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

1. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Ambassador to the United States

   I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way. I made my own comments earlier about pre-confirmation hearings. Adding on to that, does the right hon. Lady agree that when senior civil servants—whether from the Foreign Office or elsewhere—are asked to come to Select Committees on important matters and they find some excuse not to attend, the Select Committee should at least have the power of summons in order that somebody gives an account? In addition to that, if security or classification is used either truthfully or—shall we say—exaggeratingly as an excuse not to give evidence to a Committee, does the right hon. Lady agree that when Select Committees have Privy Counsellors, as in her case, a briefing could at least be heard on Privy Council terms?

   Hansard source
2. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

   I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Members across the House will know that I have the distinct honour of being the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, which is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is everything south of Heathrow airport until hon. Members get to the River Thames. There are 4,500 small businesses in my constituency. They are its lifeblood. There are also huge employers: BP’s global headquarters is in Spelthorne, as is the world’s second biggest film studios, at Shepperton. I visit as many small businesses as I can, and it is always fascinating to get their insight. Indeed, I am very much looking forward to next Wednesday, when the Spelthorne Business Forum riverboat trip will see a number of small and medium-sized enterprises come together to go two hours along our beautiful stretch of the River Thames, networking and comparing stories and views. I have to be frank and say that our consideration of the Employment Rights Bill comes in the context of these businesses already smarting, struggling and, in some cases, closing as a result of this Government’s Budget—in particular, the triple whammy of the rise in employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage and business rates. I should explain that I have a fair experience of life in business. After my 25 years in the Army, I spent 10 years in venture capital and private equity, running, investing in and, we hope, improving small businesses, and growing them into mid-sized businesses and publicly listed bodies. They were mostly in the financial sector, and all had a tech underpinning. Latterly, I spent four years attempting to get Britain’s first ever defined-benefit pension consolidator, the Pension SuperFund, past the Pensions Regulator—an experience from which I still bear the scars. Yesterday, the House had the opportunity to discuss the measures in the Employment Rights Bill in some detail and to vote on a number of proposed improvements thereto, but I want to concentrate today on the cost of the Bill for businesses. In my view, the cost has been significantly underestimated, and I fear it will come as a shock when the Government see the extent to which it acts as a further sea anchor on growth and employment. Sadly, we have already seen unemployment rise by, I think, 300,000 since this Government took office. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that the measures in the Bill could cost businesses up to £5 billion annually. According to the Institute of Economic Affairs, “the £5bn figure is likely to be a considerable underestimate. It almost entirely relates to increased administrative burdens, failing to calculate the significant impacts on business costs and hiring from making it more expensive to employ people. There is no attempt, for example, to calculate how many fewer people will be hired due to limiting zero hour contracts and day-one rights to unfair dismissal protection” or “the costs of more strike action as a result of repealing the measures that made it harder to strike in the Trade Union Act 2016.” I have been in businesses where people are making very hard decisions. They want to generate growth, they know there is considerable work to be done, and they want to take the next step and make the next investment, but that is a very big decision point, as we will see as I develop this theme. I have seen with my own eyes, talking to Spelthorne businesses, that even today people are curtailing their growth and investment plans. My huge fear is that the new measures in the Employment Rights Bill, which will eventually become an Act, will further dent business confidence, meaning that these businesses will not grow and natural leavers will not be replaced. Economic studies and business surveys suggest that that will largely be passed on to consumers through higher prices, workers earning lower wages or job losses. I am sure that the Government Members never wanted that to be the outcome of this legislation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that around 80% of the extra costs are passed on in the form of lower wages than would otherwise have been paid. According to the Government’s impact assessment: “Costs will be proportionately higher for small and micro businesses due to the fixed costs of admin and compliance burdens”. There is, of course, an irreducible minimum: if a business needs a menopause management plan and it has only three employees, someone still has to write and manage that plan. The legislation does not seem to derogate, whereby certain sizes of business can just take a knee and have a bye. The Regulatory Policy Committee, which assesses the quality of Government impact assessments, says that the Government’s impact assessment for the Employment Rights Bill was “not fit for purpose” and that the Bill could lead to lower wages and fewer jobs. It assessed eight of the 23 individual impact assessments as not fit for purpose, and six were at the highest impact measure category of the original assessment. The Regulatory Policy Committee said that the Government need to provide more evidence to support an “imbalance of power between employers and workers in certain sectors of the economy” as its rationale for introducing the Bill. I am sure hon. Members will have seen that the Bill is, to a certain extent, riven with trade union speak—they will have seen trade union interests being played out in the legislation. Of course, hon. Members in certain parts of the House benefit hugely from being the recipients of donations, as does the Labour party as a whole.

