerned about alignment on this matter. It would urge the Government not to sacrifice the UK bioscience sector’s progress on gene editing in the UK-EU trade negotiations and to recognise that delaying the use of the technology in the UK would put us at risk of falling behind other countries using it. I wholeheartedly agree with that analysis and assessment. Will the Minister confirm that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 will come into force in November this year, and that there will be no delay? Secondly, on further expansion, I note that only regulations on gene editing plants have been brought forward. It was always the intention that plants would be first, and that regulations relating to animals would come second. This will provide another opportunity compared with the European Union. Discussions at an EU level suggest that animals will be excluded from its regulations, whenever they eventually emerge. It is vital that we capitalise on that opportunity, too. Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to bring forward the required secondary legislation under the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2023 to remove precision-bred animals for the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system? Finally, on funding, I know the challenge that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers will be facing when it comes to negotiations with the Treasury, having been within both DEFRA and the Treasury, and given that farming is seemingly not a priority for the Labour Government, with £100 million of cuts to farming and countryside programmes announced in the spending review. Given that spending backdrop, one might have thought the Minister would want to maximise opportunities to boost farming and nature, which do not come at a cost to the Treasury.

    Hansard source
31. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Gene Editing

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that builds on the earlier intervention on public support. One of the sweet spots of this area of policy is that it is beneficial to farming—because it cuts costs on things like pesticides and increases yield—but it is also hugely beneficial to nature, in terms of climate change. It is also beneficial for the public purse, because gene editing is a way of using science, in essence, to drive productivity and nature-beneficial schemes, rather than simply spending public money. For context, I am sure the Minister will have seen the farming figures this morning. The Government borrowed £20.7 billion in June alone—the highest figure since records began, with the exception of June 2020, during peak covid. That is not an isolated figure. If we look at the previous month, the Government borrowed £17.7 billion in May. That was also the highest on record for May—again, with the exception of May 2020. So the Government are borrowing record sums, and the Department’s budget is under pressure—all the more reason not to sacrifice genuine scientific opportunities, particularly those that, as we have explored, have widespread public support. Will the Minister recognise that gene editing jointly serves the goals of food production and protecting nature, and ensure that we do not give away our competitive advantage? Specifically, will he confirm that the £12.5 million from the recent farming futures research and development fund for the precision breeding competition—aimed at mid-stage precision breeding projects—will be paid in full? Will he also confirm that funding will be made available directly to farmers to take part in field trials, so that the science actually progresses? In conclusion, gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity. It can boost economic growth, support food production, help protect our environment, and give us a competitive advantage over other countries. To sacrifice that as part of some UK-EU reset negotiations would be a serious mistake. It would be another example in a long list of decisions where the Department has been overridden by the Treasury. There is still time. The legislation is in place; the regulations are there. Can the Minister confirm today that gene editing will continue to be a priority, and that the UK Government will secure the advantages that it offers?

