Parliamentary debates on UK legislation

"I will give two examples that have a bearing on the hon. Gentleman’s point momentarily. The Liberal Democrats have supported elements of the Government’s reforms. We supported the housing measures in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we support the principle of strategic planning. We also have no objection to a standard scheme of delegation or <span id="10" class="column-number" data-column-number="10"></span>an upper limit on the size of planning committees. However, we do not accept that decisions must—the word “must” is used several times in the draft regulations—be taken away from elected councillors such that councils will approve decisions in cases where every single councillor disagrees, and the council’s name will still be on that decision. How can that be just? How can that be "

— Gideon Amos Hansard

"I will give way in a second, but let me briefly mention resources, which are really important. It is vital that councils have the capacity to take action where needed. That is why we have provided £18.2 million in 2025-26 and £41.1 million for 2026-27 to support the new enforcement responsibilities that local authorities have taken on under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We plan to establish a more sustainable funding system for enforcement in the private rented sector over the longer term based on future database revenue fees, but, again, I want to understand the challenges that particular local authorities are facing in that respect."

— Matthew Pennycook Hansard

"I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026. It is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker—it is my first time doing so, which makes it all the more special. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment. In the implementation road map, published on 13 November 2025, the Government set out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases. As the first phase, on 1 May 2026, we commenced the new tenancy regime. As a result, section 21 no-fault evictions wer"

— The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook) Hansard

"Rural housing availability is in crisis, and all the tenants of an estate near Haltwhistle in my constituency, many of whom are elderly tenants in their 70s and 80s, received section 21 notices a week before the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 came into effect. In a rural community like that, there simply is not similar housing nearby. It is the dismantling of a rural community. Will the Minister therefore meet me to discuss the support he can offer for constituents and the further steps we can take to stop rural communities being victimised by these practices?"

— Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab) Hansard

"The No. 1 priority for me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 was a decent homes standard for military families, and I was delighted that the Government subsequently enacted that provision. We also welcome the £9 billion for service family and military accommodation that the Minister has referred to. Does the Minister agree that a poorly housed and unhealthy fighting force is not what this country needs and, similarly, that an unhealthy and poorly housed population is not what we need in this country? Can he confirm that the DIP will not be funded by raiding either the military housing budget or the affordable homes budget?"

— Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD) Hansard

"<Question HRSContentId="{D341F67E-D020-486A-B24A-F22720DD6A95}">T3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{80F97C2D-B9DA-4FF7-8C14-1C60497EF77A}"></QuestionText>How are the Government working with trade unions to support workers in understanding and claiming their new rights under the Employment Rights Act 2025?</Question>"

— Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab) Hansard

"The UK was the fastest growing G7 economy in quarter 1 of this year, and we know that we will only achieve a thriving economy once people have a wage they can count on. We want to grow our economy with people in secure work. That is why we are giving greater certainty to more than half the UK’s workforce through our Employment Rights Act 2025 and putting more money in their pockets. External analysis by world-leading experts shows that the Act could increase employment, and our impact assessment shows that it will benefit more than 18 million workers across the country."

— The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden) Hansard

"I’ve got it! In the modern era, that all important first job is increasingly hard to find because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the massive 330-page Employment Rights Act 2025. Will the Secretary of State go to the new northern powerhouse Cabinet and impress upon the Chancellor the need to save our summer jobs and cut the burden on industry?"

— John Cooper Hansard

"The Employment Rights Act 2025 is bringing employment rights into the 21st century, with phased implementation to give businesses and workers, including those in Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, time to get ready and understand their new rights at work. We have already repealed burdensome trade union legislation, strengthened statutory sick pay, introduced day one paternity leave rights and launched the Fair Work Agency. We continue to consult on measures such as zero-hours contracts and non-disclosure agreements to get the details right. Further changes will happen in October, including trade union reform and better protection from sexual harassment."

— The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden) Hansard

"<Question HRSContentId="{A3AD9804-E7EE-4ADD-A424-BEF44DFCDB23}">1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{B7367C36-6720-44F2-90A5-EF2061212F50}">What recent progress his Department has made on implementing the Employment Rights Act 2025.</QuestionText> </Question>"

— Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab) Hansard

"The policy that we are implementing in England and Wales is lawful; it complies with the Prison Rules 1999 and the Equality Act 2010. The guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has come out. We have 40 days to consider and ratify it, and we will do so."

— Jake Richards Hansard

"We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 and that Scotland has taken the relevant steps. The Minister responded to my hon. Friend with a fairly vague answer about what needs to happen in England. We know that there are women who are not biological females in the women’s estate in England and Wales. When will women get the same protections as in Scotland?"

— Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con) Hansard

"My hon. Friend is a champion for the rights of his constituents, and I pay tribute to him. I recognise the concern that he has raised. Everyone, including trans people, should have the right to access the services and facilities that they need in a respectful way that protects dignity and privacy. Trans people continue to be protected under the Equality Act 2010, which we on the Labour Benches are particularly proud of. I will write to Ministers on his behalf and see whether we can arrange the meeting that he seeks."

— Sir Alan Campbell Hansard

"I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 12, page 10, line 10, at end insert— “(4A) Before making regulations under subsection (1)(b) that would alter the range of services or facilities which the Secretary of State is required to commission nationally, the Secretary of State must— (a) prepare and publish a commissioning transition plan in accordance with subsection (4B), (b) consult in accordance with subsection (4C), and (c) lay the commissioning transition plan before Parliament. (4B) The commissioning transition plan must set out— (a) a description of each service or facility that the Secretary of State proposes to add to, or remove from, national commissioning responsibility under section 3B(1)(b), and the reasons for each proposed change; (b) a description of the bo"

— Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) Hansard

"The Equality Act 2010 is a monumental achievement, passed by the last Labour Government, that protects everyone from discrimination and harassment. The public sector equality duty makes our services fairer for everyone, and we are bolstering that by commencing the socioeconomic duty. The Equality Act is our quiet guardian—the law that stops bosses overlooking pregnant qualified workers for promotion and that requires shops and transport to adapt for wheelchair users, making their services accessible. To those who want to dismantle those protections, I say that we will not let them turn back the clock. We stand by those rights; we will strengthen them."

— The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson) Hansard

"My Lords, I should make it clear at the outset that I am pro-lobbying—how could I not be, given how much I have done in my time? It has been particularly helpful in the Lords. We do not have constituents to inform us of what needs doing, or not doing, by a Government, so it is good that those with a particular interest or knowledge make their way to Westminster, bringing their lived experience and the legitimate needs of their sector, company or beneficiaries to us and into the public forum—into our actual or metaphorical Peers’ Lobby. We have seen laws be changed for the better by effective lobbying. The NSPCC and children’s charities helped achieve the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The British Lung Foundation’s work on banning smoking in cars carrying children led to the Smoke-free (Privat"

— Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) Hansard

"Keeping people safe online at moments of real danger is a top priority for this Government. That is why we have asked Ofcom to expedite its work on updates to its codes of practice under the Online Safety Act 2023. All services face strict duties to deal with illegal content. Of course, it is right that platforms with a greater risk of viral content spreading must do even more to prepare for and manage periods of heightened risk."

— The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan) Hansard

"I first thank my hon. Friend for championing an incredibly important cause. Content promoting eating disorders is horrific, and I have to be clear that not just at the age of 16, but under the Online Safety Act 2023, platforms must already prevent children under the age of 18 from accessing content about eating disorders or self-harm. Indeed, it is now a primary priority content offence, requiring a higher bar still to be discharged by those platforms. I will of course, as ever, be delighted to work with him and the eating disorders APPG on his further proposals."

— Kanishka Narayan Hansard

"As always, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that this is not a “one and done”, as I said in my statement last week. It cannot be, because technology is changing so fast. I have looked seriously at the fact that the Online Safety Act 2023 took eight years from initial idea to implementation, and that is not good enough. We have taken powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 to address features and functions, which I think will help, but I am sure there is much more we can do. I have said that this is not a one and done, and I will always be willing to look at further measures."

— Liz Kendall Hansard

"As the hon. Member will expect, I disagree with his characterisation of employer NI and the Employment Rights Act. I remind him of the positive impact that both those measures are having on workers, our NHS and the services that they are funding, and of the specific ways in which they operate with young people. His evidence base therefore does not entirely stack up. I turn to the issue of building up a credit record. The Government are continuing to engage with the FCA on its work with industry to tackle thin credit files. As part of that, the FCA has recently consulted on introducing mandatory credit information sharing by regulated firms, which would mean that any firm reporting to one designated credit reference agency must report the same information to all such agencies, ensuring f"

— Rachel Blake Hansard

"My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments on data, digital systems and technology within the social housing framework. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady O’Neill, for contributing. Amendments 48, 49, 59, 60, 97 to 99, 114, 117 and 117B raise important questions about transparency, security and the effective use of data in delivering housing services. I will take each amendment in turn, beginning with Amendments 48 and 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Amendment 48 sets out the details that the noble Lord would like to be included in a ledger prepared by housing providers. It would require the Secretary of State to publish annually an analysis of disposal data, cross-referenced with housing need data, that identifie"

— Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab) Hansard

"With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clauses 49 and 50<em>.</em> New clause 1—<em>Passengers’ Charter</em>— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter. (2) A Passengers’ Charter must include— (a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes; (b) targets for reliability of services; (c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to— (i) seat design, (ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service, (ii"

— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Hansard

"My hon. Friend speaks with real authority on these matters. He will know that the theft of personal information is already criminalised in legislation, including the Fraud Act 2006, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Data Protection Act 2018. To ensure that those laws remain effective, we commissioned an independent review of disclosures and fraud offences. The review has submitted its final report to the Government and will be published shortly. We will consider its findings carefully and what further action may be needed to strengthen our response to identity fraud. I am sure that the noble Lord Hanson will happily meet my hon. Friend."

— Dan Jarvis Hansard

"It was an official-led process. Let me just make that clear, because the right hon. Gentleman points towards a pretty important issue. We had the Humble Address and its wording—hon. Members can read that wording—with the quite extensive list drafted by the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). At the end, it said: “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee”. What the Government have done, and indeed were entitled to do so, is take into account the precedents set by previous responses to Humble Addresses—under the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported, indeed. The Prime Minister has written to the Cha"

— Nick Thomas-Symonds Hansard

"My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Statement on the draft Equality Act 2010 code of practice. The publication of the draft code is welcome, and I was pleased to see greater protections for breast-feeding women, and greater clarity for people with disabilities. Those are important improvements. The Conservative Party has always been clear on this issue: vulnerable women and girls must be protected. We welcome the judgment of the Supreme Court, and we will always stand up for single-sex spaces to be protected in line with the law. That is the right approach; no matter what pressure they may be under from their friends in the unions and the Liberal Democrats, the Government must do the right thing and protect women and girls. However, public bodies, employers, schools, s"

— Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con) Hansard

"My Lords, I should make it clear at the outset that I am pro-lobbying—how could I not be, given how much I have done in my time? It has been particularly helpful in the Lords. We do not have constituents to inform us of what needs doing, or not doing, by a Government, so it is good that those with a particular interest or knowledge make their way to Westminster, bringing their lived experience and the legitimate needs of their sector, company or beneficiaries to us and into the public forum—into our actual or metaphorical Peers’ Lobby. We have seen laws be changed for the better by effective lobbying. The NSPCC and children’s charities helped achieve the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The British Lung Foundation’s work on banning smoking in cars carrying children led to the Smoke-free (Privat"

— Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) Hansard

"Thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the most incredible privilege to be here in this Chamber to hear how my hon. Friend triumphed against the most horrendous abuse and to see her surrounded by her colleagues in the most supportive way possible. That feels like a real privilege, and I am very grateful to have been here for that moment. My hon. Friend championed the importance of a whole system approach to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls more broadly. I also know how hard it is to come forward and share experiences of abuse. I am proud to use my platform to shine a light on the challenges many victims and survivors face, and I know that so many will have been listening to my hon. Friend’s account this evening and will take strength from it. I"

— Natalie Fleet Hansard

"It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and thank him for the thoughtful way he set out the issues raised in the petition. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions on establishing a public register for animal abusers and the automatic ownership ban. The petition has attracted significant public support, with more than 235,000 signatures, clearly demonstrating how strongly people across the country feel about protecting animals. I commend the tireless campaigning of Bea and her supporters. As a dog lover—and the owner of 11-year-old labradoodle Albert Attlee, who brings real joy to my family and me—I"

— The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan) Hansard

"I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her conversations with me on this important topic. Let me be clear about what the Bill does. The legislation is symmetrical in its approach to abusive conversion practices that attempt to change somebody from one gender identity to another or from one sexual orientation to another. There are three parts to the criminal threshold as set out in the Bill: first, there must be an intent to change somebody; secondly, that must be through an abusive practice in line with other legislation, including the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and thirdly, that practice must have caused significant harm. Those are the tests that will be used by the courts when determining whether prosecutions should be brought."

