Phil Brickell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this debate. As a keen environmentalist, I will speak in support of a full and permanent ban on fracking. In my constituency, people care deeply about our shared natural environment. They care about access to nature. They care about protecting the landscapes that define our communities. I see that every time I visit the West Pennine moors and enjoy our local landscapes. Those moors and fields are a place of recreation, reflection and escape, and they are part of our local identity in Bolton West. What they are not is a resource to be gambled with in pursuit of a speculative industry that has never enjoyed public support in my constituency. Way back in 2015, there were demonstrations against fracking in Horwich after the then Conservative Government granted licences to drill there and in Blackrod, Rivington and Belmont. Many of us will remember even larger demonstrations against fracking in neighbouring Lancashire over the years. Local people consistently turned out in their droves because they were worried about the consequences for their communities, their environment and their quality of life. It is impossible not to mention the extraordinary events of 2022. The then Prime Minister, Liz Truss, effectively turned a vote on fracking into a confidence vote in her own Government. That evening, fracking extracted her from her job far more effectively than it has ever extracted shale gas. Fracking became a symbol of a political establishment refusing to listen to communities and refusing to recognise where public opinion had already moved. My own concerns have always been primarily environmental and ecological, and these fears are repeatedly raised to this day by my constituents. Indeed, my friend, Horwich resident and long-standing environmental activist Stuart put it more clearly than I would be able to. He told me that, for him, the biggest problem is the toxic chemicals entering the watercourse. That echoes the sentiment rightly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) earlier in the debate. That captures the heart of the issue. People are worried about the risk of pollution to the water table and the wider environment. Indeed, once groundwater is contaminated, the damage can last for generations. So let us ask ourselves one simple question today: is fracking really worth it? The reality is that fracking has always asked communities to take environmental risks in exchange for highly uncertain rewards, and the truth is that the country at large has never bought into it.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  If the domestic production of gas is so fantastic for the UK economy, why did successive Conservative Governments massively constrain the amount of gas that can be stored in this country to prevent the huge fluctuations in price that we see?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  That opposition to fracking across the divide is certainly something that I see in my mailbox in Bolton West. My constituents know all about the costs of industrial exploitation. Back in the late 19th century, the north-west was a hotbed of industrial extraction. Coalmining in particular left its mark across the moors and surrounding communities in a way that still scars landscapes and undermines ecological wellbeing. We should not spend the 2020s trying to recreate the energy debates of 50 years ago. Instead, we should be embracing the technologies of the future. That is exactly why I proudly stood on Labour’s manifesto commitment to make Britain a clean energy superpower. That is a commitment that this Government are now delivering through their clean power mission and their commitment to legislate for a ban on fracking. However, the choice is not between fracking and keeping the lights on. The choice is between investing in the industries of the future and clinging to the arguments of the past, and I know which side of that choice my constituents are firmly on. Indeed, just last year, 200 jobs were secured at Hitachi Astemo in Horwich following £100 million of investment. That was investment into the electric vehicle supply chain, turning our back on fracking and embracing the opportunities of the future. That is a powerful vote of confidence in my constituency, because those are exactly the kinds of jobs we should be championing: high-skilled, high-tech jobs that support clean economic growth while driving the transition to the renewable economy of the future, not jobs in speculative drilling or fossil fuel dependency. We should not be reopening arguments that communities settled many years ago. After successive record-breaking temperatures and growing evidence of man-made climate change, reducing emissions and accelerating the transition to clean power are not optional but essential. A full ban on fracking protects communities and protects our environment. It protects treasured landscapes such as the West Pennine moors and the surrounding fields. It sends a clear signal that Britain’s future lies not beneath the ground in ever-harder-to-reach fossil fuels but in the clean industries, innovation and jobs that will power the decades ahead. For those reasons, I strongly support a full ban on fracking.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  UK Finance estimates that two thirds of all fraud cases are enabled online. Jonathan Fisher’s recent review into fraud recommended that an anti-fraud levy be placed on digital and communications platforms. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we ensure that economic crime enforcement agencies are properly funded to protect us all from predatory scammers on the internet?

