partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Drumcree

   I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We were here only a few weeks ago having had the report on Robert Hamill, whose murder occurred against the background of the problems in Portadown back in the day. This issue is still very live and very raw for a large number of people in the community. I have to push back, though, and say that the Parades Commission decision has been upheld by the courts on repeated occasions. I did not revoke the decision, but, given the situation when the section 9 letter came to me from the police the other day, it was absolutely apparent that I had to deal with this matter. My hon. Friend asks me to get the Irish Government to be engaged. I always want to work as co-operatively as I possibly can with the Irish Government, and I have spoken to them several times, but in the end, security in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the UK Government. We need to ensure that community relations in Northern Ireland are enhanced.

   Hansard source
2. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Drumcree

   The right hon. Gentleman and I have had many discussions about this issue over the past fortnight, and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has conducted those conversations. I do, however, utterly reject the charge that I have in any way succumbed to mob rule. The truth is that things have actually passed remarkably peacefully—there has been no major disorder. Lots of people lobbied me or provided advice over the airwaves on how to deal with the situation, but I do not think anybody seriously proposed that the police should drag people off the street, and I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the rule of law is not just a single headline; it is equality before the law, transparent laws, the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and access to justice. All of those things are in remarkably fine fettle in Northern Ireland. As I have said previously, there are some abnormalities about the way in which the Executive and power sharing work in Northern Ireland. I am very happy to sit down with the right hon. Gentleman and work through ways in which we can make them function better. As I have said to him before, that may require some reform of the institutions at Stormont.

   Hansard source
3. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Drumcree

   I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. This was certainly a difficult decision, but a decision that I was in law required to make, having been written to by the Chief Constable under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act. I chose to make the eventual decision based on the advice he had given. More generally, though, mutual respect between different communities is often hard-won, and moments like this can rapidly descend into greater disorder and problems. That is why I was very keen not to let this situation run on at great length, which is why I responded in the way I did, but we still have a job of work to do in Northern Ireland to enhance mutual respect between people. Some of the language that has been used from one community to the other and back again has been utterly vile, and it is incumbent on all of us in particular, as Members of Parliament, to moderate our language.

   Hansard source
4. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Drumcree

   One difficulty I sometimes found when trying to reach consensus between the two sides when we gathered everybody in Hillsborough—when, I have to say, both sides were immensely respectful—was that the moment they spoke to somebody outside the room, louder voices prevailed and dragged them away from compromise. That is a problem that we have regularly, and social media amplifies some of that as well, which makes it more difficult. I should also say that there are Members of this House who have been vilified just for standing up for their constituents, and that is not appropriate either.

   Hansard source
5. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Drumcree

   The most important thing we have to realise is that the job of work of the Good Friday agreement is not complete. Many elements of it were parked at the time, and we need to complete that work. That is one reason why it is important that we get the troubles Bill right. I have met so many people who still bear not just bruises, but deep scars, from the troubles, and they want answers. That is precisely what we are trying to legislate for at the moment.

   Hansard source
6. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Drumcree

   When I received the section 9 letter on Friday morning, I had no idea when the court was going to come to its conclusions, and obviously I had been asked—and am required by law—to consult with the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable, as I did. That is the process I followed. I do not want to stray further into that process, simply because all of this is subject to legal challenge.

   Hansard source
7. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Drumcree

   I think the hon. Member is asking me to introduce primary legislation to change the Northern Ireland Act, which is not my intention at the moment. I am not sure what other process he is considering, but I am very happy to consider it with him. I noted one thing the hon. Member said earlier, or maybe yesterday on the television: the last thing we want is Chris Bryant running Northern Ireland.

   Hansard source
8. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Drumcree

   The hon. Member is nodding, so I got that right. Maybe we can agree with each other, because I want the Northern Ireland Executive to continue in operation. I certainly do not want to be in a position where I am running all of Northern Ireland.

   Hansard source
9. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Drumcree

   I am fond of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although he does remind me of the John Lewis line, “Never knowingly undersold”, because his arguments are never knowingly undersold. He called me pathetic on the television yesterday and he keeps on referring to mob rule. Every time people use this term “mob” about people on the other side of the argument, it makes it more difficult. I would also say that the use of the word “sanitising” was particularly inappropriate. It behoves us all to moderate our language, because people look to us to provide leadership. In a situation where compromise is normally the best outcome for everybody—for all communities—it is best if we double down on compromise ourselves.

   Hansard source
10. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    When I referred earlier to those who have been vilified, I was going to refer to the hon. Lady, because I have seen some of the foul comments that have been made about her, online and elsewhere, and I completely abhor that. As she knows, I have spoken to her regularly throughout this whole process. We have tried to maintain a very civil conversation between us. I want to clear up one other thing that the hon. Lady asked. She did not ask it in the House, but said I would have to answer it this evening. Earlier in the day, she said that I had to clear up whether I became aware of today’s judgment before or after I made my ruling. I think she was suggesting that in some way or other I knew before anybody else what the court was going to decide today. I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not. At the time I started my determination, I did not even know when the court was going to come up with its ruling, so I very much hope that she will withdraw that semi-allegation. More importantly, I had to respond to the section 9 request from the Chief Constable. I am afraid that sometimes the hon. Lady resorts to extravagant and erring language, and I am not sure that helps secure an outcome for the Orange lodge. The final point I would make to the hon. Lady is that she is absolutely right that everybody needs to uphold the law. I very much hope that she would urge everybody she knows who is now saying that they should not co-operate with the police to co-operate with the police. Otherwise, I am afraid it is a question of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    Hansard source
11. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Drumcree