— Olivia Bailey Hansard

"With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—<em>Dual nationals serving in foreign armed forces: war crimes risk—</em> “(1) This section applies to a person (‘the individual’) who is— (a) a British national or a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and (b) a member of the armed forces of a foreign state. (2) Where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has participated in, ordered, or failed to prevent conduct that constitutes a war crime within the meaning of Article 8 of the Rome Statute, the Secretary of State may— (a) refer the matter to the Attorney General for consideration of proceedings under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, (b) direct that the individual’s British travel doc"

— Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins) Hansard

"With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clauses 49 and 50<em>.</em> New clause 1—<em>Passengers’ Charter</em>— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter. (2) A Passengers’ Charter must include— (a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes; (b) targets for reliability of services; (c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to— (i) seat design, (ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service, (ii"

— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Hansard

"These clauses are in part 3 of the general provisions of the Bill. They provide the position on the commencement of measures in the Bill, the powers to make consequential, transitional and other provisions in connection with the coming into force of the provisions of the Bill, and the Bill’s territorial extent and short title. Clause 21 is a technical clause that will allow the Secretary of State to make any further consequential amendments or legislative changes where required to implement the provisions in the Bill. Clause 22 creates a power to allow the Lord Chancellor to make “transitional or saving provisions” by regulation “in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.” Clause 23 will allow the Secretary of State to, by regulation, amend the Sentenci"

— Sarah Sackman Hansard

"I will not; I am going to make some progress. As Sir Brian’s report clearly outlines, “this is a principled reform based on the need for cases to be resolved in a more timely manner, with a forum well suited to the demands of the case.” He suggests that allowing a judge to hear these cases alone—in tightly defined circumstances, of course—can cut hearing time by at least 20%. As we have said already, we heard from various witnesses about how that time saving would be achieved. That is a gain for the system and for capacity in the Crown court that can be used to progress other sorts of cases. That is not an abstract assumption. There is not an absence of evidence here: we have heard from those with judicial experience, as well as from international comparators such as New South Wal"

— Sarah Sackman Hansard

"My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling these amendments, which, as we have heard, raise questions around how the proceeds of crime may be used to benefit victims. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for stepping into the breach today to speak to these amendments in my noble friend’s absence. My noble friend Lord Banner has tenaciously pursued this matter for many months. The intention behind his amendments is clear: to ensure that, where criminal assets are confiscated, the courts have flexibility to direct those funds towards compensation for victims or towards wider public interest purposes linked to the harm caused. In Committee, I spoke sympathetically on these amendments. I shall not seek to repeat the points I made then but other noble Lords explore"

— Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con) Hansard

"My Lords, we support in principle Amendments 387C and 387D, the first of which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. These amendments address a moral and legal imperative, ensuring that assets confiscated from those who violate our laws, particularly our sanctions regime, are used to provide redress to the victims of those very same violations. My own amendment in Committee focused on a ministerial power to create a fund via regulations but Amendments 387C and 387D would place this power where I believe it properly belongs: with the judiciary. By amending the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, these amendments would grant the Crown Court the discretion to award compensation for public interest or social purposes. Th"

— Lord Clement-Jones (LD) Hansard

"My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Kramer, of Richmond Park, and other Peers for drawing attention to the important issue of financial inclusion. As someone who grew up in poverty, it is not an abstract concept to me and the community I come from. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, asked if I would meet her to discuss this agenda further. I would of course be happy to meet her and any other noble Lords who would like to discuss the topic. I will write to her ahead of that meeting on the FCA’s consumer duty and what it means for financial inclusion, but I assure noble Lords that the Government are not relying on the FCA’s consumer duty as a catch-all solution. The Government agree that people sh"

— Lord Stockwood (Lab) Hansard

"Last week the Supreme Court overturned the previous Cheshire West judgment on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, throwing the sector that cares for people with learning disabilities and/or autism into what it has called “chaos”. There is significant concern that, without further clarification as to whether <span id="150" class="column-number" data-column-number="150"></span>someone who does not have mental capacity can consent to deprivation of liberty, vulnerable people will be put at significant risk. Will the Secretary of State listen to calls for—"

— Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab) Hansard

"My Lords, I would like to seek some clarification from my noble friend the Minister about this matter, because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes adult capacity and the Care Act 2014 defines safeguarding thresholds, which my noble friend has outlined in some detail already. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that adults aged 18 to 25 referred to gender identity clinics are treated as autonomous patients without additional safeguarding measures beyond those which she has already outlined and apply to any competent adult?"

— Baroness Thornton (Lab) Hansard

"My constituent Michael is autistic and actively psychotic, and he has a confirmed lack of capacity. His parents have power of attorney. His chronic medical problems include cysts deep in his chest that could burst at any time, bowel disease, myopathy and sleep apnoea. His family contacts me with increasing distress as Michael has not washed or changed his clothes in eight months, refuses food, makes direct threats of violence to his mother, forbids his parents from using the phone, and compels his father to drive him around town after midnight. A multidisciplinary team decided on 3 March that a court of protection application was needed, but no agency accepts responsibility for filing. Will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to ensure that his proposed reforms to the Mental C"

— Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD) Hansard

"I have repeatedly raised with the DFE over the last year very serious misconduct by Surrey county council, including concealing for over 14 months the fact that it had the highest number of complaints in the country and reclassifying complaints as inquiries to reduce complaint volumes. As far as I am aware, no disciplinary action has been taken. This is not a party political point, because it is a Conservative county council, and I know that, off the record, some Conservative county councillors feel exactly the same way about their own administration. I worked with the Department of Health and Social Care on reforming the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and I was very impressed by its willingness to acknowledge misconduct and the need for accountability and transparency in that case. To be fr"

— Chris Coghlan Hansard

"We are resolute and committed to repealing the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. The campaigning efforts of the likes of Claire Throssell have been little short of heroic, and we will redouble our efforts to ensure that the repeal of that presumption comes about through the Courts and Tribunals Bill."

— Sarah Sackman Hansard

"With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—<em>Dual nationals serving in foreign armed forces: war crimes risk—</em> “(1) This section applies to a person (‘the individual’) who is— (a) a British national or a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and (b) a member of the armed forces of a foreign state. (2) Where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has participated in, ordered, or failed to prevent conduct that constitutes a war crime within the meaning of Article 8 of the Rome Statute, the Secretary of State may— (a) refer the matter to the Attorney General for consideration of proceedings under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, (b) direct that the individual’s British travel doc"

— Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins) Hansard

"I welcome this morning’s announcement. The platforms are not now off the hook: the Online Safety Act 2023 operates until the age of 18, which is the age to which the Children Act 1989 requires protection to be in place. On the announcement, what is the net effect of exempting messaging services but blocking communication from strangers, if a messaging service allows anybody who knows a person’s phone number to add them to a large messaging group?"

— Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) Hansard

"I have to admit that I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is for or against the ban. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> She is a Lib Dem, say Members on the Conservative Benches. She asked about the model. In my statement, I said that it is the Australian model. We have learned the lessons, which is why we are focusing on more highly effective age-assurance measures. To be clear, there has to be rigorous enforcement, including of more risky sites. That is what I have talked about wanting Ofcom to do. We have taken powers in the Children Act 1989 to implement the results of this consultation, which includes restrictions on features and functions. One important issue is that if we restrict some features and functions, the companies will come up with others, but the powers in that Act "

— Liz Kendall Hansard

"I am glad that the hon. Lady said at the end of her question that she will work with us to ensure that we implement this policy effectively. That is extremely important. I absolutely agree that the policy is a win for all the parents who have campaigned for it, especially the bereaved families, who have had to relive the horror of what has happened time and time again. The hon. Lady made some comments about the Prime Minister. Let me be really clear: we are moving so swiftly on this matter precisely because the bereaved families have said to us, “The longer you leave change, the worse it can be for children.” I have really taken that to heart and moved as quickly as possible. It was right to have the consultation, and not just because there are different views, but because what we have "

— Liz Kendall Hansard

"My Lords, it is very convenient that my noble friend Lady Scott is in the Chamber, so I can say many thanks for all that she has done and how she helped me come into the House. It is great following someone who is so good, because there is so much to learn and, fortunately, I am still able to access that learning, so I thank her very much. My noble friend Lady Eaton rightly raises concerns regarding changes to the qualifying period, removing opportunity for many. What is the Government’s evidence that this will work and why is the change being made from three to 10 years? In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who made either a compliment or a back-handed compliment—I am not sure which—it fundamentally comes down to our view that retaining a house with a family in it and not"

— Lord Jamieson (Con) Hansard

"It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank everybody involved with the petition, whether they put their name to it or got it off the ground.<span id="291WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="291WH"></span> Just outside my constituency of South Basildon and East Thurrock, there was an incident in which the remains of 37 dogs were found, along with 20 other living dogs, in varying states of ill health. It should go without saying that this was a deeply distressing incident locally and for everyone who became aware of it. Rightly, it shocked residents, generated significant local concern and led to more than 1,000 of my constituents signing this petition. Animals suffered, and that must never be minimised. What troubled many people locally was not simpl"

— James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind) Hansard

"My Lords, these are excellent regulations, sorely needed, and I commend our Government for bringing them forward. There is one problem that concerns me. They do not cover all social renters and, therefore, there is an element of discrimination. I should declare an interest as an officeholder in various Gypsy and Traveller organisations, so my noble friend the Minister will not be surprised at what I am about to say. Indeed, I asked her a Question about this very thing because Gypsies and Travellers are not covered. Although they rent their houses from social landlords, their houses are, in fact, caravans—permanent caravans—and they have amenity blocks on the sites for the use of water.<span id="138GC" class="column-number" data-column-number="138GC"></span> The problem is that the law d"

