Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I draw your attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I concur with my colleagues. I have concerns about removing the response from Ministers to Parliament. We are told that constituents and residents will be kept at the heart of such decisions—they will have some say in the national planning policy framework through consultation on national infrastructure projects when they are in their area. Indeed, I asked the Prime Minister a question on the topic at PMQs. I was not convinced by his answer. How can the Government, on the one hand, say that we will keep local people at the heart of those decisions and allow local people to have a say on them, while on the other, in this part of the Bill, remove parliamentary scrutiny? That will fill the British people with dread, that they will not have such a say in some of those infrastructure projects in their area.

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    My point is, if we remove parliamentary scrutiny, the British people out there watching this will think, “Well, hang on a minute, the Government are saying on the one hand that we will still have a say and feed into that process, but on the other they are removing parliamentary scrutiny from the process, so how do we weigh that up?” When the Bill has been through the full process to Third Reading, how can we and the British people trust that they will still have a say over national infrastructure projects in their area if parliamentary scrutiny is being removed? That is taking with one hand and giving with the other, and it could be perceived that people will not have a say; they might not believe the Government saying that they will have a say. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    If we are talking about small, minor changes, surely the consultation period does not need to be that long—it will not take Select Committees long to produce a report to feed into the process if these are only minor changes. I do not see the need for change that the Minister is setting out.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    I thank the Minister for giving way. Has his Department done any analysis of how many requests the Government are likely to get under the clause, and how many applications will want to change how they are determined?

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to press him a little more. He is saying that people can choose to go through the Town and Country Planning Act regime, but we were always told by this Government that that is a long, arduous process that developments take a really long time to go through. Why are they suggesting that they might want to put more development through that process if, as they are saying, it is not working?

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    Does the hon. Lady not agree that getting rid of the pre-planning application consultation completely will disenfranchise residents and constituents from engaging with the process? Sometimes that process can solve some of the issues down the line. I understand that it takes too long—I agree with and have strong sympathy for her points—but should we not be able to speed it up while allowing that engagement to take place?

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that removing the pre-planning application consultation entirely places too much trust in developers? Sometimes developers build absolute rubbish. I do not want them to spend too much money on something that does not have some sort of community support, or support from Government agencies. The Bill could jeopardise that, if we remove the consultation completely.

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Minister talks about energy security and bringing down bills, and of course we need to have more renewables online to do that, but we also need to issue new oil and gas licences so that we can produce more energy at home. That would help with what he is suggesting.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Will the Minister elaborate on why he did not support amendment 80, which we have just discussed, on planning fees going to local councils to resource planning departments? What is the difference between that and him saying to Scottish Ministers under this clause that they can charge a fee, but that it has to go to the resourcing of dealing with these applications?

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

    It says that the Minister expects that money to be put into the system to make the system better. Why has he done that in this case when he did not support the amendment doing it?

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Let me try a third time. According to the explanatory notes laid out by the Government: “The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.” The Minister is therefore directing the Scottish Government to spend the money that they get in through this process on that planning process. How is that different from amendment 80 which we discussed earlier and the Government said they will not accept?

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentJulia Lopez

    Criminal Injuries Compensation

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling an incredibly important debate. I came upon this issue recently in dealing with the case of a 10-year-old boy in my constituency who was shot in a quiet residential street. It has taken five years to get him compensated for the injuries that he suffered, which will be lifelong. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the sheer length of time that it takes to get victims compensated, the bureaucratic and sometimes impersonal approach, and the inadequacy of the sums being received by people, particularly children, who have received lifelong injury?

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    Climate Change: International Leadership

    As we have seen in Portugal and Spain, renewable energy can sometimes be unreliable. Given the dominant role that China plays in our renewable energy infrastructure, will the Minister set out for the House the full details of the deal that the Secretary of State signed in secret with the Chinese Government?

