Rejoining the EU

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

I will take interventions a bit later. I will make some progress.

Many of my constituents who voted to leave the EU, whose decision I respect, agree with me that, 10 years on, the world is changing. Technology is changing, migration flows are changing, our climate is changing, and wars start, spread and are fought differently. All that leaves us as a nation far more exposed to external shocks. I think that most people are pragmatic enough to see that when the world changes it is a good idea to ask ourselves how we should change with it.

As a country, we have formidable strengths: the English language, the rule of law, a trusted legal system, world-class universities, financial and professional services, and leading science and research. Our future economic model should be to combine all those strengths and be the best place in Europe to invent, make, finance and export, but we will not achieve that by keeping rules that make it difficult for manufacturers to access their nearest market, for exporters to sell their goods or for companies to operate across borders.

I want very quickly to say something about asylum and immigration, because it is an important element of why we must have closer relations with Europe. When we left the EU, we lost the returns agreement that we had with it and were left with no returns agreement at all. Small boat crossings then shot up. Today we are left negotiating one-off, ad hoc arrangements with individual countries—most recently with France—which are hard-won but too limited in scope to tackle the problem fully.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I need to press on, because of the time.

We now have no access to the Eurodac fingerprint database, so we do not know how a person has travelled through Europe or whether they have already claimed asylum elsewhere. Despite all those constraints, the Government are making huge strides to reduce irregular crossings, but we could be making infinitely more progress if we were working inside the EU or more closely with it. We need practical co-operation with all our European partners, including action against people-smuggling networks, intelligence sharing and stronger enforcement, all of which will drive a faster, fairer asylum system here at home.

In conclusion, I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to investigate and set out the long-term options for our relationship with Europe, and I urge the Minister to make sure that membership is on the list of possible options. I am also keen to hear from him on the following points. First, what progress are the Government making in securing the agrifood agreement, access to the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—defence loans programme and the youth experience scheme? Secondly, what action are we taking to ensure that British manufacturing does not suffer as a result of the EU’s “Made in Europe” scheme? Thirdly, do the Government see any way forward based on our current—or even future—arrangements to negotiate away the 90/180 rule that has been so devastating to hauliers? Finally, what consideration are the Government giving to levying tariffs on imports of Chinese electric vehicles so that we can have alignment with the EU and protect our domestic car industry?

Mr McMaster, the petitioners, businesses and many people in Folkestone and Hythe who want a closer relationship with Europe are not asking us to turn back wistfully; they are asking for hope again. They are asking for recognition that we are all paying a Brexit bill: our manufacturers, our farmers, our universities, our young people, our hospitality sector—I could go on. Brexit has not served our national interest. The world we now find ourselves in demands new choices about how we can prosper in the years ahead. I thank the petitioner and those who signed the petition and look forward to hearing from colleagues and the Minister about how we move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York for Europe’s consistent polling in York shows a clear aspiration from my constituents to rejoin the EU, which I support, with 262 of them signing the petition.

How we progress our relationship is as important as the relationship itself. The geopolitical landscape has changed. In this new world order, we have leaders of core nations who assume dominance and build disruption, volatility and protectionism rather than bridges. That neither builds stability nor advances our collective interests as progressive nations interested in providing optimised opportunities for our families and communities in our countries.

Mark Carney has delivered two significant statements. The first was at Davos highlighting the importance of the new world order, with the power sat in the hands of the middle states to determine economic opportunity, national security and a union of nations working for the advancement of society against the headwinds of global challenge. Then, at the European Parliament in September, he set out a new model of associate EU membership.

As we have just heard, on 20 November, our Prime Minister will lead the discussions for a £10 billion opportunity to advance our economy. Nations of common interest will join together to address the destabilising pressures of Trump, Putin and Xi, to protect our economy base and to ensure border and national security. That is progressive politics, and it is our opportunity to ensure that we put forward an alliance for the future. The question then follows: to what extent? The EU has signalled its willingness to work with our Government to secure the best possible relationship.