— Baroness Whitaker (Lab) Hansard

"My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses for their thoughtful contributions today, and I again express my gratitude <span id="141GC" class="column-number" data-column-number="141GC"></span>to Awaab’s family for their tireless campaigning in reaching this point, as well as to the organisations and campaigners that have supported them. I am very pleased to note the general support for the intention of these two sets of regulations and our work to improve the quality of all housing, but I will respond to the important points that have been made by noble Baronesses. To start with my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s comments, I expect she knows the answer that I am going to give her, but that does not mean that I care any less than I have when I have had meetings with her. I pay tribute to her "

— Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab) Hansard

"My Lords, government Amendments 111, 112 and 113 to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 and Clause 126 of the Renters’ Rights Bill amend the requirements for entering premises without a warrant for the purposes of certain enforcement action. Notice to the property owner or landlord will now be provided after the entry has taken place, within a reasonable amount of time, rather than at least 24 hours before. The 24-hours prior notice requirement for tenants and occupiers will remain, so residents will always be aware that a power of entry is going to be exercised, whether that is under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 or Clause 126 of the Bill. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for raising this issue in Committee. We have given considerable thought to his pro"

— Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab) Hansard

"With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clauses 49 and 50<em>.</em> New clause 1—<em>Passengers’ Charter</em>— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter. (2) A Passengers’ Charter must include— (a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes; (b) targets for reliability of services; (c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to— (i) seat design, (ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service, (ii"

— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Hansard

"It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this debate, and for his record of campaigning on this issue. I also recognise the Federation of Master Builders for its important work in this area. I was proud to be at the launch of its “Licence to Build” report earlier this year. Like many other hon. Members, I have heard regularly from constituents who have gone through horrendous experiences with rogue builders, and I have seen people in tears in my surgeries after suffering the effects. One couple who came to see me had their home turned into a building site when builders left trenches dug up around their house, having taken £36,000 from them. When the couple were asked to pay double that cost a"

— Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) Hansard

"I will do my best, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this debate on an issue that I know he has campaigned on for a long time, beginning when his party were in government. I really welcome the debate. I am grateful to the many Members who contributed to it for raising their constituents’ concerns and the horrifying cases that they have been dealing with in their constituencies. They set out the serious impacts that incompetent and rogue tradesmen have had on the homes and the physical and mental health of their constituents, who are sometimes elderly or vulnerable in other ways. I know from my own constituents the misery that can be caused and the toll it can take on people, as well as the time and money it takes to remedy problems. I "

— The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden) Hansard

"My hon. Friend is making a great speech. On amending the law, what is required is a simple amendment to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to ensure that when a game requires online support, developers must allow the purchaser to continue receiving that support."

— Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab) Hansard

"It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for their excellent speeches. For millions across the UK, video games are more than just entertainment. They are a creative outlet, a way to unwind and a means of connecting with other gamers across the world. As a cornerstone of our creative industries, the UK is one of the largest video game markets in the world, with sales reaching nearly £4.3 billion in 2024. From Harry Potter and James Bond to British premiership football, some of the most popular games worldwide are rooted in British culture. I am delighted that this Labour Government are backing the sector’s continued growth, investin"

— Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab) Hansard

"It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am sure I speak for us all in extending warm thanks to you for stepping into the breach at the last minute to enable us to have this timely and important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing it. It is clear that UK business has global environmental and human rights impacts. UK business has impacts on climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, waste management, deforestation, and of course on human rights and labour rights, as we have already discussed. The Government have acknowledged those concerns. This debate comes at a particularly timely moment because, as the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green pointed out, we await with bated breath the Government r"

— Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green) Hansard

"My Lords, only someone who was there on the night of the Grenfell Tower fire or who experienced the loss of a loved one in that disaster can truly understand what it must have been like to suffer the physical and emotional losses that it caused. Death, injury, mental trauma, the sudden removal from a home, and the incalculable and continuing difficulties and questions for the emergency services and their personnel are just some of the consequences that come to mind, but there will be others. The noble Lord, Lord Roe, powerfully spoke about this, as others have pointed out, and I commend him for what he did with his colleagues on the night of 14 June 2017 and for what he said to us today. It is right that there should be a memorial to the people whose lives were lost or damaged by this f"

— Lord Garnier (Con) Hansard

"First, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. We have covered a lot of common ground but brought a lot of different perspectives to it. A number of hon. Members, including the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), mentioned community campaigns, which are an important part of Fairtrade. Others, such as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), have spoken about campaigns more generally,. Other hon. Members have also raised business— my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) talked about what can go wrong when good practice is not in place, while others reflected on where business practice goes right. My hon. Friend th"

