Rebecca Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Young People not in Education, Employment or Training · Hansard source

  More

  The Government continue to point the finger at schools for the number of those not in education, employment or training, when that is one area that is performing comparatively well. Meanwhile, in Labour-led Wales, which ignored the Conservative Government’s education reforms, school standards have fallen and the NEETs crisis is even worse than in England. Why are the Government blaming schools for NEETs when the bigger problem is the collapse of entry-level jobs for young people?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Safe Reopening of Mount Batten Beach and Peninsula · Hansard source

  More

  Along with almost 1,700 signatures from a similar online petition, I present this petition of residents from across Plymouth, Plymstock and the rest of my South West Devon constituency about the ongoing closure of Mount Batten beach and peninsula. This important city beach, accessible by public transport and used by thousands, has been closed since 10 July 2026, when significantly high levels of asbestos fibres were discovered in the sand. Fencing has been erected around the entire area. Since then, over 140 local residents have attended a meeting to raise their concerns about what this closure means for the local community, including businesses located at the beach, and campaigners have continued speaking out about the need to find a way to reopen the beach. The petition calls on Plymouth City council and the Government to do all they can to ensure that measures be taken to see the beach safely reopened and safeguarded for future generations. The fight continues. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of South West Devon and the surrounding area, Declares that the continued closure of Mount Batten Beach peninsula is having a significant impact on local residents, sea swimmers, watersports users, businesses and the wider community; further declares that residents want to see the site reopened safely as soon as possible; further notes that specialist expertise is required to identify the source of the asbestos contamination and determine the steps needed to enable the safe reopening of the site. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and Plymouth City Council to do whatever it takes to secure the necessary specialist expertise as soon as possible, provide the community with clear answers on the next steps, and work at pace towards the safe reopening of Mount Batten Beach and peninsula. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003237]

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. Is she aware of the sheer number of palliative care consultants who are not prepared to take part in assisted dying, and the impact that that will have on the palliative care system? In my constituency, all three palliative care doctors who work in Plymouth’s Derriford hospital are against assisted dying and are saying that they would leave the profession. How can we offer palliative care at the same time as assisted dying?

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Fathers and Positive Male Role Models · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Like other Members before me, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this Backbench Business debate. I was pleased to support the application several months ago, and I am glad to be able to respond to it from the Front Bench today. We need to be honest about what the evidence tells us: good fathers make an overwhelmingly positive contribution to their children’s lives, yet around 2.5 million children in this country have no father figure at home, and by the age of 17, 47% of young people are no longer living with both parents at the same address. The relationship between a child and their father matters. For sons, a father can demonstrate how to be a man, how to behave around women and how to raise a family of their own one day. For daughters, a father can embody the positive attributes that she looks for in a man when she is older, making her less vulnerable to those who would exploit or mistreat her. Children with secure relationships with their fathers are less likely to experience depression, anxiety, low self-esteem or self-harm. I was fortunate to grow up with a strong father figure—my dad, Mike. I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) about Christmas eve. Since I was four years old, my dad and I have gone shopping together on Christmas eve to buy presents for my mum. He bought them; I, like a bit of a silly girl, went home and wrapped them for him—something I have to admit I still do at the age of 45. It is part of the story and bond I share with my dad, knowing that each Christmas eve, whether it includes lunch and, as we have got older, an alcoholic drink or two, we will go out together, do our shopping and then head home. My little sister never gets to do it, so it is definitely part of my relationship with my dad. Unfortunately, not everybody gets to have that experience. One UK study found that 14-year-old girls who did not have a close relationship with their father or a father figure were at significantly greater risk of mental health difficulties. Researchers also link secure father-daughter relationships with better educational and career outcomes, stronger social skills and better mental health. For sons, close relationships with fathers are associated with a reduced risk of antisocial and criminal behaviour, along with other risky behaviours. Those outcomes affect a child’s life long after they turn 18. When we look at the wider challenges facing boys and men, this topic becomes even harder to ignore. The “Missing Men” report tells us that in the final quarter of 2025, more than 450,000 young men aged 16 