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    Protection of Primitive Goat Species in the Scottish Borders

    I rise to present this petition from my constituents to the House of Commons, which was put together by the Wild Goat Conservation Group, particularly David Braithwaite and Gail Brown. It calls for the cull of wild goats on Langholm moor and Newcastleton hill to stop. I want to record my thanks to the more than 4,300 people from across the United Kingdom who have signed a similar online petition on this matter and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for his support. The petition “Declares that wild goats have been roaming Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill for hundreds of years and play an important part in the biodiversity and natural history of the Scottish Borders… Oxygen Conservation who own the land they roam have” —callously— “started to cull this ancient animal without…consideration to the historical and emotional significance they carry for the local community… The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make representations to the Scottish Government on their behalf, to encourage them to stop the cull of wild goats on Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill and ensure the survival of this ancient animal in the Scottish Borders by granting them national protected status. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Declares that wild goats have been roaming Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill for hundreds of years and play an important part in the biodiversity and natural history of the Scottish Borders; further declares that, despite this, Oxygen Conservation who own the land that they roam have started to cull this ancient animal without any consideration to the historical and emotional significance they carry for the local community; and notes that over 4,300 people have signed a similar petition to the Scottish Parliament on this issue. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make representations to the Scottish Government on their behalf, to encourage them to stop the cull of wild goats on Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill and ensure the survival of this ancient animal in the Scottish Borders by granting them national protected status. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003064]

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentJohn Glen

    Kashmir: Increasing Tension

    I join Members across the House in condemning this act of terrorism. The hon. Gentleman will know that his party’s manifesto pledged to pursue a new strategic partnership with India. I welcome that, but could he explain to the House what steps are being made in regard to that pledge? It will be by concerted diplomatic efforts, but it will also be by leadership from the Dispatch Box around re-characterising our commitment to India, that people will gain strength from this Government’s response.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentJohn Glen

    Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

    Every time I come to this House, I stand underneath the plaque for Jo Cox, and I look over at the plaque for David Amess. It seems impossible that within 10 years, two of our colleagues could have been murdered. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for raising this question, because it gives us a moment to reflect. When I read the words: “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP”, and “Up Hamas! Up Hezbollah!”, I cannot see what time interval needs to pass before that is deemed an offence. I entirely recognise what the Minister says about these processes needing to happen independently, but speed of justice contributes to confidence in justice. As a former arts Minister who worked to support masses of creative groups, probably very few of which supported me or my party, I am clear-headed about the use of the music export growth scheme. I hope that the Minister, who I know to be a decent man, will, in his work on the defending democracy taskforce, proactively ensure that no taxpayers’ money goes to any organisation or creative group that uses language that has such a negative effect on the way that politics is conducted, and the way that we in this place are seen.

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentJoe Robertson

    Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I support the clauses, which outlaw the use of SIM farms and the supply of SIM farms to others. It is a defence for a person to show that they have “good reason” to use a SIM farm. Examples are given in the Bill, including providing broadcasting services, operating or maintaining a public transport service and tracking freight. I do not suggest that amendments are necessary, but I wonder whether the Minister can help us understand the provisions. What are examples of legitimate use in broadcasting services or tracking freight? These are areas of legitimate commercial activity that lay people are not particularly familiar with. I would be interested to know why a company would want to use multiple SIMs and phone numbers to track freight, for example. It is not meant to be a complex question.

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Topical Questions

    During the general election, the Secretary of State repeatedly promised my constituents that if they voted Labour, their energy prices would be reduced by £300—not by “up to” £300. Will the Secretary of State repeat that promise at the Dispatch Box?

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

  23. ParliamentJames Wild

    Reducing Industrial Electricity Prices

    10. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce industrial electricity prices.

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentJames Wild

    Reducing Industrial Electricity Prices

    Growing the economy will need cheaper energy, but INEOS’s chief executive has warned that Labour’s crippling carbon taxes and other levies threaten UK manufacturing and make us more reliant on imports. When will Ministers start listening and realise that their dogma-driven energy policy is costing jobs and investment, and when will they actually act to make our electricity prices more competitive?

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentJack Rankin

    Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 86, page 98, line 2, at end insert— “(3) The defence described in subsection (2) is only applicable if a person has given written notice to a police station nearest to the public place that is in a locality designated under section 87(1). (4) Where it is not reasonably practicable to deliver written notice under subsection (3), a person must inform a constable within the locality designated under section 87(1).” This amendment requires a person using an item that conceals their identity in a public place within a designated protest area for reasons related to health, religious observance or work to notify the police in writing or orally.

