April 2026

I entirely agree that training, in all the respects that the hon. Member for Chichester speaks about, is key, whether it is training on equal treatment or on a trauma-informed approach to rape and serious sexual offences, or specific training pertaining to domestic abuse and identification of coercive and controlling behaviour, or to ensure the consistent application of special measures and evaluation of expert input into trauma-informed practice.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. The FBU is calling for increased investment, saying that without it, cuts will kill. Does the hon. Member recognise that 14 years of austerity have led to more than 12,000 firefighter jobs being cut?

Mr Speaker, I can see from your restlessness in the Chair that you do not necessarily want me to go down that particular avenue, but I hope I speak for others when I reflect on how incredibly depressing it is that nothing has really changed. The British people are facing a cost of living emergency. They need a Government focused on tackling it and a Government they can trust, but instead this is what we have. We have a Prime Minister who promised to be different, who promised to turn the page an

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who made a very powerful speech. I think Members on all sides of the House listened to it, and I hope her colleagues on the Government Benches think about it carefully during the debate. The Prime Minister called this motion a “stunt”. That is not why I put my name to it. [Interruption.] I was just checking whether they were awake, Mr Speaker. It is funny, though, because “stunt” is exactly the same word Boris Johnson use

The right hon. Lady will know that I was never a fan of Boris Johnson. Can she confirm that, when there was a similar motion before the House to refer Mr Johnson to the Privileges Committee, his side was not whipped? And can she explain why the Government are whipping their Members on this motion?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when an MP visits another MP’s constituency, the custom and practice is that they should give that MP due notice. The Leader of the Opposition came to my constituency but did not inform me that she would be there. I seek your advice on how best to resolve this.[Official Report, 28 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 870.] (Correction)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following my earlier point of order, I received an email from Conservative party headquarters. It contained a picture of an email that the Conservatives say that they sent to me ahead of the Leader of the Opposition’s visit to my constituency. Although I have never seen that email, and we have seen no evidence of it in my inbox, I feel that I should give them the benefit of the doubt about it having been sent. I have suggested that the Conservative part

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point; I am sure that the Minister will reflect on it when winding up. The Liberal Democrats continue to oppose mandation, and we plan to vote against the motion tonight.

The Liberal Democrats have opposed mandation from day one, and we have continued to oppose it throughout the passage of this Bill. The challenge is that once we cross the Rubicon, we change the dynamics of pensions significantly. Crucially, people need to have confidence that contributing to pensions is a good way of saving for their retirement. If we undermine that through Government interference, it will reduce people’s confidence in saving for their pensions. That would be a complete reversal

This morning, I met Anne Davies, whose husband Jeff became the first UK firefighter to have his death from cancer officially recorded as having been caused by the job. Does my hon. Friend agree that this investment in the fire and rescue service will provide the necessary equipment so that no more firefighters die as a result of industrial injuries?

Employees of Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service tell me that funding cuts have seen shift systems worsening; rope, water and animal rescue services being scaled back and watches usually running with around six firefighters instead of nine. Does the hon. Member agree that that is putting unexpected pressure on stretched rural fire and rescue teams and will cause a damaging workforce and equipment crisis, all of which may ultimately put people’s lives at risk?

Rural communities face unique challenges when it comes to prevention and addressing accidents. We are more isolated, we have terrible signal, we have roads more likely to lead to crashes and agriculture is Britain’s most dangerous industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any national accident prevention strategies must focus on rurality and be matched by proper investment in public health funding, which areas such as Somerset have always lost out on?

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?