to 24 in England—nearly one in seven—were not in education, employment or training. At school just 61% of boys reached a good level of development by the age of five in 2024-25 compared with 75% of girls. Three quarters of children in custody report having an absent father. We must stress that none of that means that an absent father automatically causes poor outcomes. There are many factors involved, but it should make us ask a straightforward question: are we doing enough to support fathers to be involved in their children’s lives? Too often, fathers seem to be an afterthought; that needs to change. We need to look at what happens when relationships break down. There is a widespread perception that family courts make it difficult for fathers to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children. There is a presumption that it will aways be the mother who takes custody of the children, with the father permitted to see them once a fortnight if he is fortunate enough. Meanwhile, that same child has easy access to content from harmful male online influencers, starting as soon as they get their first smartphone, if not before. We are replacing a positive male role model with an inherently negative one and then claiming to be shocked by the results. Where there are safeguarding concerns, the child’s welfare must come first, but where there is a safe, loving and willing father, the starting point should be meaningful involvement and as much contact as possible. The Government’s position, laid out in clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, is to repeal the statutory presumption that a child’s welfare is generally furthered by the involvement of both parents. Existing law already allows courts to restrict unsafe contact; repealing the presumption without a suitable replacement, such as a child-centred parental relationship test, could lead to greater inconsistency and conflict. It may also weaken children’s relationships with safe parents. A child should have real men in their lives: fathers, grandfathers, teachers, coaches and mentors can show them what responsibility and good character look like. That brings me to the language we use. We need to ditch the worst excesses of identity politics when it comes to boys and men. For too long, the phrase “toxic masculinity” has been used in a way that blurs the distinction between masculinity and genuinely harmful behaviour. Let me be clear: violence, abuse, cruelty and misogyny are wrong, but masculinity is not. Masculinity should be an extremely positive force for good. There is nothing toxic about being strong, courageous, ambitious, competitive, protective or determined. When combined with responsibility, self-control and respect, they are the exact attributes that enable society to flourish. In Plymouth, where I am a MP, there is a great network call Man Culture, which puts those principles into practice. Man Culture organises workshops for men right across the city, tackling issues such as toxic masculinity and preventing male violence against women and girls. It seeks to address issues identified by the Plymouth Violence against Women and Girls Commission, which I chaired a few years ago. That work was a direct response to two tragedies in the city: the incel-inspired Keyham shooting, where five people and the shooter died, and the abduction from a bus stop and brutal murder of a young woman a few months later. The report also recommended working with young boys, because to challenge harmful behaviours, we need to have honest conversations, and those have to start young. We should teach boys how to use strength responsibly and not to be ashamed of having strength in the first place. We should teach boys how they can use their strength to build things rather than to tear things down. The approach must be not to tell boys that masculinity is the problem, but to give them examples of men worth becoming. Fathers are some of the most important examples of that. A good father can show his son that strength does not mean aggression, confidence does not mean arrogance, and responsibility means keeping your word and looking after the people you love. Positive male role models are also needed beyond the home. As has been mentioned, only 14% of nursery and primary schoolteachers in England are men, and although I am proud that my brother is one such teacher, that figure is not high enough. We need men as teachers in early years and primary settings. The problems will not be solved by another strategy document alone. Prevention starts earlier, with families, fathers and communities, and with giving boys a sense of purpose, responsibility and belonging. I pay tribute to the men who volunteer in scouting and uniformed groups across my constituency; we should recognise and be grateful for such men. However, that is not enough. We need to do even more. Having this conversation does not mean turning the issue into a competition between men and women. It must be about supporting mothers and fathers who are working together to create something greater than the sum of their individual parts, ensuring that family services properly involve fathers, where they can safely contribute, and making sure that, where it is safe and appropriate, children can maintain meaningful relationships with both parents. This debate is not about pretending that fathers are the answer to every problem, but they are an important part of the answer whose absence makes everything else more difficult, and Government policy should recognise that. If we want stronger families, better outcomes for children and boys who grow into responsible men, we need to stop treating fathers as an optional extra. Fathers matter, masculinity matters and male role models matter; it is time that our politics treat them as such. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned, the former Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, asked the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), to take on a national summit on men and boys. My hon. Friend and I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what has happened since then. Is that summit still going ahead, and when will we hear more information about it?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for making a very thoughtful summing-up speech, as ever. Has she had any conversations with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about providing clarity on whether the expenses that surrogate mothers receive should count towards their benefits? Under legacy benefits, they did, but under the new version of universal credit, they do not count as unearned income. That thorny issue needs to be looked at, particularly given that £25,000 can be paid to women who may be on benefits, but it does not count as income. Has the Minister had that conversation, and can she look into that?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  There have been a couple of mentions of the time it takes to get an order, but parents in the UK adoption system have equally long—often much longer—waits to take on parental rights over a child. We are in danger of creating two separate systems, so that putting in an order for a child through a surrogate is a quick option to become a parent, but we are making it harder for people who have gone through the care system to foster or adopt, or who have gone through a long adoption process. I wonder whether we are inadvertently suggesting that there should be a two-tier system. I wonder what the hon. Lady’s thoughts are on that, because I know that she, like me, is a big advocate of fostering and adoption.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome this debate. As we know, the petition asks for parental orders to be permitted at birth. I believe that Members should approach the proposal with extreme caution. The number of people who have signed the petition—over 113,000, including 226 of my own constituents—is clearly testament to the strength of feeling on the issues. However, the petitioners frame the parental order process as an obstacle to parental rights, but that is fundamentally misleading. The legal process provides important protections for surrogate women and the children they carry. Currently, intended parents can apply for parental orders only after six weeks from the birth, and they must usually do so within six months. That cooling-off period provides a vital safeguard for the surrogate mother, and we should not dispense with it lightly. I believe we need to take a step back and remember why this House has historically approached surrogacy with so much caution. It is now undeniable that we have moved well beyond the purposes originally used to justify IVF and assisted reproductive technologies. IVF was initially intended to help a childless couple have a child, not to create a contractual market out of pregnancy. That sense of mission creep is also evident when we look at the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. The Warnock committee, whose report led to the Act, did not regard surrogacy as simply another form of fertility treatment. Now, over 40 years later, surrogacy has become just another service routinely offered at clinics across the country. Technology allows us to separate genetic parenthood, gestational motherhood and social parenthood. However, it does not mean those relationships are interchangeable. Technology may give us choices, but it does not absolve us from making ethical judgments about those choices. It is worth noting that the UK is an outlier in allowing any form of surrogacy at all. Surrogacy is much more strictly limited, or even completely prohibited, in countries including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. We know that some of those countries are particularly liberal in other areas, so the fact that they are strong on this gives us reason to question why they take that position. That reflects the serious ethical questions that arise when a child is intentionally separated from the woman who carried them in the womb. Commercial surrogacy is illegal across the EU, where it is classed as a form of child trafficking. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has recommended the global abolition of surrogacy. Last year she described surrogacy as characterised by the exploitation of women and children, including girls. In any future reforms of surrogacy legislation, the welfare and safety of women and children should remain our paramount concern. I acknowledge that the desire of many people who turn to surrogacy is for a child, and that that is a profound need within them. I think that is something on which we are all able to agree. Some women face infertility or repeated pregnancy loss, and some face medical conditions that make it impossible or even unsafe for them to carry a pregnancy themselves. For some people, surrogacy may seem to be the only path to having a child with a genetic connection to them. I do not question the deep desire for that, nor do I underestimate the pain that can come from wanting a child and being unable to have one. That said, compassion for those experiences cannot require us to overlook the women and children affected by surrogacy. By its very nature, surrogacy involves a woman’s body becoming a means to an end. She is carrying a child for the benefit of another family. My concern is that our efforts to help people to become parents risk constructing a system in which women’s reproductive capacity becomes merely a resource for others to use. One of my main concerns with the petition is that it implies that surrogacy is closer to natural conception than to adoption; I believe that is again misguided. With