5,804 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

   It is, Mr Speaker. Earlier, the Minister said that funding had remained below 2010 levels. I am sure that was an innocent verbal slip. However, according to the widely respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, “Coming on the back of an 11% real-terms increase in spending per pupil between 2019–20 and 2024–25, this allows spending per pupil to return to, and exceed, its previous high point in 2010.” How can we encourage the rapid correction of the record when innocent mistakes are made?

   Hansard source
2. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   Diego Garcia Military Base

   Under this deal, we will be paying billions of pounds for the privilege of having our own territory taken away from us. The Secretary of State talks about the threat to the base as if Mauritius, a country with no navy, is about to steam in or pick a fight with the United States. That is implausible. The whole House will have heard the Secretary of State trying to dodge the question from the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and, on being pressed, scrambling around for a legal argument and coming up with something totally novel and hazy. The truth is that our constituents are going to be paying billions so that the Prime Minister can bask in the warm glow of approval from his fellow human rights lawyers.

   Hansard source
3. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Access to NHS Dentistry

   Order. Because so many Members wish to contribute and we have to conclude by 5 pm, we will have a time limit of three minutes starting from now. I call Sir Julian Lewis, who I think can manage that—I think you can do it.

   Hansard source
4. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

   School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

   In Education questions, I raised the concerns of headteachers in Basildon and Billericay about school funding, and I directly asked about school support staff, who are already being told that they are being made redundant because of the national insurance jobs tax. Can the Minister explain to those staff and me why the Government have gone back on their promise to cover all the costs of the jobs tax?

   Hansard source
5. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

   Lower League Football Clubs: Funding

   Can the Minister give assurances to football fans in my constituency that with the burdens of the Employment Rights Bill, the hike in national insurance contributions and the introduction of yet another regulator, there will not be a hike in ticket prices?

   Hansard source
6. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Grassroots Sports: Cannock Chase

   I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for our investment in his constituency while we were in government. In all seriousness, however, I would like to put on record our condolences to the families of the two Israeli embassy staff killed overnight in Washington. Grassroots facilities are key to our communities and our sports clubs across the country, which is why we Conservatives invested more than £500 million in the next generation of athletes. However, in just 10 months, this Labour Government have cut the £21 million multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, scrapped the £30 million Lionesses fund and cancelled £57 million of opening school facilities grants. Equally worryingly, they are now trying to remove Sport England’s statutory role in protecting sports pitches and playing fields across the country. Is it not clear that only the Conservatives will save our sports pitches from this “say one thing and do another” Labour Government?

   Hansard source
7. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   EU-UK Summit

   According to the House of Commons Library, in 2018, out of more than 5,000 requests under the Dublin III regulation, just over 200 were granted. That is not the silver bullet—and never was—that the hon. Gentleman imagines it to have been.

   Hansard source
8. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   EU-UK Summit

   It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, Mr Vickers. The more that we learn about the reset, the clearer it becomes that far from being the win-win that the Prime Minister promised, it is little more than a bundle of missed opportunities wrapped in hollow rhetoric and enfeebled by untenable concessions. The Prime Minister heralds this agreement with the EU as a monumental win, but in reality it shackles us once more to the whims of Brussels and undermines the very principles underpinning the genuinely historic decision of 17.4 million voters in 2016 to take back control. Instead of taking back control, these agreements entwine us within the jurisdiction of a foreign court. They mean we are beholden to decisions made elsewhere about the quality of British food. That is the very antithesis of taking back control. It is no wonder the Government were so reluctant to let Parliament know what the Prime Minister was planning to concede. We support efforts to reduce unnecessary trade barriers that clearly damage both sides and to reach an agreement based on mutual recognition between partners that respect each other and their sovereignty, and that work together for mutual benefit. Instead, we are presented with a one-sided deal that sees us forgo rights that are enjoyed by virtually every other independent country in order to sign up to EU schemes on EU terms. Ahead of the summit, we set out five tests against which we would judge whether the Government’s deal actually respected the referendum result, as they promised. There obviously could be no return to free movement, no new payments to the EU, no loss of our fishing rights, no compromise on NATO’s primacy in European defence, and no dynamic alignment with EU rules. From the details published so far, it is hard to see how the agreement can possibly meet all five of those vital tests. On the first test, there is little detail about the youth mobility scheme. We support limited youth mobility schemes with effective controls—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]— as we agreed in government with countries such as Australia and Canada, but they have to be done right and they need controls. Without controls they could become the back door to free movement. I hope the Minister will be able to help in his summing up, because the briefings from the Government and the European Union are worrying. It is clear that the two sides have different ideas as to what is on the table, and the common understanding does absolutely nothing to clear up that ambiguity. Will the Minister fill in some of those gaps? Will participating EU nationals have to pay the NHS surcharge, or will British taxpayers be left to foot the bill? Will EU students pay the overseas rate or the home student rate for higher education tuition fees? If the latter, will the Government recompense universities for the lost income? Crucially, what does he expect the cap on those numbers to be? Does he expect the number of EU participants to be around the 10,000 mark, as for those who come to the UK under the Australian version of the scheme, or does he expect a higher number?

