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
As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), we are planning to begin procurement for enhanced wi-fi across the rail network later this year. That will include LNER, because in the spending review the Chancellor allocated £57 million to deploy low earth orbit satellite technology on our mainline trains. We need to get that procurement done, and then it can be rolled out from there.
I am obviously sorry to hear about the disruption to businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Let me take this issue away for her and talk to the Mayor of the West Midlands and all relevant parties to ascertain whether anything can be done to mitigate the impact on her constituents.
I appreciate the importance of affordability to the travelling public, and I understand the desire of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to see lower fares. We are rolling out pay-as-you-go ticketing to make journeys frictionless in the south-east, but there are currently no plans to expand that London-wide fare payment zone.
The Rail Minister often tells me that the art of answering questions on transport is to have all the detail at your fingertips. I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman, as I do not have the specific answer he seeks, but I promise him that I will go away, find out and come back to him.
I congratulate the Minister on the agreement. Does he agree that it is only possible in part because of the work that this Government have done to repair the relationship between Britain and the European Union? That is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar and the people of Glasgow who I represent.
I am grateful to the Select Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for her statement. Did she look in her report at the measures the Government could take to keep older people in work? As she rightly noted, that is a problem as people get older.
Longton station in my constituency was allocated money from the transforming cities fund to have a lift installed. Unfortunately, that money was reallocated by the city council towards some paving slabs. Can I have a meeting with the Department to look at how we can get funding back for lifts at Longton station and then protect that money so that it cannot be reallocated to other projects?
I say to the Minister that we should never apologise for taking bold action that protects well-paid, unionised jobs in this country and is crucial to the reindustrialisation of our nation, which we know is the future policy agenda. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), I have companies in my own constituency such as Langley Alloys, Hallmark Fabrication, Don-Bur, Brown McFarlane and Glebe Engineering that are all going to be impacted by the quotas and tariffs, because the grades of steel they need are not made in the UK. Now that we have this capability in public hands, do the Government intend to extend the range of steel that we make domestically, so that we can feed our domestic manufacturers and producers with the grades of steel they need?
I am broadly sympathetic and supportive of the proposals for Staffordshire, as the only MP in Staffordshire already in a single unitary authority, but may I ask the Secretary of State why he did not use the opportunity to make some of the very small consequential changes to the southern boundary of places such as Stoke-on-Trent, where development has spilled into the neighbouring boroughs but has absolutely no connection with the borough and the council it will now be? Did anyone from his Department physically visit those places to see where he is now creating borders? On council tax harmonisation, my constituents pay the lowest council tax in the county. Is it expected that everybody else will be harmonised to their level—a council tax reduction—or will my constituents see a council tax increase in order to give a council tax cut to some of the wealthiest in the county?
3. What plans she has to work with local leaders on improving bus services.
I thank the Minister for her response. Our world-class bus drivers are the backbone of London’s bus service but have borne the brunt of the extreme heat that the city has been experiencing. The Mayor of London is working with bus operators and Unite the union to convene a heat taskforce to protect drivers and keep London’s bus network running safely. Will the Minister join me in commending this work, and does he agree that we must prioritise tackling the impact of climate change to ensure that our transport system runs smoothly?
11. What steps she is taking to support bus manufacturing in Scotland.
As legal action is taken against the SNP Scottish Government for the ScotZEB3 grant scheme, which inexplicably saw more expensive orders go to Chinese manufacturers and cheaper ones to Falkirk—no wonder SNP Members have not showed up this morning—the Government and mayoral combined authorities must take heed of the exponentially rising Chinese market share, which has destroyed 115 Scottish jobs in my constituency off the back of the grant scheme. What more will Transport Ministers do, alongside their colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Department for Business and Trade, to send an explicit message to those who are purchasing buses with taxpayer cash that they should be buying British?
Many constituents have reported significant delays in requests from the DVLA for medical information. My constituent Graham, for whom it took five months from first contact with the DVLA to resolve his inquiry, reported that the delay has had a significant impact on his mental health due to the loss of independence. Behind each of these statistics is a person, so I add my name to the welcome call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson). Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement after the recess, so that Transport Ministers can hear about DVLA waiting times from hon. Members and update the House on what they are doing to resolve them?