adoption we do not pretend that the birth mother is irrelevant simply because she will not raise the child herself. That woman has already nurtured the child in her womb for nine months and the law rightly recognises that her role matters: the original birth record remains in existence and the adopted child can access it later in life, as an adult, if they wish. Similarly, a surrogate may not intend to raise the child she carries, but that does not mean that her role should be legally obliterated at birth. We should also consider the needs of the child. A baby bonds with their mother in utero regardless of whether the surrogate uses her own egg in the pregnancy. The child’s birth mother is an important person in the child’s story and the law should therefore recognise the birth mother’s indispensable contribution in bringing new life into the world. I also have concerns about financial incentives. In this country a surrogate mother cannot simply be paid a fee for producing a baby. She may receive reasonable expenses, including for things such as maternity clothing, travel and loss of earnings, but typical reimbursements now reach as much as £25,000. I think we would all agree that that is quite a substantial sum, which should give us pause for thought. There is an important distinction between reimbursement and income. It is one thing if a woman is compensated for genuine expenses, but if pregnancy becomes a source of substantial financial benefit, we need to ask whether we are still talking about altruism or whether we are creating a market in all but name. Pregnancy is not risk-free; it can involve serious medical complications. However, uncertainty about whether a payment is reimbursement of an expense or a fee clouds the situation. We cannot discuss this issue without considering the wider international picture. Most parental orders for UK parents now involve commercial surrogacy abroad; we have heard a lot about that already. It should concern us all that international surrogacy takes place in jurisdictions where the economic circumstances of surrogate mothers are very different from those in Britain. If wealthy countries normalise the commissioning of pregnancies, there will inevitably be markets that meet that demand. In most cases, the women with the least economic power become the people expected to take the greatest physical risks. I will finish by reiterating that I have enormous sympathy for people who want children and cannot have them naturally. Their longing is real, but true compassion must extend to everyone involved, including to the women whose bodies bear the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth and to the children they bear. Do the Government remain committed to the parental order process and the safeguards that it provides? Those safeguards are not outdated as the petition suggests; indeed, they are needed now more than ever, especially as international surrogacy arrangements are becoming the norm for intended parents in the UK. The parental order process exists to ensure that a child’s welfare comes first and that a surrogate mother’s consent is freely given. Any reform should strengthen those protections for women and children, not diminish them.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member and I have a great shared interest in fostering and adoption and have spoken about those issues a lot in the past. To clarify, is he saying that there should still be a six-week gap between the birth and the parental order being signed, or that there should not, but that if there was a problem, the courts could still get involved afterwards? That strikes me as clouding the water even more. I appreciate where he is coming from, but I was not 100% clear on what he was saying.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that good point, which I am particularly passionate about. I have spoken a lot this week about funding for rural services, particularly under local government reorganisation, and that will be really important in the future structure of unitary councils. How can we ensure that villages and smaller towns get access to family hubs and things like them—and whatever else comes about following the Bill—and that people are not reliant on infrequent public services or on having a car to get to them? I am glad he mentioned that, because it gives me even more reason to continue on my journey against local government reorganisation in my constituency. My hon. Friend also highlights how we want every community to have a family hub. I am considered to be the MP for the slightly well-off bit of Plymouth, so I am incredibly grateful that the city set one up in my constituency, but there are whole communities in my constituency, such as Plymstock where I was a councillor for many years, that do not have a wellbeing hub or a family hub. If we are to do this, we must ensure that we do it properly. I want to take the opportunity to remind the House that family hubs are a Conservative innovation, grounded in the principle that strong families make for a strong society. I am delighted that the Labour Government have committed to build on our success and roll out family hubs to all local authorities, not just those initial 75. I must also say that they are not merely Sure Start rebranded.