   Hansard source
9. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   EU-UK Summit

   That is an important question for the Minister to answer. This should not come as news. The Leader of the Opposition was quite clear on Tuesday that of course we support the principle of mobility schemes. After all, we negotiated so many of them, which the Minister did not support when he was shadow International Trade Secretary. The Government’s deal clearly also fails the tests on payments to the EU and on fishing rights. Our fishermen stand betrayed. Instead of the four-year transitional arrangement they had under the previous agreement, they have been lumbered with French, Spanish and Dutch mega-trawlers being handed long-term access to their waters. That will become the new permanent state of being, and it will have to be negotiated away from. From Cornwall to Tobermory, fishermen find themselves devastated by a Government prepared to sell them short. That is not what they were promised, and certainly not what they deserve. Again, it is difficult to judge from the information published on Monday whether the security and defence partnership could undermine NATO. There is clearly a need for western Europe to take greater responsibility for the security of the region and to improve its collective capability. There is no question but that closer co-operation can bring benefits for Britain—particularly for contractors able to bid for projects funded by safe loans—but of course none of that is ensured in any of the material published so far. It is surely true that our partners will benefit at least as much from the incredible contribution that the British armed forces will make to that security so, given such mutual benefit, there should be no case for additional payments or concessions.

   Hansard source
10. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    EU-UK Summit

    The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. There are clearly barriers that it would be in both sides’ mutual interest to remove. That should not be difficult to do, but the fact is that it has been difficult. I speak as someone who spent seven very happy years working in a European institution before deciding, on the basis of that experience, that Britain could do better. Sadly, after Brexit, the European Union’s negotiating position seemed determined to treat the United Kingdom less favourably than most other third countries, with which it did not have such a strong trading relationship. That brings me to what is clearly the greatest betrayal of all in these documents, which is the effective surrender of this Parliament’s right to decide what laws apply and do not apply in this country. Last July, the Prime Minister promised that he would not accept any deal that meant laws being introduced without the consent of Parliament, but it is clear that he has found a way round that promise by agreeing that the UK will immediately adopt new EU laws in a range of areas, but after the pretence of a vote in which no is not a genuine option. Worse, judgments about whether Britain complies with those new EU laws will be adjudicated by the EU’s own European Court of Justice, so the key difference between this and the puffin case that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to is that cases involving dynamic alignment would, by definition, be matters relating to whether the UK is complying with an EU law. As the ECJ is specifically set out as the arbiter on questions of EU law, it will be able to rule on those matters, so it will become the arbiter.

