Jack Rankin

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

The complete record

542 held · 539 searchable for Jack Rankin. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 10.

This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.

1. “Will the hon. Member reflect on the fact that one in six people in this country on universal credit are not British citizens? How would he justify that to his constituents?”

   House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

2. “I agree with the hon. Member wholeheartedly, and he is making an excellent speech, but I would gently say that lots of us in the shires who face Liberal Democrats in our constituencies get leaflets from his colleagues that oppose building almost anywhere, ever. What would he say about that to some of his colleagues?”

   House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

3. “It is the foundation of this great property-owning democracy, but as a nation, we are not in a great state when it comes to housing. For my generation and the generation behind me, home ownership sometimes looks quite impossible. To fix this, our focus must be on supply, supply, supply, but we also need a market that flows freely. Frankly, today’s housing market is gummed up.”

   House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

4. “If we think about the crowded field of all the taxes we might want to cut, to my mind stamp duty is where we might start. We have heard from many Members who have quoted distinguished economists—much more distinguished than anything I might come out with—but it is clear that stamp duty is one of those taxes that destroys almost as much wealth as it raises. It is anti-growth, anti-ambition and anti-free market, and as I have already articulated, I think it is anti-family. It is a significant part of the reason why this country has such a lethargic housing market. This is all despite the fact that home ownership is not only key to our prosperity; perhaps even more so, it is important to people’s pride and the security of millions of families around this country.”

   House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

5. “That is the kind of decision that is being made up and down this country. One of the things that has made me proud this afternoon to sit on the Conservative Benches was listening to some Labour Members, because from some there has been a sneering assumption that stamp duty is a tax for the rich. When I think about myself and many young people in their early 20s trying to put together their stamp duty, I do not think that is a tax cut for the rich. When I think about families trying to get another bedroom in order to grow their families, I do not think that is a tax cut for the rich. That is not going into any of the other dynamic effects at all. I am proud that on the Conservative Benches, we stand up for aspirational people.”

   House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

6. “There has been lots of criticism of our record, but one of the things we Conservatives did in office that I was most heartened by was removing first-time buyers from stamp duty. That was incredibly powerful for young people in this country. I might have to declare an interest that is not just historical. I am a father with a young family—we have two boys under the age of four. Housing is incredibly expensive in my constituency, with the average house costing around £750,000. We are considering a third child, and just like families up and down the country we are discussing what that means. The particular limiting decision for my family, despite us wanting a third child, is housing. We live in a wonderful home in the village of Sunninghill that is probably okay for three babes and tots, but it would not be okay for a growing family.”

   House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

7. “In preparing for this debate, I was thinking about my history when it comes to stamp duty. I recall quite vividly going to see a mortgage broker on Dedworth Road in Windsor—I am not quite sure what year it was; perhaps I was in my late 20s. I had been quite dutifully saving for some years in order to achieve my aspiration, which a lot of young people have, to get a foot on the property ladder. I remember that I dutifully took my payslips and bank statements, and the mortgage broker turned to me and laughed. He said, “Congratulations on saving that, Mr Rankin. You have now saved the stamp duty; we just have to save up for a deposit.” It was a joke, but it was kind of true.”

   House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

8. “I would say that I hope the hon. Member in question is closer to this Budget, but having listened to some of his other utterances, perhaps most of us on the Conservative Benches would not hope for that. Never mind! The main criticism we have heard from Government Members, which is a fair criticism, is that of cost. There has been some constructive criticism from Labour Members who have agreed that stamp duty is a bad tax, but have then said that cost is the problem. They should be a little bit self-aware about that, because one of the reasons we are in such a fiscally precarious place is that some of the decisions the Government made in their previous Budget have put us in something of a fiscal doom loop, which we do not seem to have any chance of escaping.”