    First, to be clear, the Court of Appeal was looking in its decision today at a completely different matter from the one that was before me. The court was looking at the decision made by the Parades Commission on 25 September; I was looking at the situation on 9 October. Those are two different matters, and that is why it was not material to me whether the court was going to be ruling today. As a matter of fact, when the letter came in from the Chief Constable, I did not know when the court would be ruling. More importantly, under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, I am required by law to respond to the Chief Constable’s request, and that is what I did. I decided, as the courts did, to uphold the original determination of the Parades Commission, but to consider the situation as it pertains now and the advice given to me by the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable. On the final point, I know there are people arguing that this is the end of the rule of law in Northern Ireland in some way. I just want to say that in the past few weeks, yes, people have said very cross things to one another and have shouted at one another—they have mostly done so in the Assembly, here in Parliament today or on the airwaves—but they have not been throwing things at each other. It has been peaceful in Portadown, and that is an achievement, not the opposite of an achievement. In the end, policing is about not just ensuring that a determination can be upheld, but judiciously preserving the peace.

    Hansard source
12. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine Fookes

    International Update

    I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. It is an absolute no-brainer that we move closer to our closest trading partner, the EU, and I know that thousands of businesses in my constituency of Monmouthshire will welcome the reduction in costs. I am sure that Monmouthshire farmers, too, will be delighted that they were at the centre of his statement, as they will be by the prospect of less red tape and lower costs when dealing with the EU. They were sold a lie by the Conservatives about Brexit. Can the PM confirm that Welsh lamb and Welsh beef exports will increase as a result of his statement and of the renegotiation with the EU?

    Hansard source
13. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

    International Update

    On 26 October 2021, when the Conservative Government’s Elections Bill was going through its Public Bill Committee, I was the shadow Minister, and I tabled a new clause relating to foreign interference in politics. The Minister then responsible for keeping our democracy safe replied in Committee that she had not read the Russia report and asked me to explain it to her. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that the Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, may not be fully across the details?

    Hansard source
14. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

    Written Parliamentary Questions

    The Procedure Committee has concluded its in-depth review of the written parliamentary questions system, and we were pleased to be able to publish our report just before the conference recess. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this statement, and I also thank current and former members of the Procedure Committee for their thoughtful consideration throughout the inquiry. My Committee regularly reviews the performance of Departments in answering written parliamentary questions, but there was a sense that a wider review was needed, because the written parliamentary questions system really was not working for Members. The number of questions had risen drastically, and the responses were not keeping pace or, indeed, meeting our expectations in terms of quality. Equally, we knew that the Government and the House administration were under pressure to deliver in a system that was at risk of being overwhelmed. We launched our inquiry in November 2025; we organised a survey of MPs, received written evidence, and heard in person from Opposition Front Benchers and groups of Back Benchers. I thank the many Members on both sides of the House who gave evidence to the Committee. We know that our colleagues are not always satisfied with Government responses to WPQs, and we also know that that feeling has increased as the number of WPQs has also increased sharply. We heard that there were frustrations among colleagues about a small number of MPs submitting a disproportionate number of questions, which could be construed as an abuse of the system. Members who make restrained and focused use of the WPQs system for their parliamentary work are, effectively, being adversely affected. The system, overall, needs to be based on a lower volume of input but a higher quality of output when it comes to responses from the Government. The flip side of our efforts is to alleviate some of the pressures in the system, but we think that MPs should expect better responses from the Government. We heard of concern about the tabling of some WPQs with limited Member involvement. We are clear about the fact that WPQs are a proceeding in Parliament, and should therefore always be initiated by elected Members. We cannot send our staff to speak in oral questions for us; nor should we expect our staff to table WPQs without our seeing them. At present, that is reflected by the need for our wet signatures on the hard-copy WPQs if we are to table them in that way at the Table Office. We believe that this should be reflected in the modern e-tabling system, and we recommend that Members be required to approve personally, in MemberHub, questions submitted by their staff. The fundamental e-tabling limit should remain at 20 per Member per sitting day, but limits should be introduced for recesses. It is, in our view, an anomaly that this limit applies in sitting times but not in recesses. Members will understandably wish to scrutinise developing events during a recess, but as WPQs submitted during recesses cannot be answered until the House returns, there is often a better way of doing this, such as corresponding directly with Ministers. We recommended a limit in recesses of 20 WPQs per Member for the first calendar week, and a further 10 for each additional full calendar week. In other words, the longer the recess, the more questions a Member will get. We remind Members that these are very much maximums, not targets to be hit, and that when we increase quantity, we may see a decline in quality. Moreover, looking busy by tabling more WPQs than the neighbouring MP is not an indication of how well someone is working as an MP. We also heard concerns about “carding”. We found that the process generally works well, but the terminology could be modernised. A card is not a red card, and it is not a block; it is merely a query that can generally be resolved very quickly if a Member nips into the Table Office. We recommended that carding be renamed “querying” to reflect that. When a Member accumulates a large number of unresolved queries—in old money, cards—at any one time, it creates a blockage in the system, and reduces the Table Office’s ability to advise other Members. When Members have 20 live unaddressed queries at any one time, they should be required to address those before submitting further WPQs. At present there is a cut-off time for same-day e-tabling of WPQs, but it is different on different days of the week, and it falls outside the normal working day. The Committee believes that a uniform time of 4 pm should be set between Mondays and Thursdays. That would be more straightforward for Members, and it would also mean that the focus of Table Office staff in the evenings, when far fewer staff are available, would rightly be on advising Members on matters such as motions and amendments for the following day, rather than marshalling WPQs. It would also allow questions to be considered over more time, thus supporting our goal of improving the consistency of colleagues’ experiences. Given the Friday sitting hours, we recommend that we retain the 2.30 pm cut-off on Fridays. Having an exceptional route to an urgent answer is very useful to Members, but we found that “named day” was a very confusing term for some. We thought that for the sake of modernisation, we could replace it with “priority questions”, which would better reflect the core purpose of a named-day question and would probably be simpler and easier for colleagues to understand. However, we recommend that the deadline for answers to priority questions be set automatically at three working days after tabling, which is the earliest that a Member can receive an answer to a named-day question. The limit for priority questions should remain unchanged at five per Member per sitting day. Colleagues should consider using an ordinary question to receive a detailed response, and using priority questions when speed is of the essence. We heard of a range of concerns about Government responses to WPQs from Members on both sides of the House. The Government should address those concerns, particularly by ensuring that questions are grouped sparingly and always individually addressed within a combined response. We recommend that references to information published elsewhere be used sparingly—there should be relevant extracts, not just hyperlinks—and that the Government communicate with Members and the Table Office when there is a block on questions on a particular topic. There should also be more transparency and accountability in the Government’s performance in answering WPQs. To that end, we have recommended that a public-facing dashboard be introduced on the parliamentary website, to be updated monthly, showing the performance of each Department in answering WPQs on time. That will empower Members, the public and even the press to pursue inadequate performance, and we hope that it will also help the Government to drive forward improvements. We recommend that Members consider how we use WPQs. We are best placed to decide, as individual elected representatives, when we need to ask a particular question, but we should also consider the cost to the public purse. There are many alternatives, including other parliamentary proceedings, ministerial correspondence, and the excellent services provided by the House of Commons Library, and sometimes we might actually obtain a better outcome from those. Artificial intelligence was an emerging theme in our inquiry, and we appreciate the concerns raised by Members. We are a forward-thinking Committee, and we see the benefit of AI in improving the processes, but we are more cautious about its use for content. It is most important for Members to check and remain responsible for their questions, and for Ministers to check and remain responsible for their answers. Ultimately, as we set out in the report, we recognise the importance of bringing the House with us, given the importance of WPQs to Members across the House. For that reason, we have recommended that the Government bring forward a motion endorsing the report as a whole. This would allow the House to endorse the report’s findings, recommendations and statements of principle, and allow the House administration, the Government and all of us to get on with implementing it. We hope that colleagues will support that motion when it comes before the House. We have overhauled the WPQ system in a modernising direction. Although we have not been able to take up every suggestion that was made to us, we have sought to give colleagues a better experience of WPQs and to make them a more valuable tool, including for the important function of scrutinising Government. Our Committee will review its findings and the implementation of the recommendations as we continue our regular work of monitoring departmental performance in answering WPQs. I commend this report to the House.