    Hansard source
11. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    EU-UK Summit

    My right hon. Friend is clearly right, and the national interest cannot be served by a dynamic alignment that effectively requires us to automatically take on other people’s rules. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister either could not or would not tell us what measures would be open to the EU in the event that Parliament chose not to adopt a new EU law under paragraph 27 of the common understanding. Can the Minister do better? Would remedial action be restricted to suspending parts of this agreement, or could it result in a broader trade dispute? Labour fought Brexit at every turn over the last nine years. The Prime Minister backed a second referendum; he stood on platforms calling for us to stay in the EU, and demanded we entered into a customs union that would have made the trade deals reached since Brexit impossible. Now he says that he wants to make Brexit work, but his version of making Brexit work is about dragging Britain backwards. This deal is not about fixing Brexit; it is about reversing it and undermining it. Let us be absolutely clear: this deal resubmits the UK to foreign courts, foreign laws and foreign control. We will pay into EU budgets, follow EU rules and even have our food standards determined by Brussels. We will be paying into EU schemes with no say on how those funds are spent, and taking EU laws with no say over what they are—the worst of both worlds. No vote. No veto. No voice. Taxation without representation. The Prime Minister complains—[Interruption.] Sorry, is the hon. Member for Walthamstow trying to intervene?

    Hansard source
12. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    EU-UK Summit

    No, I think the hon. Lady misses the point completely. When we are being taken to an international court by an institution such as the European Union, it is a perfectly sensible and effective legal strategy to cite its own rules as evidence that we have not broken either its rule or the international rule that it is citing. Now, the Prime Minister complains about us doing exactly what we were elected to do—holding this Government to account and calling out where they are getting things wrong. On this, the Government are getting things wrong, and we will not make any apology for doing our duty, which is to oppose these concessions, to honour the will of voters and to retain our sovereignty. It is time to stand firm for the integrity of our democracy and for the ability of our sovereign Parliament to make decisions in the interests of our great nation.

    Hansard source
13. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    EU-UK Summit

    I very much admire the Minister’s confidence. The Government have already guaranteed that energy prices will be £300 lower by 2029. Given his confidence that this deal will further lower energy bills, how much lower can we expect household electricity and gas bills to be in 2029 than the £300 reduction they have already promised?

    Hansard source
14. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    EU-UK Summit

    Well, none of us would want to deny ourselves the chance to listen to Sir John. Back to you.

    Hansard source
15. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    EU-UK Summit

    Before I call Stella Creasy, I point out to the Minister that he referred to the Member for Clacton by name.

    Hansard source
16. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Interfaith Cohesion

    Interfaith work is vital to our local communities up and down the country. Does the hon. Lady agree that leadership is important and that if the Church of England were to follow the Roman Catholic Church and appoint its leader in days rather than months, it would give a great boost to interfaith work?

    Hansard source
17. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Business of the House

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chairman sends his apologies to you and the House. I know that he will be pleased to hear the Leader of the House’s comments about Tottenham Hotspur. In addition to the business already announced, the Committee agreed at its meeting earlier this week to another Select Committee statement on Thursday 5 June, which will be from the Justice Committee. It also agreed on debates in the Chamber on 19 June on incontinence and on Windrush Day. We also accepted debates for Westminster Hall on hydrogen powered aviation, the role of carers, education in improving social mobility, and Down syndrome regression disorder. I remind hon. Members that application forms for the main estimates day debates, which we anticipate in late June, are now available on the Backbench Business Committee website. We are swamped with general applications, which is good news in one sense, but I urge hon. Members to get their applications in as quickly as possible, particularly if they are looking for a Chamber debate, as we have enough on the waiting list to fill the Chamber until November. Last week, I was privileged to meet some teenagers from the Teenage Cancer Trust who were in Parliament having submitted a letter to the Department of Health and Social Care. They are remarkable young people who have clearly had an awful experience with cancer at an early age. May I gently suggest to the Leader of the House that she might like to allocate some Government time for a debate on that subject?

    Hansard source
18. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Independent Sentencing Review

    May I first say to the Lord Chancellor that I have huge personal respect for her? I may disagree with some—some, by the way, not all—of what she has announced today, but I would like to put that on the record. She mentions female offending. She will know that there are six mother and baby units in female prisons in England. There were 90 applications for the last period we know about, up to March 2024, with 64 places for mothers and 70 places for babies, allowing for twins. Clearly, there are not enough places. Has she considered as part of this review, when there is not serious and violent offending by female prisoners, getting more of those mothers and babies into the community, rather than having them in prison?