   House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

9. “Home ownership and supply-side reforms have been at the centre of the Conservative vision throughout our storied history, whether that is Stanley Baldwin, Harold Macmillan or Mrs Thatcher. It is a moral mission to support young aspirant people through these important gateways of life. Buying your own home and starting a family—these are the building blocks of all our communities. Abolishing stamp duty in this costed way will give people the keys to their own futures and secure the future of this country.”

   House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

10. “Labour will not make any difference on housing because it is just too conflicted. Fixing the housing market needs holistic solutions. We cannot talk about improving the housing market with the levels of migration that we currently have. We cannot talk about improving the housing market while overseeing record low house building numbers in London, as our developers are strangled in regulation. We need a holistic solution. We need to abolish stamp duty. We need to end mass migration. We need, I am afraid to say, to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants. I look forward to seeing more ambition from the Opposition on reforming our planning system. That is part of a vision for my party, and I am proud to be a part of it. However, it is not a new vision.”

    House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

11. “Those things might not show up on a Treasury balance sheet, but they are really important things for our society. Cutting stamp duty would generate extra revenue for the Treasury in myriad ways that we should be happy to talk about. That said, as a credible Opposition, we still need to cost this policy. That is why, as we have heard already in this debate, the Conservative party has found £47 billion of savings, all while being able to honour our golden economic rule. That economic rule says that the majority of public sector spending reductions that we identify must go on deficit reduction. As a policy, the abolition of stamp duty aligns with many of the principles that those of us on the Opposition Benches hold dear to our hearts. It rewards ambition, it unlocks free markets, and it lowers the tax burden on families.”

    House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

12. “Do those sound like the kind of people who could be described as “the rich”, as we have heard from Labour Members? These are real working people with decent jobs, generating income for the Exchequer through VAT, income tax and national insurance, and we should not be shy about saying that. If we are lucky, abolishing stamp duty might also lead to a reduction in welfare spending through job creation. There are also gains that cannot be recorded in a spreadsheet. Those include families such as mine moving into homes that are the right size for them, and pensioners rightsizing—some people have used downsizing, but I think rightsizing is the better word—to be closer to their grandchildren, which might provide childcare support for young families. They also include economic and social mobility, such as taking a promotion in a new area.”

    House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

13. “My hon. Friend is quite right. Although we are at risk of picking apart the Budget in its entirety, I would suggest that giving away our sovereign land and paying for the privilege might not be a great thing to do at any time, but particularly in a fiscally constrained environment. Despite having to have a reasonable answer on the question of cost, which I will get to later in my remarks, Conservative Members should not be shy when it comes to talking about some of the other positive fiscal benefits that abolishing stamp duty would yield. One area in which we Conservatives have not done as well as we could is that of making the positive, dynamic argument for some tax cuts, because every move in the housing market engages a raft of removers, decorators, window cleaners, gardeners, plumbers and electricians.”

    House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

14. “I thank the Secretary of State for his unequivocal rejection of separatism. He will always find on the Conservative side fellow colleagues who treasure this United Kingdom and want to shout about the most successful alliance in political history. What specific steps can he take to prevent more taxpayers’ cash being squandered as the SNP pursues its doomed dream?”

    House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

15. “When we allow Islamist hate preachers such as Sheikh Alafasy to do speaking tours, it is no wonder British Jews in the UK no longer feel safe. In January, he had a platform at the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester, despite the Jewish Representative Council raising its concerns. They were ignored. In the follow-up meeting, described as an appalling “tick-box exercise”, the chief executive could not have cared less. It now turns out that this Sheikh was one of only 10 people that the terrorist perpetrator of this attack followed on Twitter. There was a chance that he was at the event in January. Can the Home Secretary advise what her Department is doing to hold the chief executive Andrew Bolt and the trustees of Bridgewater Hall to account for completely failing to take the concerns of Manchester’s Jewish community into consideration?”