   Hansard source
3. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

   My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. When these measures kick in, we could see the law of unintended consequences playing out, with a series of compound impacts. The RPC said that the fundamental basis for the creation of the Bill in the first place had not been made, and that there had been insufficient “considerations of alternative options” and an “inadequate assessment” of how the Bill would impact small businesses. Some of the individual impact assessments had “missing business impacts, lack of proportionate monetisation and insufficient assessment of key risks.” The areas in the impact assessment with the weakest scrutiny included day one unfair dismissal rights, reforms of trade union legislation, flexible working and third party harassment. Looking at the overall cost of the reforms, the Regulatory Policy Committee said: “The direct impact on business estimate does not account for the likelihood employers may offset the costs of regulation and mandated benefits through wage adjustments, benefit reductions or other compensatory mechanisms which would eventually be borne by the employee.” Let us see what other people think of the impact assessment. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development published a report in April 2025 entitled “The (Unintended) Consequences of the Employment Rights Bill”. Its survey of 2,000 employers showed that about eight in 10 believed that the measures in the Employment Rights Bill will increase their employment costs. About half of the employers surveyed believed that, overall, the ERB measures will negatively affect employment at their organisation. When we look at how employers plan to respond to the seven measures, one by one, we can see that between 5% and 20% of employers indicate that each of the measures will lead them to reduce staff through redundancies and/or recruiting fewer workers to their organisations. So much for the No. 1 mission of growth. Out of the measures proposed, the planned changes to the rules on unfair dismissal are expected to have the largest negative impact on employers’ recruitment and redundancy intentions. The conclusions from the report were that eight out of 10 employers believed that certain measures in the Bill, such as changes to unfair dismissal rules and the introduction of the new statutory probation period, will have the effect of increasing their workforce costs. Of those organisations, four in 10 expected to have to raise prices as a result, and a quarter said that they will cancel or scale down plans to invest or expand their business. Of the organisations that said that employment costs will rise, almost a third anticipated cutting headcount due to reduced hiring or redundancies, and a further fifth reported that they will reduce overtime and/or bonuses, and cut spending on staff training. Of the organisations that expected the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, nearly a fifth reported that they are more likely to rely on temporary workers, while 10% reported that they will increase their use of what they call “a typical workers and self-employed contractors”. The legislation is not improving the lot of employees; it is reducing the number of employees, as employers find alternative solutions. That potential shift to more temporary forms of employment is much higher in certain sectors. In addition, some employers anticipate recruiting fewer workers who may need more support, such as young workers or those with health conditions. A fifth of employers reported that the removal of the unfair dismissal qualifying period and the introduction of the new statutory probation period will make them less likely to recruit from those groups. I want to make one last point. It is obviously a big thing to take on new employees and assimilate them into teams. Culture eats strategy for breakfast in business, and those crucial hires are some of the biggest decisions that any employer will make. I have taken part in hundreds of interview boards, and often, there is what is identified as the “risk candidate”. They are the different person, who thinks differently from the employer. They are the person the employer does not fully understand. More often than not, they are the person the employer should employ. My great fear is that, as a result of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, fewer diverse candidates will be employed, because people “won’t want to take the risk”. I believe that, ironically, as a result of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, far fewer women are going to be employed.

   Hansard source
4. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

   Was the hon. Member affected by the tube strikes the other day?

   Hansard source
5. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

   A few months ago, The Times invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to address its CEO summit. Just before the Chancellor was called up to the stage, the host reminded the audience that the Chancellor had promised that this would be the most pro-business Government ever. The host then invited the chief executive officers—I think there were 200 of them—to say how many of them, having seen the Labour Government at work, think that it is pro-business. Not a single hand went up. Is the hon. Member aware of that?