    Hansard source
19. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to continue with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to new clause 16, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). The new clause goes some of the way to address what I spoke about on Second Reading, about how we must create communities. When we are designing new large-scale housing in the countryside, community and design must be at the forefront. I want the Government to look at what more they can do, because we do not want affordable homes to be put next to large electricity transmission systems. In the interests of time, I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to write to me on this issue, setting out the Government’s position and explaining what they are doing, when we have large-scale development in the countryside, to stop the social housing element of the development being placed in these locations.

    Hansard source
20. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I am happy with the Government’s considered approach to new clause 16, and I am happy that the Minister will write to me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire.

    Hansard source
21. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    Does the Minister not appreciate that lots of utility companies dig up roads under emergency procedures, so do not have to let the local authority know? As it is an emergency, one would expect someone to be working, maybe not around the clock, but for a long period of the day over multiple days to get it fixed. When people drive past roadworks in those scenarios, and they do not see anyone working on them, they get incredibly frustrated. Could he just outline what the Government are doing to make sure that roadworks are finished as quickly as possible, in a timely manner?

    Hansard source
22. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I rise in support of the important new clause 111, in the name of the shadow Minister. I have six villages in my patch—Goffs Oak, Hertford Heath, Brickendon, Great Amwell, St Margarets and Stanstead Abbotts—all of which have a unique character. We need to protect village life; villages are all unique and different. The new clause is not saying that we do not want any development in villages—of course, to make progress, there has to be developmentbut people in villages in my constituency, and probably across the country, are fearful of having loads of development so that villages all get connected up together and lose their rural identity, village community and spirit. I would like the Government to really consider the new changes they have made to the national planning policy framework, particularly on villages. As I said, when we drive throughout the country, probably through hundreds of villages, we know they are all unique and have a different character. We should try to maintain that, rather than having an urban sprawl, with no green spaces left and developments that all link together. I fully support the new clause in the shadow Minister’s name.

    Hansard source
23. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    UK Film Production

    2. What steps her Department is taking to help incentivise film production in the UK.

    Hansard source
24. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    UK Film Production

    In Broxbourne, we were meant to be seeing the £700 million Sunset Studios project, which is now sadly not going ahead, in part due to the national insurance increase, new employment regulations and this Government’s handling of the economy. Is that what the Government mean by supporting the film industry?

    Hansard source
25. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Laura Trott

    School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on whether the Government will be accepting the school teachers’ review body’s pay recommendation for 2025-26.

    Hansard source
26. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Laura Trott

    School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

    Mr Speaker, this is absolutely outrageous. It is astonishing that we have had to summon the Government to the House today, but the Minister cannot even tell us what pay rise teachers will get and whether it is going to be funded. That does not allow us to scrutinise the matter in this House. The Government said that they would tax private schools to fund 6,500 more teachers, but the reality is that state schools have not got any of that money. Instead, we have had broken promises on compensating schools for the jobs tax, confirmation from the Department for Education itself that there will be a shortfall in teacher pay funding, which we are not allowed to discuss here today in this urgent question, and uncertainty as to what the actual pay rise for teachers will be. That is a disgrace, and it is the opposite of what people who voted for Labour expected. All that is in the final two weeks when headteachers up and down the country have to decide whether to make teachers redundant in time for September—in fact, sadly, many schools will already have made the difficult decision to let good teachers go. These are job losses on the Minister’s watch, due to her inability to provide schools with the clarity that they need. Do not just take my word for it. Dan Moynihan, from the Harris Federation, says that it proposes to make 40 to 45 teachers redundant. Jon Coles, the chief executive of United Learning, which runs 90 state sector academies, said that the trust has been left with £10.5 million a year of unfunded costs. He said: “It’s no good Treasury waving their hands and saying ‘efficiency’—that would be 400 job losses. Sector wide, that would extrapolate to ruinous harm in the one well-functioning public service: tens of thousands of redundancies.” Simon Pink, the finance director at the Elliot Foundation, which has 36 primaries, said: “This is the toughest budget…in a generation.” One secondary school headteacher has already had to cut two teaching assistant posts and a teacher role due to rising national insurance and anticipated wage rises. What is the pay rise that the Government recommend for teachers? The Prime Minister’s spokesman said on 28 April: “There’ll be no additional funding for pay.” Yesterday, the Government started to U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. Will the Minister now fully U-turn and fund the national insurance rise and agree to fully fund the pay increases, whatever they are?