    Hansard source
15. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I have never spoken in a Baby Loss Awareness Week debate before, but that does not mean that I do not care. I watched last year’s debate on the television, and I see that many of the faces that were there last year are here this year. For the benefit of those watching, if an MP is not here and you have asked them to be here, let me say that it can often be quite difficult to talk about issues on which you feel that you have skin in the game, and that is certainly the case for me. When my local hospital, the Royal Lancaster infirmary, invited me to the opening of the new bereavement suite in the maternity unit earlier this year, I found a reason not to go. That was not because I was not glad that the room was there, but because I never wanted to see the inside of it. Unfortunately, in June this year, I did get to see the inside of it—not as an MP cutting the ribbon, but as a grieving parent. The thing about miscarriage is that when you leave hospital, you do not have anything, apart from maybe some leaflets from the Miscarriage Association. Today I want to talk about baby loss certificates, because they are one thing that we can have and hold when we have nothing else of our babies. I will keep this quite tight. I want to set out some real issues with baby loss certificates. I believe that we can make policy changes that could make the situation better for parents. The eligibility criteria for the certificates in England are far stricter than those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In England, people are required to have experienced the loss in England, and to be living in England when they apply, whereas in Scotland and Northern Ireland, people can apply if they live there or lived there at the time of the loss. That variation creates an inconsistency in what is available to parents across the UK. There is another issue with cross-border access to certificates. Since the English scheme was launched, I have been made aware by Sands that families with bereaved parents who live in Wales, but who experienced their loss in an English hospital, have found that they were not eligible for the certificates. The charity’s concern is that once the Welsh certificate scheme finally launches, if the verification criteria are the same as the English criteria, it would require the parents to both live in Wales and have experienced the loss in Wales, so some parents would fall between the cracks, and would never be eligible for a baby loss certificate under either scheme. There is also an inconsistency when parents do not live in the same part of the UK. That issue was raised in the Scottish Parliament’s debate on baby loss last week by my partner, David Linden MSP. The issue stems from the verification process, which uses NHS numbers and postcodes to confirm eligibility. However, that results in a problem whereby my baby loss certificates just have my name on them, as the mother; there is a blank where the father’s name should be—not because he does not want to be on the certificate, but because the system says no, as his postcode is “wrong”. We cannot have both parents’ names on a baby loss certificate when they live in different parts of the United Kingdom. David raised that issue last week in the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Health Minister Maree Todd said that she would take that forward with the Department of Health and Social Care. My only ask today is that the Secretary of State receives that request warmly. While it is not typical for a family to live across different nations in the United Kingdom, I hope that the Secretary of State will perhaps even reach out to Ministers in all the nations of the United Kingdom to ensure that where that is the case, families are eligible for baby loss certificates. When you are walking out of a hospital and the only thing you wanted was your baby, but all you have is loss, having that certificate is something tangible to hold on to and offers a huge amount of comfort. This is a “computer says no” administrative error, and fixing it would offer a lot of comfort to many families.