— Martin Rhodes Hansard

"I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on securing this important debate. At a time when our country faces profound geopolitical uncertainty, when hostile states are probing every weakness in our democratic and economic systems, and when the US national security strategy talks about “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations”, one truth stands out above all others: as the Government’s anti-corruption strategy published earlier this week recognises, Britain’s security is the foundation of Britain’s prosperity. Before I progress any further, may I take this opportunity to commend the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis)? As the Security Minister, he has worked closely with the Government’s ant"

— Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab) Hansard

"I suppose, on the whole, I was trying to say that I want to try to take down tariff barriers where I possibly can, so that we can engage in free trade, but that only works when we have fair opportunities underlying <span id="220WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="220WH"></span>it. The hon. Member for Strangford will correct me if I have this wrong, but I think there is a phrase in the Bible about justice and peace kissing one another. Sometimes we strive for justice, but it is not real justice if we do not get peace with it; and sometimes we strive for peace, but it is not real peace if it is not based on justice. That is the combination of Shalom and Tzedek, to use the Old Testament terms, that we are striving for with free and fair trade. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gla"

— Chris Bryant Hansard

"It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I begin by paying tribute to Members from across the House for the incredibly thoughtful and personal stories that they have shared. I am very conscious that Members speak on behalf of their constituents, and that some Members speak from personal experience. Although I do not have that personal experience, I have a very close family member who does, and I have heard Members speak in the Chamber before about their own experiences and have reflected very carefully on the power of those remarks for those beyond the House who hear them. I thank Members very much for their contributions. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this very important debate, and for his continued interest in this issue."

— The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Nesil Caliskan) Hansard

"My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. It is a delight to follow so many excellent speakers, such as not only the noble Lord, Lord Roe, but the noble Lord, Lord John, given his experience of Southwark. I also give my thanks to the committee and to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for their excellent work and this very helpful and useful report before us. This is a subject of real importance; it goes to the heart of two of the most pressing challenges that we face: ensuring that buildings are safe for those who live in them and ensuring that we can actually build the buildings that we need for our communities and people. There was a very interesting comment from the noble Lord, Lord Roe, that one of his big concerns is not just the safety of bu"

— Lord Jamieson (Con) Hansard

"My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, whom we know has unparalleled expertise of not just the regulator but the service, in defence of safety and security in London. I declare that I am a member of the Industry and Regulators Committee, but I joined after this report was published. Nevertheless, I manage a residential block of flats in Norwich. Self-evidently, a building should be sufficiently safe for not just residents and occupiers but visitors, tenants and everybody else. We have all seen the consequences when things go wrong. When I was a member of the fire service pension scheme, we had a meeting on the morning of the Grenfell fire in the headquarters of the London Fire Brigade. None of us really knew the gravity of what was unfurling before"

— Lord Fuller (Con) Hansard

"My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this debate on the report <em>The</em> <em>Building Safety Regulator</em><em>: </em><em>Building a Better Regulator</em>, which<em> </em>was published by the Industry and Regulators Committee in early December. As is often the case, we have to wait some time for these debates, but the issues that we raised are still very relevant. I place on record my thanks to members of the committee and our whole team for the work that they have done. I particularly mention the noble Lord, Lord Best, who was the first person to alert us to the problems that we should be looking into as a committee. I also thank Dominic Cooper, our researcher, for the sterling work that he put in.<span id="119GC" class="column-number" data-column-number="119GC"></span> There is a"

— Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) Hansard

"My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee considers these draft regulations. Before I speak to them, I thank both Local Authority Building Control and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for raising the important issues that led to these regulations coming before us today. The amendments are technical in nature. The purpose is to maintain legal clarity and make sure that the responsible actors scheme and its associated prohibitions operate as intended. They do not alter in any way the legal requirements on developers to undertake remediation under the responsible actors scheme. These amendments are made using powers in Sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and amend the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023. By way of co"

— The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab) Hansard

"I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for tabling the amendments and explaining them, and for the support given to her by my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on the Front Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. The Government’s concerns about the amendment do not reflect those expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Fox. They made valid points, but they are not ones I will deploy in the argument against the contributions in the debate. I am grateful also for the "

— Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab) Hansard

"If the noble Baroness will allow me, we have agreed that we will take Amendment 330C away and have a look at it. That is not a guarantee that we will do something with it, but it is an opportunity to reflect on it. She can examine what, if anything, the Government do, and she can determine whether to table it again on Report.<span id="578" class="column-number" data-column-number="578"></span> Amendment 330B, again tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall, would introduce a stalking protection notice that could be imposed by a police superintendent. I think my noble friend’s motivation is to ensure that swift action can be taken. However, on reflection we view that introducing such a notice would potentially put further complexity into the legislative framework without significantly improv"

— Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab) Hansard

"My Lords, stalking is an offence which constitutes severe harassment and can instil grave fear into victims, as we have just heard. It is absolutely right that the law bears down on perpetrators of stalking. The Stalking Protection Act 2019 gave magistrates’ courts the power to impose stalking protection orders on application by the chief officer of police. Clause 97 extends this power so that a Crown Court can impose such an order where a person has been acquitted of any other offence. The Government will no doubt argue that they are taking the necessary action to further prevent cases of stalking through this part of the Bill, but let us not forget another Bill they are currently taking through your Lordships’ House. The Sentencing Bill will suspend sentences for anyone charged with t"

— Lord Davies of Gower (Con) Hansard

"With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—<em>Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection</em><em>—</em> “(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed. (2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1). (3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice. (4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence. "

— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Hansard

"I am going to make a short speech on new clause 27, tabled in my name and the name of other hon. Members. After a short relationship, my constituent Sophie Hall has suffered and continues to suffer from a prolonged and relentless stalking campaign from her ex-partner, who was residing illegally in the UK. In November last year, he was arrested for these offences, but was never <span id="858" class="column-number" data-column-number="858"></span>spoken to about them, as no interpreter could be found. No risk assessment was done, and he was placed in temporary accommodation on bail, which he continued to breach. In February, Sophie’s ex-partner was convicted and sentenced under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and was subsequently deported to his home country of Brazil with a 10"

— Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab) Hansard

"My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak to Motions B, C and D. Before I begin my main remarks, today marks Stephen Lawrence Day, 33 years to the day since the loss of Stephen. My noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon is in the Chamber today, and I pay tribute to her for her campaigning activity over those 33 years. I was pleased to join my noble friend earlier today for an event at the King’s Trust in Southwark to continue the campaigning work of the Stephen Lawrence Day Foundation. Today is a good opportunity for us to remember Stephen and to recommit to continue to make a stand against racism in all its forms. I wanted to place that on record on behalf of the whole House before we commenced the Crime and Policing Bill, which in itself deals with a number of issues that are import"

— The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab) Hansard

"I hope we are on the home straight with this enormous piece of legislation. I start by welcoming the fact that the House of Lords has heeded many of the arguments and votes in this House last week—of the 19 issues that I went through in my speech last Tuesday, we are now down to just four. As for those four, we have again listened carefully to the points raised in the Lords and tabled further amendments in lieu. Let me turn first to amendments 2D and 2E on fining for profit, tabled by Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. I again recognise the concerns expressed about enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour offences where there may be a financial incentive to do so. We have listened to those concerns, and hon. Members will recall that last week"

— Sarah Jones Hansard

"Clause 48 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to align it <span id="182" class="column-number" data-column-number="182"></span>more closely with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for England and Wales where there are references to UK armed forces. These are minor and technical amendments and do not change the substance of the legislation. Clause 48 simply substitutes the outdated reference to “the Royal Navy Regulating Branch” with “the Royal Navy Police”. It also removes reference to “the Royal Marines Police”, which has been incorporated into the Royal Navy police. Lastly, clause 48 omits reference to the repealed single service Acts: the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. I commend the clause to the Co"

— Al Carns Hansard

"If I may say so, and as long as it is not indiscreet, my hon. Friend seems far younger and more energetic than she claims to be. She makes an important point because she does have long-standing experience in this area; before she came to this place she practised for a long time. I do not know when my hon. Friend finished practising, but we know that—it is one of the central insights of the independent review—the average jury Crown court trial is taking twice as long as it did in 2000. That increase is driven by a greater complexity in cases and the changing profile of crime. As I have said before, we now have forensic and CCTV evidence, and also—this is something to commend people from previous Parliaments for—procedural safeguards put in place over time that rightly create a fairer sys"

— Sarah Sackman Hansard

"I will go on to my next bit, which is even more relevant than my previous bit. The Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011 is Parliament’s most recent example of retrospective criminal legislation. It reversed the effect of the High Court’s decision in R (on the application of Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police) <em>v</em>. Salford Magistrates’ Court and Hookway on the calculation of detention time under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and did so by deeming the amendments always to have had effect. They had not. The then Policing Minister described the matter as too urgent to await a Supreme Court appeal. This Government have made no case that the current backlog is so urgent that it must be all shifted to the magistrates court. It wants to tackle the backlog, yes, "

— Joe Robertson Hansard