   Hansard source
6. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

   I think I am right in saying that the impact assessment’s estimate of a cost of £5 billion was at the higher end, but I read out quite an extensive set of quotations from the RPC saying that it was an inadequate impact assessment and that it completely under-gunned the financial impact of the measures. Does she just think that the RPC is wrong?

   Hansard source
7. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

   Will the Minister give way?

   Hansard source
8. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

   I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. I fear that it has been a bit of a conversation of the deaf, but we will see whether the number of women employed in this country goes up or down. We will see whether the number of disabled people employed in this country goes up or down. We will see whether these new regulations contribute to growth in the economy, or to further shrinkage and further increases in unemployment. I fear for the British economy; I think we are heading in a really bad direction, and this Employment Rights Bill is going to turbocharge our getting there. Question put and agreed to.  Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses.

   Hansard source
9. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Ambassador to the United States

   I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing this emergency debate. The focus of the debate thus far has been primarily on three areas: the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s appalling crimes, the conduct of Lord Mandelson prior to his being appointed and the judgment of the Prime Minister in both appointing and firing Lord Mandelson as the British ambassador to Washington. Quite rightly, in this debate the House has focused on those three areas, but I will add a fourth area that I find as chilling as the other three. Since December last year, our ambassador in Washington has been potentially subject to leverage and blackmail, because someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on Lord Mandelson throughout his whole time in office. I am amazed that the Foreign Office has not gone into full lockdown and damage limitation mode, having found out that potentially Lord Mandelson could have been blackmailed this entire time. If it had turned out that he had been an agent of a foreign state, the Foreign Office would have done that. All it knows now is that someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on him that whole time. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about some of the behaviours of Lord Mandelson in office, and that is the bit I am concerned about. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that Sir Ben Wallace gave an interview to Times Radio recently in which he said that Lord Mandelson had been lobbying No. 10 Downing Street on behalf of a single defence manufacturer for Britain to buy an unmanned military set of equipment—a major buy—without a competition, bypassing UK small and medium-sized enterprises and expertise. I will not put two and two together, but it seems extraordinary that someone who was meant to be promoting British interests overseas was instead promoting US defence capability to No. 10. We buy a lot of good kit from America, of course, but the absence of a competition skews the pitch and is odd behaviour. I hope that when the Minister gets an opportunity to speak, he will talk about what measures No. 10 and the Foreign Office are taking to examine every single thing that Lord Mandelson did when he was our ambassador, in order to establish the extent to which the politically fatal kompromat had skewed his judgment and driven his behaviour.

   Hansard source
10. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I want talk about district councils. Lots of councils have gone through unitarisation, and when they come out the other side, lots of them set up area planning committees and delivery teams based on the old district boundaries. What is your view on the savings that might come through that process? I think there are hardly any. On the democratic deficit, we are talking about getting rid of elected authorities. The response from you, Zoë, was, “Well, we can do some more consultation. We can have online meetings and votes at 16,” but how can any of that replicate a free and fair democratic election to a local council? Professor Denham: I made my position clear: I think you might have needed to reorganise in future; I did not think it was the priority. But we are where we are. Personally, I am sceptical about savings materialising at the scale that has been said, because costs are always higher. If you followed what I suggested about having some flexibility in the size of the new unitaries, that undermines what was in the original proposal, but I think it is necessary for democratic reasons. I would say, though, that we have never really taken a strategic approach to what happens below unitary and strategic authorities, even in areas that have only unitaries and strategic authorities. Everything I said about community empowerment plans, I would apply to met boroughs and to Greater Manchester and all the rest of it. It probably sounds particularly relevant because we have this process of local government reorganisation, but it should apply equally strongly to the duties that exist on current unitary authorities and strategic authorities. It is a national policy, rather than purely a local one. Zoë Billingham: I would only add that, as John said, I am not sure there were many external voices calling for the abolition of district councils. It was seen as a quid pro quo, as I understand it, for the mayoral tier. As I stated previously, I am sceptical about the backroom savings that are considered to come with reducing headcount, office space and so on, but I will leave others to speak to that. As John said, unitarisation is not new, so there are examples of places that have tackled it well. We should look to those before thinking it is a foregone conclusion that it is not the right thing to do. On democratic innovations, although the Bill challenges the current model, I think we should use this moment to consider what they are. Looking at voting levels at the last election, we just about got 50% of the country voting for MPs. At some of the local and regional elections, we mostly have less than the majority of the population coming out to vote. We can improve on the current system, and I hope this is a real opportunity to do that. That is why thinking about how people engage with democracy, why they come out to vote, and who comes out to vote is really important at this stage—especially with such a difficult political atmosphere in this country.

