Mark Ferguson

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour (4 Jul 2024 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 194

1. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Ferguson

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   It is a pleasure to close what has been a genuinely fascinating debate. I give thanks to hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their thoughtful contributions, in addition to their support for this worthwhile and historic piece of legislation. As we heard earlier from the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), this important Bill will facilitate the removal of an outdated 19th-century restriction. We have spent a lot of time today talking about history, and who does not enjoy a little conversation about history? I certainly do, and I know the Minister of State would agree. It is enjoyable to be involved in preparing for a debate where someone uses a phrase like “not since the reformation”. It reminds us of the scale and scope of what we do in this place, but we are here to talk about where we are in 2026. This Bill ensures that any Prime Minister, regardless of their religious beliefs, can advise the sovereign on Church appointments. We have heard in this debate a number of views and contributions from Members across the House. I welcome support for this Bill from across the House, including from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. Religious freedom and tolerance of faith before the law are crucial principles that we must uphold. In response to why we are bringing forward this legislation at this time, when there are undoubtedly more important issues, I simply say two things: one, the Government are handling this in a pragmatic way, tackling minor constitutional issues as and when they arise. This is an obvious problem with an obvious solution. The legislation is pragmatic, quick and will not detain the House long, despite the enjoyable history lesson that we have had today. Secondly, I am a strong believer that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and our ambition is a matter of public record: to rewire the state and to deliver the largest re-industrialisation of our nations and regions in at least a generation and the biggest redistribution of power our country has ever seen. In response to the specific issues raised by the Members of the official Opposition, let me say that this is a narrowly focused Bill without knock-on consequences. The temporary arrangement in respect of the Lord Chancellor will be brought to an end once this Bill has been passed, and there are no wider constitutional changes. I am happy to give a firm commitment in that regard. This is not a wider constitutional change, and the existing arrangements between the Crown, the Government and the established Church will remain. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) talked about the wider role of religion in public life. It was an interesting contribution, but this is a tightly focused Bill which deals with this issue and this issue alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) also entertained the House, although I should say that I do not express a preference for any particular religion in No. 10, and I say that as a lapsed Methodist, if one can even be such a thing. I am very happy to have a Catholic Prime Minister, although once a Methodist always a Methodist—much like “once a Whip, always a Whip”. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), entertained us with a historical tour de force. I am afraid I do not have any historical forebears such as his to call upon, so I will simply say that it is right and proper that the senior adviser to the sovereign, the Prime Minister, should be able to advise the sovereign. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about political input. That is not what we are talking about today, so in a sense we may differ on that point, but it was nonetheless a thoughtful contribution. The debate has indicated that there is clear support for this legislation on both sides of the House. When I speak to my constituents, whether at Gateshead’s Jewish Kehilla or at Cardinal Hume Catholic School, I want the students there to know that they can play a full role in democratic life, where their faith is no barrier, and I know that that view is shared across the House. I look forward to hearing further from hon. Members during the remaining stages due to follow shortly, and I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Ferguson

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   I hope that I will not detain the Committee for long in dealing with the two clauses. Clause 1 is the only operative clause of the Bill. Its purpose is to remove the restrictions that prevent a person who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths from advising the sovereign on Church appointments. It also removes parallel restrictions that prevent a person of those faiths from making Church appointments, when they have a right to do so by virtue of their office. Some office holders appointed by the sovereign, such as the Lord Chancellor, have the right to nominate someone directly to a benefice—for example, the right to nominate the local vicar of a parish. The sovereign has no involvement in those appointments. The clause achieves that by repealing sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 in their entirety. It also contains some consequential repeals of Church legislation that cross-referred to some of these provisions. Finally, the clause provides that once it comes into force, no person can be convicted under the provisions in section 18 of the 1829 Act or section 4 of the 1858 Act. Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, and applies UK-wide. It will come into force on Royal Assent, which will ensure that the Prime Minister can assume his constitutional duty to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without delay. It is clear that the Bill commands broad consensus, and I am grateful to colleagues for their approach to it. I look forward very much to the rest of today’s debate, and to seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Ferguson

