April 2026

Yes.

Will the Minister give way?

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time this evening. If this Labour Government were really serious about a brownfield-first approach, they would accept these amendments from the House of Lords, because they are exactly about ensuring that developers develop on that sort of land first. These amendments would protect communities and the environment in places like mine, which are coming under attack from her Government, who want to

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. In the west midlands under the leadership of Andy Street, it was proven that we can regenerate brownfield sites—we have done it in the Walsall borough. The Government must be prepared, as we were when we were in government, to put in some funding to unlock those sites. It can be a win-win as we develop brownfield sites, regenerate our towns and cities, create the housing wanted by young people and old people, and protect the green belt and our

The hon. Lady makes an important point, with which she knows I have a lot of sympathy. In my area, it is estimated that 5,000 homes could be unlocked if we had a proper brownfield-first approach to planning. Does she agree that the whole issue around housing is about not a lack of land but a lack of funding to regenerate some of the sites, a lack of political will from this Government and a lack of ambition? The Government should look at the brownfield sites and the empty buildings, and then loo

Urban sprawl is exactly why the green belt was put in place. Its purpose was to protect areas such as mine, my hon. Friend’s and many others that are on the periphery of some of the biggest conurbations and urban areas from urban sprawl. Does he agree that this Labour Government do not care about our communities? All they care about is an arbitrary housing target.

The Minister made a statement to the House on 26 February. Sadly, that has not been followed by the detail that Parliament was promised. In his most recent answers to my written parliamentary questions he says that the final treaty will be laid “As soon as possible” after EU processes conclude, yet the Government of Gibraltar have stated that it is provisionally due to come into force in July. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for implementation and confirm when Parliament will be give

In recent months, western sanctions have really been biting Putin, with the foundations of Russia’s economy failing. However, as we highlighted with the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in December 2025, concerns have been reported that Russian crude is reaching refineries—including one part-owned by Lakshmi Mittal—via shadow fleet vessels, showing that gaps remain. Will the Government now lead efforts to crack down on those networks and press those refineries in Turkey, China and In

I welcome the Chancellor’s statement and the announcements made by her and the Energy Secretary. We have seen two fossil fuel shocks in just the past five years, which have done untold damage to our economy. Half the recessions since the 1970s have been caused by similar fossil fuel shocks. It is clear that the move to clean, home-grown energy is good for the economy, good for security and good for household bills. What conversations have she and the Energy Secretary had with organisations that

Parliamentary appearance by Mr Hamish Falconer

Crewe in my constituency currently faces proposals for yet another adult gaming centre, which I have personally objected to. Does my hon. Friend agree that the strengthening of gambling impact assessments, as well as the wider proposals in the Pride in Place strategy, will allow areas like Crewe to actively shape our high streets and that it is incumbent on local authorities to proactively take up those powers?

Parliamentary appearance by Mr Hamish Falconer

Would the UK consider a state to be a democracy and would it continue normal diplomatic relations with that state were it to introduce a differential death penalty based on ethnicity?

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of road surfacing materials which generate in-vehicle noise levels above a specified maximum; to require the resurfacing of existing roads which generate in-vehicle noise above that maximum; and for connected purposes. In Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, everybody knows the A180. It is the road that carries people to work, to school, to hospital appointments, to our courts and back home again. It is the road that all visitor

I appreciate that—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe we all need ear defenders in this place once in a while. We have clear rules and protections for prolonged noise exposure in many workplaces because we understand that repeated exposure can damage hearing and affect health, yet when it comes to people who drive for a living—delivery, heavy goods vehicle and logistics drivers—as well as road workers and those who use this route day in and day out, we still do not properly factor road surfac

I congratulate the Chancellor on her statement. The setting of electricity prices to international gas prices has long been blamed for the erratic nature of our electricity bills—indeed, that was previously accepted by the Conservative party. While the Conservatives complained about it and did nothing, this Government are seeking to take action to disconnect those two issues. Will the Chancellor advise when she thinks that families will start to see a benefit from the decoupling of electricity p

My contribution will be brief, as other colleagues said a lot this morning. Clause 3 is extremely pragmatic and proportionate to the challenges we face. As Sir Brian Leveson made clear in his oral testimony, it is necessary because financial investment and efficiency measures alone, while essential—no one present disagrees with that—are insufficient to bring down the backlog. We all know that structural reform is critical if we are to see a meaningful reduction in the backlog. Clause 3 comes wit

We are absolutely seeking to reduce the number of cases going before jury trials. It comes back to the thresholds. We have seen a long history of changes to thresholds, as well as changes to those serving on juries. In the early part of the 20th century, women were allowed to sit on juries for the first time, and it was only in the mid part of the last century that we allowed people who did not own property to sit on juries. There has, then, been an evolution in both the composition of the jury

I do not have the answer for the Callaghan reduction, but my point about the thresholds is that previous Governments of both colours have looked at thresholds, had conversations similar to those we are having today, and concluded that it was a sensible and necessary step—both under Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher. Sir Brian Leveson, who was independently commissioned, indicated that “there are certain circumstances where a trial by judge alone is appropriate…based on the need for cases to be res

The point is that the premise of his inclination was that it is appropriate for thresholds to be changed. Although there will absolutely be principled disagreement between different advocates about where that threshold will be and the appropriateness of who will oversee those cases, be that a bench or a single judge, the reality is that there is consensus, I hope, that thresholds have changed through time. The thresholds in the Bill are a proportionate response to the overwhelming challenge of a