    Hansard source
11. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Minister, we have heard a lot of evidence today about how metro mayors work in urban areas—we have heard some successful examples. However, we have hardly heard any evidence at all about metro mayors in the shires or in rural communities. How do you see the positives of metro mayors working in rural communities? Miatta Fahnbulleh: There are two things that I would say. Even in our urban areas, or what are defined as urban areas—for example, North of Tyne—there are big rural constituencies within them. Actually, many of our metro mayors straddle urban areas—in some instances, there are core cities—and rural areas. The benefits are the same for both. If your starting position is, “How do we drive economic growth?”—that is one of the big issues—the evidence of the last decade and a half, as well as that from other countries, is that such a strategic level creates a massive opportunity to unlock growth. That is as true for our urban areas as it is for our rural areas. However, I would also say that, yes, there is a model that we are trying to drive forward, but it has to be specific to particular places. There will be different constellations, if you like, of strategic authorities. That is okay, because what matters is that we create governance structures that can fundamentally drive outcomes that are tailored and specific to those areas.

    Hansard source
12. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

    Q How does that work in places such as Hertfordshire? In Hertfordshire we have about 15 towns, all of similar size, and hardly anyone moves between the towns. It is not like Manchester, where all the services are based in one centre and people cohabit around that. The shires are very different to the areas that you have just described. Miatta Fahnbulleh: Ultimately, the approach that we are taking is to say to places, “What makes sense?”, and there is a journey for places to go on. Some places will choose to be foundational authorities, because that makes sense for them. Actually, we are being overwhelmed. It is not just urban areas that are coming forward to us with an appetite to move to—

    Hansard source
13. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

    Q You have forced areas to come forward. Miatta Fahnbulleh: Well, no. We said, “This is the suite—

    Hansard source
14. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

    You have. Miatta Fahnbulleh: We said, “This is the suite of powers that you can get.” Places have seen the opportunity and are looking to other areas that have gone through this journey. Look at Greater Manchester, with some of the highest productivity growth that we have had. I was there at the start, when we began this journey. People are seeing that there is something here that is working and there is an appetite for that. The Government have done their bit by saying, “Look, we understand you need the powers; this is the suite of powers. We’re not going to ask you to do lots of deals and jump through hoops,” and places are lining up. I think that every place needs to figure out what makes sense for it. However, the evidence so far is that places see that there is a strategic opportunity, because they care about growth and outcomes for their communities.

    Hansard source
15. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

    I am a former councillor and I know lots of the witnesses from my previous role leader of Broxbourne council.

    Hansard source
16. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

    Q I want to continue down the planning route. You mentioned utility companies earlier; I completely agree that we need to get them around the table. What about the NHS and health services? How well are they are getting around the table at the moment, and what do you think the Bill will do to strengthen that? Lots of people are not necessarily anti-development, but they are anti-development when it does not come with any services that the community needs. Catriona Riddell: I am a very strong supporter of the Bill’s “health in all policies” approach. Mayors and strategic authorities will have to demonstrate how they will improve health inequalities and others through everything they do. Many will know that the planning system is embedded in health; that is how it came about. We have been trying very hard to make sure that local plans and the new spatial development strategies address health. That is not just about infrastructure, but about healthy places generally. As you know, it is a real challenge at the local level to plan for health infrastructure up front. Most of that will still be done at the local plan level, not the SDS level, but the SDS level will have to look at strategic infrastructure around health. If any major new health infrastructure is needed, that will have to be embedded into the SDS. As with all the work of strategic authorities, it is not just about a planning responsibility; the strategic authority will be working with the health authorities, and they will need to have a role in how the SDSs deal with health. The Liverpool city region is a great example of working with health authorities and others to embed health into the spatial development strategy that it is preparing at the moment, so it can be done. It is much more difficult to find the answer for local infrastructure such as doctors’ surgeries and GPs. I know there are examples where land has been left aside for doctors’ surgeries, but GPs and others have not moved forward to make it happen. I guess there are more challenges in health infrastructure outside the planning system, but getting them at the table up front, in terms of in spatial development strategies and the flow-through to local plans, is absolutely the right thing.