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. Of course, if we are going to do this properly, we have to make sure that the funding is there, which I think is the entire point of the Bill. I agree with that, but the great thing about family hubs is that they set out an intention right from the start that it is not okay to just ringfence the money until the age of five; we need to ensure that we provide support all the way through. There is a lot more work to be done on both sides of the House to develop what that looks like. I think we are in pretty good agreement on this, whether it is support up to five or beyond. At the end of the day, we want families and young people to have the best start, as the name suggests. It is worth pointing out that family hubs are required to provide support for children up to the age of 19, or 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities. There is clearly a lot more thinking to be done. I appreciate that the Bill will specifically ringfence provision for under-fives, but ultimately we do not want there to be a cliff edge—we do not want all this support to suddenly drop off when children get to five because that would not maintain and make the most of the family hub model as it was established. When I visited the Rees centre family and wellbeing hub in Plympton in my constituency, I was very impressed with what is going on there. It is a brilliant community asset that has been there since the ’60s. There is breastfeeding support, but what is also amazing is that it has a time bank, so there are all these mums bringing in their babies to see the health visitor or to be weighed—all the things that a family hub does for under-fives—but there are also older people from the community coming to meet, socialise and do things together. When a family hub or a Best Start centre is truly embedded in a community, it has the opportunity to be a place where all sorts of things are delivered, and that combined delivery makes them even better. We do not want them to become centres where only people with children and those who have families go; we should open them up, to do as much as possible within the community, because that is at the heart of what they can do. It is really important that we look at the whole picture, as well as focusing on the first 1,001 days, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to deliver family hubs right up to the age of 19. As we discuss earlier support, there is a little elephant in the room. Evidence consistently shows that children under the age of two need to be nurtured by their parents primarily, and I think we are all saying the same thing today, but it is my personal view that parental presence requires childcare choice. More than two thirds of working mothers with pre-school children say that they would work fewer hours if they could afford it, according to the Department for Education, but too often parents feel pushed towards a one-size-fits-all model of formal childcare. We need to explore where we can offer parents more options in the earliest years and free them up to do what they feel is best for them and their family. It is not about telling parents what to do; it is about trusting them to make the right decisions for their family. We must never forget who matters the most to the baby: it is their parents. We should do everything we can to help mums, dads and carers be present as much as possible. This Bill must be the start of a wholesale reframing of family support. Every stage of childhood matters, and we must back families every step of the way. That is why I am very keen to support the Bill today.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady. I mentioned to one of my colleagues the other day how this entire debate is catnip for Labour Members, because it is an opportunity for them to highlight that they have cared more about families and children than the Conservatives. I do not believe that; I believe that we have always cared about the vulnerable and ensuring that the right thing is done. To bring the House back to the point and bring down the temperature in the Chamber, I want to talk about what is good about family hubs and why they are different. The key point is that they are not just Sure Start rebranded. Sure Start did good things, but we felt at the time that it was not necessarily targeted in the right way. I pay significant tribute to Lord Farmer. If it were not for his work and his personal commitment in all sorts of ways—he effectively trailblazed the family hubs policy—we would not be here today. Family hubs have provided a model that we can replicate. That is not to say that Sure Start did not provide the opportunity to do something similar, but the distinctive thing about what Lord Farmer set up and that we put into practice in government—he is seeking to work with the Government to continue it—is that it is not just for the early years but for people right up to the age of 19. Regardless of what we think about what happened in the past, what family hubs are called and what they do, I think we all agree that we need to provide support right through to when a child is 19 and to give families that opportunity. We have heard many people speaking about the challenges in teenage life if we do not get it right at the beginning.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I join many others today in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on securing this debate and on his choice of topic. There does seem to be an enormous amount of agreement in the Chamber today, and I know that he has secured cross-party support for the Bill, which is excellent. Like everyone else present, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. While I, like many others, do not have my own children, I am an aunt to four, a godmother to four and a friend to many people who have children. I have been looking after my friends’ kids since I was about 18, so I am pretty adept at changing nappies; I know how to get them to smile and how to do all those things. We have heard mention of the value of the wider family and friendship group, and I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill from that perspective. As a result, I know that there is a reason why we say, “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world”—it is because those earliest years really do matter profoundly. During