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

  More

  Two of my constituents recently travelled to Mexico, where their children were born by surrogacy. Those births were facilitated by a company called My Surrogacy Journey, which is listed on gov.uk. While in Mexico, they had repeated traumatic experiences with the company relating to issues including insurance for their children, accusations of bullying towards staff and repeated efforts to silence any constructive criticism. I understand that other Members of this House have received similar complaints. Given the severity of these matters, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take My Surrogacy Journey down from gov.uk pending a review by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Sporting Events Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will know that Peel Land is hoping to support a bid for the Ryder cup to come to the Hulton Park site in my Bolton West constituency. I have serious reservations about the infrastructure at that site, and many of my constituents have grave concerns, predominantly about road traffic. In particular, the Westhoughton Chequerbent roundabout is chock-a-block with traffic at all times of the day. Will the Minister meet me to hear our concerns, and make sure that any putative bid at a future date addresses the infrastructure concerns that I raised with the Prime Minister earlier in the year ,when he was in his previous role as Mayor of Greater Manchester?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, let me put on record my thanks to the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for their collective engagement so far on this Bill. As a former anti-corruption specialist for more than a decade and chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I have had the pleasure of working with Members from across the House on this Bill in seeking to drive foreign interference, dirty money and undue influence out of our democracy. To that end, I wholeheartedly endorse a number of amendments: new clause 34 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on cryptocurrency; amendments 31 to 34 from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on strengthening “know your donor” requirements; new clause 61 from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on closing the political party start-up funding loophole; new clause 70 from my formidable right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on reducing campaign spending limits; new clauses 93 to 95 from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on foreign source donations and loans; and new clause 86 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on overseas donations. I hope the Minister will respond substantively to each of those amendments when she winds up. I want to focus my remarks on new clause 121 and amendment 151, which are in my name on the amendment paper. Both are ultimately about one deliverable that I know the Government want to achieve—namely, restoring trust in politics as a force for good. On new clause 121, I welcome the Government’s move over the weekend to expedite their existing ask of the Electoral Commission to review campaign spending limits. However, if the Electoral Commission concludes that spending limits should come down, we need to ensure that that decision is future-proof, and that is what my new clause 121 would secure. Critically, it would ensure that spending limits are set according to three key tests: first, the fairness of elections; secondly, the impact on the political parties; and thirdly, public confidence in electoral integrity. The new clause would also ensure that future increases could take place only following an independent recommendation from the Electoral Commission. This matters because politics is caught in an increasingly unsustainable fundraising arms race. In 2023, spending limits were increased unilaterally by the Government of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) by 80%. The result was that the 2024 general election became the most expensive in British history, with parties spending £94 million between them. As spending limits rise, so does the pressure on parties to raise ever larger sums of money, and when the demand for money grows, it follows that the risk appetite for parties accepting donations, and therefore the window of opportunity for bad actors, also grows. The Rycroft review made exactly that point. Reducing spending limits can help reduce incentives to seek funding from problematic sources and lessen the pressures that fuel concerns about foreign interference in our politics. Secondly, on amendment 151 in my name, I welcome the Government’s decision in July to move to a profit-based cap on corporate donations—a clear improvement on the previous proposals, which would have tied the cap to revenue, and something that the APPG I chair had for months been calling for. However, two significant loopholes remain. Amendment 151 would close both loopholes by ensuring that only the profits of the donating company itself are counted, and by calculating donation limits using average profits over five years, rather than accumulated profits. That would provide a more accurate measure of genuine economic activity, and make it far harder for corporate structures to be used to circumvent the intention of the law.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany I spend a lot of time meeting German businesses that want to invest in this country. One issue that comes up time and again is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about business mobility and persuading German boards to invest in British companies to grow the economy, and one constraint on that is the ability of German professionals to come here. Does he recognise that point, and will he join me in paying tribute to Ulrich Hoppe, the director general at the German-British Chamber of Industry and Commerce, who does formidable work trying to resolve some of these issues to support the British economy?