T10. Heugh Street bridge has been closed since November. The council only applied to the structures fund after I raised the matter here, and despite pleas, it has still not implemented proper diversions. The bridge is absolutely vital on Great North Run day in September. Can the Minister suggest what else we can do next?
I echo Mr Speaker’s comments at the start of business questions and hope that everyone has a lovely summer. Reform-led South Tyneside council is planning to close down our publicly run, high-quality STANLEY’s—South Tyneside Accredited Network for Learning in the Early Years—nurseries and daycare, which will affect hundreds of children, their families, and staff. The campaigners’ petition has attracted more than 11,000 signatures. If the seven STANLEY’s centres in South Shields close, the children will have nowhere else to go. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to press urgently for tighter controls on councils that ride roughshod over their communities like this?
I echo the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my fellow Committee member, in praising my hon. Friend for doing such a brilliant job of presenting this report on behalf of all of us on the Committee. I also thank the excellent Committee staff, who helped me when I had to speak at the Night Time Economy Summit in Liverpool in February. There was a panel on this very subject—protecting heritage buildings— in a city that had UNESCO world heritage site status between 2004 and 2021. My question is really about the changing nature of these things; Liverpool’s status was taken away when the new Everton stadium spoilt the skyline. How can we future-proof some of these things? The Committee staff helped me with my remarks at that Liverpool conference, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), my hon. Friend’s new constituency neighbour and the future Prime Minister, also spoke, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the former Deputy Prime Minister. I was being lobbied at the summit, and the point being made to me was that the United Nations also has something called intangible cultural heritage: stuff like human traditions and practices—
My question requires a lot of context, Sir Desmond. I am springing it on my hon. Friend, so I do not want to just say, “Do you approve of this?”; I need to explain. Sorry—I am getting to the point. Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be a way of knitting together heritage buildings and the intangible cultural aspects of value? For example, what about Wigan Casino and Northern Soul music? Could we find a way of mixing up the two?
I thank the hon. Member for his speech. I would like to know whether he is aware of any evidence that mass screening of young people with ECGs will actually improve matters.
I agree with everything that the Minister has to say—what a surprise—but particularly the fact that when the new Government came in, they did something about these 40 “new” hospitals that were not full hospitals. The people of Bury St Edmunds were delighted to learn that their RAAC-affected hospital, which is tumbling down, will be one of the first to be reconstructed. We look forward to that and are grateful for the decisions made by the Government.
I am confused by the Opposition referring in their new clause to a requirement to “make regulations” in this respect, as the private sector is already widely used to reduce waiting lists where appropriate. However, we must also be aware of the problem we have with overuse of private facilities. That can have an effect on the provision of NHS services, because the number of available staff is limited. I think particularly of ophthalmology services, as we have created a situation in which the overprovision of private services has disabled the provision of ophthalmology services.
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member, who is a medical colleague of mine, has to say. Although I think that a fracture liaison service is an excellent idea, there are many, many aspects of medical care that require careful attention, such as the management of people with hearing loss—my own field—or the assessment of people with chronic renal failure. Does the shadow Minister believe that all aspects of each individual disease category require some sort of primary legislation?
Does the Minister agree that the single most effective thing that we have done for public health since we were elected is to get the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 passed? The gradual abolition of cigarette smoking will save more lives than anything else we could conceivably do in politics.
Does the Minister agree that managers in the NHS sometimes get a very bad press from the medical profession? I believe that to be wholly unjustified.
Does the hon. Member agree that the invention of vaccination by Jenner centuries ago is the single most important medical invention we have had in this country?
I am interested in what the hon. Member has to say about strike action. I was involved in trying to get the resident doctors’ strike stopped, but was unsuccessful for many months. I think she is talking about the principle of whether people involved in medical care should ever go on strike. If she were to apply the proposed measure to medical practitioners, would she introduce the same rule for nurses?
This is, obviously, a very interesting discussion. I agree—I actually do—that medical practitioners should not go on strike, but the question is whether that should be the law. I would apply the same question to nurses, a point that the hon. Lady has not answered.
