What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The Minister said that Governments are elected to lead. Most people would assume that means that Ministers are elected to lead, because they are accountable to Parliament and to the people. Why, then, are the Government giving away powers to the Cabinet Secretary to direct permanent secretaries, which should be the role of Secretaries of State? Do Ministers not want these powers to actually do their jobs?
Robert Steele was a beautiful four-year-old boy who died three weeks ago in Newark when he was thrown from an off-road bike that was being driven by a 24-year-old man. This is the culmination of a number of incidents in my town, and many others across the country, involving off-road bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. Will the Government consider a debate on the policing of these bikes, what further action we can take to prevent terrible tragedies such as this one, and the posture of police forces across the country, including when they can appropriately intercept these bikes and protect members of the public?
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place; I knew it would not be long before we saw him back on the Front Bench. I have urged the Government before to use the frozen Russian Central Bank assets. It may be difficult, as he has just said to another hon. Member, but that does not mean it is impossible. Given the leadership that the United Kingdom has shown, can I urge the Secretary of State to lead the way in turning the difficult into the possible?
Resilience is obviously the crucial question for the country, and the Government are right to be focusing on the need to strengthen the centre of Government to achieve that. My concern is about the legislation that has been trailed. According to a leak—presumably from a briefing from the Cabinet Office—reported in The Times this week, the Cabinet Secretary is proposing to take new powers to direct permanent secretaries of Government Departments. Will the Minister confirm whether legislation is planned to change the statutory basis of the civil service? Most importantly, does he think that the Cabinet Secretary should or should not have the power to direct permanent secretaries?
Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers just before 4 o’clock and there are 10 people who wish to speak in the debate, if I am counting correctly. An informal speech limit of about four and a half or five minutes should allow us to get everyone in.
Please do not feel rushed, because this is an important debate. I have put an informal time limit on the annunciator. If Members stick to it roughly, we should get everybody in.
Thank you all for sticking so beautifully to the voluntary time limit. Everybody got in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Alex Brewer.
I echo the comments made in relation to the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Nearly 25 years ago, in the April after the attacks, my husband and I visited the site of the twin towers. We were both police officers at the time, and realising that we and our colleagues would have faced the same dangers that others had faced really brought home for us the scale of the sacrifice made. Having attended a debate on confidence in policing yesterday, I know how important trust in policing is. Reform UK’s disdain for British electoral law was broadcast to the nation last week in undercover footage involving the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have emailed him—and some of his closest advisers. The Metropolitan police were already investigating Reform UK, and they have now confirmed that they are broadening their inquiry to include foreign donations involving polling. I find it ironic that a party that stakes so much of its reputation on claims of patriotism spends far more time trying to get around British law than strengthening it. Will Reform MPs share with the country whether they and their campaigns have ever benefited from any foreign money? I also reiterate the calls I made over recess for Reform’s home affairs spokesperson to provide evidence for the damaging claims he made online against a business in my constituency. Several weeks on, that business and I are still waiting. We are living in an unstable world, where dodgy donations are routine and corruption is common. Bad actors such as Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin and Reform pin-up boy Donald Trump are dedicated to destroying our democracy. The Government and all parliamentarians should be standing up against those threats. Again, for a party so keen to ensure relationships with our nearest neighbours, Reform UK seems happy to jeopardise our sovereignty by encouraging foreign interference. However, the Representation of the People Bill that passed through the Commons last week did not include a donation cap and therefore failed to protect our political system from the corrupting influence of foreign money. Given that the Bill was debated before MPs were aware of these concerning allegations, will the Government find time to legislate to protect British democracy?
I am sorry to return to Capita, but I may have a solution. My constituent John is retiring partly due to ill health and his salary is now at half level—he is really struggling. He explained to me that under the current system a retirement date must be selected four months in advance, and if the delay goes one day past that, rather than amending the figures, the system has to start all over again. My suggestion is that we make a slight tweak so that we save Capita a lot of work and our residents a lot of heartache. Will the Minister comment on that and pick up my constituent’s case?