[Warinder Juss]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I won’t have time today.

I recognise that in 2016 people did not know that they were going to be £3,000 worse off. They did not know that the cost of living crisis was going to bear down on them as a result of that. Businesses and agriculture did not know how bad the barriers would be. People did not expect the economy to be 6% smaller and our financial industries to look to Frankfurt and Ireland rather than remain in the City. I also recognise that people were not informed that migration issues would get worse as a result of coming out of the Dublin agreement. They were not told the cost of that. People did not know that their public services would have huge backlogs because they were not told.

Now evidence has come to the fore about the crisis that has been created by being outside of the EU. Therefore, it is appropriate that we look at how we move forward. People are poorer, have fewer prospects and feel insecure, services are failing and the UK is disempowered, so it is right that the Prime Minister looks at how to advance this.

How we conduct our discussions to form a new relationship with the EU over the next couple of years will really matter. Can we build an in-depth, deliberative process where citizens from all our communities help to shape the next manifesto commitment and what the relationship with the EU should look like? Can we call for participation from all our communities so that every resident can have a say? Can we ensure that verified material is accessible to all so that people can consider all the options available to them?

Only if our residents are at the heart of shaping our future relationship with the EU will it succeed. The Prime Minister has opened up a tremendous opportunity, as we heard in the House this afternoon. I hope the Minister will be willing to work with MPs and our communities to deliver this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Edward. I congratulate all the petitioners on the efforts they have made to secure such a number of signatures for this petition.

After 10 years, I thought that maybe, just maybe, we might be getting somewhere. The Government are starting to talk positively about the EU, and they correctly describe the carnage, chaos and disaster that was the Brexit deal, and even at his conference speech, I thought I heard the Prime Minister talking positively about actually rejoining the EU. However, as with everything from this Government, we need to be cautious. From that heady talk about rejoining only a couple of weeks ago, we are now back to the familiar territory of a deal and an arrangement with the EU.

I have just come from the Chamber, as many hon. Members have, and I listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say about the EU. He described a perfectly reasonable deal. I quite liked what I heard from him on that—he is going to try to ensure a number of positive developments for the UK—but what he did not talk about was rejoining the EU. If I am not mistaken, that is what the petition asks for: it asks for the UK to renegotiate its terms and rejoin the EU. I am okay with what the Prime Minister is going to do on work experience, immigration and all the other things, but what we need after the disaster of the last 10 years is to get back to the territory of rejoining the European Union.

[Warinder Juss]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Pete Wishart]

Sorry, I cannot give way.

Labour have not so much opened the door on ending the chaos and disaster of Brexit; it is more like they have one tentative hand on the handle, unsure whether to wander through, and they are a little bit terrified of what they might find on the other side. We know that Brexit has been a disaster. The Prime Minister does not have to tell us that or explain it in detail; all of us have been seeing it for the last eight years. We are just grateful that this Labour party and Government are now listening.

I secured a debate a few weeks ago to “celebrate” the referendum on the EU. The House of Commons Library briefing for this debate is roughly the same as the one for my debate. The overwhelming economic evidence, the consensus, about what has happened since Brexit could not be clearer—I say to my friends on the right wing of the Conservative party. It is absolutely clear that we have lost opportunity, diminished growth, and limited opportunities and relationships for our young people, and that will continue to happen with this Brexit.

Where does the frenetic talk of the past few weeks leave us? What should we look at from now? The Government’s response to this petition—I am sorry to once again disappoint the petitioners—was to simply restate the failed Keir Starmer lines that they

“will not be rejoining the EU”.

They went on to restate that nothing will be done about the Government’s red lines: no freedom of movement and no rejoining of the single market. That position seems to be totally at odds with what we heard at the Labour party conference. I wish that they would revisit what was said there and give us all hope that we will somehow get back. If they start to get some ambition and aspiration and make that a real strategy, I will be right behind them. I will cheer them to the rafters: “Get us back into the European Union and you will be heroes—not just in your party or your constituencies, but across the United Kingdom.”