I wonder whether the hon. Member’s experience mirrors mine. Many years ago, it seemed to be easy for general practitioners to ring me up. I often received telephone calls from general practitioners asking for advice about patients. As time went on, general practitioners became busier and busier and seemed to have less time to telephone consultants. When I started my consultant career, I spoke often to general practitioners, and by the time I got elected to Parliament and had to stop, I found that was a very unusual thing. Has her experience been similar?
The other important fact is that more and more hospital referrals were not coming from general practitioners at all, but from other people working in the general practice such as nurses and physician associates, who are less confident in forming a clinical judgment.
As the summer holidays approach and with all the lovely sunny weather, I really hope that children across my constituency take the chance to spend plenty of time playing outside. I know how important it is for their wellbeing and it is a priority for a number of my “Pride In” events across my constituency, in particular to improve play parks in Dragon park in Wharncliffe Side, Mortomley park in High Green and Coronation field in Dodworth. I am thrilled that our Labour Government have already put £18 million into creating and refurbishing playgrounds across England. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can access that funding for local playgrounds to ensure that children and young people growing up in my constituency can have better places to play?
I thank the Minister for his statement. In Gravesham, we mostly advocated for option 5A and against options 1A and 4D. I welcome the decision to pursue 4B, as it is clear that the Government have listened to the calls for smaller communities that are local to councillors, and that keep local identity while having room for growth and jobs. One concern remains about the debt for Kent and Medway councils. Thanks to a Labour council, Gravesham is financially sound; how can the Government ensure that the new authority will continue to be like Gravesham?
Lightwood in my constituency is earmarked in the emerging local plan for a whopping 3,000 new homes. Not only would a development of that size be simply too much for the area, but no masterplan has been brought forward to guide development. Without a proper masterplan, there is a risk of piecemeal development, and my constituents cannot be reassured that there will be the transport, schools, healthcare, protected green spaces and updated water infrastructure that their communities need. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on the importance of requiring masterplans for large-scale developments?
My constituency straddles both the proposed Staffordshire unitaries quite substantially. I welcome the creation of a North Staffordshire unitary—an area that has a long-held identity and significant growth potential—but opting for the smaller proposal for North Staffordshire and creating one much larger Southern Staffordshire unitary does create some concerns. I know that my Stone rural villages, such as Swynnerton and Oulton, will be happy with today’s announcement, but can the Secretary of State reassure my Stone rural constituents that they will be heard equally sitting north of Stafford, as they will be in the large southern unitary, and that the proposed smaller North Staffordshire unitary will be an equal member in the strategic authority following devolution?
I express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to present this Work and Pensions Select Committee report on our inquiry into the transition to state pension age, which is a really important area for us to examine. Our inquiry follows very closely on from the inquiry we held last year into pensioner poverty—that report was published this time last year. During that inquiry, we identified the real health and financial issues facing many working-age people as they approach state pension age. This was particularly evident following the increase in the state pension age to 66 back in 2020, but as many—but not all—know, the state pension age has started to rise from 66 as of April this year, and will reach 67 by April 2028. Our reports have shown that people experience the effects of that state pension age increase unevenly. Our transition to state pension age inquiry asked a direct question: what happens to those who cannot keep working until their state pension begins? The Committee recognises the pressures on the state pension system. In 2005, spending on the state pension and pensioner benefits was 5.3% of GDP. Twenty years later, as society has aged, that figure has increased to 6%, and it is estimated that by 2070 it will be as high as 9%. Over half of all Department for Work and Pensions spending is spent on the state pension and, as I have said, this is set to increase as our society continues to age. The Committee recognises the need to balance sustainability, adequacy and fairness in our social security system as a whole, including our state pension system. However, fairness must mean fairness not only between generations, but within generations. Fairness to those who are least well equipped to build a secure retirement is equally important. Unfortunately, it is clear that disadvantage, ill health and frailty are not spread evenly across the country; they are concentrated in some communities more than others, and they go hand in hand with poverty. It cannot be fair to ask those with the poorest health, the fewest resources and the greatest risks to face the increase in state pension age without support. The evidence that we received was clear: financial resources, the capacity to work, and good health help people manage the transition to a higher state pension age. However, many people reach their early 60s in poor health and unable to work, after years in low-paid and often physically demanding work. As the Health Foundation’s recent report shows, since 2012 the healthy life expectancy—the average age someone is expected to live in good health—has fallen by two years, to 60.7 years for men and 60.9 years for women. Again, that is an average; in areas such as mine, a former industrial area, the healthy life expectancy for men and women is 56 and 58 years, so we can see the difficulties that the country is facing with this issue. Of course, different cohorts will have different healthy life expectancies as well. Many people experience disadvantages in older age as a product of a life lived in poverty, having few financial resources and having experienced insecure work and, often, poor housing. This poor health in later working life is reflected in different employment rates; for example, in 2025 only 42% of people aged 65 were in work. For those aged 66—the current state pension age—that figure fell to under 30%, less than one in three. However, ill health is not the only reason people leave work. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), told us that while poorer people tend to leave work before state pension age because of ill health and/or disability, wealthier people are more likely to retire early because they can afford to do so. There are other reasons why people leave work before state pension age, including becoming family carers. On the flip side, we heard about older workers who wanted to work but could not find a suitable job, and people who had left employment because of illness or caring responsibilities and could not get back into work. Sometimes these people ended up having to draw down small pension savings just to get by before their state pension began. It is not generally recognised that the previous state pension age increase from 65 to 66 caused a doubling of absolute poverty among 65-year-olds. Our real concern is that the rise in the state pension age to 67 may have an even greater effect. The Committee heard that work-limiting health conditions among people aged 60 to 64 have increased from 28% in 2014 to 31% in 2024. We also heard that almost half of people aged 60 to 66 in the lowest income quintile were already classified as frail. These are people who are vulnerable to deterioration in physical and cognitive functioning. The Department has said that the poverty that pensioners and pre-pensioners experienced when the state pension age rose from 65 to 66 was mostly temporary, because people were lifted out of poverty as soon as they reached state pension age. However, temporary poverty can still do lasting harm—it can mean going without essentials and carrying stress into later life. Half of pre-pensioners are already frail; experiencing poverty, even temporary poverty, increases the risk of accelerating or exacerbating this deterioration in physical and cognitive function. These issues are not inevitable—they are solvable. First, older workers need better support, healthier workplaces and flexible working opportunities. The Government’s current approach is focused on supporting later working, including through the Mayfield review, which the Committee wholeheartedly supports and welcomes. As we have said in other reports this year, we wish the Government would do more to accelerate that work. However, it is unclear how many people would be lifted out of poverty by the Government’s current labour market measures. We hope that the Mayfield review will help in time, but it is a three to seven-year programme, and even if change comes quickly, it could come too late for many people who are now approaching the state pension age. Support to stay in work often needs to reach people in their 50s, rather than in their mid-60s. That is why my Committee concluded that additional social security support is needed. That is not an abstract concern, but a direct and foreseeable effect of state pension age policy. For people unable to work, the longer wait for the state pension can mean a year or more on inadequate working age benefits, a year using up savings or a year of hardship. We recommend that the Government as a minimum consult on an uplift in universal credit in the year before state pension age, with the aim of introducing additional support by the end of this year. We heard that such an increase would cost around £600 million a year, but that must be considered alongside the estimated savings of around £10.5 billion a year once the state pension age is 67, compared with if it had stayed at 66. We recognise that work incentives matter, but the proposal is modest. It is targeted at people in the year before state pension age. Many of those out of the labour market at that point are unlikely to return to it. The overriding priority would be to prevent hardship that would otherwise be the predictable result of public policy enacted in the Pensions Act 2014. We also recommend that when the Secretary of State’s state pension age review commences, they consult on longer term support for those unable to work up to state pension age. That review should model costs and benefits, including the effects on work incentives downstream and on health and social care services. Our report also looks at Government decision making. The Government have relied on impact assessments from 2011 and 2013. We think those assessments are now outdated and insufficient. They do not reflect the recent increase in work-limiting ill health and deepening inequality in healthy life expectancy, and they do not provide a basis for understanding who would be most affected by the rise to 67. In 2023, the previous Government decided to proceed with the increase to 67, but said they would keep under review the position of people unable to continue to work. No such review had been published by the time of the 2024 general election, and the current Government do not plan to evaluate the increase until after it is completed in 2028. That is too late. They will have missed an opportunity to identify risks and put mitigations in place before any further increases take effect. [Interruption.] I have just about half a minute left, if that is convenient, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Committee recommends a more holistic approach to future assessments. The Department should consider the cumulative impact of policies on individuals. It should use evidence that reflects employment history, occupational class, health status, caring history, income and protected characteristics. It should consult the chief medical officer on health impacts. It should estimate likely poverty increases in time to act before they happen. I also mention the importance of communication. Not everybody is aware of the increase to 67, and we know from previous pension policy the impact that can have on people. Finally, I express my concern about the irresponsible rumours of a potential acceleration of the further increase in the state pension age. That fear-mongering is unhelpful, to say the least, and is untrue. I commend my report to the House.