Every time I raise child maintenance failures in this House, my inbox and social media feeds are flooded with parents sharing harrowing cases of domestic abuse being perpetuated, income being undeclared and children being used as weapons in their parents’ relationship breakdown. A report from the other place made sweeping recommendations for change. The long delays and poor processes are really harming children, who should be at the heart of these decisions. We have already had several debates on this issue, as the Leader of the House will know, in which there have been commitments to change. Will he ask the relevant Minister to bring an update to this House, so that we can see what the Government are actually going to do?
No sum of money can truly replace the loss of a loved one. On my summer supermarket surgery tour, I spoke to one constituent who lost his father as a result of contaminated blood products. He wanted me to ask the First Secretary of State about future scheduled payments. Will she consider index-linking compensation to inflation so that delay does not shrink the value of what families have been awarded?
Brierley Homes, a company owned by Conservative-run North Yorkshire council, is forecast to lose £5 million this year, on top of the £7 million it lost last year and an original £25 million loan from the council and repeated bail-outs. Multiple people have raised with me serious concerns about how this business is run, including allegations of bullying, corruption, fraud and potentially even money laundering. The council appointed an independent auditor earlier this year, but it turned out that that, too, was owned by the local authority. Can the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the transparency and accountability of council-owned companies?
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and support the statement he has made. I would like to press him a bit further on the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) about turning off the taps on the Russian war machine when it comes to funding. Earlier in this Parliament, I raised the issue of cultural exports such as the likes of “Masha and the Bear” and how that was directly contributing to the Russian war machine. Ukraine has now sanctioned “Masha and the Bear”, but it is still on ITVX and Netflix in the UK. Will he work with Cabinet colleagues to look at how we can tackle the ways in which Russia finances its war?
Returning to the emergency alerts, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of issuing alerts on a regional or county basis for important but more local emergencies, such as bluetongue outbreaks in cattle and sheep in rural areas?
As the Leader of the House knows, it is World Suicide Prevention Day. Suicide is the leading cause of death among under-35s. After nearly 30 years, Papyrus, the national youth suicide prevention charity, went into administration two days ago. Its HopeLine, a 24/7 crisis service, ceased with immediate effect. One of my constituents is absolutely terrified about their young adult child returning to university without Papyrus’s support, on which they were entirely reliant. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that this charity’s collapse is catastrophic for younger people? Will he speak to his colleagues about crisis support for young people and young adults immediately?
Families across Torbay are struggling to receive adequate special educational needs and disabilities provision. I know that other MPs are able to engage meaningfully with their local authorities to support those families, but sadly, the leader of Conservative-led Torbay council has written to me saying that it will not deal with me on a case-by-case basis. The ombudsman has refused to engage. Will the Leader of the House ask the appropriate Minister to give me some guidance about how I can best support those families in need in Torbay?
Trains are running at half the normal frequency on the west of England line, because of dry embankments. This has been happening for months at a time, and for the second year in a row. New Civil Engineer has written that “the London-Devon rail route needs investment”. May we have a debate on adapting our rail infrastructure to the effects of climate change?
I agree with the Secretary of State that differences on defence should not be manufactured for party political advantage, and it is sad to see that happen elsewhere in Europe. The EU still gets 12% of its gas imports from Russia. While this is down from 45%—the level before the full-scale invasion—the proceeds are still fuelling the Russian war machine. What is the Secretary of State doing to maintain unity across Europe, as well as across the House? Will he encourage our friends in the European Union to cease all Russian gas imports?
In January last year, Storm Chandra caused devastation in East Devon, and there was significant flooding in Ottery St Mary. Does the Minister think that, as well as attenuation ponds and SUDS, people should be encouraged to store water in their own gardens using such things as water butts?
I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this urgent question. I join the Minister and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in thanking airport, airline and air traffic control staff for handling this incident and helping passengers who experienced such significant disruption. This is the third major incident in recent years to do with our air traffic control systems. Given the poor passenger experiences, the poor management of the disruption and the poor customer service resulting from it, should the Government not commit to fixing our air traffic control systems before they commit so enthusiastically to massive aviation expansion, which our current systems and processes may not be able to accommodate?