However, from what I have heard today and been looking at, I am not seeing that commitment. I have to say that I am very disappointed. I know that Labour Members are all encouraged and excited by what they have heard, but I did not hear anything about rejoining the EU, which is what we and the petitioners want to hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lara Bird]

I will not; sorry.

Now the Prime Minister has acknowledged that economic and social situations have changed. So many of the promises made ahead of the Brexit referendum turned out to be false, aimed at pursuing the agenda of those who did not truly have the interests of the people at heart but were operating in the pursuit of their own objectives. The PM has recently stated that the realities of that decision have not benefited the people who voted for it and that many regretted their decision. That is a feeling that so many in Scotland understand, because the promises that those claims were based on turned out to be based on false realities.

[Warinder Juss]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lara Bird]

I will not give way, in the interests of time.

Yet although the decision made in Westminster and by Westminster in 2016 is apparently now up for relitigation —in what form seems as yet unclear—Scotland has been told that that same democratic privilege does not apply to us. But we cannot have a dual standard of democracy when it comes to reconsidering the consequences of referendums. We SNP Members have aspirations to be an equal and contributing member of the EU in our own right. What we are sure of in the SNP is that when Scotland does inevitably rejoin the EU, it will be on our own two feet—not as part of a Union begging and clawing its way back through different deals and trying to renegotiate and relitigate. It will be as a state in our own right, completely clear that our future has always been there.

If the Government’s position is now that the outcome of a referendum can be reopened for discussion, then that same democratic principle must apply to Scotland. If the Prime Minister is prepared to set out the mechanisms for a clear and closer relationship with the EU, then he must also set out the mechanisms for an independent Scotland.

Civil Service Pension Scheme

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ian Byrne]

A point well made.

James Burke works for the Department for Work and Pensions in the Child Maintenance Service. James entered partial retirement, reducing his working week salary by about 20%, with his pension intended to replace the lost income and provide a lump sum. Neither has arrived. With his mortgage due for repayment on 30 July, his borrowing increased and his provider told him it could not offer a new product. James made nine calls to the helpline, sometimes waiting around two hours. He was promised resolution, then told payment was imminent before being informed that no timescale could be provided.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

In my constituency, constituents have complained of delays of over nine months to receive their pension. One terminally ill constituent’s case should have been fast tracked, but was not. Like my hon. Friend, I have had complaints about people waiting over two hours to get through to the helpline and then receiving conflicting information, and of documents sent by constituents being lost. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should put more pressure on Capita, and perhaps have stronger oversight by the Cabinet Office, to get better accountability and more investment in technology and data quality?

[Ian Byrne]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I will not be taking any more interventions, because people have put in to speak.

Another of my constituents, Karen Morrow, took early retirement at the end of June. She will not receive a state pension for another two years. The civil service pension she earned was supposed to supplement her income. After two years of delay and inaction, she was told that her documents would be uploaded by 4 August and she might receive her pension by the end of that month. August came and went, and Karen received nothing. She has chased every single week. On her latest call, she waited three hours to be told only her that her case would be escalated—with no payment, no explanation and no reliable timescale. Karen has been left without an income since the end of June.

The circumstances of the constituents’ cases I raise may differ in nature, but the pattern is the same: they earn their pension, yet carry the debt, uncertainty and stress created by a failing system. These are not minor administrative errors; they are major failures with serious human consequences.

It is not just my constituents and many others around the country waiting for their pensions who have been failed by Capita; it is Capita’s own staff as well. Workers employed by Capita, including many in my city, have reported to the Public and Commercial Services Union that they are suffering due to the company’s failure to deliver on the contract. They struggle physically and mentally as a result of inadequate staffing levels, insufficient training, poor processes, inappropriate IT systems and constantly changing demands.