• 1 Sept 2026 · UK Financial Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) on securing today’s important debate. He is a distinguished advocate for the financial services sector, and I reiterate his points about unlocking cash sat on deposit in ISAs and making it work harder, not only for savers but for British businesses. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), was keen to support in that challenge, and I want to stress it again as we look towards this autumn’s Budget. My contribution will make a slightly different point from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley. Before entering this House, I, too, spent my career in financial services: first, in a brief stint in commercial banking, and then, for a long time as a specialist tackling financial crime. I saw first hand the strengths of our world-leading financial sector and the vulnerabilities that can be exploited by those seeking to abuse them. That experience taught me a simple lesson: the future of financial services in this country has to be a clean one. A successful City—a successful financial services sector that works for everyone up and down the length of the country and, ultimately, a successful British economy—is not built on turning a blind eye to dirty money, but on trust, transparency and integrity. As chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I regularly engage with UK Finance, the City of London, compliance professionals and senior representative from across financial services. The message I hear repeatedly is that businesses do not want weaker regulation; they want smarter regulation, a point that the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) alluded to. That should mean regulation that works to prevent bad faith actors, maintains the integrity of our economy and is looked at with envy by investors and competitors from further afield. A secure financial system is inherently more investable, as investors seek certainty, strong institutions and robust enforcement of the rule of law. This Labour Government, building on the platform provided by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, have made significant strides on that issue. It would be remiss of me not to thank them for the anti-corruption and fraud strategies published over the last 12 months, and I welcome the Treasury’s move to consolidate the fragmented anti-money laundering professional body supervisors under the FCA via the forthcoming Financial Services and Markets Bill. However, to really capitalise on the opportunities that are available, I would like the Government to commit to two core deliverables as part of their wider approach to economic crime: better regulatory enforcement and better transparency. On enforcement, the FCA will need to be adequately supported to fulfil its new regulatory obligations. The reality is that enforcement pays for itself many times over, across the wider landscape. The compliance work of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has generated around £22 for every £1 spent on compliance staff. Those are extraordinary returns on investment. We should view spending on economic crime enforcement not as a cost but as an investment in Britain’s prosperity and security. Of course, we are in a difficult period for public finances, which is why we should look carefully at how financial penalties for firms that do not abide by the rules are used. Between 2016 and 2025, the FCA secured more than £1 billion in regulatory and criminal fines, but significant sums are ultimately returned through rebate mechanisms rather than being used to strengthen the enforcement capabilities that generated the penalties in the first place. There is a strong case for allowing the FCA to retain a greater proportion of anti-money laundering fines to meet its enforcement costs, particularly as it takes on significant new supervisory responsibilities. I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to her place. As she knows, I am a long-term advocate for establishing an economic crime fighting fund, allowing a proportion of enforcement receipts to be reinvested in the agencies responsible for protecting our financial system. The financial sector rightly pays its way via the economic crime levy, so what about the criminals? Let us make them pay too. At present, billions of pounds have been raised through economic crime fines and enforcement activity, yet frontline agencies continue to face resource pressures. A sustainable, multi-year funding model would allow the likes of the FCA, the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office to further invest in specialist expertise, to build capability and to plan strategically for the long term. The Financial Action Task Force is already in town, ahead of next year’s mutual evaluation review, in which it will mark the UK’s homework on enforcement against economic crime. I would welcome the Minister’s initial reflections on whether existing schemes, such as the asset recovery incentivisation scheme, are performing as hoped, and on whether we might expect to see some reform to police funding in the forthcoming economic crime plan. I appreciate that that might not all fall squarely within the Minister’s brief, but I know that she has taken a keen interest in these matters previously and has a strong grasp of the cross-cutting nature of these issues across Whitehall. On the second point—transparency—equitable, clean growth can be achieved by reducing the compliance costs faced by legitimate firms, freeing up capital that could be more productively invested elsewhere. A major reason for those costs is the continued difficulty of identifying the true owners of companies hidden behind opaque offshore structures, as I saw first hand in my previous career. That is why I have long argued that the UK’s overseas territories must finally implement meaningful and accessible public registers of beneficial ownership, as we have in this country via Companies House. Every hour spent by compliance teams untangling complex offshore ownership chains is an hour not spent supporting customers, financing businesses or driving growth. Every duplicated check increases costs for legitimate firms, while benefiting those who rely on secrecy. Public registers of beneficial ownership would make “know your customer” checks faster, cheaper and more accurate. They would reduce duplication, lower compliance costs and strengthen confidence in our financial system. That would help to ensure that honest firms are not left carrying the burden created by hidden ownership structures and dirty money. I will not relitigate past debates on the issue, but I do want to place on record once again my wholehearted desire to see all British overseas territories, particularly the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, finally fulfil long-made promises by throwing open their books. Dirty money is not just a financial crime problem. It is a threat to economic growth, it distorts markets, it undermines trust, it damages fair competition and it weakens our institutions. I want a future financial services sector that is competitive because it is trusted, successful because it is transparent, and prosperous because it is clean. I will do everything in my power to support the Government achieve that objective.