The Mayfield review came up with some good recommendations, which we thoroughly support, and I can direct my hon. Friend to other reports that made similar recommendations. It is important that we look at older people and not just people with health issues and disabilities.
I thank my hon. Friend for presenting this excellent report. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have declared a heritage emergency, but the restoration of our historic buildings is repeatedly held back by fragmented funding and the need to negotiate separately with numerous funding bodies. Does she agree that the Government should bring together the main Departments and heritage funders around one table in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, so that we can turn our beautiful yet endangered buildings into engines of regeneration?
Back in April, I joined residents for a walk around the Mitchell Gardens estate in Kidsgrove, where Taylor Wimpey and its estate management company Trinity Estates are letting residents down by failing to maintain the estate, despite residents paying a significant amount in fees. Neither Taylor Wimpey nor Trinity Estates has responded to my requests for a meeting, some three months on. Does the Leader of the House agree that is completely unacceptable?
So much has been said across north Staffordshire about local government reorganisation, but it is important that we deal with facts. Can the Secretary of State please outline, in simple terms, how reorganising our local councils will benefit residents across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, whether they are in Mow Cop or Milton, Butt Lane or Baddeley Green, Talke or Tunstall, or anywhere in between?
This debate is named for Sir David Amess, and I think it is an important chance to honour the values of unity, community and tolerance that both Sir David and our much-missed colleague Jo Cox stood for so strongly. I also want to echo hon. Members in commemorating Ann Widdecombe, which is why I want to use this speech to briefly highlight an appalling hatred that is spreading and urge this House to unite in action against it. Like many in this House, I was appalled to hear of the terrorist plot against the Ijtima festival, and I am grateful to the police for their rapid action. As the Home Secretary has said, their decisive enforcement undoubtedly saved lives. That Muslims were targeted is despicable, but it is not, unfortunately, unusual. Just yesterday, an individual was charged with plotting attacks on multiple mosques. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are now at record levels. British Muslims, including my friends and neighbours in Hendon, are regularly subjected to a barrage of abuse, vilification and even violence. This hate is becoming normalised online, on our streets and, shamefully, by some Members of this House. We have seen mosques attacked in Peacehaven and other places, and in Edinburgh we saw where this all leads, with Muslims viciously attacked for no other reason than that they are Muslim. Let us be clear: these attacks are an affront to all we hold dear as a country. This hatred is an assault on British values, and it is the job of all of us to confront it and to defeat it wherever it is found. In Hendon, we are blessed with a vibrant Muslim community and strong community institutions, including a number of mosques. They contribute so much to our area, but they are understandably worried. I welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect our Muslim community. Continuing action is essential so that our Muslim citizens can live free and safe as they practise their faith and go about their daily lives. That means continuing to take measures such as investing in protecting our Muslim community. It also means tackling the root causes of anti-Muslim hatred and the language and attitudes that allow it to spread, including in this House. I hope that is a cause we can all get behind. As we go into recess, I can think of no better way to honour the tolerance and British values that Sir David stood for. I would like to finish by wishing every Member of the House a very happy summer recess, and by thanking our brilliant staff, particularly Godfrey, Margaret and Richard, for all they do.
As I am sure the Minister knows, I have been a trade unionist since I started my teaching career some years ago. I have been involved in a number of industrial actions over that time, as a teacher and member of a trade union and as a trade union staffer. The driving force behind a significant majority of those industrial actions was not pay; it was often the safety of staff, the safety of sites, bullying managers or the inability to deliver an environment in which members felt they could deliver their best. Does the Minister agree that the ability to take industrial action is not always about money-grubbing or about pay? It is often about health and safety and about delivering the very best workplaces for our workers.