More than half of Capita’s workers who took part in a PCS survey said that they experience stress every day or most days, with a quarter responding that they are frequently extremely stressed. One PCS member described their day-to-day experience:

“every day is draining and it’s always a massive relief when my working day is over.”

Many are resigning because working conditions have become intolerable. More than 75% told PCS that they are considering leaving their roles. Is there any wonder we are in this mess? We know that Capita has failed in its duty to run the civil service pension scheme, but clearly it is also failing its own staff.

The Government’s actions confirm the scale of the crisis. In February, Ministers said that they were working to bring most aspects of the service back to expected levels by June. That deadline was missed. In July, after sending two separate letters to the Cabinet Office in December and March, the Government confirmed, in response to a written parliamentary question of mine, that Capita had failed to restore standard contractual service. Ministers rightly withheld the £9.9 million, deployed independent auditors, appointed a remedial adviser at Capita’s expense and recovered the cost of Government surge teams.

Last Friday, Karl Flinders from Computer Weekly, having covered the scandal over the last year, reported that the Cabinet Office is establishing a team with direct access to Capita’s systems to independently validate its data. That is welcome, but is it not extraordinary that the Government have relied on Capita’s own management information in the first place? The contractor under scrutiny has been supplying the figures by which its performance is judged. How can Capita possibly be held to account in the way that it clearly needs to be?

Despite those repeated interventions by the Government, on 7 September more than 1,000 bereavement cases were still more than 100 days old, alongside 308 death-in-service cases and 288 payment cases. Around 900 retirement quotations also remained from the backlog that Capita committed to clear. Bereavement, death-in-service and retirement are not cases on a spreadsheet; these are human stories—people facing some of the most difficult moments in their lives. The sequence is clear: a deadline was set, missed and followed by emergency measures, yet hundreds remain trapped in the backlog.

Progress is welcome, but progress is not resolution. The question is no longer whether there has been a serious failure—that is absolutely beyond dispute. The question is when will civil servants, pensioners and bereaved families finally see the end of it? I have raised this repeatedly with Ministers; sought Cabinet Office engagements with the PCS general secretary, Fran Heathcote; supported parliamentary motions; and tabled questions on the backlog, compensation, sanctions and bringing the service back in-house. I secured this debate because constituents are still coming to me in absolute distress.

This brings us to the fundamental question of outsourcing. We are told that outsourcing delivers efficiency and transfers risk, but when Capita failed, civil servants cleared the backlog, employers provided hardship funds and Government-appointed auditors and MPs became an escalation route, so where exactly was the risk transferred? Administration was outsourced; responsibility was not. A private company holds the contract while the public sector picks up the pieces, and all the while our constituents carry the consequences.

This is the failed ideology of outsourcing laid bare: born under Thatcher, followed by successive Governments of all colours in the name of efficiency while delivering absolutely the opposite and putting the burden on ordinary people. Whether it is Fujitsu in the case of the Post Office Horizon scandal, or even our failing water industry, how many more examples must we bring before this House before the political establishment finally accepts that this experiment has completely failed?

Today I ask the Minister for three clear commitments: recovery, compensation and accountability. First, on recovery, will the Minister set out a firm dated timetable for returning the scheme to normal service? That must include clearing overdue cases and urgently prioritising those without income and those with serious welfare, bereavement and ill-health cases. As part of that, the Government must also commit to publishing the number and age of outstanding cases until that has been achieved. The parliamentary caseloads that MPs have received on this issue should also be highlighted.

Secondly, there is compensation. When failure creates debt, higher borrowing costs, mortgage problems or reliance on hardship support, people should not face another battle to regain the position they would have been in had the service worked as it should have. Will the Minister provide a clear, simple and accessible route to compensation for financial loss?

