May 2026

Alison McGovern voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Sean Woodcock voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

rose—

The Secretary of State and I do go back a long way, and we agree, actually, about the crisis of capitalism, in terms of the sacrifice of domestic production for imports; he and I have lot in common in that regard. He will understand that the economic uncertainty he describes and the need for greater national economic resilience applies to food too, so—while accepting that we should put solar on buildings and have offshore wind—surely he understands that by putting solar plants at scale on the mo

Britain is becoming harder to govern. That is not principally the result of disruptive, destabilising societal change, or even because an increasingly complicated world is creating more uncertainty for all Governments; the problem lies in governance itself. The Prime Minister complains that when he pulls levers in Downing Street, they have less practical effect than he had hoped. Simon Case, on leaving office, put that very clearly. He said that “an increasing number of English devolution settle

Before I deal with that excellent point—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it—I remind the House that the current trade deficit is about £25 billion, which would have been unthinkable a generation or two ago. On the question my hon. Friend asks, we have to rebalance the food chain. For too long, major retailers have held a gun to the head of primary and secondary producers. What matters is not the size of the cake, but who is getting what sort of slice of the cake. While major retailers

The Minister will be aware that on 21 April the ISC, on which I sit, made it clear that the “Humble Address does not allow for documents to be withheld from Parliament, only for redactions to be made where the ISC has agreed to them.” Last week, we were obliged to issue a further statement saying that it had come to our attention that documents were being withheld from the ISC. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that that is justified, but the Humble Address does not permit it. The point is that

Parliamentary appearance by Sir Ashley Fox

Emma Reynolds voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Valerie Vaz voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Parliamentary appearance by Warinder Juss

Parliamentary appearance by Mr Gregory Campbell

Bill Esterson voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Nicholas Dakin voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Sammy Wilson voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Mark Pritchard voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

I share those concerns as well as similar concerns that have been raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, not only about the extensive use of what we call non-corporate communications channels but about information that should have been on a higher level of classification that was shared at “official sensitive”. I have already announced to the House the imminent start of a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, and I shall be taking further action to ensure that s

In response to the questions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about compliance with the Humble Address, I refer him to the statement that I have made previously in relation to the principles set out in legislation and the motions of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, I think, asking me specifically about personal data that was collected as part of the security vetting process. As I think he suggested, the raw data that is collected as part of those investigations—perha

Forgive me, Mr Speaker. In that case, I will sit down and provide further detail in answer to questions from Members.

As I have set out to this House on previous occasions, the Government are working to comply with the motion passed in February. I can reassure the House that this remains the case, and I can provide the following update today. The Government confirmed before Prorogation that we had referred more than 300 documents to the Intelligence and Security Committee. At the time, that represented all the documents in scope of the motion where the Government believed that publication would be prejudicial t