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for working with me to secure today’s debate. It has been about nine months since I initially presented the application to the Backbench Business Committee, but I am pleased to say that it has already been worth the wait. I also congratulate the Minister on her reappointment. It was a real pleasure to work with her in my role as a Ministry of Justice Parliamentary Private Secretary in the last Government. I found her no less supportive, engaged and collaborative when I have come to her with constituency issues, as I will speak to in more detail later. I would like to take this opportunity to share at least one particularly egregious example of vexatious litigation in the form of a SLAPP. Before I go any further, let me confirm that the cases I will mention today are not subject to ongoing legal proceedings. Back in 2016, Jennifer McAdam invested the inheritance that she received from her late father into a cryptocurrency called OneCoin, but OneCoin was a £3 billion lie. In reality, it was a global Ponzi scheme. When it collapsed the following year, millions of people from 125 countries lost money. In order to raise awareness and protect other investors, in 2017 Jennifer organised a webinar for other victims and cryptocurrency experts to explore ways to hold the company to account. Three weeks later, she received a legal threat from OneCoin and its co-founder Ruja Ignatova, dubbed the “Cryptoqueen” in the viral podcast that followed. That threat, sent via law firm Carter-Ruck claimed that Jennifer had defamed the so-called “Cryptoqueen” during the webinar. It went on to say that the only way to avoid a court case was to refrain from publishing similar allegations and to retract the webinar video. Even as legal action was threatened against Jennifer, regulatory action against OneCoin was already under way in a number of countries. Jennifer should have been celebrated for trying to help other victims and prevent future ones, not threatened and harassed. In 2025, Claire Gill, a partner at Carter-Ruck, instructed by OneCoin, was referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal by the Solicitors Regulation Authority on allegations that she sent a letter to McAdam that contained an improper threat of litigation. However, by the end of the year, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal refused to dismiss the proceedings, stating that Gill had acted on explicit client instructions and had no reason at that stage to disbelieve them, and that the SRA’s allegation was founded on hindsight rather than evidence of professional misconduct. The SRA has also been ordered to pay Gill’s costs, which Carter-Ruck claims to be around £1 million. Naturally, such sizeable costs raised fears that they may dampen the regulator’s appetite to challenge similar SLAPP-related cases in the foreseeable future. There are serious questions to be asked about the tribunal’s approach in setting such a high bar of actual knowledge of wrongdoing—effectively requiring evidence of complicity—before professional ethics really kick in. My concern is that the high bar makes it conveniently easy for lawyers to simply avoid asking questions that they do not want to know the answers to. If lawyers are allowed to blindly and ignorantly pursue their clients’ interests—even when that involves silencing the police and “in furtherance of fraud”, to use the tribunal’s wording before the case was thrown out—then we will never stop SLAPPs. This is not just about London lawyers and international scams. According to reporting by the Manchester Mill , back in 2021 a solicitor named Andrew Milne acquired 67 residential freeholds at auction for around £130 per property in Horwich, in my constituency. Milne then proceeded to demand thousands of pounds from my constituents in return for their freeholds, often citing spurious breaches of lease covenants. Yet when the Sheffield Tribune sought to report on Milne’s equally outrageous behaviour in Yorkshire, he sent them a message that included the following threat: “We will definitely bring proceedings for defamation and malicious falsehood if you publish such complete and malicious lies”. This is how it works: bullies, charlatans and chancers like Milne using their privileged positions to seek to silence journalists and whistleblowers from lifting the lid on their abhorrent actions. On a general policy point, I have been encouraged by noises coming out of the SRA since the regulator’s change in leadership, but as in the cases described, it strikes me that the regulatory framework as it currently stands is not up to the job. That is why a universal anti-SLAPP law is needed to ensure that those who speak out in the public interest are protected. I welcome the recent comments about the Government’s commitment to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation and the opportunity that the two private Members’ Bills on SLAPPS present both in this House and in the other place. In particular, I know that the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) is keen to work with the Government in what I trust will be an exemplar of cross-party working. I hope that across party lines we can seize this opportunity to put to bed the spurious litigation put forward by individuals who seek to silence dissenting voices. To close, let me reiterate the ask from the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition that legislation must be accompanied by strong regulatory guidance and enforcement action to ensure that lawyers are held to account for abusive legal tactics. I hope that the Government can deliver on that in the fullness of time.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for his many years—