Thirdly, there is accountability. The Government have announced a public interest test under which contracts worth more than £1 million will be assessed for in-house viability before renewal. If ever a service justified considering whether public provision would be more resilient, reliable and accountable, surely this is it. After months of failure under the administration of Capita and every indication that problems will persist, surely we have our answer. Will the Minister commit to bringing the administration of the civil service pension scheme back in-house, to put it back in the service of the people it exists to support?

This is not an attack on the staff working hard to clear the backlog; it is about the system and the political choices that have put us in this position. David should be able to reduce his hours to care for his elderly parents, James should not fear losing his home, Karen should not be left without an income and spending hours chasing her pension, and the other 32 constituents who contacted me should not need their Member of Parliament simply to access the pension service they were promised and have earned. Civil servants have served our country and our communities; they have paid into their pensions and planned their futures in good faith. They have kept their side of the bargain; it is time for the Government and the system for which they are responsible to keep theirs.

I ask the Minister for three things: recovery, compensation and accountability. The administration may have been outsourced, but responsibility cannot be outsourced with it. It is time for the system to do its part for our civil servants.

Historical Forced Adoption

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The unity across the House and the courage of a number of Members in speaking out has been incredibly powerful. I think this aspect of how this House works is not well known enough, and we all have a duty to show this House when it is behaving well, not just when it is behaving not so well.

The business of being denied access to records goes really deep. Individuals are trying to access records about their lives and their identities, and yet barriers have been put in the way of them accessing their own material. That has to stop. We need to do everything we can to make sure that those medical histories are available, and the hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to move at speed, because we are talking about events, in some cases, of many years ago. We need to move at speed, and we need to remove the barriers. This is personal information—private information—about people and their background and their identity; they are entitled to it. Nobody should be putting barriers in the way of that, but I know that has been done.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I am really grateful to the Prime Minister for his heartfelt statement and apology. As a man of faith, I struggle to see what possible religious justification there could have been to take babies away from young mothers just because they were not married, and I have to feel a sense of shame that religion could be used in such a way. I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all the mothers, campaigners and members of trade unions, including members of my own trade union, the GMB, for their decades of campaigning to achieve this apology. One would have hoped that the apology could have come sooner, but does the Prime Minister agree that it is never too late to issue an apology for wrongdoing?

[The Prime Minister]

It is never too late to issue an apology for wrongdoing—I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned, including the GMB and other trade unions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about what went wrong. The question that should have been asked was, “What support can we give you to be able to bring up your baby?” not the questions that were asked. If that question had been asked, we would not be standing here today in the way that we are.

Oral Answers to Questions

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for the question. I recognise the challenges that she identifies. That is why we are permanently lowering business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Every pub will get 15% off its new business rates bill, and bills will be frozen in real terms for a further two years. In relation to VAT, she will see that we are offering support by cutting VAT on children’s meals in restaurants—particularly over the summer period—with those savings set out two weeks ago by the Chancellor.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Q14. Every year, about 160 university students commit suicide. That is more than three every week, yet there is no established duty of care on universities to protect the health, safety and welfare of their students. It is not about creating excessive burdens on universities, but about requiring them to take reasonable steps to prevent injury or harm to their students when the risk is reasonably foreseeable. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss the issue so we can do all we can to prevent our young people from dying at university through suicide?

[The Prime Minister]

Any death from suicide is a tragedy, as everybody across this House will know. We are bringing together students, bereaved families, universities and the NHS to strengthen the mental health support provided to students. We have also appointed a student support champion to drive improvement across our universities. The relevant Minister will be happy to discuss that and other matters with my hon. Friend.

Ernest Bevin

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Ernest Bevin was a Bristol barrow boy who became our Foreign Secretary. In between, he became not just a trade union leader, but the head of the largest union in the country. He then went on to play a vital role in the wartime cabinet as Minister of Labour. A titan of the labour movement, some suggest that he was Labour’s Churchill.