    Hansard source
16. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    State Pension Changes: Women Born in the 1950s

    2. What steps he is taking to help support women born in the 1950s who have been affected by state pension changes.

    Hansard source
17. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    State Pension Changes: Women Born in the 1950s

    More than 3.5 million WASPI women were affected by the change to the state pension age. Time is of the essence, because another WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes on average, without receiving fairness or justice. The Prime Minister personally assured the WASPI campaigners during the Makerfield by-election that he would meet them to discuss potential routes to redress. Can the Minister confirm what actions the Department is taking to support the Prime Minister in those discussions? Crucially, when will the meeting happen?

    Hansard source
18. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    International Update

    I would be very interested to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, in this international update, about companies in foreign ownership yet again closing down vital Scottish industries. This time, it is Syngenta’s Chinese owners in Grangemouth who will make 377 people redundant on site, and we all know that this means that thousands will be affected in the wider supply chain. The Prime Minister is right to talk about the pressing need to reindustrialise vast parts of the country. Will he come to Grangemouth and listen to local people who have had the heart ripped out of their community, and will he commit to spending the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund to save jobs and build the industrial future that Grangemouth and Scotland need?

    Hansard source
19. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Blair McDougall

    The Modification of the Law (British Steel Limited Property Transfer) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Modification of the Law (British Steel Limited Property Transfer) Regulations 2026. The regulations were laid before the House on 16 July 2026 under the affirmative procedure. Steel is foundational to our economy and national resilience, and to the critical infrastructure on which communities and businesses across the country rely. The House will be well aware that British Steel is one of the UK’s largest steel producers. The steel that it forges is used by our clean energy sector, in construction, in our bridges and on our railways. In other words, Britain needs British Steel. The decision to bring British Steel into public ownership was not taken lightly. The Secretary of State at the time of the transfer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), considered the public interest test carefully prior to making a decision, before deeming it necessary to nationalise British Steel based on the relevant factors and the likely costs. Given the financial challenges that the company is facing and has faced for some time, the Government’s assessment was that without taking British Steel into public ownership, there was a significant risk that it would fail and that this essential steelmaking capability would be lost. We could not sit by and do nothing—the company’s collapse would have led to serious and difficult-to-reverse consequences for steelmaking capacity, supply chain resilience, workers and the communities that have supported the business for generations—so the British Steel Limited Property Transfer Regulations 2026 transferred certain property, rights and liabilities of British Steel to a new publicly owned company, wholly owned by the Secretary of State immediately on 16 July. The regulations before the Committee are a necessary, targeted and technical part of the transfer. They were made to ensure the effectiveness of the transfer and the operations of the new public company. This statutory instrument is needed to protect the continuity of operations and give legal certainty to employees, customers, suppliers and other parties affected by the transfer. The statutory instrument addresses five technical areas of the law that require modification to ensure the effectiveness of the transfer of British Steel, reflecting the fairly unique nature of that transfer—a legislative nationalisation at pace—which was not envisaged when the relevant laws were first drafted. First, the instrument puts beyond doubt that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006—known as TUPE—apply with regard to employees moving from the old company to the new company. This provides British Steel employees with certainty about the continuity of their jobs and terms and conditions after the transfer. Secondly, due to the unusual situation and pace of the legislative transfer of British Steel’s business, the instrument disapplied the TUPE requirement for the current employer to inform and, where appropriate, consult elected or trade union employee representatives, in the context of this specific transfer only. Thirdly, the instrument provides that British Steel does not count as a “public authority” subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Procurement Act 2023, reflecting the fact that it operates and competes in the private sector rather than as a traditional public body. Fourthly, the instrument rules out the possibility that Ministers and civil servants count as “shadow directors” of the company, and fifthly, it disapplied rules around the reuse of a company name by a new company when the original company goes into insolvent liquidation. Taken together, the modifications have enabled, and will continue to enable, the new publicly owned company to function properly while the Government stabilise the business and consider its long-term future. Due to the need for the transfer to come into effect immediately, it was necessary to make this instrument simultaneously with the transfer regulations, and it came into force immediately on 16 July as a made affirmative instrument. The House will rightly expect scrutiny of the decision to make the law modifications in the regulations, and I welcome that today. We have brought the instrument before the Committee so that Members can consider and approve the legal modifications needed to give full and effective operation to the transfer. In summary, the instrument is limited in its scope of modifications, restricted as they are to British Steel’s specific case, and necessary to make the nationalisation effective. It provides legal certainty, supports employee protections and helps to secure the continuity of British Steel following its transfer into public ownership. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

    Hansard source
20. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Blair McDougall

    The Modification of the Law (British Steel Limited Property Transfer) Regulations 2026