My hon. Friend is showing his usual erudition on these topics. He mentions SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—which can be an important part of the solutions he outlines. However, many homeowners in my constituency find that those sustainable drainage systems do not work as intended because they are not properly designed and maintained. We have unenacted legislation that means developers are not being held to account. Does he agree that we need to do more to make sustainable drainage systems work effectively?
I was concerned to read that at the weekend RNLI lifeboats were turned away from two ports, Portsmouth and Southampton. As a result, brave RNLI volunteers had to face angry anti-migrant demonstrations—somehow, those protesters knew where the lifeboats were going to land. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that the Government make a statement on the incident, including why harbourmasters were allowed to turn away lifeboats that are there to save lives?
I have almost 180 families in Woking in temporary accommodation, and it is tragic for them. Some 20 of them are located outside the borough. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure councils can locate people in temporary accommodation locally so that it does not devastate their lives as much as it does at the moment?
I want to welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and to say how pleased I am that the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) remains a member of the Defence team. On 19 March last year, I asked the former Prime Minister about seizing Russian assets. There is reportedly £185 billion-worth of Russian assets in Europe, £30 billion of it in the UK. The Prime Minister responded, “it is complicated—it is not straightforward—but we are working with others to see what is possible.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 347.] Will the new Administration now act, as they have done on Gaza, which the Government previously said was too complicated? [Interruption.]
I put it on record that I am a passionate advocate for social housing. I have lived in it and I have worked in it. For the 14 years before I entered this House, I worked for a social housing provider in customer service, community development and housing management—my wife still does. I have seen the passion of staff who deliver those services every day, and I saw the frustration of customers who relied on them. I know how good the sector can be, and I know where it can sometimes fall short. As MPs, we see casework where tenants demand and deserve more, whether on housing allocation, repair issues or antisocial behaviour. I am happy to put it on record that this Government have helped, not hindered social housing since coming to power. We have had rent convergence and long-term rent settlements, and they have listened to the sector about phasing in additional safety checks. Those things are real, and I welcome them, and they deserve recognition from those on the Opposition Benches. I welcome the Government bringing forward more necessary changes, but I have to be honest that I am disappointed that the Bill is limited in scope, and I genuinely ask the Government to reflect on that. In particular, will they reflect on the report from the Regulatory Policy Committee on the Bill? On 24 July, the RPC rated the Bill’s impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”, based on its scrutiny of the evidence and the analysis put forward to justify the case for regulation. That is not a technicality; it is a warning that the case for what this Bill does and does not do has not been properly made. If we are to legislate on something as important as the future of social housing, the evidence base should be beyond question. I will briefly address the four main areas of the Bill. On right to buy, I support increasing the minimum tenancy requirements and reforming discounts so that they start at 5% of property value and go up to a maximum of 15%. Exempting newly built social and affordable homes for 35 years will have a real impact, despite what the official Opposition say about house building. I will move on to disposals, where I feel the protections are not adequate to empower local communities. I note that the National Housing Federation believes that the new requirement strikes the appropriate balance, but I have to disagree. In constituencies like mine, large-scale voluntary transfers of stock were the reason that providers got the stock that they did. In west Berkshire, the main registered provider has been created from an LSVT, and that stock must be protected. It is not enough for the local council to be notified; we must be told the reason for the sale and how, when and where the council will replace the stock within the local authority area. If that is not possible, a financial contribution must be made to a section 106 pot, following the practice of local authorities keeping right-to-buy receipts. As my constituency has many rural areas, I welcome exempting rural properties from the scheme, but I also think that we should consider exemptions for much-needed larger homes, such as those with four or five bedrooms, so that they are not lost forever from the social housing stock. Of course, I support the protections for victims of domestic abuse. I have live casework on this very issue, so my constituents will be relieved that the Government have acted. The housing sector will be supportive of greater powers to help those who need it. I have no major concerns about the repealing of unused legislation, but there are other areas where the Bill is completely silent, from protecting existing stock and empowering existing tenants and young people to have a stronger voice, to helping make homes safer by supporting housing associations to gain access for safety work.