    Hansard source
17. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

    Q You mentioned earlier that you want to see some powers removed from councils and placed at a strategic level. I am completely against taking powers away from local councils, particularly in planning. Which powers do you think need to be removed from local councils and placed at the strategic mayoral level? Catriona Riddell: I was not talking about powers; I was talking about resources. I was talking about creating shared teams at the strategic level to support the local authorities individually. It is about sharing skills and having teams at the strategic level with the specialist skills that individual local planning authorities cannot access easily; it is not about taking powers away from local authorities.

    Hansard source
18. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

    Q You could currently do what you have just described without the Bill, could you not? Catriona Riddell: No, because you do not have the strategic authorities.

    Hansard source
19. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

    But you could do what you have described without the Bill; you do not need a strategic authority for it. If local authorities want to group together and do that under the county model, they could. Catriona Riddell: Yes, and I have been involved with several local authority groupings that have tried to do that. The challenge is that resources are tight, and individual local authorities want control over what they do. They find it really difficult to have that shared resource unless it has a separate footing or is part of a separate organisation. It worked well in the old structural plan days when that resource sat within the county council—but the county council was a strategic planning authority and was funded to have these responsibilities. You need to have the funding for it, which is really difficult. I know from many experiences, including in Hertfordshire, that it is difficult to pool that resource without that structure. Having them sit within the strategic authorities is probably the right place. It protects that resource for the future as well.

    Hansard source
20. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Court Backlogs

    9. What steps he is taking to reduce the court backlog.

    Hansard source
21. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Court Backlogs

    I wish the right hon. Gentleman the very best in his new appointment, but he is presiding over a complicated system, in which, today, 74 out of 516 Crown courtrooms are empty. Will he comment on that, and on when the second part of the Leveson report will come into effect so that we know when action will be taken on the greater complexity that is yet to be evaluated?

    Hansard source
22. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Ambassador to the United States

    Will my right hon. Friend give way?

    Hansard source
23. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Ambassador to the United States

    My right hon. Friend is being very generous. At the weekend, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade appeared to say that the Government believed it was “worth the risk” of appointing Lord Mandelson from the outset. As I heard it, what the Business Secretary was saying was that for the positive qualities Lord Mandelson had—as they saw it—it was worth the risk that he might be more involved with a convicted paedophile than they thought from the outset. If that is the risk the Government were judging him by, is that not shameful?

    Hansard source
24. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Prison Safety

    4. What steps he is taking to improve the safety of the prison estate.

    Hansard source
25. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Prison Safety

    Thousands of drones are being used to smuggle contraband such as weapons and drugs into prisons. Locally, I have met leading security company Preventive Concepts Security. The shadow Lord Chancellor was good enough to visit it in France to see its technology in action, detecting and disabling drones. What specific steps is the Department taking to roll out drone detection capabilities across the prison estate? Is it currently engaging directly with private stakeholders such as Preventive Concepts Security?