    I appreciate the constructive tone of the Opposition spokesperson’s comments. Let me get into the specifics he raised. The steel strategy that we set out takes specific action with regard to the profitability challenge that he rightly mentioned. It includes targeted measures on global overcapacity, energy prices, issues around procurement and the availability of scrap. On energy prices, I direct the hon. Gentleman to the changes we have made with the supercharger scheme. For the steel industry more widely, applications have opened in the last few days for the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will have a significant impact for many manufacturers. The changes in the regulations in respect of the Procurement Act 2023 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are a recognition that yes, British Steel is ultimately owned by the taxpayer, but it has to operate as a commercial company. We do not want it to have disadvantages or advantages compared with other operators in the field. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have a responsibility to make sure that the company is run as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is exactly the work we are currently doing, including through the appointment of the new chair, Alan Lovell, who will work with UK Government Investments and the DBIST representative on the company board. On SSUK and, indeed, the whole ecosystem, the hon. Gentleman is exactly right to point out that we need to take an entire-steel-sector view of the future of British Steel. One of the unique things about our steel ecosystem is that there is not a great deal of like-for-like competition, and we do need companies to work together. That will be a key part of the work to produce the plan for the company’s future. We fully recognise the significance of the decision to bring British Steel into public ownership. It was a serious step taken in exceptional circumstances, and only after careful consideration of the public interest. The regulations do not revisit the whole question of nationalisation, and they certainly do not intend to take us back to the 1970s—although I would argue that pop music was better in that decade. Their purpose is narrower, but it is important to ensure that British Steel’s specified property, rights and liabilities operate effectively in law, and that the necessary legal clarity and certainty is in place following the transfer. That certainty matters. It matters for employees, whose rights and protections must be clear; for customers and suppliers, who need confidence that the business can continue to operate; and for the wider economy, which relies so much on steel. I reassure the Committee that the Government understand the need for proper scrutiny. The regulations were made using powers passed by Parliament in the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 and are subject to approval by both Houses. This debate has been an important part of the process. The statutory instrument is technical, targeted and proportionate. It supports the effective operation of the transfer, protects continuity and gives confidence to those affected by the transition into public ownership. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
21. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bill Esterson

    International Update

    The Prime Minister quite rightly mentioned in his statement the fact that 90% of Russian oil production is covered by UK sanctions. I very much welcome what he had to say about joining international calls for a ceasefire on attacks on energy installations. When he is discussing this matter with President Trump, will he remind him that the biggest reason for high diesel prices here and in the United States is not the war between Russia and Ukraine, but what is going on in the strait of Hormuz and in Iran? Will he remind the President that the action he is taking will not cut the diesel price and that all it will do is fuel the Russian war machine?

    Hansard source
22. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Rejoining the EU

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I hate to bring real people into this argument and into the statistics. However, there is a Spanish-Italian delicatessen in my constituency—I am sorry that for some people it has no importance—and it has gaps on its shelves. I asked the staff why, because their customers are there and the owner is there. What they told me is missing is the food, and that is because the small supplier of this Spanish-Italian deli has had enough of the reams of EU red tape that he has had to deal with since we left. The gaps on that deli’s shelves are what leaving looks like to its owner and to me. As we have heard, more than 111,000 people have signed this petition to say that it does not have to be this way, and many of my constituents have urged me to support it. I agree with them. Since attending my first Prime Minister’s questions I have made one case and I will continue to do so: the fastest way for this country to grow is to lift the barriers that came down on British firms when we left the European Union. Consequently, I welcome the Prime Minister’s readiness to look at every option: a customs union, a single market and full membership. All these things should be looked at in an honest way. The closer we get back to the EU, the quicker the shelves in my local deli will fill up again. Some people worry about the considerable cost of rejoining the EU. A chunk of that money will come straight back to farmers, regions and our scientists. In addition, the boost to trade—despite what is being claimed about GDP growing internationally—would bring in billions more in tax for our NHS, our police, our schools and our defence. Those are all the things that we need to spend money on, but we in Labour found the cupboard was bare when we came in after 10 or 12 years of Tory misrule. The return would comfortably outweigh the investment. However, EU membership would also mean more than money. One area where I have to declare a personal interest—

    Hansard source
23. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Rejoining the EU

    No, I am sorry, I am not giving way. I have been encouraged by our Chair to move on, so that everyone gets a chance to speak and not just the hon. Gentleman. One area where I have to declare a personal interest is in enabling our musicians and performers to tour freely again. They are people like my nephew Freddy and his band, Caroline. British acts played 21% fewer shows in Europe in 2024 than in 2019—and that is because we left the EU. Some worry that free movement means that anybody could come here, stay and claim benefits—well, it does not. In the past, we applied too lightly the rules that say it does not. Belgium and Spain insist on the rules, and so can we if we rejoin. Some worry about sovereignty. Well, our exporters have to follow EU rules, but we have no say in setting them. Membership would give us a seat and a vote—that is more control, not less. Our partners will want to know that our return is for keeps, and so should we. A decision this big must be the settled will of the British people. That is why I believe we need a manifesto pledge to negotiate joining the European Union and then a referendum on the deal. I realise that other people may have other views, but I think that would be the best thing. In 2016, people voted on an idea—an ephemeral thought. Next time, they would vote on a deal: they would know what being in the European Union costs and what it buys. Before any of that, of course, I hope that the delayed UK-EU summit, which is now happening on 20 November, will finalise the deal on the table. That will keep down costs on food and drink and energy; it will let young Brits and young Europeans work in each other’s countries, for a limited time; and it will build trust.