In this debate, to mark the 75th anniversary of his death a fortnight ago, I will examine his achievements and their relevance today. Bevin’s accomplishments are made only more impressive by his humble beginnings. Born into great poverty in a remote Somerset village, he was orphaned at eight and began working as a labourer at 11, then as a delivery lad on the streets of Bristol. In his 20s, he attended lectures at the Bristol adult school and the Workers Educational Association, beginning his lifelong commitment to education. Soon after, he would become the national organiser for the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers’ union.

That informal education, and his life experience, made Bevin a formidable political operator. In 1922, alongside 13 other unions, Bevin led the formation of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. The amalgamation conference was held in Leamington Spa.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

On the eve of International Workers’ Memorial Day, this debate is highly appropriate. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as trade unionists and parliamentarians, we should commemorate that day tomorrow?

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should commemorate that day.

At the time of that amalgamation, the membership stood at 300,000 workers, but in just 15 years, Bevin would lead it to becoming the largest union in the country, with over 650,000 members. During that time as trade union leader, Bevin accelerated the rights, conditions and pay of the working class. His achievements included the introduction of a 40-hour working week, expanding holiday pay to 11 million workers and redefining the relationship between unions, Government and industry. Bevin truly was a visionary and a moderniser of industrial relations and left his mark on the UK’s political economy long after his tenure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

This is an incredibly important topic. The hon. Gentleman will know we have always been clear that our paramount objective is to root out the horrific crimes of grooming gangs, punish perpetrators and protect children from harm. It is important to note, as he will know, that the Home Secretary made a statement accepting the recommendations of Baroness Casey’s audit into group-based child sexual exploitation, which included a national inquiry into grooming. We are committed to changing the criminal law around adults penetrating children under the age of 16. We are also absolutely committed to ensuring that we root out these evil crimes with our work across Government.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

We are delivering the commitments set out in the cross-Government “Freedom from Violence and Abuse” strategy, published in December 2025, which sets out actions to prevent violence, pursue perpetrators and support victims. A ministerial group bringing together 14 Departments provides strategic oversight of delivery, driving progress, addressing risk, and ensuring collective ownership of our commitment to halve VAWG within a decade.

[Warinder Juss]

I recently visited Wolverhampton girls’ high school in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, and was pleased to see posters promoting the “Orange Wolverhampton” campaign, which is working with community partners in the fight against gender-based violence and abuse. While the criminal justice system of course has a part to play in tackling violence against women and girls, does the Minister agree that we need to do more to achieve community-based early intervention and prevention, and that educating and raising awareness among our young people—especially our young boys—about VAWG can benefit not only the victims, but the perpetrators and our justice system?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. This weekend, I was with Black Country Women’s Aid, celebrating its 40th anniversary, and its staff mentioned how my hon. Friend had been incredibly supportive of them. The first of the three aims of our strategy is to stop violence before it starts, focusing on the prevention that he talks about. We will focus on young people, supporting parents and working with schools to challenge misogyny and promote healthy relationships. We will also engage with industry and take decisive action to safeguard young people by making the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful content and misogynistic influence.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for his powerful speech in opening the debate.

In June 2016, my constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, following a campaign in which I and my team worked as hard as we have in any election where my name was on the ballot paper. For the vast majority of residents in Dulwich and West Norwood, the UK’s membership of the EU and their consequential status as both British and European citizens was fundamental to their identity, and their loss by such a narrow margin was viscerally felt.

The loss has turned out to be much greater than the replacement of our burgundy passports with navy ones. During the campaign, we consistently raised our evidence-based concerns that Brexit would harm our country. We were accused of scaremongering, but on every single one of the issues on which we campaigned, the passage of time has proved us right.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

The National Bureau of Economic Research has said that, because of Brexit, the economy is 6% to 8% smaller than it otherwise would be. At the first Black Country Chamber of Commerce meeting I went to, most of the businesses were talking about the adverse effects of Brexit.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the step forward now is to carry on and make the most of the agreement that the Government have made with the European Union, with a view to growing the economy and backing British jobs?