    Hansard source
26. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As this is my first exchange as shadow Minister with the new Minister, I warmly welcome him to his place. It seems only five minutes ago that he arrived after his by-election; it is a credit to him that he is a Minister. Thankfully, I dare say that this morning’s exchange will be a softer landing than some of the exchanges in the weeks and months ahead, at least politically speaking. Aviation safety is a story of constant evolution. Over the past 50 years, we have seen great strides in the safety of our aircraft, which has contributed to the growth in flying from which so many people across the country benefit. According to figures from the Aviation Safety Network, in the 1970s there were about six fatal airliner accidents for every 1 million commercial flights, which meant, sadly, that one in every 165,000 flights ended in a fatal accident. By contrast, data from 2024 shows that the figures have dropped to approximately half a fatal accident per 1 million flights. Although there will always be some variation, and there are devastating news stories that highlight the tragic consequences when accidents do occur, the long-term trend has clearly been positive. The Conservatives will always welcome measures that provide greater clarity to our safety regime and improve on the existing system. The regulations set out by the Government today suggest relatively small changes. On a positive note, I particularly welcome it that the explanatory memorandum highlights sensible deregulation, for example allowing the installation of particular components without the need for a form 1, provided that they are declared safe by the design organisation. Furthermore, enabling the CAA to delegate aviation safety tasks appears to be a sensible step. For clarity, however, can the Minister outline which tasks he understands that the CAA may delegate? Is he confident in the CAA’s capacity to manage this delegation effectively, given that it has not had these powers for a period of time? I also ask the Minister the same question that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee posed to the Department. Although I have no significant issues with the regulations, that Committee noted the limited ability to use the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, as a result of which the Department states that it “will need to find a longer-term solution to make further amendments”. Can the Minister outline how he intends to make changes on that basis and whether he has begun developing a long-term plan? Ultimately, these limited regulations appear to make proportionate changes and are in line with existing aviation policies. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how future regulations might be amended or updated. The aviation industry knows that its continued success depends on the highest safety standards. If we are to encourage growth in the sector, we must ensure that Parliament is doing its part to enable the industry to maintain it.

    Hansard source
27. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Peatland Protection

    I rise to present this petition which calls on the Government to protect our peatlands in any new planning framework or legislation. I want to thank all the 486 signatories to the petition and the Friends of Lindow Moss, which has campaigned for years to protect Lindow Moss in Tatton, a site made famous by the discovery of the preserved Iron Age body known as Lindow Pete. The petition rests on the premise that we must protect sites of environmental and ecological significance and that we cannot allow the destruction of sites of natural carbon capture. We must ensure that the ecological and environmental benefits of peatlands remain for generations to come. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to require a special development strategy in relation to peatlands as part of any new planning framework and legislation.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Tatton, Declares that the vital importance of peatland is recognised from an environmental perspective in terms of both carbon storage and unique biodiversity, and measures implemented to protect it from environmental harm and impose specific responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect peatland environments. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to require a special development strategy in relation to peatlands as part of any new planning framework and legislation. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003115]

    Hansard source
28. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Topical Questions

    In July this year, alongside a cross-party group of parliamentarians and others, I wrote to the then Lord Chancellor seeking a meeting regarding improving gatekeeping and alternative dispute resolution in family court matters. I have not received a response. Can the Lord Chancellor give me the reassurance that such a meeting will take place?

    Hansard source
29. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Ambassador to the United States

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that James Matthews, the Sky News reporter, cornered Lord Mandelson on 27 May to ask him specifically about staying in Epstein’s flat? Mandelson did not deny it, but simply said that he regretted having any connection with him. These are the kinds of questions that should have been asked, and were being asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and many other Members back in May, about the suitability of the ambassador. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister should have looked into this further at that point?

    Hansard source
30. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Ambassador to the United States

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
31. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Ambassador to the United States

    When I heard that this debate had been granted, I thought long and hard about what I could add and whether I should even take part. Many of the questions that spring to mind about the process—where, when, why, how and so on—have already been asked far more eloquently and in more detail than I could. In essence, it comes down to the fact that this was a political appointment, so the PM is the person who should carry the risk—that is the job. If it is someone else’s, we need to know who that is. Stepping back a bit, I thought, “What would the man and woman on Hinckley high street say if I talked to them about it?” They do talk about it, and it hits hard. They have many of the process questions that we have. This seems a bit of a pyrrhic victory. I am acutely aware that the sword of hypocrisy has a blade on both sides, and swung heavily in this House, it can hit both sides equally, but it is not the wound that can kill; it is the subsequent infection. That is the problem we are seeing today. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) pointed to the past and talked about context. He is right: context is important to the public in this debate, and we on the Conservative Benches are paying the price for some of the decisions that were taken before. It was not the fact that a previous Prime Minister ate cake. It was the fact that it was then covered up, and we had to come to this House following the report to say that we felt the Prime Minister had lied. The new Prime Minister came in saying, “There will be change. There will be something different.” Those were his words. It was even on the lectern: “Plan for change”. Herein lies the problem. When the Transport Secretary was found to have committed fraud, when the anti-corruption Minister was investigated for corruption, when the homelessness Minister had to resign for making people homeless, and when the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary was found not to have paid her tax, it was not because the Prime Minister pushed them out there—it was because the media and this place did their job in holding them to account. That is the difference I am looking for today.