    Hansard source
27. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Business of the House

    It is an honour to be responding to business questions as we march on to the recess. I know that the Leader of the House has had a challenging few weeks, but I want to start by thanking her for everything that she has done to advocate for Members in this House. This morning, we have learned that the Government have been prevented from signing their Chagos surrender deal by the High Court. When will the Prime Minister come to the House to explain this latest humiliation and masterclass in how not to negotiate in Britain’s interests? I know that Members across the House often say things in the Chamber and elsewhere that they regret. I know, too, that the Leader of the House has said that she regrets her words on rape gangs, but it is for the victims of those rape gangs to decide whether those regrets are enough. It is time for the Government finally to take action on this scandal. Will she grant a debate, in Government time, on the rape gang scandal, and commit the Government to the national inquiry that the victims deserve? At the previous business questions, I called on the Leader of the House to ask the Chancellor to U-turn on her disastrous economic policies. Since then, things have got even worse. This week, inflation, which stood at 2% when Labour took office, has surged to 3.5%. Today, public sector net borrowing hit £20.2 billion, the fourth highest figure for the month since records began. We have had a disastrous Budget followed by an emergency one, and it looks like the next one could be catastrophic. It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister has also had enough of the Chancellor’s economic policies. The difference is that we on the Conservative Benches want the tax raids on businesses and households to be reversed, but the Deputy Prime Minister wants more tax and more spend. Yesterday, the Prime Minister would not rule out more tax rises either. I think that we can all see what is coming: £40 billion of tax rises last autumn was never going to be enough for this Government—a Government who are tough with the vulnerable, but weak with the unions. The Deputy Prime Minister may be on leadership manoeuvres, but it is quite a shopping list of new taxes that she is after—although, curiously, further taxes on second homes were not included. It is the people who save hard for their retirement and build businesses who are next in the firing line for the tax-raid obsession of this Labour Government. To pensioners, farmers and business owners we can now add savers to the list of people whom this Government seem determined to make poor. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate, in Government time, on the Government’s economic plans, so that the Deputy Prime Minister can also come and set out her tax plans for the House. I would be very interested to see the tag-team operation there. If the Deputy Prime Minister is otherwise engaged, perhaps we could turn our attention to yesterday’s welcome U-turn from the Prime Minister. I understand that he has always been gifted with the most flexible of principles, but it was quite a sight yesterday to see him admitting to promising a U-turn on punishing pensioners without any date for that U-turn, or an explanation of whether it would benefit all or just some pensioners. Crucially, we did not hear an apology from him. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the winter fuel payment U-turn, so that the Chancellor, or the Prime Minister, can come to this House and apologise to pensioners and set out when they will give pensioners the certainty that they can heat their homes next winter? Let me conclude—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Ah, thank you. We are watching the Government in a slow-motion car crash, with no economic plan but to tax and spend as fast as they can. It is not the gingerbread man; it is tax, tax as fast as they can. We are watching a Prime Minister who is having to undo the decisions of his own Government in the space of just months but who cannot bring himself to apologise. The Government are already showing that they have failed to learn the lesson of all socialist Governments: they eventually run out of everyone else’s money. This Government seem determined to run out in record time, and the only losers will be the British people.

    Hansard source
28. 22 May 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Judgment

    9. Whether the Commission is taking steps to comply with the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland v. the Scottish Ministers of 16 April 2025.

    Hansard source
29. 22 May 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Judgment

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for his response, but the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has said that we “can and must” uphold the “rights, the freedoms, the spaces for women as sex-based rights”. I am therefore extremely concerned to hear reports that the House of Commons is not following the EHRC interim guidance that biological men should not be allowed to use women’s facilities. Does the hon. Member agree that the protection of female Members and women who work here is vital, and that the law, as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling, must be followed immediately?

    Hansard source
30. 22 May 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Topical Questions

    T5.   One of the best experiences I had as a Minister in DCMS several years ago was visiting 114 places around the country. I extend an offer to the Minister to come to Salisbury to see the work of Wiltshire Creative. Salisbury international arts festival is starting this weekend, and we would welcome his insights on how collaboration to maximise investment in cultural growth in south Wiltshire can be facilitated.