A constituent has contacted me to say that their shift at an airport was cancelled yesterday due to the problems with the air traffic control system. They were told to not come into work, but they were also told to not expect pay for that day’s shift. Will the Minister confirm that he expects all workers who were due to work at airports yesterday to get paid for that shift regardless?
Leaseholders in Maidenhead and across the country are stuck with sky-high service charges, and many constituents have raised them with me. I have seen many of these service charge bills, and some of the costs are astronomical. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss these massive service charges, which often prevent leaseholders from selling their properties?
Our long-term economic success is only going to be strengthened by our cyber-security. As Ministers are aware, right next to GCHQ in Cheltenham is the Golden Valley development, which is going to support our cyber-security capacity. It is a vital development for the nation, as well as for my local area. Will the Government go a little bit further on the matter of the designated area, so that proceeds from that development can be held locally, which I think is in line with the new agenda being set by the Cabinet Office? Will they also restart the discussions with the local authorities and the developer around the places for growth scheme, as they seem to have stalled?
T2. My constituent Simon gave 31 years’ service at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, supporting the Royal Navy. He contacted Capita in March, ahead of his retirement, and was assured that his pension would be sorted. The same promise was repeated in June and again in July. His case is still awaiting triage. Can the Minister say when the backlog will be cleared and when Simon can expect his pension?
NATS is a significant local employer for my constituents, and I put on record my thanks to the engineers and controllers who worked hard to restore the system and keep passengers safe. However, this is the third such collapse in three years, and all employees who work for NATS, as well as the airports, airlines and passengers who rely on it, deserve better. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that a genuinely effective back-up system is in place, so that we are not back here again in another two years?
On Tuesday, Salt of the Earth—a family-run business in my constituency—was formally awarded the 2026 King’s award for enterprise and sustainable development. From kitchen chemists to natural deodorant pioneers, this fabulous little business is now manufacturing from a 16,000 square foot facility. Does the Leader of the House agree that small and medium-sized enterprises such as Salt of the Earth are crucial to growth across the country, and that their success should be celebrated and supported?
As someone who grew up in rented accommodation, with all the uncertainty that goes with it, I fully understand the pressures faced by so many families who just want a permanent home of their own. So I welcome many of the provisions in this Bill, notably the reforms to right to buy and the strengthened protections for tenants who are victims of domestic violence. Right to buy transformed the lives of millions of social housing tenants, letting them own a home when that seemed a distant dream. However, its implementation ravaged the social housing stock in this country, with over 2 million homes sold, but only 500,000 new social rent homes built since 1980. That is why I welcome the provisions protecting what remains of that stock by extending the minimum tenancy requirement, curtailing discounts and the number of times a tenant can exercise the right to buy, and giving local authorities first refusal when a social home is resold. These are positive steps towards redressing the balance between social and private rented housing. The Liberal Democrat-run council in Eastleigh has invested heavily in housing across the borough through partnerships with house builders and housing associations, and by commissioning homes directly. The recent announcement that Eastleigh will be one of three strategic partners in Homes England’s social and affordable homes programme for 2026 to 2036 is testament to its success. For too long, the victims of domestic abuse have been forced to escape their homes. Clause 14 and schedule 1 begin to correct that, giving survivors a simplified legal mechanism to remove an abuser from a joint social tenancy, so it is the perpetrator who loses the home they use as a weapon of control. Crucially, this Bill closes a loophole that has too often been exploited. Currently, an abuser can end a joint tenancy on a technicality through a notice to quit while possession proceedings against them are ongoing, leaving the survivor with nothing. This Bill stops that, giving housing associations the clear, workable powers they have lacked to help survivors remain safely in their own home or move to suitable alternative social housing without losing tenancy rights. My constituent Karen and her two children fled domestic abuse. She was refused social housing because she jointly owns a property that her ex-partner deliberately keeps off the market as a form of control. After a year spent living in a single room in a refuge, Karen and her children were served a notice to leave with nowhere secure to go. They have since found a home, but she should never have had to fight this hard to get one. Her case shows that a joint tie to a property can trap a domestic abuse survivor just as surely as a joint tenancy can, and the same is true of housing-related debt caused by an abuser. Clause 17 removes uncommenced provisions from the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies. I strongly support this. It gives tenants housing security and lets a family build a life within a community, not just occupy a home. The Bill would simplify what never needed complicating, and protect what matters to tenants. I support it, and trust that Members will ask in Committee how it could go further to ensure everyone has a home to call their own.