• 15 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister will not need reminding about Arsenal’s success in the premier league last season and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will not want reminding that Everton, unfortunately for him, came 13th, but what neither of them might know is that the UK finished 20th in the corruption perceptions index, well within the relegation zone. At the Prime Minister’s request, last week the Ethics and Integrity Commission produced a comprehensive set of recommendations to tighten up rules around lobbying. In light of recent stories around the leader of Reform UK, does the Prime Minister agree—

• 6 Jul 2026 · Foreign Interference in UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement and I pay tribute to Philip Rycroft, who, as I am sure colleagues across the House will agree, is an exceptional public servant. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, it was a pleasure for me to provide evidence to his review, and I know his diligent work was conducted in a considered manner. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have notified the relevant Member I am going to name. Given that the weekend’s newspapers were awash with stories about the financial interests of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), what assurances can the Minister provide to me that the measures the Government are introducing will prevent people—such as George Cottrell, convicted in the US of wire fraud, who we know has provided thousands of pounds-worth of benefits; or Ben Delo, who has been convicted for flouting American anti-money laundering rules, yet has donated £4 million to Reform—from being able to pump tens of millions of pounds into British politics?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Operation Valour · Hansard source

  More

  2. What progress his Department has made on Operation Valour.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Operation Valour · Hansard source

  More

  Westhoughton is home to a fantastic local veterans charity called the Darren Deady Foundation. Darren bravely served in the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, but, sadly, died following injuries he sustained on the frontline in Afghanistan. I had the privilege of visiting the foundation back in April. I met Christine, and Darren’s mum Julie, to discuss the vital work that the foundation does. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the incredible work done by everyone at the Darren Deady Foundation, and will he see if he can find time to accompany me on a visit to the veterans community hub that the foundation is building at the Old Washacre family support centre?

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

  More

  I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. This week, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) declared that he is earning an extraordinary £22,500 per hour working for a gold bullion dealer.

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

  More

  Questions have also emerged about his lobbying the Bank of England for crypto-friendly policies, having himself invested £215,000 into bitcoin company Stack BTC, alongside former Conservative Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng. Does the Leader of the House agree that Members of this House are public servants and that we should always put our constituents first, before any private interest? Will he use his good offices as Chair of the Modernisation Committee to deliver much-needed reform to the rules on Members’ outside employment?