    Hansard source
31. 22 May 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

    One of the biggest drivers of satisfaction in any profession is settlements in line with inflation and expectations of inflation. Will the Minister assure the House that the settlement to be announced later today will take account of the fact that inflation is vastly higher than was anticipated when the settlement was reached?

    Hansard source
32. 22 May 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Independent Sentencing Review

    Several years ago, when I was a magistrate in Westminster and my father was a magistrate in north Wiltshire, we lamented a great deal about the fact that when we put people in prison, we found that there was a whole list of antecedents every time and that this recurred all the time. Could the Secretary of State tell the House what assurances she can give us about prison education, rehabilitation programmes and regular work programmes so that we avoid the pattern of prescribing—with good intentions—solutions that do not work, cost a lot of money and leave the public pretty dissatisfied with the justice system?

    Hansard source
33. 22 May 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    Independent Sentencing Review

    Under the yoke of the SNP, Scotland already has a presumption against short sentences, and now the new Scottish commission looking at sentencing and penal policy has been accused of being packed with activists determined to keep criminals out of jail. Why is the Lord Chancellor in Westminster following this lead and failing to put victims at the heart of the justice system?

    Hansard source
34. 22 May 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    UK-EU Summit: Policy Priorities

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman, whose tremendously adroit chairmanship of the Committee has allowed a lot of cross-party working, which has been really refreshing and very good. This is a moment of regret: the Committee did flag up how fragile coastal communities could be damaged badly by a multi-year deal on fishing, and the 12-year deal is beyond anything anybody imagined. It will hammer fragile communities right across Britain, and particularly in Scotland; that is unfortunate. Does he agree that achieving an SPS deal must be balanced with the deals with India, America and so forth that are coming down the tracks—I am sure the Committee will look at this—and that we must have due care for ensuring that the Brexit freedoms that allow us to strike those deals are not damaged?

    Hansard source
35. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Covered Tennis Courts: Hartlepool

    Together with the LTA, the previous Conservative Government invested £30 million in park tennis courts—2,500 of them all over the country, including in and around Hartlepool. That is to the benefit of local communities, so why are this Government not continuing that investment?

    Hansard source
36. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Business of the House

    The Government are implementing their plans for UK transport, including major interventions on rail and buses, but also road and aviation. So far, they have ignored the plight of UK island residents, including mine on the Isle of Wight, where we pay up to £400 to take a car back and forth on a four-mile journey. Will the Government and the Leader of the House do more by allowing a debate in the House in Government time to discuss the cost of transport to and from UK islands?

    Hansard source
37. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    The Secretary of State talks about delivering certainty, but does he not see that the certainty he is giving is to large multinational tech companies that will be able to get away with scraping original content that is copyrighted? Through the Bill, he will give such companies the certainty to abuse the rights of creatives.

    Hansard source
38. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Access to NHS Dentistry

    The point has been made repeatedly that dentists can earn a lot more money in private practice than in NHS dentistry, and that is unlikely to change no matter what happens in the renegotiation. Does the hon. Member agree with the last Government’s review, which suggested that the roughly £300,000 cost of training a dentist should come with a requirement to work for the NHS for a number of years afterwards?

    Hansard source
39. 22 May 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Diego Garcia Military Base

    Thank you, Mr Speaker—I mean it this time. The Secretary of State has asserted from the Dispatch Box that it is the risk of an UNCLOS judgment that is requiring this capitulation of sovereignty. Can he therefore answer this specific question: is he aware of a single case that is live under UNCLOS at the moment against the United Kingdom?

    Hansard source
40. 22 May 2025·Parliament·James Wild

    Independent Sentencing Review

    In her statement, the Lord Chancellor said that under her earned progression plans, if offenders follow prison rules they will win earlier release. The review says that thousands of offenders will benefit from that. Can she explain to my constituents why simply following the rules means that serious offenders will serve only a third of their sentence? Where is the punishment and where are victims’ interests in that approach?

    Hansard source