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right. The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear that Brexit has caused a 4% long-term reduction in GDP and has created a structural challenge in UK manufacturing. The export of UK goods to the EU has fallen by 27% and imports have fallen by 32%.

Digital ID

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

The Government are consulting on their proposals to implement digital ID, which is important for respecting democracy and hearing the concerns of our constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a consultation needs to be detailed, comprehensive and given proper time, so that the views of our constituents can be properly taken into account?

[Brian Leishman]

I agree. The minimum baseline of what the Government should be doing is listening to our constituents. After all, whichever party we represent—or do not represent—that is why we are here.

I touched on the possibility of a future Government with an ideological agenda. There is no doubt about it: that would create further inequality. Perhaps they could even be a Government whose reason for being is scapegoating people. Let us not kid ourselves that it is beyond the realms of possibility to have some sort of dystopian future Government in power, one that looks to use such technology for its own end, which is the exclusion of people from services or even—dare I say it—our country. If digital ID is introduced, it will be a big step in that awful direction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Northern Ireland has the unique advantage of dual market access. On the wider issues of application of EU law that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, he can be assured that as co-chair of the joint committee I work carefully and closely on these matters with the Northern Ireland Executive.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to relocate civil service roles to locations outside London.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

My hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour is absolutely right to raise the importance of having a civil service presence around the country. He will know the importance of the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government presence in Wolverhampton to the local area. We want to see half of our UK-based senior civil servants located outside London by 2030. We recently announced plans to relocate thousands of civil service roles to towns and cities across the whole UK.

[Warinder Juss]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I do indeed feel blessed to have the dual head- quarters of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which employs more than 250 people, right next to my constituency office in Wolverhampton West. I welcome the Government’s plans to move civil servant roles out of London into communities such as mine. Will my right hon. Friend please set out how these roles will work closely with businesses, the City of Wolverhampton council and communities in my constituency, as well as help my constituents to pursue careers as civil servants?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend raises some good points. We do not just want to see buildings with no connection to the local community; it is important that they have that connection. I also want to ensure good career progression in civil service buildings outside London. I recently announced a new civil service apprenticeship scheme so that we can recruit people from all backgrounds to the civil service and make sure that they can get promoted and enjoy a good civil service career.

Arms and Military Cargo Export Controls: Israel

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

I rise to speak about British arms and military cargo export controls—specifically, our exports to Israel amid one of the most devastating conflicts in modern memory. “It’s horrific. Gaza has become a slaughterhouse. That’s what it is: a slaughterhouse.” Those are the words of Tom Potokar, a British doctor working in Khan Yunis, as he urged world leaders to “stop talking and do something”.

Since 7 October, Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians. As a father, the thought of the loss of a single child is heartbreaking; the estimate of more than 50,000 children killed or injured in the Gaza strip is inconceivable. Yet despite the scale of this destruction, our Government have continued to export weapons to Israel, without pause, without transparency and without apparent regard for international humanitarian law. Despite the UK Government suspending around 30 of 350 export licences in September 2024, a new report, “Exposing UK arms exports to Israel” uses data from the Israel Tax Authority to reveal the sheer volume that we continue to send.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

A report in The Guardian last month suggested that despite the suspension of key arms export licences to Israel back in September, UK firms have exported thousands of military items, including munitions, to Israel.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)

[Warinder Juss]

The exports have included items such as bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and similar munitions of war. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is completely conceivable that those weapons have been used to kill and maim children in Gaza, and therefore the only humane and reasonable option is for us to suspend all arms export licences to Israel, and ensure that no British manufactured munitions are going to Netanyahu’s Israel?

[Steve Witherden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is easy for me to respond to—yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Since October 2023 there have been at least 14 shipments of military goods from the UK to Israel. Those include over 8,500 munitions, bombs, grenades, missiles, and 146 armoured vehicle parts. In October 2023 alone, the UK exported 150,000 bullets.