   House of Lords Reform

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate, and I thank Members for their contributions to what has been, unsurprisingly, an interesting and enlightening discussion. Before I respond to some of the specific questions raised, I will first set out the Government’s approach to reforming the House of Lords. The Government have a number of manifesto commitments in this space and are approaching reform of the second Chamber in stages. The first stage is already complete: in the previous Session, Parliament passed legislation to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This important and historic step means that no peer can now be a Member of the House of Lords solely on the basis of birthright. We are currently in the second stage, and are focused on implementing our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement, which I know Members from all parties are concerned about. For a long time there has been general agreement in both Houses that the second Chamber is too big. However, if we ask more Members of that Chamber to depart by introducing a retirement age, new talent will be required, and new people will need time to learn how to develop expertise and fulfil their duties effectively as Members of the other place.

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Ferguson

   House of Lords Reform

   I know the right hon. Gentleman has strong views on this issue, and I am glad he has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am sure he will continue to contribute. I take his point, but I do not entirely agree. I think the primacy of the House of Commons and of MPs is incredibly important, and I feel that view will, unsurprisingly, be shared in a room full of Members of the House of Commons. Our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement will have a direct impact on Members of the other place; therefore, during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, the Leader of the House of Lords proposed to establish a dedicated Select Committee, to provide the opportunity for the second Chamber to shape how further reforms are delivered. The Retirement and Participation Committee published its report in July, and it was debated in the other place in September. The report was genuinely House-led, with over 100 Members submitting evidence to the Committee. The Government are carefully considering the Committee’s recommendations and will respond substantively later this year. I know that if Members are here for this debate, they will look out for that response. The historical context of House of Lords reform tells us that an incremental approach is often quite effective. Throughout the 20th century there were various attempts to fully reform the second Chamber. Some passed, but some failed. Of course, there were the Parliament Acts of 1911 and of 1949, but there were also decades of stagnation and stalled attempts. The previous Labour Government managed to introduce the House of Lords Act 1999, reducing the number of hereditary peers from around 700 to 92. In the 21st century, a royal commission and joint Committee of both Houses were established, alongside the publication of numerous White Papers during the Blair and Brown years. The coalition Government introduced a Bill that was voted down in the House of Commons. None of those attempts were able to bring about lasting reform to the second Chamber. However, during that time it was possible to pass reforms on expulsion, attendance and resignation that held cross-party consensus. That is why the Government are focused on conducting a staged approach to House of Lords reform. We are focused on delivering outcomes and keeping promises. Rather than attempting to reform the whole House in a single go, our strategy is to implement important initial reforms that meet our objective of having a smaller second Chamber that better represents the country it serves. The third stage of reform, which has taken up a large proportion of this debate—I will return to some specific points—focuses on the manifesto commitment to consult on proposals to replace the Lords with an alternative second Chamber. The Government recognise that previous public consultations and attempts to reform that House did not bring about lasting change. Nevertheless, the Government want to see a second Chamber that better represents the nations and regions—something I am personally very interested in—and I know that hon. Members share that vision. There are many ways of achieving that goal, and we owe it to the public to get the consultation right. Let me address some of the specific points made by individual Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who referenced the abolition of the House of Lords in 1649. A lot of things happened in 1649, some of which we may not wish to repeat. It was also enjoyable—and entertaining in a different way—to hear from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I was surprised to hear him say that he wants continuity, given that there has not even been continuity in the party he has represented within this Parliament. I think this country needs to change and I believe that, in his own way, he believes the country needs to change, too—otherwise his recent change of party is somewhat surprising. I enjoyed hearing him dabble in unicameralism; I was not necessarily expecting that point, which was often championed in this place by the former Labour Member Mike Gapes, a proud unicameralist. There are not many of them in the House, so it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Romford make that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made a point, among many others, about the size and composition of the Lords. The Government believe that all peers should make an active contribution to the House of Lords. There is a general, albeit not universal, consensus that the second Chamber is too big. In addressing that, we should recognise that the pace of change in every field is increasing, which means we need new talent with up-to-date experience. The introduction of a participation requirement and a retirement age sit at the heart of this work. As the Leader of the House has said, we believe the second Chamber works best when it is full time with part-time Members. My hon. Friend will get a lot of sympathy on the Government Benches for his point, which I will return to in a moment, about the number of representatives from the nations and regions. HOLAC is independent, and vetting for propriety includes checks with Government Departments, agencies and other organisations, including the Electoral Commission. It plays a vital role in vetting all peers and nominating Cross Benchers to the Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) spoke passionately about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and I know her frustrations on that matter. It is obviously a sensitive and delicate subject matter that should be dealt with seriously. The Government were and remain neutral on that specific Bill and the issue of assisted dying, and it was up to the other place to determine how that Bill was scrutinised, as with other legislation. I enjoyed the reference to Kellie from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—although I always warn against weighing the mailbag to find out how important an issue is, as I am sure all Members would agree. I was interested to hear the Lib Dem position with regard to the monarch. That said, the loss of trust in politics comes, alas, at least as much from the Commons as from the Lords. It is unacceptable that disgraced peers can retain their peerages regardless of circumstances. Legislation to enable peerages to be removed was included in the King’s Speech. The Government will announce further details in due course. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), talked about care, caution and balance; I am disappointed that was not the position the Conservatives took with regard to the abolition of the hereditary principle. I once again thank right hon. and hon. Members for this thought-provoking debate on the second Chamber. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered House of Lords reform.