    House of Commons13 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

16. “Thousands of drones are being used to smuggle contraband such as weapons and drugs into prisons. Locally, I have met leading security company Preventive Concepts Security. The shadow Lord Chancellor was good enough to visit it in France to see its technology in action, detecting and disabling drones. What specific steps is the Department taking to roll out drone detection capabilities across the prison estate? Is it currently engaging directly with private stakeholders such as Preventive Concepts Security?”

    House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

17. “In two years’ time, we will celebrate the 1100th birthday of England, the most remarkable nation on earth, which a majority of us in this place are fortunate to have won the lottery of life to be born in. We should be respectful of that evolution, because that evolving constitutional order has empirically served us well. It is how it works in practice that matters, not how it looks on the ideological grand planner’s piece of paper.”

    House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

18. “The bishops, whom the King appoints, sit in our legislature, as do hereditary peers, who are the focus of the amendment. The King appoints the judiciary and is the commander of the armed forces. On paper, as Labour Members have pointed out, the country with which we have most in common is the demonic Islamic Republic, but unlike Iran we have simultaneously free and fair elections, broad debate in a free press, and freedom of religious and belief, and we are an open member of the international order. The point is that we would never design our tapestry of a constitution. In many ways it is absurd, but it is organic. It is rooted in the millennia of history.”

    House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

19. “I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 and 8, and therefore against the motion, in two minds. I say in two minds because I find the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers without seeking consensus, which is what a rejection of Lords amendment 1 would mean, both regrettable and exciting. I would like to take each of these two polarising mindsets in turn. My first emotion is regret. Britain has something of a Schrödinger’s cat constitution. We are simultaneously a modern, plural and open democracy, and a kind of autocratic theocracy. Our national motto, “Dieu and mon droit”—God and my right—points to the hereditary monarch being appointed by and accountable only to God. We have a state religion in England and Scotland, and in England the divinely appointed monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church.”

    House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

20. “My right hon. Friend is right. Our national story has brought us to a place where this House is rightfully dominant among the three parts of Parliament in exercising the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, but we should be careful of the wholesale execution of one of those arms. Let us be clear: that is what the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers would do. The other place without them is no more a House of Lords than my terraced house in Sunninghill is. A Cromwellian purge, it would leave that place the preserve of political cronies and failed advisers. Is that what we want? Is that progress? The House of Lords today is difficult to justify, but it works. This place has the attention span of a TikTok-addled teenager, as we jump to half-hourly news cycles driven by Twitter and rolling news.”

    House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

21. “My view is that the British state is way off course, dangerously off course. It needs deep and radical change. To take one issue, immigration, almost nothing is now too radical to consider. Whether we look at the asylum system or legal migration, the radical change that the country needs will be of significant scale. None of that will be possible in the Blairite constitutional straitjacket that is at direct odds with our historic constitution.”

    House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

22. “My hon. Friend’s point is right, and I thank him for it. We walk through the Division lobbies, directed by the Whips, often having had no time, because of the impossible juggling act, to develop real knowledge of the topic in question or to think through properly the implications. Some of the stuff that leaves this place with a massive majority might have well been written in crayon. Thank God for the other place. Do not remove long-serving public servants and outstanding legislators. Do not pick at the threads of our constitution. The other place is one of the parts of our constitution which works best. We should retain Lords amendment 1 and 8. I talked of a tension, a conflict in my thinking. I have tried to articulate a deeply conservative instinct, but I also feel excitement, as I will explain.”

    House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

23. “That is the tension that I am trying to bring out. Who would seek to frustrate such an agenda—the Lords might, in their current form. I find it exciting—and this is a warning—that a majority in this House, gained from 33.7% of the vote on a 59.7% turnout, which is almost exactly 20% of the adults in this country, can remove their opposition from the other place. Labour Members may not agree with the hereditary principle, but who else does not get elected in the other place and cannot be removed by elections? It is the life peers. I say honestly, the lack of respect you might have for a millennia-old principle, I have for a lot of the backgrounds—”

    House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

24. “Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make to those on the Government Benches is that if a Government can expel their political opponents from the other place because the majority in this place says they are not elected, while placing no limit on the Prime Minister’s patronage, so can a new Government—so take the compromise. Be careful what you wish for.”