    Hansard source
32. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Ambassador to the United States

    My right hon. Friend is spot on. Respect should be given to the many people who have raised concerns, including the Leader of the Opposition, many in the media and many Back Benchers on both sides of the House. This is my primary point: the Prime Minister said he wanted to do something different. Well, what could he do differently? He could come to this House, tell people the truth and answer the questions. There is nothing stopping him from delivering a statement, putting himself up for scrutiny and answering these questions. He could convene a Committee of the House—I am sure many would be happy to attend—to answer the questions put to him.

    Hansard source
33. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Ambassador to the United States

    My right hon. Friend is spot on. The Prime Minister said he would do things differently. If he wants to show leadership, he could come to the Dispatch Box himself. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister who will have to defend this situation, but he is not the decision maker—he is not the risk holder when it comes to this decision. Therein lies the point. I am sad today, because the public will look on and see that a new Prime Minister came in on a landslide majority saying he would do things differently, by his own standards that he set, and he has chosen not to. He has ignored the questions. He has answered the media, saying in his one outing, “I wouldn’t have made the decision if I knew the information.” That is not good enough to allow the public to understand. I finish where I started: today is a pyrrhic victory—a hollow victory—but I live in hope. On the day that the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I am hopeful that the Prime Minister could still lead the change that he set out. He could still live by his own standards that he set for himself and his Government, and he could still clear up once and for all exactly what happened. I live in hope that that might be the case.

    Hansard source
34. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Ambassador to the United States

    The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. The Prime Minister said that he had “confidence in the ambassador”. He did not say “pending investigation or a suspension”, “I’ll look into it” or “I’ll follow process”, but “I have confidence.” Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the Prime Minister did not say that he would look into the situation seriously, and instead said from the Dispatch Box specifically that he had “confidence”?

    Hansard source
35. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Ambassador to the United States

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
36. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Ambassador to the United States

    The Minister is doing a fair job, but I have one simple question for him: why is he, not the Prime Minister, in the Chamber answering the House’s questions? The Minister clearly cannot answer them—no disrespect to him. The Prime Minister said that he did not know something, but now he knows something. Where is the Prime Minister, and why is he not at the Dispatch Box?

    Hansard source
37. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Ambassador to the United States

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Hansard source
38. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Ambassador to the United States

    I would hate for the Minister to mislead the House inadvertently, because I raised the examples earlier of Sky News and of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who raised concerns about Mr Mandelson. Even in this debate, we heard evidence of what the Opposition have been doing, including talking about the inappropriateness of this ambassador back in May.

    Hansard source
39. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Prison Safety

    I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the murdered prison officer Lenny Scott, whose killer was found guilty and sentenced over the recess. It is hard to overstate the seriousness of the case: this was a prison officer murdered simply for doing his job. Like police officers, we ask prison officers every day to stand up to some of the most violent people in our society. Does the new Lord Chancellor agree that prison officers deserve the same legal protections as police officers?

    Hansard source
40. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Prison Safety

    I am sure that prison officers will welcome any future announcements that the Lord Chancellor makes. We have talked this morning about preventive measures we can take to ensure prison officer safety, but police officers benefit from legal protections in terms of the consequences for murdering them, with mandatory whole-life orders imposed on people who do that. The Opposition will table an amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would give the same protection to prison officers. I think they deserve it, and I would welcome his support for that measure.

    Hansard source