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

  More

  indicated assent.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate and on his extremely powerful speech. Despite being members of the same party, we come from very different traditions within the labour movement, but I am pleased that on this issue—one that is critical to commanding public confidence in the mother of all Parliaments—we are in violent agreement. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which builds on my experience at two FTSE 100 firms advising on, among other things, how to manage conflicts of interest. Let us remind ourselves that only 4% of the public believe politicians do what is best for the country, according to YouGov, while polling from More in Common found that 87% of Britons have either not very much or no trust in politicians. Despite reforms made shortly after the last general election, despite our own registration and code of conduct requirements, which are independently policed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and despite an ongoing inquiry into outside employment being undertaken by the Committee on Standards, this institution is not moving swiftly enough or with enough ambition to satisfy me that I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that the risks—perceived or actual—around outside employment are properly managed to my satisfaction. I mentioned those measures taken or in train because I give credit where credit is due. It would be remiss of me to say that nothing has been done—clearly that is not the case. The Government’s decision to remove the exemption that allowed MPs to provide advice on current affairs and how Parliament works was very welcome, but the issue has not gone away. Before, it was Owen Paterson, Matt Hancock, Nadine Dorries and Scott Benton who caused significant damage to the reputation of individual Members of Parliament and our democratic institutions, but now we have other Members of this House racking up huge salaries elsewhere. They have been warned in advance that I intend to mention them today. Take the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is conspicuous, as ever, by his absence. He has declared a total of 16 other jobs and around 800 hours worked alongside his role as a Member of this place. Just yesterday, the Financial Times reported that he is receiving £22,500 an hour for promoting a gold bullion dealer—not bad for someone who has also received what he has variously described as a “gift” or a “reward” from his billionaire crypto backer, Christopher Harborne. Mr Western, you know my views about money in politics from past conversations. Meanwhile, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) chalked up around 500 hours of outside employment in the last year. Indeed, the £60,000 paid out by a Luxembourg bank in May alone is one and a half times the average national salary. Do the people of Clacton or of Torridge and Tavistock not deserve a full-time MP? On 6 November 2024, the Modernisation Committee invited the Committee on Standards to inquire into whether outside interests or employment should be reformed in the Members’ code of conduct. I think the Standards Committee is still hearing evidence; the last evidence was heard on 15 July 2025, and no report has yet been published. Regrettably, it feels like we are moving at a glacial speed, when outside these walls, business is going on at an increasingly fast-moving pace. In my old line of work as an anti-bribery and corruption compliance specialist, it would be unheard of for an employee to be holding down two jobs, unless they held part-time elected office or were, for instance, an armed forces reservist. Why are second jobs permitted? In my view, they are a hangover from Victorian days. They do not reflect modern ways of working and do not account for modern demands on any hon. Member’s time, including 24/7 rolling news and constituents making contact by email or phone. I say yes to continuous professional development, but we are living in a wild-west scenario with no controls on how much time is spent, or how much income can be gained, on work outside Parliament. Members can earn 10 times their parliamentary salary on what are supposedly second, third or even fourth jobs. That gives rise to a question that any member of the public would be within their right to ask: if a Member of this House is earning more outside the House than they are as a Member, is being an elected representative not in fact their second job and their lower priority? That matters because it gives the impression that Members’ obligations in this place are not at the forefront of our minds. Mooted reforms to lobbying and civil service governance must sit alongside modernisation of how this place operates if we are to build a functional 21st century system that prevents inherent conflicts of interest from arising and encourages the right behaviours from all Members. If we expect the ministerial code to be updated, electoral law to be reformed and the revolving door to be policed more stridently, we should also expect demands on this place to be tightened. I agree with the likes of Transparency International and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East that there should be a total proscription on all secondary employment, except in order to maintain a professional qualification, undertake political activity or provide an essential public service. I know that the people of Bolton West deserve every hour I can find in the day to do what I can to improve my constituency. Do the people of each and every constituency in this country not deserve the same?

