April 2026

That says all we need to know. I hope that Labour Back Benchers and, indeed, Ministers see today as the opportunity it is for the Prime Minister. By voting for the motion, they will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to present his case to the Privileges Committee, an opportunity to prove his side of the story and an opportunity—if, as he said, he did not mislead the House—to be exonerated on that claim. I leave MPs with this final thought. If, as he claims, the Prime Minister has done nothi

Genius! My hon. Friend is full of great ideas. That is the calibre that we expect of him. On misleading the House, the Prime Minister said that no one in No. 10 was aware that there had been any concerns about Mandelson’s vetting before the revelation was made a few weeks ago, despite it being reported in The Independent in September last year. On that very point, I submitted a named day question to the Cabinet Office last week, which was due to be answered yesterday. It simply asked whether The

That is a very welcome intervention. My recollection, and that of most Opposition Members, is that the Prime Minister said there was no pressure whatsoever. That is not what was said at the Foreign Affairs Committee. Both those things cannot be right. Are Labour MPs saying that the Prime Minister is right, or are they saying that Sir Olly Robbins misled the Foreign Affairs Committee? Both those things cannot be right. They need to choose who they agree with and which of those is correct. They ca

Having listened to this debate, I fear that the Labour Back Benchers who do not support the motion are being too pessimistic. They see a referral to the Privileges Committee as a threat or something to fear, which is the wrong approach. A referral to the Privileges Committee should be seen by Labour MPs as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to prove, as he says he believes, that he has done nothing wrong and has not misled the House; and an opportunity for the Government, who have summoned al

The hon. Member mentioned the Guardian story on 16 April. The Prime Minister found out about this on 14 April, so the earliest opportunity would have been 15 April at Prime Minister’s questions, would it not?

Is the hon. Member therefore suggesting that the previous ambassador was not capable?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important that any reorganisation of services involve the engagement of firefighters, because they know the service and its needs best? Does he share my relief that Oxfordshire county council has backed away from what would have been a botched reorganisation that would have reduced support both for my constituents in Oxford city and across the county by not listening enough to what firefighters said was needed?

Does my hon. Friend agree that in many parts of Northern Ireland, but especially in my constituency, this is about striking a balance between those who own or rent their mobile homes and the site owners?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate. There are six park home estates in my constituency. They provide vital accommodation and a strong sense of community among residents who take pride in their homes and their estates. This debate raises a fundamental issue of fairness. Many of my park home residents are retirees, often on fixed incomes. Many downsize into park homes precisely to

I agree 100%. It is not a small administrative fee: it can amount to tens of thousands of pounds. That charge exists outside the protections that most homeowners take for granted. In the mainstream housing market, sellers are protected by competition and choice. Estate agent fees are negotiated. Services must be delivered to justify the costs and, if someone does not like the terms, they can walk away. Park home residents do not have that freedom. We would not accept this in any other part of th

indicated dissent.

Australia, Italy, India and more have all slashed fuel duty in response to Trump’s idiotic war in Iran. We Liberal Democrats are calling for fuel duty to be cut by 12p per litre here. Last week, the Chancellor claimed that anyone calling for a cut in fuel duty was “economically illiterate”, because it would push up inflation. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the current 5p fuel duty cut has led to a 0.2% reduction in the rate of inflation. Does the Chancellor think that the OBR

I thank my right hon. Friend for freezing rail fares, which will indeed help to ease the cost of living for many commuters, such as my constituents in Worthing West, many of whom have jobs here in London or in Brighton. Southern has been rated the worst value for money rail operator in a national passenger survey. As we move to nationalisation of our service and finally see the back of Southern rail next month, will the Minister ensure that investment is available for key issues such as reducing

15. What fiscal steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help reduce costs for commuters.

I recently joined Cosy Direct for its second King’s Award presentation, this time for international trade. Cosy Direct is an award-winning business in early years education resources, exporting globally and continuing to grow. The Chancellor saw its success, and its goats, at first hand when she visited with me last year. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Pete, Amanda and all the team, and will she say what work she is doing to allow such businesses to expand and export globally?

3. What steps she is taking to support businesses to trade globally.

T6. It has been widely reported in the press that the Chancellor is rightly considering issuing defence bonds. I know that the Chancellor agrees with me on the value of defence research and development. Does she or the Minister agree that defence bonds could be a powerful way to increase R&D and raise economic growth?

Park home owners in my constituency tell me that site owners have pressured them into selling, in order to get that 10% commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is wrong and that the 10% commission should be abolished?

Will the hon. Member give way?