The Ethics and Integrity Commission’s report rightly argues that our transparency rules are stuck in the past. Influence is being exerted in ways that just did not exist a few years ago. There are Members of this House earning more than their salary as an MP for posts on X—a platform that actively incentivises divisive content. Indeed, the Register of Members’ Financial Interests shows that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has declared earnings of over £108,000 since his election to this place. Does the Minister agree that our current laws on what constitutes lobbying are too narrow, and that when an MP is financially rewarded by an algorithm for their political output, it crosses the line into financial influence? Will he update lobbying and ethics rules to tackle that loophole?
Last week, Channel 4 showed senior figures from Reform UK discussing how money from an American donor could reach the party through his UK-based son. Do the Government agree that covert overseas finance represents a clear and present threat to our national security? Do they accept that measures in the Representation of the People Bill do not go far enough when it comes to stopping foreign money being funnelled into our democracy and that the best way to reduce the options for those who seek to exert undue influence through big money is to put a cap on all political donations?
I was shocked and appalled at the vitriol and hate shown towards volunteers for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution across the entire south coast, including at RNLI Selsey in my constituency. They go out day in, day out and show us what actual patriots look like when they are saving lives at sea. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to our brave RNLI volunteers and make time to debate how we can better support them?
I, too, welcome the new Secretary of State to his role, and I thank him for advance sight of his statement. I say to him that the Liberal Democrats continue to stand ready to work constructively with the Government in the interests of our national security. Indeed, Ukraine is a great example of where we have common ground. He is of course quite right to say that Ukraine’s security is our security. As another winter approaches, Russia will once again seek to weaponise the freezing cold weather to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and harm the civilian population, so the additional £100 million for air defence interceptors is a really welcome move. What discussions is the Secretary of State holding with NATO allies to secure more air defence systems and interceptors for Ukraine before the winter sets in, and is the UK prepared to provide further assistance should such a request be made? We welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to increase defence investment. However, the defence investment plan is still not fully funded, and given the threats we face, progress on the Government’s commitment to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP remains slow. In response to our supplying technology for deep strike capability, Russia has stated that UK military installations and equipment, both inside Ukraine and beyond its borders, are now considered legitimate targets, and that only adds to the urgent need for investment in our national defence. That is why the Liberal Democrats propose issuing defence bonds, with a plan to raise £20 billion over two years to meet the urgency of the situation head-on. Will the Secretary of State urge the Chancellor to consider defence bonds, and could he perhaps share his own view with the House on this idea? Finally, we must do more to cut off the funding that fuels Putin’s war machine. Supported by western-linked shipping, insurance and financial services, Russian fossil fuels continue to flow into global markets. Will the Secretary of State push within the Government for tougher action to crack down on activities facilitating Russian fossil fuel exports and work with allies to impose a comprehensive ban on supporting Russian oil, gas and coal? Ukraine is fighting for its survival and for the security of our entire continent, and the UK must continue to stand with it.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to their places. Most of all, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. He outlined the issues comprehensively in his opening speech, as we would expect. According to the Circulation Foundation, vascular disease is as common as cancer and heart disease, accounting for 40% of deaths in the UK. That represents a huge disease burden on individuals and the NHS, yet we rarely discuss it in Parliament. It is a leading cause of preventable disability, with associated complications being worsened by the fragmented care available to patients. Living with vascular disease means living with chronic pain, reduced mobility and often an isolating loss of independence. Many patients are left with a sense of powerlessness, which has a huge impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Sadly, we are all too familiar with the issues in the vascular sector: inconsistent standards and access to care; the dreaded postcode lottery in services; pathways and referral routes that disproportionately impact deprived communities; and under-investment in prevention. It seems to