    Hansard source
24. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Rejoining the EU

    I have absolutely no reason to doubt what the hon. Member says. This does not just come down to GDP; it comes down to the detail—the minutiae—of the pain that we are going through as a country in all sorts of areas as a result of not being in the European Union. For years, we were a problem for the EU and it used to think about us, but the EU has moved on and we need to recognise that. Its problems now are Russia, China and an unpredictable United States. Too many people in Brussels simply do not know us the way they used to, so I would suggest to the Minister that we need to think now about ways we can become part of the furniture there again, starting as soon as possible. For me, the logic points inexorably towards joining, but I can assure my constituents that I will listen, as well as arguing that case. If I may, I will end on a personal note. As a student, I lived in divided Berlin—before the wall came down. I crossed into the communist east through Checkpoint Charlie; I saw the watchtowers in no man’s land. From there, I went to Brussels: I was a trainee at the European Commission and I worked every day alongside people from every European country. What I could see was that, in Berlin, Britain was helping to keep half a city free; in Brussels, Britain was at the table. We were not just looking on; we were part of it. I want us to be that again, and this time for keeps.

    Hansard source
25. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Rejoining the EU

    I must apologise, Mrs Barker, if we look as if we are having a debate just with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. However, does the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) not find it strange how picky the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is being in the facts that he chooses to employ? Last year, Poland grew by 3.75% and Spain by 2.8%; their growth outstripped ours. Of course there will always be some in the European Union who grow less quickly than we do and others who grow more. That is just the nature of things. It is not a fundamental basis on which to make an anti-European Union argument. Would the hon. Member for Surrey Heath not agree?

    Hansard source
26. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Baggy Shanker

    International Update

    Derby has the manufacturing talent and capabilities to help Britain succeed on the international stage, and with a brilliant £1 billion order for 29 new battery-electric trains at Alstom in Litchurch Lane, we are on a roll in our city. Does the Prime Minister agree that by championing British manufacturing on the international stage we can secure more of that work, and the jobs our communities desperately need?

    Hansard source
27. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anneliese Dodds

    International Update

    I also was pleased to hear what the Prime Minister had to say about AI, both in New York and this afternoon in the Chamber. Can he confirm that it remains his view that decisions about global principles and standards for AI should be taken by democratically elected Governments representing working people and not by industry alone?

    Hansard source
28. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I thank my hon. Friend for leading the debate so admirably. One thing we heard at the APPG on patient safety is the need for staff to feel confident to speak out if they see things going wrong and the importance of a safe culture, yet in the NHS staff survey only four in 10 midwives say that their organisation would address concerns if they were raised. Does he agree that we need to do more to build a safe staff culture within the NHS and maternity units?

    Hansard source
29. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I thank my hon. Friend for her amazing work on this issue over many years, campaigning for families in her area who have been harmed. Families often face long and lonely legal battles after the grieving and damage that has been done during the child’s care. Clinicians and organisations can often become defensive and risk-averse, particularly in this environment. Does she agree that, as part of the changes she is calling for, we also need to look at NHS Resolution, the clinical negligence scheme, and stop making it a fight for parents to get answers to their questions?

    Hansard source
30. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I beg to move, That this House has considered Baby Loss Awareness Week. It is a privilege to open this debate again during Baby Loss Awareness Week. I want to start by recognising the bereaved parents participating in the debate today, whether by watching at home, having shared their story with their MP, or even by speaking in this Chamber. To lose a child is one of the most painful things a parent can experience. I know today will bring back difficult and deeply upsetting memories for many, but we are here today in our children’s memory. Since our debate last October, the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss has heard from countless families, charities and support groups. They have trusted us with heartbreaking stories of babies who have died, concerns that were dismissed, parents left without answers and families having to fight the very systems that should have supported them. We have also heard from dedicated healthcare professionals, representative of tens of thousands across the country who are working incredibly hard to deliver great care despite the system, not because of it. Last year I shared my experience of losing my daughter Mallorie. This year I have been spurred on by the stories that others have entrusted to us. Each is different, but the message running through them is the same. We know more than enough about the failures and the problems. We know what good should look like, and families and professionals now urgently need us to deliver change. To everyone who has spoken at the APPG, often at great personal cost, I say, “Thank you. Your testimony must not simply become part of another report; it must shape what happens next.” When I opened last year’s debate, I focused on the national investigation into maternity and neonatal services. Since then, Baroness Amos has published her findings, and a national maternity and neonatal taskforce has begun developing a national action plan. That is progress, but it is not yet delivery. Time and again, families have seen inquiries established, reports published and recommendations accepted, only for the same failures to recur again and again. We must break this cycle, and make this national action plan a watershed moment. The test will not be the quality of the plan when it is published, but whether care improves, families are listened to, staff are supported to provide care and, ultimately, fewer babies die. Today, I want to focus on some key areas in which action is urgently needed. First, to underpin the action plan, we need new national targets to reduce baby deaths and eliminate inequalities. Black and Asian babies continue to experience substantially higher rates of stillbirth and neonatal death, while babies born to the most deprived communities also face worse outcomes. We do not need another decade of evidence to know that this demands action. The previous national maternity safety ambitions expired last year and have not yet been replaced, so the Sands and Tommy’s joint policy unit is calling for new targets to take us to 2035. These targets must be ambitious, transparent and measurable. The policy unit’s recommendations include national targets for stillbirth, neonatal mortality and preterm birth, alongside an explicit commitment to eliminating the inequalities in these outcomes based on ethnicity and deprivation.