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentJack Rankin

    Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    Clause 86 will criminalise the act of wearing or otherwise using an item as a face covering that conceals someone’s own identity or that of another person when in an area that the police have designated. A designation can be made only in relation to an area where the police reasonably believe that a protest may take place or is taking place, that the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and that a designation would prevent or control the commission of offences. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of one month’s imprisonment, a £1,000 fine, or both. Current legislation gives police the power to direct people to remove their face coverings in designated areas, as well as to seize face coverings where they reasonably believe people are wearing them wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing their identity. However, individuals can follow the direction of an officer to remove their face covering but then move to a new area and put the face covering back on. With growing frequency we have seen protesters using a face covering to conceal their identity, clearly with the aim of avoiding a conviction for criminal activity in a designated area. Whether I or any individual hon. Member agrees with each protest is beside the point. The right to protest has long been at the heart of British democracy, but there are legitimate ways to protest and illegitimate ways to protest. In particular, since the onset of large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the Metropolitan police have made hundreds of arrests in connection with the protests. Those arrests encompass a range of offences, including breaches of Public Order Act conditions, public nuisance, assault of emergency workers and support for proscribed organisations. Notably, during the protest on 18 January 2025, over 70 individuals were arrested after attempting to breach the agreed protest conditions. The Metropolitan police described it as “the highest number of arrests we have seen, in response to the most significant escalation in criminality.” The cost of policing the protests is reaching enormous levels. The Standard reported in May last year that the cost in London had reached over £40 million, an average of £6 million a month between October 2023 and March 2024—eyewatering sums of money that I am sure most people and most Members of this House would prefer the police were using to crack down on shoplifting, mobile phone theft and violent crime. The police put themselves in harm’s way to protect our precious right to protest and keep protesters safe as far as possible. The recent farmers’ protests against proposed inheritance tax reforms were an excellent example of public protest; as of April 2025 there have been no publicly reported arrests by the Metropolitan police in connection with them. The demonstrations, which commenced in November 2024, have been largely peaceful and co-ordinated with the authorities. For instance, on 1 March 2025, the Metropolitan police imposed conditions under the Public Order Act to prevent tractors from entering central London during the protest, a measure that was communicated in advance and adhered to by the organisers. However, it is a sad reality that disruptive climate activist protests, antisemitic hate marches and far-right riots are increasingly accompanied by crime. Increasingly, cowards at those protests use face coverings and balaclavas to get away with crimes. Balaclavas intimidate the public, make law enforcement more difficult and embolden the wearer to commit crimes. In my view, face coverings have no place at protests in the overwhelming majority of cases. I strongly believe that those wishing to express a sincere, genuine view in a democracy—one they clearly feel strongly about—should be prepared to put their face to their opinions. With crowds of the kind we are now used to seeing, particularly in London, the police increasingly have to rely on delivering justice after the fact using CCTV, iPhone or bodycam footage. Face coverings frustrate that process. A balaclava, a covid mask or any other type of face covering should not give people a free pass to commit crime. That is why I tabled amendment 51, which would require those wishing to wear a face covering within a designated protest area to register it with police before the event. My concern with clause 86 is that those who wish to cause a problem will cover their face and make spurious claims. It is clear to most people with some common sense that, as it is currently drafted, with the defence of health, religious or work grounds able to be used, the clause will not have sufficient teeth. Amendment 51 in my name aims to shift the emphasis and prevent malicious actors from circumnavigating the well-intended clause. A 2024 YouGov poll showed that 61% of the public would like to see a ban on Facebook groups where there is a clear intent to intimidate or to prevent police from identifying someone committing a crime. The public know that face coverings at protests are simply the tool of criminals. Let us give the police the real powers they need to tackle the issue. If people have genuine health, religious or work grounds for wearing a face covering, then working with the police and giving written notice will not be an issue for the law-abiding majority.

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentJack Rankin

    Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for his constructive question. The problem with this defence is that it will obviously be abused. People who are malicious will claim these things after the fact; my amendment is an attempt to change the emphasis slightly. I appreciate that there will be difficulties with enforcement, but the point is that people should have to do this in advance. People who are malicious will not do so, and will not be given permission, so the police can then take action, as opposed to a crime happening, only for the police to go to the CCTV footage of the moment and find that there is nothing to be done.

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentJack Rankin

    Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I appreciate the operational challenges; I would suggest that this would simply be automated online. My aim is to stop whole groups of protesters wearing masks. My view is that police should reject those applications if they are not legitimate, at which point they can treat it collectively as an offence. I have a broader question for the Minister. I was thinking about when I would consider it legitimate to wear a mask at a protest. The only instance that I could think of—I am not saying that there are not more—is when, outside the Chinese embassy for example, those protesting what is happening in Hong Kong wish to protect themselves from being targeted by the Chinese state. With my amendment, those individuals should be able to declare that to the relevant police forces ahead of the event. I do wonder how we give proper protection to Hong Kong activists such as Tony Chung and Carmen Lau, who have both had threatening letters sent to their neighbours offering 1 million Hong Kong dollars— 100 grand in our currency—for information about them, or for delivering them to the Chinese embassy. Legitimate protest is in the great spirit of democracy and we need to ensure that we defend people exercising that right properly, particularly in this instance, which would be a legitimate use of face coverings.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentJack Rankin

    Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 87 and 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 89 Possession of pyrotechnic articles at protests Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentHelen Whately

    Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

    Every penny of taxpayers’ money lost to fraud or error is money wasted, so we Conservatives support many of the measures outlined in the Bill, not least those that continue the hard work done by my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions prior to the general election. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that every penny they raise in taxation is spent well. That is fair to taxpayers, who have worked hard to earn that money. When it comes to welfare, at the heart of our system must be the principle that Government support should go only to those for whom it is intended. Every penny that does not undermines the entire system. It erodes public trust and support. That has put support for some of the most vulnerable people in society at risk. That is why, in government, we did the groundwork for the clauses of the Bill that enable banks to help crack down on fraudsters, recognising that while the state should never be able to see what someone spends their money on, it should be able to check whether they are entitled to the money that they are claiming. The amendments we have tabled to the Bill are constructive, so I am disappointed that the Government have chosen not to support them. Videos from sickfluencers are hard to avoid when searching online about benefits, but rather than helping people to claim something that they may need and should rightly receive, the videos tell people how to game the system. We want taxpayers to get their money back, even if it has already been spent. Why should we tolerate people using social media platforms to help others commit fraud, and to help them cheat the tests that are there to ensure that support goes to those who need it? Why should someone who has committed fraud be able to keep their high-end television or luxury car, just because they spent their ill-gotten gains before the Department got to them? We are clear that both those things should be tackled, but sadly Labour has shown itself to be on the side of the fraudsters. As I said at the outset, we back the overall purpose of the Bill and much of its content, but I hope that the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the other place will take note of the constructive approach we have taken and the arguments made, particularly those made so articulately by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) today and in Committee. I look forward to seeing the Bill improved before it may become law.

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentHarriet Cross

    National Grid Resilience

    12. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resilience of the national grid against the potential disruption of offshore energy infrastructure.

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentHarriet Cross

    National Grid Resilience

    The UK currently has about 15 GW of offshore wind capacity, which supplies about 17% of our energy. In order to reach the Government’s 2030 targets, this will have to increase by three times to 40 to 50 GW in just five years, and to achieve that we will have to rely on Chinese wind infrastructure and technology. What specific risk assessment have the Government carried out into the impact of this exposed vulnerability and reliance on China for what will be a significant amount of our energy supplies?

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentGraham Stuart

    Energy Efficiency: Council Leaseholders and Social Homes

    I know how on top of her brief the Minister is, so will she confirm that fewer than a third of council homes had an energy performance certificate C rating in 2010 compared with over 70% by last year? Less than 12% of homes in the UK had decent insulation in 2010 when Labour last left office and when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, was in power, and more than 50% did by the time we left office. Will she commit to a faster rate of improvement under this Government than we ever saw under the previous Labour Government?

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentEsther McVey

    Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

    I wish to speak in support of new clause 11, entitled “Publication of results of pilot schemes”. Make no mistake: this Bill allows for a massive expansion of state powers. It will permit mass financial surveillance of the public. It is a massive overreach by the state, so of course it requires close scrutiny. It requires the publication of those results, and then they must be analysed. Let me put this in context. Before the covid years, fraud and error across the tax and benefit system were at an all-time low. Then, in 2020, after a state-imposed lockdown—another massive state intervention—unprecedented financial support was set up for millions of people, in a rush of panic, with the full support of Members on both sides of the House. I exclude myself from that, but very few Members opposed the arrangement, and it opened up all sorts of new vulnerabilities in the system. This support was set up only because of a blanket stay-at-home mandate from the state. It was the state that opened up those fraud vulnerabilities, and it was the state that saw, as a result of those impositions, many millions more people claiming universal credit. Let me give the House the figures. In March 2020, 3 million people were receiving universal credit. By November that year 5.8 million were receiving it, and in January 2025 the number was 7.5 million. Just as the heavy-handed state intervention of lockdown left the public paying a very high price, I am concerned that the Bill, another heavy-handed state intervention, will also leave the public paying a very high price. As Big Brother Watch states, the Bill will introduce “an unprecedented system of mass financial surveillance; create a second-tier justice system for people on the poverty line; undermine the presumption of innocence; result in serious mistakes risking the freedoms and funds of our country’s elderly, disabled and poor; and turn Britain’s once-fair welfare system into a digital surveillance system.” I have said it before and I will say it again, lockdown was an experiment inflicted on the British people without their consent and that experiment failed. The Bill will be another such experiment on the British public.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentEsther McVey

    Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

    Have all the details and all the information from the only pilot schemes that the Government are prepared to run been published in their entirety?