the first 1,001-day period, secure attachment is built through a baby’s everyday interactions with their parents, their carer or, indeed, their aunties and uncles. A smile, a cuddle, a comforting voice—those simple moments lay the foundations for emotional wellbeing. I certainly hope that the 24 hours in which I was the only person to provide my 18-month-old nephew with all those things added to his wellbeing, rather than detracting from it—we will see in a few years’ time. I think he generally knows who I am and is happy to see me, so that is fine. By the age of two, a child’s brain reaches around 80% of its adult size. As Lord Cameron has said, “mums and dads literally build babies’ brains.” By supporting parents from the very beginning, we can improve outcomes for children and reduce the need for costly state intervention later down the line. That is why I support the Bill’s intention to put services during pregnancy and early childhood on a stronger statutory footing. The reporting requirements in the Bill will mean that decisions on funding cannot be made in the dark, ensuring that services such as Best Start family hubs and the healthy babies programme remain a Government priority. Family hubs provide a vital one-stop shop for parents, bringing together practical support under one roof, from breastfeeding advice to work to help to reduce parental conflict. Plymouth was one of the original 75 local authorities selected to participate in the Conservative Government’s family hubs programme back in 2022. The council has now successfully established a network of 11 hubs. However, interestingly, there have been recent reports about funding changes, and trying to find out information on what is happening, who is responsible and what is going on has been really difficult. Therefore, anything that ensures that that reporting back is done—particularly on funding and sustainability when external agencies are providing those services—will be particularly important. As an advocate for family hubs, when I have constituents come to me and say that people working in those hubs are being made redundant, I want to know what is going on and whether delivery is continuing. It is important to remind ourselves that the value of family hubs is that they are open to everyone. However, I believe that more could be done to encourage parents to use them. So far, only 16% of parents with a child under five have used a family hub, despite 66% having heard of them, according to a poll from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It is clear that we need to do more on that.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Bluetongue Virus in Livestock · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) has already alluded to, Devon has a huge issue with bluetongue cases. In fact, of the 795 cases, 334—by far the highest number across the country—are in Devon, and one of those is new this week. I am sure that the Minister will remember that in a previous Westminster Hall debate on financing farming, I invited him to visit Dartmoor. That was ostensibly about livestock numbers, hill ponies and the future of farming on Dartmoor, but given this bluetongue outbreak, the invitation seems even more important now, because Dartmoor is a key farming part of Devon. I have invited the Minister three times and not yet had a response, so I would like to extend my invitation again. My farmers in South West Devon, including those in Dartmoor, would very much welcome a visit, and I would be grateful if he could respond to the letters that I have sent him over the last few months.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. An ever-growing list of charities have faced serious allegations of peddling extremism and even funding terrorism. Despite lengthy Charity Commission investigations, most of them continue to operate, such as the Iranian regime-linked Islamic Centre of England, which is reportedly sponsoring visas for people to enter the UK. It is painfully clear that the Charity Commission lacks sufficient powers to shut down these offending charities, yet the Government have wasted six months since first acknowledging this clear and immediate threat. Will the Secretary of State confirm when those powers will be granted?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Further to a similar online petition of more than 4,200 signatures, I present this petition on local government reorganisation in Devon. The plans published in July by the Government appear to have been configured entirely to benefit the urban areas of Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, and call into question service delivery, local democracy, and local identity across the county’s rural communities. Arguably there is no conceivable way that it can result in growth in every postcode. As a result I welcome the Prime Minister’s agreement yesterday to revisit the current plan, and my hope is that the strength of feeling shown by residents in South West Devon, south Devon, and across the county, will result in a meeting with Ministers to discuss a way forward that benefits the whole county, with local services that we can all be proud of, and that do not create a two-tier Devon of urban versus rural. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of South West Devon and the surrounding area , Declares that the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in the c ounty of Devon have not adequately taken account of local viewpoints; further declares that it will lead to a democratic deficit for rural areas, introduces a rural council area that is too large to effectively administer, will lead to a disparity between total council tax bills for rural compared to urban areas as parish precepts will continue to be charged for rural areas, will result in the prioritisation of urban needs over those of rural areas, and will represent a loss of identity for long-established rural communities . The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon its plans for local government reorganisation in the county of Devon . And the petitioners remain, etc .] [P003232]

