April 2026

What a wonderful speech my hon. Friend is making about this important connection that our two countries can have! Similarly, I pay tribute to my constituency; it might not be associated with a huge Indian community, but it does have one, and they contribute a lot to the UK, and certainly to our medical professions and businesses locally.

Does that make it better?

T4. We now know what was going on in the economy before the attack on Iran. Growth was up. Unemployment was down. Borrowing was lower than forecast. The Chancellor took the right decisions and it was working. Does my right hon. Friend agree that families and businesses should know that, when times are tough, it is Trumpflation that is to blame?

I want to put two things on record at the outset. The Labour party does not stand for election in Northern Ireland. We do not have elections next week or the week after, so everything I am about to say has got absolutely nothing to do with a so-called political stunt, and everything to do with the integrity of this House. By the way, I find patronising the idea that we should not be discussing these things because the Government of the day want to get on with discussing the cost of living. I hav

I rise in this debate first and foremost to reiterate, as other colleagues have done, my fullest solidarity with the victims of Epstein. We should always maintain them at the forefront of our minds. Notwithstanding their absence from the motion, I know that many colleagues on both sides of the House have referenced them, and I am sure that we will continue to do so. I want to be clear that I will vote against this motion, not because I have to be told to, but because the case has absolutely not

Before I explain why I am making that case and that decision, I will happily give way.

That is an irrelevant point. I have already said that regardless of the position of the party, I do not need to be told how I will vote on this motion, because the case has not been made out. [Interruption.] If people will stop chuntering, I will respond to the individuals who have said that we will have to look in the mirror tomorrow. I have no doubt that every decision we make in this place, whether on this motion, on amendments or on legislation, is made with integrity, and with the best inte

If the right hon. Gentleman will wait to hear why I think that, I will happily give way in a moment. As has been said, the motion cuts across existing procedures that everyone in this House unanimously agreed, supported and initiated just a few weeks ago. As I have stated and will go on to explain, it lacks any credibility or evidential basis.

The right hon. Gentleman can chunter some more, but maybe he should listen to what I say about the basis on which I reached my decision, and then I will happily give way. Before I turn to the lack of evidence to make out this case, I want to mention—as others have—the integrity of the Prime Minister. I have known him for a number of years, and I know that he is a man of integrity. I know that he will act without fear or favour, and will always be the hardest critic of himself. He has rightly apo

The right hon. Gentleman is very eager. I will give way.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s patronising tone, but I will simply say that I do not need to be told how to vote on this motion, because I do not believe that the case has been made out, as I will explain now, if I can make some progress. I underline my point by reiterating what the Speaker said earlier, and what I said to him when he was in the Chair: of course, the question we are considering is not about the application that was put before him. He has rightly made a decision, as he w

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Even if his intervention was perhaps slightly askew from the point I am about to make, it goes to the question of consistency on this issue and many others. As I said, the Opposition party leaders have been shapeshifting on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), rather than waiting for the evidence, had already made up their minds two weeks ago. On 17 April, the day after the story broke in

The Prime Minister addressed that question when it was put to him in this House a number of times over the following days. He said that he was trying to secure the answers to the questions that he asked on that evening, and the officials were not able to answer, so as he has said, and as colleagues have made clear, including Cabinet colleagues, he came back to this House at the earliest opportunity to update it, as is right. I go back to the timeline of the Opposition’s shapeshifting. On Friday

Before I start, let me pay tribute to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, because their views have been heard far too little in these debates. Let me address some of the quite patronising comments made to Back-Bench Labour MPs today. Nobody has asked me to speak today, and nobody has put any pressure on me. In fact, colleagues on the Government Benches know that I have my own mind and will express it as I see fit. At a moment of genuine challenge for families across the country, when households are

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those are the issues we could have been debating today, but instead we are debating a political stunt. This Government are standing up for the British people, showing leadership in our support for Ukraine, bringing our national rail services back into public ownership and delivering our historic Employment Rights Act 2025, among many other things. When I vote this afternoon, I do so knowing full well that I was elected to serve on the priorities that matter to th

I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, does not insist on its amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V to the words so restored to the Bill, but proposes further amendments (a) to (j) to the words so restored to the Bill. It is obviously disappointing to see that not every Member in this

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words. I will be brief. The Government have continued to insist on the inclusion of the reserve power in the Bill in all rounds of discussions in this place because we have not heard a convincing alternative approach to solving the collective action problem that we have discussed. However, we have heard convincing arguments about how this part of the Bill can be strengthened, and we have acted on each of

The rise in food banks across Britain is among the most visible signs that, under the last Government, ours was a country in which growth was too low and inequality was too high. This Government are committed to ending the mass dependence on emergency food parcels. We have expanded free school meals to children in all families receiving universal credit, and we have removed the two-child limit to lift around half a million children out of poverty. Britain is now on course for the biggest reducti

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Food bank use has fallen in recent years, but it is still far too high, including in her constituency. It is part of a wider challenge that the cost of essentials places too much pressure on household finances. The Department for Work and Pensions spends around £37 billion a year on housing support, but in the long run, the answer to high housing costs is to build more homes. That is what we are doing through the £39 billion social and affordable homes program

I commend clauses 21 to 27 to the Committee. I did not specifically mention the House staff and all our wonderful Chairs. I add my thanks to everybody for their hard work. I also thank my team of officials—those watching at home and those in the room—who have worked very hard. Question put and agreed to. Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 22 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill, as amended, to be reported.