    House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

25. “Q12. Like many, I was deeply concerned that a police force deemed it necessary to take five armed officers to arrest a comedy writer from a flight. Some may have found Mr Linehan’s comments offensive, but that is not the point. If we do not support speech that we do not like, we do not support free speech. Will the Prime Minister commit to reviewing our speech laws to ensure that legitimate free expression is protected and will he condemn the culture within the public sector that prioritises this dangerous and perverse nonsense?”

    House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

26. “Unable to share his precise location with his family, he sketched drawings of the local culture and the people he met on blank postcards, which he sent to his parents, letting them know he was okay. Charles did not discuss his service, although he did feel that while VE Day commemorations continued to draw national attention, VJ Day came and went almost as an afterthought. I gently say to Ministers that this sometimes feels to be the case on the 80th anniversary—and that is regrettable. Victory over Japan marked the true end of the conflict, and no less was the sacrifice of those who gave their lives there, so let us all in this House play our part so that these stories, as they come down from generation to generation—”

    House of Commons21 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

27. “Just this weekend I was speaking to Theresa Haggart, a former local headmistress and stalwart of Windsor civic society, about her father, the late Charles Snelling; I want to take this opportunity to highlight the man behind that name. He passed in August 2016, aged 92. He came from a family with a proud tradition of national service. In the first world war, he was a regimental sergeant-major as part of the Canadian imperial forces, and in the second world war he was a radar engineer and operator. He spent time hopping from ship to ship, making repairs to essential equipment, and, like 365,000 other British troops, found himself thousands of miles away in the Pacific.”

    House of Commons21 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

28. “We were told, “Choose a name and research that man, because when you learn about that young man—where he was born, his sweetheart, his job, his kids, not too dissimilar in age to yourself—you realise that it is not an abstract number, but 5 million young men with their own lives. It hits home.” The man behind the name for me was Benjamin Ford, my great-great-grandfather. He died in Mesopotamia fighting the Ottomans. What struck me particularly was that I heard a lot about the western front but little to nothing about this other front where men like Benjamin died for King and country. It rather strikes me that the Pacific front in the second world war is often similarly overlooked. Today’s debate is important for highlighting those men who fought and died in the far east, particularly those fighting after VE Day had passed.”

    House of Commons21 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

29. “It is through our veterans that our collective memory of the second world war is best preserved, but as their bright flame is flickering it is important that a new generation—my generation—commits to re-telling their stories. As a schoolboy, one of the pieces of work that has stuck with me the most was the “man behind the name” project, because it is impossible to think of the 5 million British young men—25% of adult men—who fought in the first world war; that is 55 full Wembley stadiums. The “man behind the name” project was so powerful, with the general point being, “Go and pick a name on your local cenotaph.” For me, that was the one I passed on the way to Mrs Wood’s history lesson at West Hill school.”

    House of Commons21 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

30. “The proposals for a third runway at Heathrow would take 900 acres of the regional park directly, not to mention the indirect consequences, including Colnbrook and Horton in my constituency, which would be irreparable. Does my hon. Friend condemn the Chancellor pressing the panic button and inflicting this irreversible damage on the Colne Valley park?”

    House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

31. “T7. We all know that there is a difference between welfare cuts and welfare reforms. These cuts were the maths of Treasury mandarins. It is the same thinking that saw winter fuel payments taken from pensioners. Now that the Government have U-turned on both of those, when will they finally back British farming and U-turn on the family farm tax?”

    House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

32. “Had those chants called for the deaths of people of any other nationality or ethnicity, there is no question in my mind that the live feed would have been pulled straightaway. I welcome the Secretary of State’s robust statement, but does she agree that this problem is systemic, and that there has been a decades-long, deep-rooted bias against Israel at the corporation, which seems unwilling to deal with it, or incapable of doing so?”