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak multiple times about his trip to Cornwall, and I hope he enjoyed Exeter services on his way through Devon. It is disappointing that he did not spend more time in rural Devon in particular, because the biggest issue I dealt with over the summer was the Government’s local government reorganisation announcement, which will see a huge rural Devon constituency of 2,200 square miles with just 103 councillors, compared with 220 councillors for three urban centres of about 600 square miles between them. I accept the Prime Minister’s ambition for growth in every postcode, but he mentioned earlier the lack of infrastructure in the south-west. How can that version of local government reorganisation produce growth in every postcode? I urge him to revisit that decision with the Minister responsible, because, quite frankly, constituents across rural Devon are devastated by what it might mean for them.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Maritime Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer. He and I have had several interactions over the marine autonomy sector in particular, and I welcome the regulating for growth Bill, as I have said before in this place. However, I am incredibly keen to be reassured that it is coming early in the autumn. Will the Minister help me to meet those drafting the Bill? A request I made to the chief executive officer of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has not been replied to, and I am very keen to ensure that the businesses working in that sector in my constituency are able to influence the Bill and that we get it through as quickly as possible.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Maritime Sector · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps she is taking to support the maritime sector.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State claims that decisions reflect local identities. Well, I can advise him that the majority of my constituents and those living in rural Devon would highly disagree. Instead, we have an urban Labour stitch-up that ignores the plethora of rural voices who oppose Plymouth and Exeter’s land-grab plans and creates a rural council that would be two and a half hours from north to south and two hours wide. Is he also aware that he is creating a two-tier system? Parish precepts are likely to remain on the bills of South Hams residents, who will be paying higher council tax than the city dwellers. Does the Secretary of State agree that this bakes in inequality from day one?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member has highlighted that, in his view, this is not a binary choice between a debate on the middle east and holding the new Prime Minister to account. I wonder whether I might therefore offer him a solution. Why do we not have the debate tomorrow—it is clearly important, and no one on this side of the House is saying otherwise—and then have a vote, which is also in the right hon. Member’s gift, to return on Monday anyway? We were essentially doing the Government a favour by tabling the motion, because ultimately we all want to hear from this new Prime Minister. With the exception of a few lucky people on the Labour Benches, nobody knows what he is planning to do. For the benefit of my constituents in the south-west, I want to be able to raise his obsession with No. 10 in Manchester. I want to hear his views on defence, welfare, taxation and special educational needs. Those are the things that I believe the House deserves to hear directly from the new Prime Minister before we return in September. Might the right hon. Member consider that pretty simple solution, which would give everyone what they want?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the Minister has brought up the subject of fully funded apprenticeships for those under 25. As soon as that was announced, an electrician in my constituency contacted me and said, “That is all well and good, but I still have to pay the higher wages.” Although such businesses are not paying national insurance, this is not as free, or as cheap, as the Government maintain. Will the Minister accept that it is not 100% correct to say that these are fully funded apprenticeships, because those businesses still have to pay increased salaries?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the group of people who often get forgotten in these debates—certainly by Government Members—are business owners? They are trying to hang on to these young people, or even to their normal employees, and they want to do the right thing so they pay them before themselves, but often, because the minimum wages have gone up, by the time those businesses close the owners are not benefiting from that income. We tend to forget the small business owners, but they are vital, as we are trying to highlight.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend reminds me that one of the other soft skills that we learn that way is resilience. I am wondering how he got those jobs, because I earned £10 a day in my first job. I was sweeping the floor in a florist and, if I was lucky, bundling up some flowers before I sold them. Part of that £10 was my bus fare to get to and from work, because the place where I was fortunate enough to live was a long way from the city centre. Does he agree that resilience is a skill that is missing in a lot of today’s young people, and that if we are taking away the jobs where they can learn that skill, it is yet another way that we are de-skilling the workers of the future?