   Hansard source
5. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Ferguson

   Rejoining the EU

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mrs Barker. You have certainly caught yourself a lively one early on a Monday evening. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for moving the motion on behalf of the signatories of the e-petition relating to the UK applying to rejoin the EU. Some 10 years ago, the people of the UK voted to leave the EU. That decision was made on the promise that leaving the EU would boost UK growth and reduce immigration. During this debate the clock appeared to turn backwards. That was probably a bit of a heavy metaphor even for this place, but we have had a lot of legacy language. We have had lies and truth, rancour and dispute over facts. Everyone has brought their own version of the polls. We have had surrender, small print and even the odd straw man. At one point, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said that we were not having a debate, but exchanging our speeches. If I am honest, that took me back to the way this debate has been conducted for much of the last decade. When my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) described Opposition Members I was worried we had strayed into the realm of unparliamentary language, but I am glad to hear that he in fact said “Cnuts”. It is important always to enunciate that word as my hon. Friend did. In all seriousness, this debate was called because the British people know that the current arrangements with the EU are not working. Brexit has not given us control. We have lost some of the control we had over our economy. Last year, goods trade with the EU was down 7% on 2018. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said that such trade is 6% of UK GDP. It is 5.96%, so we will allow that 0.04%, but the use of the figure 6% belies its size. According to the ONS, that is £181.4 billion of goods; if we include services, it is £384.4 billion. As the saying goes, if you start adding up the hundreds of billions of pounds, you start talking about real money pretty quickly. The research suggests that more than 16,000 UK exporters stopped exporting to the EU as a result of Brexit.

   Hansard source
6. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Ferguson

   Rejoining the EU

   I thank the hon. Member for his optimism about the next Conservative Government. To be serious—and we must be, because this is a serious issue—research suggests that 16,000 UK exporters stopped exporting to the EU as a result of Brexit. That represents businesses in every single one of the constituencies represented in this room today, and across the whole House. Those trading with Europe are paying for the privilege. Since 2023, British businesses have had to obtain over 1 million multi-page export health certificates to trade with the EU and Northern Ireland, at a cost of anywhere between £90 million and £210 million. When it comes to security, opportunities to work more closely together were lost. This Government are choosing to take another path. The previous Administration made significant progress in strengthening relations with the EU, announcing a new common understanding at the first ever UK-EU summit in May last year. At the summit, the UK secured a new security and defence partnership agreement with the EU—a partnership that represents our joint commitment to the important issue of European security, which has been mentioned many times today. That is built on the long-standing commitment by the UK to support Ukraine, which is shared, I think, by all those in this House today and complements our cross-continent work to protect our NATO allies. That co-operation has been further strengthened by the recent agreement for the UK to join the EU’s Ukraine support loan initiative, which will bolster Ukraine’s defence while creating new opportunities for British defence firms, jobs and investment. The UK and the EU also agreed to work towards a sanitary and phytosanitary deal—what a tongue-twister that is! It is nearly as difficult as CPTPP, which I have managed to get out in one go.