    Hansard source
31. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    Unfortunately, the tragic case my hon. Friend describes is just too common, as is reflected in so many accounts I have heard from families at our all-party group. Yet again, it just adds to the weight of evidence showing that we need urgent and immediate action. We cannot wait. We cannot let those families down.

    Hansard source
32. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I pay tribute to those parents, and to so many parents who have launched campaigns in their children’s names. I hope and believe that that particular measure will be considered alongside many other methods and actions that could prevent the tragedies we see all too often. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to our attention. The national maternity targets are vital, because without these clear targets, it is harder to maintain focus, measure progress or hold the system to account. The Government should adopt this call. Progress must be published regularly, and the data must show not only the national picture, but which communities are being failed and where. We must understand where babies are dying, which families are experiencing the poorest outcomes, where learning is taking place and, ultimately, whether changes in policy are actually making a difference. This must include better data on miscarriage. At present, we do not routinely collect the information needed to understand fully how many families experience miscarriage, how those experiences differ between communities and whether outcomes are improving.

    Hansard source
33. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I agree wholeheartedly, and as the hon. Member will see, I will focus on that significantly later in my speech. On miscarriage data, Scotland is expecting to begin routine data collection on miscarriage from this year. England should match that ambition. Linked to that, we also need to address anomalies in how stillbirth is defined and recorded. However, targets and data are only meaningful if someone is responsible for monitoring progress and challenging failure. That brings me to my second point. The maternity and neonatal commissioner, as recommended by Baroness Amos, must be independent, empowered and properly resourced. The commissioner could provide a strong national voice for women, babies and families, monitoring whether recommendations are implemented, holding the system to account and ultimately helping to rebuild trust. The commissioner should report regularly to Parliament on progress against national targets, identify where improvement has stalled and require public bodies to explain what corrective action they will take. That must include being able to challenge the regulators. Long-terms issues with the Care Quality Commission and the General Medical Council are well recognised, but effective, trusted and fit-for-purpose regulators are a crucial element of any maternity safety system and a maternity commissioner should be able to demand better of them. The commissioner’s potential will be realised only if they can act independently of the system being scrutinised. The system cannot be allowed to mark its own homework. The commissioner should have a statutory basis, independent publication rights, the power to obtain information and make formal recommendations, and a duty to monitor their implementation. The office will also need protected funding and a dedicated team. The Government must explain how the commissioner will work alongside the taskforce and other bodies, what powers the office will possess and how its independence will be protected. That will be particularly important if the role is to be based within the Department of Health and Social Care. If that is the case, the Government should present a clear rationale as to why it is the best option and provide specific assurances around independence. Ultimately, families will judge the maternity commissioner role by whether it can ask difficult questions, publish uncomfortable findings and demand proof that change has occurred.

    Hansard source
34. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I think this connects to the issue of personalised care. When it comes to bereavement support, it is the care and support that works for that individual. I will talk later about personalised care plans and personalised support plans during bereavement, but it is about reflecting on what the individual needs, not what the system says someone needs.

    Hansard source
35. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sands—indeed, we are joined today by staff from Sands in the Gallery. There are so many charities, such as Tommy’s and others, that are vital. It is a fact that so many parents rely on voluntary services and voluntary support to get through what is one of the most difficult times in their lives. Those charities are indispensable, but at the same time they are often plugging gaps that exist in the system that maybe should be providing that support. The third point I want to focus on is on the question about personalised family-centred care. Every pregnancy and every family is different. Good care depends on seeing the person in front of you, listening carefully, and understanding their history, circumstances, concerns and individual risks. Too many families have described being dismissed or treated as a category rather than as a person. A safe service cannot be one in which parents are not heard. Nor can it be called safe if assumptions about ethnicity or background influence the care someone receives.

    Hansard source
36. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I thank John and Holly for raising that question. Of course, I agree that listening to parents, listening to families and listening to mothers is crucial to a good service. To me, it is the thing that defines a good service: the personalisation and individualisation of care. Building on that, families must be genuinely involved in decisions. Information must be clear and accessible. Risk must be assessed individually. When a mother or parent says that something is wrong, that concern must be taken seriously. The national action plan should establish what every family is entitled to expect throughout the maternity and neonatal pathway: physical and psychological safety, dignity, informed choice, and compassionate care and communication. In designing this change, we should recognise that there are midwives, doctors, nurses, support workers and bereavement specialists throughout the country delivering extraordinary care every day, often under immense pressure. We must learn from that and build on it. To give just one local example, we have the Lancashire Women and Newborn Centre in Burnley. Speaking with staff and patients there, we can see what good practice looks like. It is a high-quality environment, with a triage unit to catch early issues. There is mutual respect among staff and personalised care for patients. They take time to listen and to provide compassionate bereavement support when needed. This same high standard of care is replicated in many units throughout the country, so reform must not simply identify what has gone wrong. We must recognise, celebrate and share what works. We must have structures that identify best practice and effectively propagate it throughout maternity services. That brings me to my fourth point. Supporting and empowering staff must be central to reform. Throughout the all-party parliamentary group’s work, we have heard from healthcare professionals who care deeply about families and take great pride in their work, but goodwill cannot compensate for a lack of time, training, capacity or appropriate facilities. Safe care requires the right staff with the right mix of skills and the right resources and facilities needed to deliver it. Staff need time to listen properly to families, undertake training, reflect on difficult cases and learn from colleagues.