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is making an important point about the distinction between outside employment and paid advocacy. Could he expand on what seems to be his view that Members of this House should be treated differently from serving members of the armed forces, members of the judiciary, civil servants and other public servants for whom there are restrictions on taking outside commercial jobs in addition to their core role? What does he think is different about Members of Parliament?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  I am indeed.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to confine my remarks to the responsible, resilient and transparent use of taxpayers’ money. I say that as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, a role which sees me engage with ministerial colleagues from across Government on a whole swathe of issues. I push Government constructively to increase transparency, improve controls and increase enforcement when those who seek to defraud the taxpayer are identified. Public sector fraud and error is estimated to cost taxpayers between £55 billion and £81 billion annually. That is not sustainable when we are asking taxpayers to shoulder a large burden and when our public finances are already squeezed, at a time of increasingly turbulent geopolitical headwinds. That is why, back in December 2024, I was delighted to see the Government announce the introduction of Tom Hayhoe as the new covid fraud commissioner. He was tasked with identifying areas of reckless spend overseen by the previous Government and going as far as possible in claiming back moneys for the taxpayer. Since then, Mr Hayhoe has identified £10.9 billion lost to fraud and error across the covid schemes, at a time when the Government’s resilience was pushed to the limit. Let us dwell on that £10.9 billion figure. Of that money, £324 million was lost in personal protective equipment fraud during the pandemic and £1.88 billion was lost in fraud on the bounce back loan scheme, issued by the Department for Business and Trade. We talk about more money for the defence investment plan or increased resilience at a time of increasing geopolitical instability, and those figures of taxpayers’ money lost to fraudsters by the last Government are truly astonishing. Without straying into ongoing litigation, let us dwell on the PPE Medpro scandal for a second. It has become symbolic of the waste and poor oversight that occurred during some covid-19 procurement processes. As we know, the company was awarded Government contracts worth more than £200 million through the controversial VIP lane system. In 2025, the High Court ruled that PPE Medpro had breached a £122 million contract for surgical gowns, because the products supplied did not meet the required standards, and the company was ordered to repay that money to the Government. That matters, because holding suppliers accountable when contracts are not fulfilled properly helps to protect public funds and reinforces the principle that those who benefit from Government contracts should meet their obligations. That is a vital premise, because we must ensure that Government procurement is resilient and delivering the best value. Ensuring that those who rip off the state—and, by default, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, me and every other person up and down the length of the country—are held to account is vital. Alongside our debate on the Cabinet Office’s estimates, will the Minister articulate why the Government announced last week that they had chosen to only “partially accept” four of Tom Hayhoe’s recommendations? The first of those recommendations was that the Government should have a challenge champion in crisis situations—we talk a lot about resilience. The second recommendation was to ensure that small companies publish profit-and-loss accounts—remember that small companies were the engine of the bounce back loan scheme fraud. The third recommendation was that there should be stronger measures when Ministers issue directions to override the civil service. That is crucial, given that ministerial directions included overriding an accounting officer’s concerns about fraud on bounce back loans. The fourth recommendation was to have clearer central oversight of the spending of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government through local bodies, including grants. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister may not have the answers to hand, but I would be very grateful if she could write to me after this debate. Do not let my questions distract from the good work undertaken during this Parliament. I particularly commend the Cabinet Office for the work undertaken by the Public Sector Fraud Authority, including last week’s launch of the new public authorities fraud investigation and enforcement service. I had the benefit of meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) only a few weeks ago to discuss the vital work of the PSFA. We both know how critical it is to drive up transparency, break down information silos, and drive cultural change via the tone from the top across Government. As such, we should be proud that the PSFA has reported savings to the taxpayer of £311 million in 2022-23, £373 million in 2023-24, and over £480 million in 2024-25. That is a trajectory I want to see continue—an increase of approximately 50% over the course of two financial years. In total, the Government reported £7.53 billion of taxpayer savings from counter-fraud activity in the last financial year, including almost £400 million linked to covid fraud that had been recovered. That is vital work that should not go unnoticed, and it is not small change; those are critical funds that need to be retained in the public sector, for the sake of our infrastructure, resilience and security. The Minister may not be surprised to hear me say that we must not rest on our laurels. I therefore welcome the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test on establishing a central Government database to strengthen the detection and prevention of fraud, alongside enhanced mitigation measures and greater transparency in how they are implemented. I also support a new offence of fraud against the public purse, coupled with meaningful incentives and protection for whistleblowers to help identify and expose wrongdoing, as recommended by the campaigning organisation Spotlight on Corruption. My constituents—whether in Heaton or Horwich, Chew Moor or Chequerbent—need to know that the Government are on their side and that attempted public sector fraud will have consequences, no matter who you are or who you know. It is only by pursuing fraudsters tenaciously that we will be able to find the much-needed resources to support investment in critical infrastructure and ensure that we are as prepared as we can be, whether that is for the next pandemic, climate change, industrial sabotage or conflict.

• 17 Jun 2026 · High Street Shops: Illicit Activity · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is speaking passionately about enforcement in Birmingham Erdington. Does she agree that key organisations in the private sector have a lot of information? All these shops are banked by someone. The Government can drive down the barriers to information sharing between the private and public sectors to identify suspicious activity so that enforcement agencies—be they the police, trading standards or the National Crime Agency—can have the greatest possible impact when they conduct these sorts of raids.

• 17 Jun 2026 · High Street Shops: Illicit Activity · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for tackling this issue. I echo the remarks from her and my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) about the need to learn the lessons from our colleagues in Holland. We have all talked about the perverse issue of frankly playing whack-a-mole, whereby shops pop up and bad faith actors hide behind a smokescreen, whether from trading standards, HMRC, the National Crime Agency or local police forces that are responsible for addressing enforcement. Will she echo my calls for the Home Office to work closely with colleagues in HMRC, the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade to make sure that we are addressing the cumulative impact of the harm caused to local areas?