   Hansard source
7. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Ferguson

   Rejoining the EU

   The hon. Gentleman does me an honour if he imagines I will go beyond what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. I refer him to what the Prime Minister said, but—[Interruption.] I am coming to the point made by the hon. Member and others. The sanitary and phytosanitary deal will make food and agriculture trade with the EU cheaper and easier, something that I hope we would all welcome. That agreement, combined with the emissions trading systems linking measures, is set to add £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040, in a significant boost to growth. Finally, the UK and EU committed to working towards UK association to Erasmus+, which was asked about earlier, with a deal being struck on association less than a year later, opening up world-class opportunities for learners, educators, young people and communities from 2027. We are committed to building that process. As the Prime Minister announced earlier today, we will hold the next UK-EU summit on 20 November, when we want to strike important deals that will boost our economy, cut red tape, help our businesses grow and provide opportunities to young people denied since Brexit. These are important, concrete steps.

   Hansard source
8. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Ferguson

   Rejoining the EU

   I will come on to touring musicians. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me on the second matter, I would appreciate that. What is planned is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition. We must go further to restore a higher level of growth and prosperity for Britain. As the Prime Minister recently announced, he will lay out options for Britain’s long-term relationship with our European partners around the summit in November and find consensus on what is best for Britain. The views of Members of this House will be crucial as part of that process. The youth experience scheme was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who I commend for the way in which he introduced the debate today. At the last summit the UK agreed to work towards a balanced youth experience scheme, with the UK creating new opportunities for cultural exchange between the UK and the EU. That will give young people the opportunity to broaden their horizons through travelling, experiencing other cultures and learning languages, as well as working and studying abroad, as it did for me when I briefly lived in France—although the less said about my French ability, the better. A question was raised about Chinese EVs. Europe and the UK face many of the same challenges, which is why it is vital to protect trade between us. On haulage, all UK nationals are bound by the 90/180-day Schengen area rule. The Government will of course continue to listen to the sectors impacted and advocate for UK nationals. I particularly enjoyed the well-made point from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) about the price of tulips—an impressive way of referring to her name in the Chamber. There are clear economic benefits of upcoming EU-UK deals that may bear some benefit there. I also enjoyed the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) to his nephew Freddy. This Government are committed to exploring how best to improve arrangements for touring artists across the EU and EU member states. However, challenges remain, as touring artists need to navigate visa requirements across EU member states and hauliers that transport equipment face stricter limitations on their type of movement within the EU. I also commend the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer); it is good to see her back in her place speaking up on behalf of her constituents. She referred to music venues in her constituency that are affected. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) asked about Erasmus. The UK will associate to Erasmus+ from January 1 and contribute around £570 million to the programme, which is down from the approximately £810 million that we would have paid under devolved terms. Reference was also made to the “Made in Europe” initiative, and we are listening to industry and actively engaging EU partners on it. We face the same global challenges, and we are clear that we should work together to bolster UK-EU supply chains and growth, rather than putting up barriers to trade in Europe. On a future relationship, the Prime Minister will say more about the path ahead for the UK and the EU around the summit, as I have said. He has been open about the fact that there are a range of options, and he intends to establish consensus around which option is best for Britain. He is clear that Brexit has damaged our economy and that, as we face a more dangerous world, we need a closer, stronger relationship with the EU. It is right to open up that discussion because, a decade on from Brexit, the country is not where it could be. In 2016, the people of Britain voted for change and full control, but Brexit has done more harm than good. As the PM said, “Sticking with the status quo is not good enough for Britain.” We must ensure that our relationship with the EU is fit for the challenges we face now and in the future.

   Hansard source
9. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Ferguson

   Rejoining the EU

   My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. I will not commit to anything of that nature today, but I urge her to continue making the argument for that, as I am sure she will.

   Hansard source
10. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Ferguson

    Rejoining the EU

    I am incredibly close to bringing this debate to an end, but I will give way.

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Gateshead Central and Whickham

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site