    House of Commons30 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

33. “It is only right that we allow victims, and the organisations supporting them, the time and space to make their case as strong as possible, ensuring that everything is laid on the table for the Attorney General to consider. Let us place victims and families at the heart of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, where they should be.”

    House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

34. “She said: “Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking.” — [ Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 8, Q15.] During the oral evidence session, many notable sources raised issues with the current timeframe. Dame Nicole Jacobs, Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, described the current system as “disorienting” and said that “we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.” –– [ Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 9, Q15.] Extending the window of opportunity will also surely allow a greater base of evidence from previous cases to be compiled, to bolster a referral under the scheme.”

    House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

35. “We welcome the provisions in clause 11, which relate to extending the time period in which the unduly lenient sentence scheme may be applied for. However, as the official Opposition, we still have concerns that the window of opportunity for victims to raise an appeal remains the same. The scheme can only be referred to for some of the most serious crimes—crimes that are likely to leave victims and their families with a degree of trauma or grief. How can we possibly expect that, within just a month of a sentence being issued, gathering together a clear, strong case for a sentence’s being unduly lenient would be on the minds of victims? We also know that many victims do not know about the scheme, or the opportunity to appeal. Baroness Newlove said that victims “really do not know” about it.”

    House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

36. “Q The focus of what we are trying to do in this amendment is to put the victims at the heart of it. The police and crime commissioner talked about this potentially turning into—I do not think you used the word “farce”, so I do not want to put that— Clare Moody: I did not, no. I talked about making a spectacle of it.”

    House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

37. “Q Just to pick up on this point, as well as tabling the extension to 56 days, the Opposition have also taken up the point that the witnesses mentioned about awareness. With amendment 12, we are trying to create an obligation for the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims within 10 working days. Will that assuage your concerns that the main concern is awareness, rather than the timeframe?”

    House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

38. “1. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of StandWithUs UK’s “Voice of Students 2024/25” report on antisemitism on university campuses.”

    House of Commons16 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

39. “What StandWithUs UK sets out in its report into antisemitism and support for terrorism at British universities is a source of national shame. It is high time that we heeded the stipulation in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition that so-called anti-Zionism is nothing less that anti-Jewish racism. I urge the Secretary of State to reiterate that crucial point and ask whether she will commit to enacting the report’s important recommendations, including introducing a framework of escalating financial penalties for universities that fail to safeguard their Jewish students from such hateful intolerance and extremism.”

    House of Commons16 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

40. “Wales has incredible potential for the next generation of nuclear, but Labour’s announcement yesterday is a fraction of what is needed. Green baseload power that stabilises our grid enhances power generation, as it has done before in Anglesey. Will the Minister give a clearer answer today to confirm that Wales will be a key part of new nuclear, building on Conservative work supporting Welsh nuclear, or will this be another failure to deliver for these communities under Labour?”

    House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

41. “T9. Research from Centrica, which is headquartered on my patch, shows that Hive has saved domestic customers half a billion pounds on their energy bills since its inception. Does the Secretary of State agree that smart data, which gives consumers the ability to control their energy use without the need for top-down bans, taxes and mandates, should be a key plank of the warm homes plan?”

    House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

42. “I broadly support unitarisation on a strategic scale, but I am concerned about how historic debts will be treated in Surrey, especially those of Woking and Spelthorne councils. How will those debts be handled as our councils come together, and will the Minister assure my constituents in Virginia Water and Englefield Green, in the well-run borough of Runnymede, that they will not foot the bill for this as part of the reorganisation?”

    House of Commons9 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

43. “I thank the Minister for his clarity that genocide is a legal test of whether a crime has been committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”. That is exactly what the Hamas terrorist group state in their foundational charter: the intent to destroy Israel and Jews worldwide, as they actively sought to do on 7 October. If they wanted to end the war, Hamas would release the 58 hostages they continue to hold. How is the Minister supporting our friend and ally, the democracy Israel, in its fight against this genocidal terrorist group?”