be yet another area of the NHS where, as we have been arguing this week on the Health Bill, too much time and money is spent responding to failure rather than improving the quality of services for patients and preventing and delaying deterioration in the first place. We must do better for people with vascular disease and for their families. Having dealt with the harrowing case of a constituent, I know that a lack of care and the medical risks and implications of vascular disease can spiral out of control, leading, in the worst cases, to the premature death of a family member. It is incredibly upsetting when that happens. I cannot begin to imagine how devastating that experience must be. A report from the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease highlighted the avoidable harm that gaps in vascular care can cause to patients. It confirmed that gaps in vascular care are resulting in avoidable harm, highlighting: “Delayed diagnosis, inconsistent referral pathways and variable access to specialist care” for people with peripheral artery disease, venous disease and diabetes-related foot complications. It said that those problems are resulting in “thousands of avoidable lower-limb amputations each year.” Discussions with the primary care network in my North Shropshire constituency have revealed that our county has one of the highest rates of lower-limb amputations because of these gaps in care. I cannot imagine the trauma caused to those who have lost a limb, knowing that it might have been avoided. It is time we aspired to ensuring a consistent level of care across the country. I have been contacted by companies in the pharmaceutical sector that have highlighted the disconnect between acknowledgment and action. PAD is named as a “neglected” CVD risk factor, but it lacks the priority status, funding mechanisms and performance standards given to other conditions. They have also highlighted that the need for new surgical and interventional techniques is acknowledged but not operationalised with delivery timelines or resource allocation, and that there are no metrics for PAD. The absence of PAD standards or metrics in the main performance monitoring tables means that progress cannot be tracked and local ICBs cannot be held to account if they are falling behind. The modern service framework is obviously a welcome step forward, but the Government should also take a look at the all-party parliamentary group’s calls for a national foot attack pathway, a community foot protection service, national maximum waiting times for patients, the reform of commissioning to reward outcomes and the acceleration of proven innovation, which must be rolled out more widely. Beyond that, the care that the NHS provides at its front door must be strengthened so that symptoms are caught and treated early. The APPG’s report highlights how prevention-led, community-first care is needed to transform the vascular sector, diagnose conditions earlier and relieve pressure on acute services. Liberal Democrats want everyone with vascular disease to have a named GP to ensure continuity of care, which has been shown to improve outcomes and quality of life for those with long-term conditions. Fixing the back door of the NHS is just as crucial for us. We have long been pressing for better social care, including free personal care and more support for family carers. Obviously, we welcome the steps that the Prime Minister took over the summer recess to ensure movement on the social care issue. Our proposed package would make it easier for people with long-term conditions and disabilities to access flexible working. It would support those suffering from vascular disease to access the world of work wherever possible, and hopefully transform their mental health and independence, too. Given the prevalence and severity of these conditions, I urge the Government to develop a strategy to transform the vascular sector to give patients the timely support and treatment they need. I look forward to hearing what steps the Minister will be taking to address this issue.
I agree with the Minister that services should be locally commissioned, particularly where there is a high prevalence of a certain type of disease or condition, because it allows for the shaping of those services to local circumstances. There is evidence, is there not, that local commissioning has not given us a consistent level of service across the country. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that does not become more entrenched as we empower ICBs even more through the Health Bill?
19. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the emergency alert system.
In North Shropshire, we are on the border with Wales and have poor to non-existent mobile phone signal. This meant that many of my constituents received the emergency alert in Welsh first and either did not receive it in English at all, or received it in English many hours later. Because there was no pre-briefing, they were concerned to receive an emergency alert that they could not understand. Would the Minister consider pre-briefing when an alert is going to happen in future so that when people get an alert in a different language, or if people are trying to keep their phones secret because they are vulnerable, they have time to prepare for that and are not unduly alarmed?