    Hansard source
32. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

    Hiding in plain sight, but not discussed in this Chamber since the general election, is the spending of millions of pounds on the repair of this building, with Members expected to commit later this year to spending billions of pounds into the future. The lack of debate or any meaningful transparency comes despite the majority of Members of this House being newly elected last July. Instead, the detailed costs and any vote on options are being delayed until later this year—ironically, they will probably come at around the same time that the House is expected to vote on a Budget, which many people expect to include tax rises. Members of the House, and members of the public, might reasonably ask why the Leader of the House has not held any such debate since coming into office. This issue speaks to a wider principle. Are decisions best formulated in private when some of the numbers remain uncertain, with reliance placed on internal controls and external advisers giving assurances, or is it better to have transparency—not least on an issue of great public interest? A lesson that, as a Minister, I learned from covid is that it is better to have transparency and an open debate about the trade-offs early than to hold discussions in secret and allow the benefit of hindsight after the event. Supporting greater transparency has been a theme of my time in the House, whether in my initial four years on the Public Accounts Committee or when as a Minister I overruled official advice to disclose information to the National Audit Office during covid. Since being elected as Chair of the House’s Finance Committee, I have repeatedly raised concerns in private about the financial management of the House and the multibillion-pound restoration and renewal programme, but I feel it is necessary to raise these issues on the Floor of the House today. Before doing so, I place on record my thanks to Mr Speaker, because I know he cares deeply about taxpayer value—an issue he has championed on many occasions. I want to reassure Members that I will not disclose any information I have received in my role as Chair of the Finance Committee or in a private capacity. The crux of the issue is that there needs to be a complete reset of the R and R programme. The books need to be open to the public, and we need to bring the public into the debate about how we balance the needs of a world heritage site with modern security, accessibility —for example, for those with a disability—and value for money. Updated costs need to be presented. Currently, millions of pounds are being spent working up multiple options, despite our now being in the fifth year of this work. Indeed, those options are gold-plated, often based on decisions taken by Members who are no longer in the House. There is remarkably little visibility of this issue. The most recent costs presented go back to 2022, and even then the cheapest option was £8.6 billion to £13.8 billion, with others costing more, and that is without inflation and with no other significant additions. Those costs exclude the work Members will see on the northern estate, which is not part of the R and R programme, yet the public would associate the two, not least because that work is a key part of any decant. We also know that there are precedents for costs increasing massively. If we take the example of the Elizabeth Tower— the most recent example in this House—the costs started at £29 million and finished at £89 million, which is a 209% increase. If we look at this morning’s news, we can see how the costs of Sizewell C have increased. There are known risks in plain sight. In its first report, the National Audit Office cited changes to programmes as a key risk, yet we know that the sponsor body set up at the start has been scrapped. We know that we started with one option and then went up to two and then three, but with A and B options, so in essence we have four options. Who knows, but there could be a fifth on the way. The governance is opaque. Let me give the House an example. The key body that oversees the programme has met only once this year and only twice since the last annual report. However, if we look at what is in the public domain, the first paragraph of the annual report says that “the R&R Client Board and R&R Programme Board will mean sufficiently robust and detailed information will be available to the new Parliament to support decisions on the way forward for R&R.” We have not debated it once, and the governing committee has met only once this calendar year. I am conscious of the time, so I will canter through some of the other issues. In short, security is often presented as a reason for not being transparent, but I would draw Members’ attention to the very welcome intervention by Baroness Smith in the House of Lords in her exchange with Lord Hayward about the Carriage Gates, which cost £9.6 million. I am told that they still do not work particularly well. Just last week, this House debated a mistake that was made by an official in the Ministry of Defence, with Members complaining about both the cost to the taxpayer and whether that was covered up. How confident are Members that no similar examples exist? I simply ask Members: are they aware of the costs of the work on the northern estate, of the trade-offs and how they are being shaped, or of the cost of any delay? How confident are they that when they are asked to make such decisions alongside a Budget, they will have the information they need? I will finish with one final example. Just as with High Speed 2, hiding something in plain sight involves producing lots of brochures and lots of literature. Colleagues can see that one of the recent quarterly updates states on page 4: “R&R Surveys…ONGOING… Budget…ONGOING… Develop House of Commons…Plans…ONGOING… Costed proposals…ONGOING… Invitation to tender…NOT STARTED”. It includes no meaningful information. Indeed, the annual report has financial information only on the final two pages, pages 29 and 30. This is not a new issue. Lord Morse, in his 2022 report, noted: “Parliament has a historically poor reputation for its contract management and commercial acumen.” I believe issues should be shared with the public, the trade-offs discussed, and Members of this House, particularly new Members, given sight of these issues. I have called repeatedly in private for there to be greater debate. Today, I want to do so on the Floor of the House.

    Hansard source
33. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

    I am sure we can all say amen to that. There are 34 Members seeking to intervene in this debate, and we need to go on to the wind-ups at about 6.30. Work it out for yourselves: that is about five minutes a head. I am not going to put a time limit on at this stage, but it may mean that some people drop off the end if colleagues are over-zealous with their time.

    Hansard source
34. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

    Order. I think the Father of the House was reaching his peroration. I am fully aware of the friendship between the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and Sir David, but he will have the opportunity to make his case shortly.

    Hansard source
35. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

    Order. We are beginning to play “beat the clock”. I understand that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) has some important information about the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster that I am sure Members will wish to hear, so I do not propose to impose a time limit immediately. After he has spoken, I shall impose a time limit of five minutes.

    Hansard source
36. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

    Order. Before I hand over to the Chairman of Ways and Means, I would like to say that this will be my last session in the Chair for the foreseeable future. I thank colleagues for the courtesy with which I have been treated, and thank you in particular for the tributes that you have paid to my friend David Amess. David and I signed on the register on the same day when we came into the House. I am very grateful to you all.

    Hansard source
37. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Health Inequalities

    For residents of New Court Place care home in Borehamwood, wheelchairs are their lifeline. However, they are being badly let down by AJM Healthcare, their NHS wheelchair provider, with multiple unresolved assessments, bad communications and waiting times for repairs and replacements unbelievably extending to four years. Residents with physical and intellectual disabilities feel let down, overlooked and traumatised. In tackling health inequalities, can I urge the Secretary of State to look urgently at this provider and come to the aid of people who desperately need our help?

    Hansard source
38. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Music Streaming: Label-led Principles

    Given the Minister’s helpful references of a sartorial nature to his opposite number, may I congratulate him on his carefully understated choice of necktie today? I shall certainly remember to bring my dark glasses next time he is on parade. Can he explain to me—as an ardent Swiftie myself—what protection performers, such as the son of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), have against their tracks being uploaded by anyone to a service such as YouTube, whereby it is possible for people to enjoy their music without apparently paying them any royalties at all?

    Hansard source
39. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    UK Internal Market

    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is not the real problem, as identified by the FSB and articulated by the right hon. Gentleman, that there is an unholy alliance of Eurocrats and bureaucrats, of separatists and globalist corporates, who are acting in a way that is injurious to the interests of small and medium-sized businesses that trade across our United Kingdom?

    Hansard source
40. 22 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    UK Internal Market

    My hon. Friend, with typical generosity, says that we are all trying to get this right. I established that that is largely true, with the possible exception of the EU itself. There are those in the European Union, stung by the wise decision of the British people to leave that awful body, who have never really accepted that decision and have made life as difficult as possible—both for this country and for the businesses described by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate.

    Hansard source