April 2026

I welcome the hon. Lady’s question. Like her, I regularly see pupils and local teachers in my constituency. As she knows, from this month we have got rid of the two-child limit in universal credit, which is lifting 450,000 children out of poverty. We are also expanding free childcare for children aged between nine months and five years, helping parents in work with the costs of balancing family life with work life. In addition, we have taken £117 off energy bills, we are freezing rail fares and

Does the Chancellor agree that, post Brexit, Government Departments have much more freedom to buy British? Under the Procurement Act 2023, they can ignore EU directives. Will the Chancellor walk with us into the broad, sunlit uplands of post-Brexit Britain and use the freedoms that we obtained for this country?

I want to speak only briefly. I am not particularly party political. I do not like making personal attacks and I am not calling for the Prime Minister to resign. I am not questioning the appointment of Peter Mandelson—this debate is not about whether that was a good decision. I am sure that at the time there was some logic in appointing him. Obviously, the incoming President was a very political, difficult character, and it was felt that Mandelson had the political skills to deal with him. I und

We are monitoring the situation and preparing for every eventuality. The International Monetary Fund expects the UK to be the fastest growing European G7 economy cumulatively over this year and next. A rapid de-escalation of the conflict remains the best way to protect consumers from rising bills. We continue to act on the cost of living, with £117 on average off energy bills from 1 April, £53 million to help with the cost of heating oil, and freezing both rail fares and prescription charges.

The fact that some 10,000 children in one constituency have been lifted out of poverty, by just one of the policy changes we have made to reduce child poverty, shows the difference that this Labour Government are making. Combined with the breakfast clubs, the free school meals, the extension of childcare, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and the building of new homes, the Government are set to deliver the biggest ever reduction in child poverty in one Parliament.

From the outset, I wish to state my support for the delivery of justice for all the people who were harmed by Jeffrey Epstein and those involved with him who committed such despicable violations and crimes, and who must be held responsible. The people who were exploited should be at the front of all our minds. It is my opinion that this motion does not come from anything noble or a deep concern for those who were trafficked or abused; nor is it about the protection of democracy or anything of th

Child poverty is absolutely not inevitable, which why we are lifting 550,000 children out of poverty. It is always Labour Governments who lift children out of poverty and Tory Governments who put children back into poverty. The numbers the hon. Gentleman refers to are appalling: 44% of children should not be growing up in poverty in Dewsbury and Batley. We have made the changes we have made to lift those children out of poverty and to give all of them a decent start in life.

I have watched this whole sorry saga play out for weeks now. Like the public, I feel let down, disappointed and angry. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. That was a fundamental failure of judgment. Matthew Doyle should never have been given a peerage. That was also a failure of judgment. I feel the way that today’s vote has been handled by the Government smacks once again of being out of touch and disconnected from the public mood. The fact that MPs like me are being whipped into

Parliamentary appearance by Gavin Robinson

Parliamentary appearance by James Wild

In advocating for the motion, the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.] She is just returning to her place; I knew she was waiting for me. Her essential argument, I believe, was that we in this House had not spent enough time debating this issue, and that perhaps just one more Committee would be the answer. Before we began our debate today, there had been five statements and two debates: more than 13 hours of debate in the House of Commons. That is my count of how long we have been discussing

I remember the debate vividly. Members from both sides made the case. I said in my remarks that that was an example of the House at its best, because we came to a good decision to involve the ISC. I raise the issue again today because I was fascinated by what the Leader of the Opposition said. She characterised that Committee as a “never-never” Committee earlier today, as if it would never come to the answer. All of a sudden it seems that it is politically convenient for the Opposition to lose f

The right hon. Gentleman is very kind; I will see him on the cricket pitch in a week’s time. There is a serious point, in that there are a number of very senior civil servants, who I will come to, who have given evidence on that and have said that process was followed. That leads neatly to my next point about the importance of ongoing scrutiny—the scrutiny that is being conducted by the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. The Prime Minister was right and the House was right to accept the Humble Address, involve the Intelligence and Security Committee, and give the Foreign Affairs Committee all the scope it needs to ask questions of the key actors in the process. Just to remind the House, in the past few weeks and days we have heard evidence in public from Cat Little, Sir Olly Robbins, Morgan McSweeney and from the Prime Minister himself, repeatedly, from the Dispatch Bo

The Government are taking action to tackle child poverty, by removing the two-child limit and by expanding free school meals and breakfast clubs, including the seven breakfast clubs already rolled out in the Dewsbury and Batley constituency. As a result, 550,000 children will be lifted out of poverty in this Parliament: the biggest reduction in child poverty in any Parliament ever.

rose—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I thank the Minister for giving way. Would not “full due process” have required the vetting to be completed before announcing the appointment, as was advised by the then Cabinet Secretary and then ignored or overruled by the Prime Minister personally?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Out of 190 questions for written answer that I have put down in this Session, which is coming to its close, all but one have been answered. The exception is one that I mentioned on the Floor of the House yesterday during the statement by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. He responded: “I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 598.] The last day for answering this question is

I thank the Minister for her response. I have made my points—throughout the Committee’s proceedings, I have been making points about the issue of jury trials—and I will not add anything further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 22 Remote Court Participation: Strategy “(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backlog (‘the strate