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Draft Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the Committee to explain why we may well need this SI, but I have some questions. I will not go through the benefits of these changes, but there are some risks, which are a concern for Opposition Members. We will not divide the Committee, but we would be grateful for some comments on those and on how we have got to where we are. We know that we need to hold NHS bodies and private providers to the same standards on information. We also know that we can capture patient data more consistently across the NHS and private providers, which will greatly improve our understanding of patients’ experiences and the services they use. As the Minister rightly pointed out, the last Government recognised that and put in place the Health and Care Act 2022 to allow information standards to be applied to private providers in health and adult social care that are registered with the Care Quality Commission. The last Government gathered views on proposals for how procedures should be changed, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on how that process has impacted on this SI and how it links to these procedures. Secondly, as I noted, the regulations relate to information standards applied to private providers registered with the CQC. As we know, the CQC has had some issues with its performance, so what is the Government’s assessment of its capacity to deal with compliance with these regulations? That leads us into the question of the impending abolition of NHS England. The statutory instrument, and indeed the Health and Care Act, talk about NHS England. How will the legislation we are creating be impacted, given that it looks towards NHS England? Turning to specific examples of information standards, one important example is accessible and transparent information under the accessible information standard. That was raised by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, which told me before this Committee that making standards such as the AIS mandatory could have a powerful impact on the RNID. Will the Minister take that back to her Department and look at how long it will take to enact these standards, given that the Act was in 2022? On the AIS, there is also a concern that, as the explanatory memorandum seems to suggest, we would put in place only a forward-thinking approach, rather than a backwards application. There is therefore a question whether things such as the AIS would need to be revised to make them mandatory, which could further delay the accessibility we are looking for. That leads us on to interoperability, which is a Union question. Paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 of the explanatory memorandum say that the extent of the regulations will be England and Wales and that the impacts will be felt in England alone. We have people on the border with the likes of Scotland and Wales, so what conversations is the Minister having with her counterparts in those jurisdictions to make sure that data is shared? At the end of the day, people have accidents in different places and seek health in different jurisdictions, and that will have a massive impact. Finally, there is a question—which often comes up when we discuss NHS data—about what the wider impact looks like when it comes to trade deals and negotiations. That may be beyond the scope of this debate, and I do not expect the Minister to speak on behalf of her Trade colleagues, but it does raise the question of why this measure is being brought in specifically now? Is it just a timing issue, or is there a wider game afoot, in the sense that this issue would be part of, for example, a US trade deal or a closer alliance with the EU? I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on whether such discussions have taken place within the relevant Department. I am grateful to all the civil servants and to everyone assembled here for taking part in the debate.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Draft Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025

    If it would be of use, I am happy to give the Minister the letter the RNID provided to me before this meeting, to give her the context. I believe that the RNID would also be happy to give briefings, if that would help.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Domestic Energy Bills: Transparency

    5. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the transparency of domestic energy bill costings.

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Domestic Energy Bills: Transparency

    When it comes to bills, the public understand what unit costs are, but not what standing charges are. When I raised this with the previous Government and Ofcom, they said that it was a complex matter, but what I am asking for is transparency, so that people understand how the charge is made up, and can then make a judgment on what it looks like. Will the Government commit to asking Ofgem to ensure that that information is included in the billing, so that we can see the breakdown of costs—how much is going on human resources and how much is going on the actual infrastructure and wires—so we know exactly what is going on in the energy market?

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

    One concern that we have is the change in the way that people conduct benefit fraud. Through the use of key buzzwords, they help people to navigate the system so that they are able to take out of it what is not theirs. Does he think that there is scope in the Bill, particularly in some of the new clauses, to include specific legislation to prevent people from using words and buzzwords, or from teaching other people how to cheat the benefit system?

    Hansard source