    Hansard source
37. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I fully agree. I am so glad my hon. Friend raised that point, because she has, wonderfully, set up the next passage of my speech. Staff must be able to raise concerns without fearing damage to their careers. The figure in the NHS staff survey is, I believe, that 43.5% of midwifery staff felt confident that concerns would be addressed. Staff are often the first to recognise when a system is becoming unsafe. If they believe speaking up will make no difference, an opportunity to prevent harm may be lost. Improving culture must therefore mean more than asking staff to attend another programme or complete another exercise. It must mean creating an environment with time to listen and time to care. Speaking up should be welcomed, concerns taken seriously and those who raise them protected. Boards and senior leaders must hear what staff are telling them. They must be able to trace concerns from the ward to the boardroom, demonstrate what action has been taken and report back to those who spoke up. Whistleblowers must be protected from retaliation or isolation. No healthcare professional should be forced to choose between remaining silent about unsafe care and risking their livelihood by raising it. If staff are trusted, supported and heard, they are far better placed to listen to families in turn. Fundamentally, we should empower staff to provide the standard of care they entered the NHS to deliver. Finally, we must deliver compassionate and equitable bereavement care. Our daughter Mallorie died at five days old. Nothing could have been done to prevent that, and we received exceptional care throughout our time in hospital. We also received good emotional support in the immediate aftermath from hospital staff, but trauma can take time to kick in. The impacts of losing a child do not end after a week or a month or a year. They stay with us. My wife, Vanessa, suffered depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in the years following Mallorie’s death. For 11 years now, she has had consistent difficulties accessing specialist and sustained mental health support. Instead, she has been bounced between short-term interventions and generalists, and often reliant on limited voluntary services. At no point was she able to get support from a mental health professional who actually specialised in birth trauma. She was never able to return to her role as a senior health visitor. She has now had her NHS career terminated on ill health grounds and she is back on another waiting list for therapy. Vanessa’s experience is far from unique. Time and again, I have heard from mothers and fathers about how the system was incapable of responding to their individual circumstance, and the timing and depth of trauma.

    Hansard source
38. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I will come on to the full package of support that is needed, but what the hon. Member raises is indicative of how care is not available when people need it most—we hear that time and again.

    Hansard source
39. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    Supporting charities is vital; they do so much incredible and brilliant work, and I would encourage any support that could be given. I will now attempt wrapping up and not take any more interventions —my eye has been caught by Madam Deputy Speaker. The care received after losing a baby stays with a family forever. Kindness, dignity and privacy cannot remove grief, but poor and absent care after loss will deepen trauma and cause long-term harm. To be clear, good bereavement support must include fathers. Only 29% of services offered basic assessments to fathers in 2024—that is simply not good enough. Services must recognise that fathers and partners will also grieve. We need to do better, and we can. We know what needs to be done. The national bereavement care pathway already exists and covers miscarriage, termination of pregnancy for foetal anomaly, stillbirth, neonatal death and sudden unexpected death in infancy. Every NHS trust in England has voluntarily adopted it, but implementation remains inconsistent because services have not always received the resources or prioritisation needed to deliver it. We must address that and require that all bereavement pathways are considered within NHS planning and resourcing. Effective bereavement support should be integral to all maternity services, with identified bereavement leads. All staff who may care for bereaved families should have access to appropriate bereavement training during working hours, and they must themselves receive the support they need in dealing with the losses they have seen. When loss has occurred, every family should have a private space to spend time with their baby, make memories and begin to process what has happened. Specialist bereavement support services should be there to support them through personalised support plans, and in the longer term they need to have specialist mental health support available to respond as trauma manifests, even if that is years later. The question is no longer whether maternity and neonatal services require fundamental change—report after report has answered that. The question is whether we have the determination to deliver it. We need targets to reduce baby deaths and eliminate inequalities by 2035, supported by good data to show that policy is working. We need a commissioner with the independence and authority to hold the system to account. We need care that sees and listens to every family as individuals. We need to give staff the training, time, capacity and protection they need to provide safe care and to speak up when something is wrong. And when a baby dies, we need compassionate, high-quality bereavement care for every family. Last year, I said that we had the opportunity and obligation to act. That obligation is now greater, because the actions we must take have been laid before us. Families have heard promises before, they have watched recommendations accepted, and they have been assured that lessons would be learned, only to see another family experience the same failures. We owe them something different now, not another expression of good intent, but evidence that care is changing and lives are being saved. Bereaved families have given us their testimony, time and trust. They should not be asked to return in another year—or in another decade—to tell us that the same failures continue. We cannot bring back the babies who have died, but we can honour their short lives through what we do next.

    Hansard source
40. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy MacNae

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I thank everyone who has spoken and shared their experience, which is not easy. In that regard, I would just reflect on the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith). There are Members who could not be here today because their losses are too recent and too painful. As many others have reflected, baby loss affects far more of us than we actually realise. I thank all Members present, and I thank the Secretary of State for being here throughout—it means a lot; it really does matter. Her commitment and passion for getting this right shine through. There has been clear consensus across the House about what needs to be done. We should all be very clear that in a year’s time—and we will be back here in a year’s time—we need to be talking about what has been done and real, tangible, concrete actions. To deliver that, we need the resource, the institutional capacity and the leadership to drive through that change with urgency and practicality. So next year, let us be celebrating what we have done, not talking about what needs to be done. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Baby Loss Awareness Week.

    Hansard source