    House of Commons14 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

44. “A reset deal with a deep SPS agreement would be short-sighted, perhaps offering a quick boost in the near term but taking the wind from the sails of longer term, game-changing investment that is starting to flow in. We need to maintain a competitive advantage to supercharge investment in areas like the Thames valley, where we have a world-leading life sciences sector. So I warn the Government not to chain Britain to the economic anchor of the EU and the dead hand of its precautionary principle regulators, especially when last week’s secondary legislation on precision breeding is such a clear example of what regulatory autonomy for an innovative UK could do for us.”

    House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

45. “There were good reasons to leave the EU and good reasons to stay in the EU, and reasonable people could and did disagree, but there is no good reason to leave and opt into rules over which we have no say. That is the worst of both worlds. Under Switzerland’s agreement with the EU, it must align with almost all the EU’s food safety demands and replicate any further regulatory changes made in the future. That agreement may well be in the best interests of the Swiss but it would not work for Britain. Every time we want to diverge in a way that could benefit the British people, we would have to supplicate to those in Brussels once again. Carve-outs are possible, but we all know what tends to happen when the Prime Minister negotiates. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses.”

    House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

46. “Companies at the forefront of the agricultural industry have raised concerns about this reset, and I know that my colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the all-party group on science and technology in agriculture have done the same. This is a rare—and much needed as those on the Government Benches hammer our farmers—competitive unique selling point for British agriculture. Reports suggest that this Government will make concessions on SPS to give them more bartering power on other issues, setting a precedent for the wider agricultural relationship with the EU, bending over backwards for an establishment that the British people voted to reject. We would also be signing up to rules we have no power to influence.”

    House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

47. “Gene editing has the power to reduce the impact of animal disease and stop pandemics in their tracks. Researchers at Imperial College London and the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, are now close to making breakthroughs on bird flu-resistant poultry using gene editing. The Government must introduce secondary legislation for farmed animals, as they have done for plants. I visited Imperial’s Silwood campus in my constituency. The students there are doing incredible things. When they make breakthroughs, our regulatory framework should allow us to nimbly make use of them, but there is a very real risk that with next week’s reset the Government could kill the progress with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement they are negotiating.”

    House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

48. “I start by paying a small tribute to the Government because just last week they passed secondary legislation, albeit made possible by the Conservatives’ groundbreaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, that will mean more resilient crops, further food choices and enhanced food security. Although it might pain some of them, Labour Members have to admit they are making some use of the hard-won Brexit freedoms secured by the Conservatives. Why would we give them away? The example I have used might seem somewhat niche, but this is exactly what a modern industrial strategy focused on technology, productivity and the future looks like, and in doing this, we have a head start on the continent, which is now fumbling to produce regulation of its own in this area. We should be going further still.”

    House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

49. “Last year’s birth trauma inquiry report exposed that maternity services in this country are woefully underfunded, and now the Health Secretary intends to cut the budget for maternity improvement from £95 million to just £2 million, equating to less than £4 per child born in this country each year. What kind of change is that? What message will that send to mothers across the country? Does the Secretary of State plan to implement any of the recommendations from the birth trauma inquiry report, many of which were committed to by the previous Government?”

    House of Commons6 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

50. “I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 86, page 98, line 2, at end insert— “(3) The defence described in subsection (2) is only applicable if a person has given written notice to a police station nearest to the public place that is in a locality designated under section 87(1). (4) Where it is not reasonably practicable to deliver written notice under subsection (3), a person must inform a constable within the locality designated under section 87(1).” This amendment requires a person using an item that conceals their identity in a public place within a designated protest area for reasons related to health, religious observance or work to notify the police in writing or orally.”

    House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →