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. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

   Under the previous Conservative Government, the NHS constitution was updated with a commitment to guarantee that “those in the armed forces, reservists, their families and veterans are not disadvantaged in accessing health services in the area they reside.” The previous Government also introduced the veterans’ strategy action plan, committing NHS England to providing millions of pounds for specialised support services. Ministers also introduced a single point for veterans to access mental health services and support. The previous Conservative Government also created an armed forces covenant duty. Today, we need to see the principles the covenant brought to life at all levels of Government. Only last week, I received an email from a constituent who has moved around because of her husband’s service in the armed forces and who was struggling to access specialist services for her child’s health as a result. That is why we need new clause 112, which would require the Health Secretary to report on how they are meeting the duties under the covenant. Members will know that I am cautious about mandating any more paperwork, but veterans are being let down. We need some accountability. That report would hopefully achieve that, so I commend the new clause to the Committee.

   Hansard source
2. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

   I echo the Minister’s thanks to the Clerks, House staff and others, as well as members of the Committee. Leaving aside the heat, I have also enjoyed our exchanges. I hope that the Minister has a good recess and that she does well in the upcoming reshuffle.

   Hansard source
3. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Ben Spencer

   Road Congestion

   The A244 has always had too much traffic and too many heavy goods vehicles on it. It goes through Oxshott in my constituency, and following the roadworks on the M25 and A3, increasing numbers of cars and large vehicles are using it as a shortcut between the A3 and the M25. We need that to stop. Will the Secretary of State meet me and work with our local community to improve and reduce traffic on the A244?

   Hansard source
4. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Ben Spencer

   Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

   I would like to raise a deeply troubling case that highlights serious concerns about the integrity of DNA testing within the Child Maintenance Service and questions surrounding the existing safeguards in place to protect families. I want to share, as was recounted to me, what happened to my constituent Ms Chelsea Millar, her fight for justice and the serious questions that it raises. Ms Millar separated from her former partner Mr Brown shortly after the birth of their son in March 2022. When she applied to the CMS for child maintenance a few months later, paternity was disputed and the CMS arranged DNA testing through Cellmark, an independent private company specialising in forensic and relationship DNA testing. Ms Millar attended an approved testing clinic. However, her former partner requested that the DNA sample be taken at Woodlawn medical centre, a location that was not on Cellmark’s approved list of collection sites. Despite that, the testing kit was sent there. Crucially, Cellmark did not verify that the centre was authorised or capable of conducting CMS DNA testing, and neither was my constituent informed of the change. The result came back stating that Mr Brown was not the father. Ms Millar knew the result was wrong; she knew Mr Brown was the dad. Through her own determination, Ms Millar persuaded Mr Brown’s mother to participate in private DNA testing. That test established that the child was her biological grandson—Mr Brown’s mother was grandma—and as Mr Brown is an only child, it confirmed that the official CMS result could not be correct. Subsequent investigations by the Department for Work and Pensions and the police confirmed what had happened. An employee of Woodlawn medical centre, Robert Patel, had conspired with Mr Brown and tampered with the DNA testing process. Both Mr Brown and Mr Patel were subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for fraud. My concerns regarding this case are not limited to individual wrongdoing; it raises fundamental questions and concerns regarding the security of the chain of evidence relating to DNA testing and the process as a whole. Why was the DNA testing kit sent to an unapproved collection site without proper checks being carried out? What assessment or oversight of the company and its practices did the CMS undertake before and after the commissioning of DNA testing? Most importantly, what lessons have been learned to ensure that no other parent or child has to endure the same ordeal? People need to have confidence in paternity testing, whether in child maintenance or other forensic uses. The chain of evidence needs to be secure. Will the Government urgently review that, and meet me and my constituent to discuss this case and the measures that can be taken to strengthen oversight, accountability and safeguards within paternity testing? Families must be able to trust that decisions that affect their children are based on processes that are secure, reliable and beyond reproach.

   Hansard source
5. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Mundell

   Bus Services

   Does the Minister hold any sway with the bus operator Stagecoach? If so, can he convey the concerns of my constituents about the reliability of the X74 service, which operates between Dumfries and Glasgow? Stagecoach has put older buses on this route, leading to poorer reliability and more cancellations. Given that most of the route is along a motorway, I am sure he understands how unsatisfactory breakdowns are.

   Hansard source
6. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Mundell

   Business of the House

   Last summer, the Prime Minister and his family holidayed in my constituency. Now that he has more time on his hands, he would be very welcome back—as are all hon. Members. If the Leader of the House finds himself unexpectedly with some spare time towards the end of the month, may I invite him to join me on the last Friday in July in the muckle toon of Langholm for the common riding, where he will see Cornet Hope presented with the burgh standard and, accompanied by hundreds of riders, ride around the town boundaries, as well as hear the crying of the Langholm fair by Rae Elliot not once but twice on horseback?

   Hansard source
7. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Davis

   Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

   Last month’s sentencing of Nicola Sturgeon’s husband exposed the real reasons behind the Scottish Government’s persecution of Alex Salmond. From 2010 to 2022, Peter Murrell abused his position to embezzle almost £500,000 from the SNP to buy luxury items. He used SNP money to buy a £33,000 Volkswagen Golf. Then he stole £57,000 to buy a Jaguar car. Further luxuries included handbags, an £850 gold pendant, four separate coffee machines costing £9,000, luxury kitchenware, at least 26 fountain pens costing nearly £21,000, and two £350 Dyson hairdryers—for a man with no hair. Really? Then, of course, there is the infamous £124,000 motorhome. Did Sturgeon not wonder where he got the money for all the vehicles, the kitchenware, the handbags, the pens, the pendant she loved? After all, who used the Dyson hairdryers in that household? My view on Sturgeon’s denial is clear: she is lying. She knew full well what her husband was doing and how those luxury purchases were funded. That Murrell was a thief was obvious in the 1980s, when he stole from Alex Salmond. Salmond told Sturgeon it was deeply unwise to keep her husband on as chief executive, but she kept him in place, enabling his crimes for years. Eventually, in March 2021, three members of the SNP’s finance committee withdrew and resigned, blaming “chaotic” and “incompetent” financial management. In their own words, they were on the receiving end of a “hostile” backlash, driven by Sturgeon’s “toxic culture”. They resigned in protest and were later followed by the treasurer of the organisation. Sturgeon told colleagues at the meeting where those first resignations happened: “There are no reasons for people to be concerned about the party’s finances”— no reasons. And when the treasurer resigned, she ignored it. Sturgeon was part of a cover-up, using her position to suppress justice. She behaved dishonourably and dishonestly, but her most evil act was stitching up Alex Salmond to hide the truth. When he was considering going on the national executive himself, the risk to the conspirators was clear: here is a numerate man who could not be silenced. So what did they do? In Salmond’s own words, there was “a malicious and concerted” attempt to remove him from public life in Scotland by “a range of individuals within the Scottish Government”. Senior Scottish Government figures created a procedure for dealing with sexual harassment allegations that deliberately targeted Salmond. The procedure was so biased that a judge ruled it “unlawful” and “tainted by apparent bias”. Having lost that, senior figures brought prosecutions against him, but Salmond was acquitted on all charges by a majority female jury, before a female judge. It now appears clear that those actions, to destroy a man’s reputation and life, were motivated by a desire to hide their own crimes. There are many unresolved questions. What happened with the £60,000-worth of items that were dropped from the indictment: the hair stylers, the lingerie and the books by Sturgeon’s favourite authors? Murrell was clearly protecting Sturgeon by removing items that incriminated her. In the investigation, the police had further questions for Sturgeon, but prosecutors stopped them from putting them. Those prosecutors worked for the Lord Advocate, the principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government—a clear conflict of interest. There is a clear pattern of secrecy, obstruction and power used to protect power—a pattern started by Sturgeon. Scotland needs a fresh start. That starts with a judicial inquiry into this entire sordid scandal, because it is a scandal that cost Alex Salmond his life.

   Hansard source
8. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Davis

   Thirlwall Inquiry Terms of Reference

   This is my third debate on the general issue of Lucy Letby, and I remind the House of what I have said before: justice must never be sacrificed for institutional self-preservation. We are awaiting the publication of the Thirlwall inquiry’s findings into the deaths at the Countess of Chester. When the inquiry was established, it was tasked with examining three areas: the experiences at the Countess of Chester and the parents named in the indictment; the conduct of the hospital’s staff with regard to Lucy Letby; and the effectiveness of NHS management and culture in safeguarding babies, and recommendations for reform if relevant. Every question stems from the assumption that Lucy Letby is guilty beyond doubt. Since her trial and conviction, a growing body of distinguished scientific opinion has challenged the supposed evidence on which they rest. Prominent experts—heads of royal societies and royal colleges, and leading voices in medicine, statistics and forensics—have raised concerns about Miss Letby’s convictions. They have come forward in extraordinary numbers, calling for the inquiry’s scope to be revised. If the case against Miss Letby is straightforward, why have so many people with nothing to gain, but their reputations to lose, publicly challenged it? At the outset of the inquiry, I warned the chair that by failing to broaden its terms of reference to examine credible alternative hypotheses, we risk protecting a conclusion rather than conducting a forensic search for the truth. The Post Office Horizon scandal highlighted the institutional instinct to find a convenient scapegoat. Innocent people paid the price, while the institution sought to protect itself. If the Thirlwall inquiry asks too narrow a set of questions, systemic NHS failures will go unexamined. More innocent children will die, more innocent parents will be put through agony, and another hospital will find another scapegoat—that is the consequence of getting this wrong. So what should the inquiry’s terms of reference include? There are at least three lines of inquiry that deserve examination. Each is supported by substantial evidence. Each almost certainly contributed to what happened. Each risks being overlooked. The first is the staffing crises: this was a neonatal unit stretched beyond its limits and operating under relentless pressure. The second is poor clinical management: the unit was repeatedly tasked with caring for babies requiring the highest level of specialist capacity—capacity it did not have. The third is environmental risks: there were serious contamination problems within the hospital. Two damning reviews of NHS maternity services more generally have now been published. The Ockenden report exposed failures at Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust that mirror those at the Countess of Chester: infections, overcrowding, under-resourcing, sustained pressure and overstretched staff—different hospitals, but strikingly similar failures. Baroness Amos has also published her final report on NHS maternity and neonatal services. Its conclusions echo with remarkable consistency the concerns raised about the Countess of Chester. Baroness Amos concluded: “the maternity and neonatal system is not set up to deliver consistently safe, high-quality and compassionate care... It is fragmented, overly complex and too slow to…improve.” She highlighted “unsafe and unacceptable” hospital buildings, “excessive workload pressures” and staff who felt “ignored… when they raised concerns about whether they could provide a safe or joined-up service”. She also highlighted “dangerous clinical environments”, senior leaders who “were not accountable” and, of course, staff who were “fearful of being blamed when things went wrong”. If the Thirlwall inquiry was unwilling to heed the growing concerns of experts, it cannot dismiss the conclusions of two Government reviews. As far back as 2004, senior neonatal staff at the Countess of Chester were warning management of a “staffing crisis which...shows no signs of abating”, highlighting that the unit was operating 30% to 40% below the staffing levels recommended by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. They described stress that “exceeded tolerable levels”, reinforcing that such conditions “could increase the risk of unintentional professional negligence”. But how did management respond? To cut costs they abolished the advanced neonatal nurse practitioners, the most highly trained specialists in their field, upon whom the entire safe working of the unit depended. One of the nurses let go later described it as “the decimation of the Nursing and Midwifery service”, adding that “eight registered nurses...were replaced with nursery nurses...unqualified staff are replacing qualified staff”. She described a trust blighted by “inefficient managers...managers to manage managers, people to tick boxes...inefficient computer programmes”, all “at the expense of the registered nurse/midwife”. If management’s response was to bury the problem, what does that tell us about the state of the Countess of Chester by 2015? A system repeatedly warned to be unsafe cannot merely be treated as the backdrop to the events of 2015 to 2016—it is at least part of the explanation. By 2012 the hospital was recruiting newly qualified nurses, often straight from university. One of them was Lucy Letby. During the years Lucy Letby is alleged to have committed her crimes—specifically 2015 to 2016—the neonatal unit was still functioning under dangerous pressure. Notably, one nurse working on the unit during this period recalled: “2015 and 2016 were horrendously busy... They were probably the worst years I can remember in more than twenty years... Everybody was absolutely stretched to the limit... You were expected to look after the maximum number that you could—sometimes over the number that you should.” The inquiry ought to ask, if concerns had been raised for over a decade, to what extent did those unresolved staffing failures contribute to the tragedies that followed? Were those failures addressed before responsibility was placed on Letby? There are three levels of care in neonatal units, depending on the complexity of care that a unit is equipped to provide. Appropriate grading of a neonatal unit is fundamental to patient safety. Level 1 units accept babies with low care needs. Level 3 units accept babies needing the highest level of medical care. The Countess of Chester was a level 3 unit throughout the early 2000s, but in 2005 it was downgraded to level 2, an admittance that the unit could not handle level 3 babies. But the unit continued to operate under immense strain, worsened by management’s decision to get rid of its hugely experienced advanced neonatal nurse practitioners. Years later, when Lucy Letby started at the Countess in 2012, conditions remained poor. There was little space, cots and incubators were stored in corridors, and mothers struggled to find somewhere to breastfeed their babies. Susan Gilby, the hospital’s chief executive between 2018 and 2022, later described the unit as “dark, dingy and cramped”, providing a “less than ideal” environment to work in. Remember, this was a level 2 neonatal unit tasked with providing short-term intensive care for fragile babies. Indeed, the deficiencies were so serious that the trust launched a £3 million public fundraising campaign to pay for a new neonatal unit because the necessary capital funding was not available through the NHS. This was an acknowledgment that the unit was not fit for purpose. The inquiry ought to ask: was the unit being asked to deliver a level of care that it was not capable of providing? Staff at the time certainly thought so. One nurse warned the unit manager, “something awful is going to happen here...we can’t carry on like this”. In late 2015, one consultant said the unit was so busy that it was running out of vital equipment, adding: “This is now our normal working pattern and it is not safe. Things are...at breaking point. When things snap, the casualties will either be children’s lives or the...health of our staff.” The spike in baby deaths was that breaking point. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report from November 2016 confirmed that the unit was “non-compliant on nurse and medical staffing levels” when assessed against service standards for a level 2 unit. It ought to have been downgraded further, to a level 1. Indeed, it is often claimed that babies on the unit stopped dying as soon as Letby was removed from the ward. That assertion ignores perhaps the most critical fact. In July 2016, when Letby was removed from the ward, the neonatal unit was finally downgraded to a level 1. In that moment, the risk profile changed. Fewer of the sickest babies were admitted at the Countess. The 2016 Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report is clear that since the redesignation from level 2 to level 1, the pressure “has reduced and the unit is operating more in line with BAPM staffing standards. The consultants also reported that in the two months since the change infants have been sick but recovered as expected.” The report highlighted deficiencies in staffing levels, leadership and communication, but, in the trial, it was not shown to the jury—they knew nothing of it. In July 2016, the unit was downgraded and Lucy Letby left the ward. It is irrational to assume that one of those two events was entirely responsible for the sharp reduction in deaths without testing the other event properly. The inquiry must examine both changes to determine which made the difference. During 2015 and 2016, when the neonatal mortality rates spiked, the hospital faced infection control problems. One nurse described the unit as her “worst nightmare”. Pseudomonas aeruginosa had colonised taps in the nurseries of the neonatal unit. Pseudomonas forms a biofilm—a layer that allows the bacteria to spread within a water system—and can kill newborns. In 2012, at Belfast’s Royal Jubilee maternity hospital, three premature babies died from it. In an effort to mitigate the risks of Pseudomonas, the Countess of Chester installed filters on the taps, but the filters kept falling off. Another of the babies Letby is said to have murdered was found to have Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in their breathing tube—a bug responsible for some of the deaths at Glasgow’s scandal-hit Queen Elizabeth University hospital. Of the 17 babies Lucy Letby is said to have murdered or attempted to murder, at least 14 babies either had an infection or were suspected to have an infection. Professor Shoo Lee’s panel identified that 10 infants were receiving antibiotics, and court proceedings identified another three. The fact that at least 13 babies were treated with antibiotics suggests that the clinicians considered infection to be a real possibility in these cases. On top of that, MRSA, C. difficile and MSSA were detected across the trust; it is not known whether they were present in the neonatal intensive care unit. While giving evidence at her own trial, Miss Letby told jurors that the neonatal unit had problems with “raw sewage” coming from sinks. That was not an invention in the hopes of abdicating responsibility; contemporaneous messages between staff show that these concerns were raised at the time. Remember: this was a neonatal intensive care unit. One nurse suggested that an infection on the unit could be to blame. Letby agreed, describing sewage coming from the sink and overflowing toilets. She added: “The unit needs properly assessing, I don’t think the equipment gets cleaned properly…we haven’t got the space, facilities…to maintain hygiene.” Those messages predate any criminal investigation, and the hospital’s plumber confirmed under oath that human waste was backing up into handwashing basins. On top of the other microbiological concerns, human waste contains E. coli—another hazard to vulnerable new-born babies. Professor David Livermore, a professor of medical microbiology, is right to say: “Infection was such an obvious cause of a spike in deaths. What investigation did they do [into this?] I’m yet to see any clarity on this.” Even the parents themselves had initially assumed that if something had gone wrong, it was likely because of the hospital’s failings. One mother giving evidence against Lucy Letby during her trial admitted that “I thought, the hospital’s old, it’s not very nice. It was dirty, and I thought it was along the lines of medical negligence. It never entered my mind that there was somebody intentionally harming babies”. That is the hospital we are talking about—old, not very nice, dirty—and it does not look as though the medical management of the hospital did anything to mitigate the risk arising from those problems. A mother of three triplets who moved to Liverpool Women’s Hospital said she “noticed a different level of cleanliness compared to the Countess” as there were “clear hygiene protocols” at Liverpool, where, she said: “We were told to wash our hands before entering the Unit and then again before entering the room”, which was not the case at the Countess of Chester. One father of a baby born at the Countess of Chester in May 2016 described the unit as “chaotic” and “failing”. He described an atmosphere of tension where “it wouldn’t take much more” for the unit “to blow up.” His daughter had had a difficult delivery and could not breathe at birth. He and his wife discovered three years later that she had been the sickest baby on the unit for over 24 hours. Not a single doctor spoke to them about this, while nurses repeatedly told them that their baby was “fine”. Against that backdrop, he recalls that Lucy Letby stood out as the only staff member who took time to explain his baby’s condition. The hospital itself later told him that Lucy had “saved” his daughter’s life and had gone “above and beyond the call of duty.” He stated bluntly that the jury in Miss Letby’s trial was not given the full picture—the systemic problems, lack of communication and overall disorder. History judges institutions not by how confidently they defend themselves, but by whether they had the courage to confront uncomfortable truths. The Thirlwall inquiry now faces that test. An inquiry that refuses to ask difficult questions is not fearless—it is formulaic. An inquiry that overlooks credible evidence is not comprehensive—it is compromised. A major failure of the trial was that the jury was not shown evidence from authoritative sources such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that offered a credible alternative explanation for the spike in deaths. The inquiry must not replicate that failure, and it must not lend its authority to what may be a major miscarriage of justice. It owes the parents who lost their babies, and future parents of future babies at risk, the absolute truth. It must follow the evidence and fear no conclusion. If facts are left unexamined, lessons are left unlearned. The inquiry should heed the warnings of Ockenden and Amos, and the countless voices emerging in Miss Letby’s defence. Structural failure, institutional failure, and medical incompetence or even malevolence—every one of those explanations must be dragged into the light, and the unvarnished truth exposed.

   Hansard source
9. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

   Protecting Built Heritage

   I commend the hon. Lady for her clear and excellent presentation of this report. Sadly, there is not time for me to list all the very many great heritage assets in East Hampshire. The hon. Lady talked about the importance of heritage to tourism and the possibility of using some underused heritage assets for housing. Does she think there is also a case to be made for looking at how we can best use some of those assets for hotel and holiday accommodation?

   Hansard source
10. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

    National Planning Policy Framework

    It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I will try to cover four aspects of the NPPF in just short of four minutes. The first is what the NPPF says on intentional unauthorised development. I welcome the move towards stronger wording in that area. I should stress that I am not talking about a house extension or somebody accidentally not complying with regulations, but entire new dwellings and wilful non-compliance. I welcome the move from material consideration, as it is known, to substantial weight, but I fear it does not go far enough. As I said in my submission to the consultation, it should be set out very clearly that “wilfully ignoring planning consent requirements will not result in retrospective planning permissions being granted”, and that this cannot in normal circumstances be overridden by personal circumstance arguments. Other things could be done in support, such as making sure that stop notices are easier to issue, and restrictions on things like delivery of construction materials and mobile homes to unlawful sites. The Minister and I have discussed the NPPF housing formula many times across this Floor. He is a very diligent Minister and, although he always robustly defends the Government line, which is kind of annoying, he always does it with great courtesy. I thank him for that. The problem is that this formula has meant a massive increase in housing numbers for the countryside. It is not a north-south thing; it is an urban to countryside shift. Whereas the numbers have gone up by 50% for the country overall, in East Hampshire they have doubled. When that happens overnight, no one has a five-year land supply that can deal with it, so we get speculative developments. That has been brought into sharp relief by the issue of water supply, which has particularly come to prominence since South East Water’s submission to the Basingstoke and Deane local plan. The Basingstoke area that it talks about—zone 4, as it is known—extends to Alton and around my constituency. The Environment Agency has stopped the extension of the abstraction licence at Greywell Fen because of the degradation of that globally rare site of special scientific interest. I met South East Water recently to discuss this. There are questions outstanding, particularly regarding parts of my constituency. Clearly, action should have happened before now, but a doubling of the housing target hugely exacerbates the issue. Large- scale development should not go ahead unless and until this issue is resolved.

    Hansard source
11. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

    National Planning Policy Framework

    I agree. There is no practical limit on what we can learn from one another in the home nations of the United Kingdom. I want to come on to what is known as policy L3, which concerns the minimum density requirements for areas around train stations. I have written about this in my submission to the consultation. I fear that a policy that is, on the face of it, sensible—“Let’s have people living close to train stations where they can commute to work or whatever it might be”—is really designed for urban town areas. But it will also have an impact on market towns in places like East Hampshire and in villages that just happen to have a train station. The sorts of densities discussed in the NPPF would be wholly inappropriate for market towns like Alton in East Hampshire and rural villages like Bentley or Rowland’s Castle. Finally, I want to address how the NPPF interacts with local government reorganisation. I am totally opposed to the Government’s top-down reorganisation of Hampshire local government for multiple reasons, including the fact that it splits up an area with an identity—namely, East Hampshire. It puts the lower parts into a new Portsmouth super-council area and the rest of East Hampshire into this vast new Mid Hants unitary. Local plans have been built around existing district council geographies. For councils that are part-way through the process and about to have this enormous reorganisation thrust upon them, what is the guidance from the Government on how they should proceed?

    Hansard source
12. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

    Business of the House

    In support of the Government’s drive for economic growth and export earnings, may we have a debate in Government time on the role and potential of international inbound tourism? We have a lot of strengths in that sector, but we have lost cost competitiveness, and the introduction of an overnight visitor levy would make that worse.

    Hansard source
13. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Business of the House

    Could the Leader of the House make a commitment that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer will come to the House on the first day we are back from recess? The current Chancellor has raised taxes on payrolls, and we have fewer payroll jobs; she has raised taxes on businesses, and businesses have closed; and she has raised taxes on non-doms, and millionaires have fled the country. The reality in the world outside is that, with a new Chancellor, we are going to have a whole summer of speculation about other tax rises in the run-up to the Budget. During that period, hiring and investment decisions are going to be put on hold, so I think the Leader of the House can see how important it is that we hear from the new Chancellor at the earliest opportunity.

    Hansard source
14. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Local Government Reorganisation

    With a stroke of his Whitehall pen, the Secretary of State has just abolished Malvern Hills district council, Worcester city council, wonderful Wychavon district council and Worcestershire county council. He said in his statement that this is about making “real improvements to people’s lives and…communities”. Can he explain how it will help with the situation faced by my constituents, in which two major highways in west Worcestershire have collapsed and the council has no plan to repair them? This chaos is surely going to slow that down.

    Hansard source
15. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Charlie Dewhirst

    Business of the House

    Despite the recent successes of two new dental contracts in Bridlington and the decision to postpone the closure of the care unit at the hospital, I am sure the Leader of the House is aware of the challenges of optimising health services in coastal towns, particularly in Bridlington and Hornsea in my constituency. Can we have a debate on this issue in Government time? Can the Minister come to the House and update us on the implementation of the recommendations made by Chris Whitty in 2021 on health inequalities in coastal communities?

    Hansard source
16. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Before I come to Back Benchers, let me say that, as Members will be aware, a lot of you wish to get in. It would be very helpful if questions were succinct.

    Hansard source
17. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Order. The hon. Lady needs to ask a question, as indeed do all Members, as quickly as possible, because this is taking a very long time.

    Hansard source
18. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Order. Good temper and moderation are called for at all times in this Chamber.

    Hansard source
19. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record. I am sure the Secretary of State will have heard his comments, and if a correction is needed, he will make it.

    Hansard source
20. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Perhaps I also need to correct the record—it has been a long summer already. I thank the hon. Member for correcting the record in that way as it did pertain to this particular statement.

    Hansard source
21. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

    Before I call the shadow Minister, I gently remind the Minister that the statement he just gave seemed to deviate slightly from the copy I had received. We need to ensure that they align perfectly. I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
22. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bob Blackman

    British Steel

    Steelmaking is clearly important for our national security. Some of the issues for British Steel are the costs that it has and the full orderbook that it needs to remain sustainable. What will the Government do to ensure that British Steel turns out steel at a competitive rate, and that it gets the orders that it needs?

    Hansard source
23. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    I trust that the Leader of the House will inform the Backbench Business Committee of any extra time we will get in September—or will prevail on his successor to do so—so that we can plan accordingly. The business in Westminster Hall in September will be as follows: on the day we come back, 1 September, there will be a debate on face-to-face banking in rural areas; on Thursday 3 September, there will be a debate on vaccination rates in England, followed by a debate on the security assessment on global diversity, ecosystem collapse and national security; on Tuesday 8 September, there will be a debate on the safety of the Jewish community; on Thursday 10 September, there will be a debate on the reform of the vascular care sector, followed by a debate on the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society; and on Tuesday 15 September, there will be a debate on residential building safety remediation. The incoming Prime Minister has announced that he wants the housing subsidy money available from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to be spent on social rent. I agree with that proposal. However, the London plan, which is out today, has dramatically reduced the amount of affordable housing that will be built—if it even gets to be built. That seems to be in direct contrast to what is needed in London. I hope that the Leader of the House will prevail on whoever will be the Secretary of State in the new Government to come to this House in early September and set out how the Government plan to ensure that we build the affordable housing that people in this country desperately need.

    Hansard source
24. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bob Blackman

    Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

    I beg to move, That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment. This debate, as you rightly point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, commemorates Sir David Amess, who was brutally murdered doing his job as an MP at his surgery. He was an expert in this debate. He would raise 25 to 30 items in five minutes, and then had all his press releases ready for the whole summer from one debate. It is my first opportunity to pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe, who was brutally murdered. I remember Ann when she came up to Bedford and Kempston, when I was standing as a candidate in 1997. She came up with Michael Howard, and famously they did not particularly get on as ministerial colleagues. I was talking to Ann and she said, “Don’t talk to me, young man. Get over there and talk to Michael.” I said, “He’s surrounded by all these sycophants.” She gave me a keen piece of advice: “Use your sharp elbows and get yourself in the photograph. Do not let them be in the photograph.” She was an outspoken individual, and we miss her dearly. We thank her for the service she gave to this House and after she ceased to be a Member. I was delighted by the local election results in May this year. I am delighted to announce that my constituency now has only Conservative councillors. My parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), also has only Conservative councillors, and in my neighbouring constituency of Harrow West we made significant gains, taking 12 seats from the Labour party. We now have 41 out of the 55 councillors. In Brent, which has one ward in my constituency, we have more than doubled the number of Conservative councillors. I am delighted that one of my Brent colleagues is now the deputy mayor of Brent council as a result. I look forward to the next general election, whenever the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) chooses to call it, and the next local elections in 2030, when we will make a clean sweep and turn Harrow fully blue. That shows the revival in the Conservative party under the Leader of the Opposition. We have been rising in the polls, winning by-elections and gaining seats from Reform, which seems more interested in campaigning against a bin and continuing to pretend that the Conservative party is dead, when in reality we are winning and coming back. As we have passed the halfway point of the year, I will update everyone on the important work of the all-party parliamentary groups that I chair. I begin by putting on record my frustration—I am sure many colleagues share this—at the increased bureaucracy with annual general meetings, extraordinary general meetings, membership, quorums and more. I have written to the Committee looking into this issue, asking that those concerns are looked into, because they significantly impact on the APPG work that we all undertake. None the less, I will run through some of the successes we have had. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, which was chaired previously by the late Sir David Amess. We continue to press for sustained action on public and firefighter safety. Nearly two years after the Grenfell report, the priorities must be: coherent implementation of effective building safety regulation, faster remediation, reform of construction products and approved document B, and stronger investment in fire engineering, research, competence and learning from fires. Fire and rescue services are facing growing pressures from wildfires, flooding, new energy technologies and increasingly complex buildings. The all-party group welcomes the recent investment in national resilience and firefighter health, but we will continue to argue for sustainable funding, properly trained and equipped services and a greater attention to operational safety, not least as part of the proposed college of fire and rescue. Earlier today, I hosted a reception on the Terrace for people who are bringing forward greater accreditation. On the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel and the Jewish community overall, we have seen attacks in Golders Green on Hatzola ambulances, and antisemitism across the country rising significantly. We must join together as a House in condemning that in the sternest possible way, recognising that actions are needed, not just words. Security concerns remain significant across the wider region and are a pressing issue for millions of Jewish individuals around the world. While Israel and Lebanon have agreed a framework aimed at preventing Hezbollah’s return to southern Lebanon, the group has rejected the agreement, whose success will depend on enforcement and international pressure. Iran also retains substantial military capabilities, including almost all its ballistic missile infrastructure and a stockpile of highly enriched uranium that can no longer be independently verified following the end of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access. I am delighted that the Government have finally designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I have raised that in the Chamber more often than I can count. I have tabled motions, put questions to Ministers of Governments of both parties and heard every excuse in the book—that it was “under review”, that it could not be done, that it was being “considered”, that the Government “do not comment” on proscription and so on. All the while, the IRGC was murdering Iranians on the streets, arming Hamas and Hezbollah, running cyber-attacks against this country and plotting on British soil against people who had come here to be safe. I welcome the decision, but it is the beginning, not the end. The IRGC controls the Iranian economy through its sprawling web of front companies. That means that anyone doing business with the regime is putting money into the pockets of the guards. That has to stop. Every front company in this country should be identified, investigated and shut down, and anyone working for the IRGC here under diplomatic, commercial or cultural cover ought to be expelled. I thank Madam Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose painstaking work exposed the guards’ covert operations and financial empire, which gave Parliament the evidence needed and helped make the decision possible. My thanks go to the Iranian exiles here in Britain who were harassed, threatened and watched by these people but kept telling us the truth when it would have been far easier to keep quiet. The Iranian people have shown us time and again what they want, which is a democratic republic founded on free elections, human rights and the separation of religion from the state. I will continue to fight for that. Today, we are a step closer; I thank the Government for that. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus, virtually every week I host an event in Parliament on behalf of the Indian community, bringing together the community, entrepreneurs and businesses who are working hard to contribute to the UK and showing the best of the Indian diaspora in this country. The trade agreement, which had been negotiated for so many years, has provided a welcome boost to the relationship. I hope that we will see future agreements and benefits for the UK. I have also continued to work hard in raising awareness of the proposed sale of the only Hindu temple in Peterborough—a disgraceful decision by the council—which would see the only Hindu temple in the area closed, leaving a significant Hindu minority in Peterborough and neighbouring Cambridge with no place of worship. There is an ongoing court case and a review of the proposed decision, so I will not mention specifics, but I have made my position clear. We all have a duty to ensure that individuals can practise their religion peacefully. It should concern us if there are councils or individuals who seek to deny that for an entire community. We have recently re-established the all-party parliamentary group on Azerbaijan. I was in Azerbaijan over the weekend and on Monday and Tuesday, meeting key people and speaking at a conference on energy. That reflects the importance of a country that is both a key UK energy partner and a source of stability in the south Caucasus. During the visit, I saw how disruptions to traditional routes through Russia and parts of the middle east have elevated Azerbaijan’s role as a vital transport and aviation hub linking Europe and Asia via the middle corridor. As geopolitical uncertainty grows, it is essential that the UK continues to strengthen its relationship with Azerbaijan and does not take it for granted. We should move quickly to deliver the strategic partnership announced last year, deepening co-operation in trade, investment, defence, education and digitalisation. Having witnessed the impact of landmine contamination in Azerbaijan at first hand, where the liberated territories are being brought back into operation, I also believe that the UK should continue supporting the mine-clearance efforts. The UK and Azerbaijan already enjoy a strong partnership. The priority now is ensuring that our political relationship matches its growing strategic importance and that we continue to encourage Azerbaijan and Armenia to live peacefully alongside each other. The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 has now become law, ensuring that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco products. This legislation, which was first introduced under the previous Conservative Government, is a strong example of cross-party co-operation delivering better outcomes. The Government’s consultation on the Act—particularly on tackling youth vaping—is extremely welcome. Parliament will have an important role in scrutinising the regulations. However, there are still 4.9 million smokers in the UK, and there is growing anticipation for the Government’s promised road map to a smoke-free nation. It is therefore disappointing that the planned NHS investment in smoking cessation support has been paused, particularly given commitments to expand opt-out support in hospitals and to create smoke-free NHS sites. As the House knows, I am very keen on ending homelessness and the threat of homelessness, so I was delighted finally to see the long-overdue repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824, ending the criminalisation of rough sleeping. Credit is due to the charities, campaigners and parliamentarians from across both Houses who worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this change and replace punishment with support. In that same cross-party spirit, I hope that the Government will continue to engage with the APPG for ending homelessness, which I co-chair. While some indicators are improving, significant progress is still needed if the Government are to meet their goal of ending homelessness. As I have repeated on many occasions, priorities should include implementing the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023—my private Member’s Bill—expanding Housing First nationally and introducing a much stronger duty to collaborate so that public services work together more effectively to prevent homelessness. As chairman of the 1922 committee—you were a distinguished officer of that body, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thank my fellow officers and the executive committee for their support this year. I am delighted that we have not had to stage a leadership contest. I also thank my team, who work in my office. Since I was elected in May 2010, we have dealt with 106,000 individual cases from constituents, and we have dealt with more than 10,000 this year already. The fact is that casework is increasing, not reducing, I am afraid. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers, the whole House and all those who contribute to our work a very happy summer recess. I shall start my work experience programme with my students on Monday—so I am quietly glad that there is no bank holiday. That programme gives young people an opportunity to learn what it is like to be with a politician. I will end on a slightly lighter note. We often use this debate to test our vocabulary skills, so I am grateful to Parallel Parliament, which contacted me to confirm that I was the only MP or Member of the House of Lords to use the words “avenged”, “deities”, “inverts”, “handicaps” or “franked” in the previous Session.

    Hansard source
25. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bob Blackman

    Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

    I think that somewhere in the heavens, Sir David Amess will be looking down on this debate and saying thank you to the 32 Members who have participated. Everyone has brought great credit to this House by raising important matters before we rise for the summer recess. There is little more to be said, other than our best wishes for a long and happy retirement to those members of staff who are retiring, and for a peaceful recess for staff throughout the House, so that they are ready for us when we return for the debates that we will have. I wish all Members and our staff, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers—indeed, all of us—a happy recess. Let us hope that people can get some rest and recuperation because we will need it for vigorous debate with the new Prime Minister and the new Cabinet on what they bring forward for the future of this country. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.

    Hansard source
26. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Topical Questions

    Some 40% of roads in Cambridgeshire take up roughly 80% of the highways budget. With the forthcoming announcement about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire, what assessment has the Department made of the feasibility of that being deliverable given that most of those roads will end up in the same, much smaller unitary authority?

    Hansard source
27. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The Secretary of State has announced that there will be a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Most Cambridgeshire and Peterborough MPs are in the Chamber, but he has not gone into more detail on the reasons for the delay. What specific issues are causing a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough? The Secretary of State also mentioned that the election timeline will be stuck to, so when will the structural changes order need to be made for Cambridgeshire to ensure that the elections can be delivered? Finally, he offered the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) a meeting to further discuss these concerns; will he extend the same courtesy to me?

    Hansard source
28. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate, and for sharing his family’s experience. I recognise the vital work of the Changing Places consortium, established in 2005, in continuing to ensure that the issue is raised in this place, the Chamber, town halls and across Whitehall. I also pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who began so much of the work on this topic when he served as a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We have heard from Members today how vital Changing Places toilets are in our cities, towns and villages for those in need of their larger and more accessible facilities. The debate has featured powerful testimonies from constituents on how their lives are impacted every day by the inaccessibility of many public toilets, and how this affects them both physically and mentally. I would like to add one more example from my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency. Although it has already been mentioned, it is worth reinforcing how vital Changing Places facilities are for older disabled children and adults. My constituents Radhika and Shyam told me that a standard accessible toilet simply does not meet the needs of their son, Idnaat. Without appropriate facilities, as we have heard, families can face the undignified and distressing choice of changing a loved one on a toilet floor, or having to cut short a day out. No family should ever have to make that choice. That is why I also want to recognise the work of Chester zoo. Radhika and Shyam told me what a difference the zoo’s Changing Places toilet has made to their family. It meant that Idnaat could be changed safely and with dignity, allowing them to enjoy a day out together like any other family. That is exactly the sort of forward-thinking approach we should be encouraging. Accessible public toilets are not a luxury or convenience; they are an essential part of ensuring that everyone, regardless of age or disability, can participate in life with dignity. I am therefore delighted that Chester zoo is looking at increasing the number of Changing Places toilets on site. Changing Places toilets provide an indispensable private space for people with profound and multiple learning disabilities, as well as people with other physical disabilities such as spinal injuries, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis. They include essential equipment that can make daily life that bit easier for an estimated 250,000 people. Changing Places toilet users have found it invaluable to have this equipment, which includes height-adjustable, adult-sized changing benches; ceiling track hoists; a peninsular WC with room either side; a safe and clean environment, including tear-off paper to cover the bench; a large waste bin; a non-slip floor; and space for multiple carers. That is crucial because, for too many people, more typical public toilet spaces are not just inconvenient but not fit for purpose, rendering the space effectively unusable. As we know, many disabilities may not be visible, which can lead to an unfortunate and exasperating ignorance of the issues facing people in need of Changing Places toilets. The toilets allow those with needs that make a regular lavatory inaccessible to find the privacy, dignity, liberty and safety required. That has long been keenly recognised on this side of the House. That is why I was proud to see the previous Conservative Government make Changing Places toilets compulsory in new public buildings. That change, made in 2020, has allowed more people to have greater access to public places by providing the essential facilities to make such everyday trips viable. It is also why I was proud to see the previous Conservative Government launch the Changing Places toilets fund, which was worth £30.5 million. The fund enabled local authorities to increase the number of Changing Places toilets in England, meaning that there are now around 2,665 registered active Changing Places toilets across the country. That is up from just 140 in 2007. Thanks to local campaigners and the previous Conservative Government, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton, we as a nation have gone up from just one Changing Places toilet per 1,786 users to one per 94 users. That is a remarkable steer down the road to equality, and it is vital that the Government continue driving progress in the right direction. The 2019 consultation showed that the vast majority of the individuals and organisations that responded believed that an increase in the number of Changing Places toilets would give individuals with multiple or complex disabilities, as well as their carers and families, greater ability to leave home and visit different places. They believed it would remove the risk of unsafe lifting by carers, offer a dignified space for users and be more suitable than simple wheelchair-accessible unisex toilets. The £30.5 million provided to local authorities by the Conservative Government was divided into two funding rounds: an initial round of £23.5 million allocated to 191 English local authorities, followed by the remaining £7 million, which was spread to 64 local authorities. After the fund closed, the current Labour Government were petitioned on this matter in December last year. They concluded that local authorities are best placed to assess and manage toilet provision. As Members will know, local authorities have valuable local knowledge of where to provide essential services in their area, which highlights why the previous Conservative Government’s Changing Places toilets fund was allocated to local leaders to decide how and where best to spend the vital funds for these life-changing spaces. Will the Minister set out how the Government’s current view appears to be a U-turn from their policy in opposition? During the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), proposed an amendment for a review of public conveniences that, as the Conservative Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State noted, “would require the appointment of a commissioner to consider the level of need for conveniences”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2022; c. 876.] The former Government felt that such a change would risk increasing bureaucracy while decreasing the importance of local decision making. It was felt that it would be disproportionate for the Government of the day to legislate on such a fundamentally local issue, as many local authorities already operate local community toilet schemes. Is it now the Government’s policy for such a commissioner to be appointed to review public conveniences, or do they agree that the best placed authorities are local authorities? I hope the Minister will address that and confirm what plans the Government have for any future support for Changing Places toilets now that the funding I mentioned has concluded. That is essential for those watching the Government and waiting for answers. It is essential for those who must live every day with disabilities—some of which are debilitating, incapacitating and severe—hoping to have the necessary basic facilities to change leaving the house from being something daunting into something routine.

    Hansard source
29. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    Topical Questions

    Baddington bridge has been under a 7.5 tonne weight restriction since September 2025, with an hour-long diversion, leading to significant additional costs for local businesses and farms. Without a workable alternative, some drivers are ignoring the restriction, causing damage and disruption to country roads and nearby bridges. Will the Minister work with me and urgently review Cheshire East council’s application to the structures fund, so that we can reopen the bridge as soon as possible?

    Hansard source
30. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Bertie, April, Oliver, Rhys and Isaac from Wrenbury primary school, who have successfully completed the horticulture, food and futures project run in partnership with Reaseheath college? This fantastic pilot has transformed these pupils’ enthusiasm for education by giving them practical skills and introducing them to careers they had never imagined. Given the importance of inspiring the next generation into agriculture, horticulture and technical careers, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the role of specialist colleges, such as Reaseheath, in supporting young people and tackling future skills shortages?

    Hansard source
31. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Aphra Brandreth

    Thirlwall Inquiry Terms of Reference

    The Countess of Chester hospital is the local hospital for me and for many of my constituents. They will rightly want to know the outcome of the inquiry. On top of these historical matters, last year the CQC rated the Countess of Chester hospital’s urgent and emergency care services inadequate and found that the overall hospital requires improvement. While I recognise the work that the trust is doing to deliver against its improvement plan, and I thank it for its communication with me, there is still vital work to be done. Can the Minister set out what she is doing to ensure that it makes those improvements, so that my constituents can be reassured that they will be getting access to the best possible healthcare, as they deserve?

    Hansard source
32. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I welcome the moratorium on, and potential saving of, West Sussex, in response to my opposition and that of thousands of residents who did not want our historic county cleaved in two. Now that he has acknowledged that the proposal from the Government was less sustainable than the status quo, will the Secretary of State remove the jeopardy and confirm that he will not be proceeding with the proposal, and will instead save West Sussex?

    Hansard source
33. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

    Topical Questions

    I am grateful to the Government for considering improvements to the A605 and Tinwell junctions on the A1, but the current plan is to put traffic lights in place and National Highways agrees that that is not the right approach. Will the Government put the funding, which is welcome, into widening the slip roads, which are far substandard and below the national requirements?

    Hansard source
34. 15 Jul 2026·YouTube·Reform

    

    Zia Yusuf HITS BACK over MP's safety.

    Zia Yusuf addresses recent events after the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.

    Watch on YouTube
35. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yasmin Qureshi

    Waste Management Sites

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this very important debate. I want to speak about a case in my constituency that shows the problem and, importantly, what the solution can look like. Last July, business owners near the Hurstwood Court recycling centre on Raikes Lane in Burnden contacted me about traffic and road safety. Queues for the site were backing up on to St Peter’s Way and spilling on to Manchester Road. Access to local businesses was being blocked, and there was a real safety risk. That was happening day after day. I brought together Bolton council, Recycle for Greater Manchester and the operator, SUEZ, to address the problem. To their credit, all parties acted. A hatched yellow box has been painted at the entrance and exit to keep it clear. The entrance has been reprofiled so that more vehicles can wait on the site while speaking to the gate attendant, rather than queuing on the public road. A new turning space has been created for vehicles leaving without entering the centre, and cones have been installed to stop the parking that was blocking sightlines. To be honest, those measures have not solved the problem completely, but they have mitigated some of the worst of it and have made real differences to residents and businesses. Alongside the physical changes, Recycle for Greater Manchester has been suggesting alternative, less busy sites, and advising people on when the centre is quiet. There are more than 20 recycling centres across Greater Manchester, and spreading visits across them eases the pressure on individual sites. The wider point is that traffic build-up at waste sites is not a one-off; it is a recurring and entirely foreseeable pattern, particularly at older sites that simply were not designed for today’s volumes of traffic and waste. Too often, the response is reactive: action comes only after residents, businesses or Members of Parliament push for it. Communities should not have to run a campaign to get a yellow box painted on the road. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Department encourage joined-up working among councils, waste authorities and operators as standard practice, rather than as something that happens only when it is demanded locally? Secondly, what support and funding are available to councils for physical improvements at older sites, such as the reprofiled entrances and turning space that made the difference in Bolton? Thirdly, will the Government look at establishing a clearer, ongoing channel so that residents and businesses near waste sites can raise concerns and do not have to rely on ad hoc local campaigns? Raikes Lane shows what can be achieved when everyone gets around the table, but we still have a lot further to go. What is missing is a system that acts before communities have to fight for change.

    Hansard source
36. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torcuil Crichton

    Independence Referendum

    Regardless of how we divide on the referendum, I wonder if colleagues on the SNP Benches will find it in their hearts to put political division aside at 8 o’clock tonight? I did not come of age in time for the 1966 world cup finals, but the older boys in my primary school were all nicknamed after the England world cup squad, so we had Nobby Stiles and Charlton in our Scottish playground. That is a Hebridean example of respect and rivalry. Does the Secretary of State agree with today’s Daily Record editorial, which says that “there is always room for friendly rivalry with neighbouring nations,” but that “Bringing…politics into football does nobody any”—

    Hansard source
37. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tony Vaughan

    Iran

    On the threats to British citizens, two British citizens are detained in Iran in Evin prison: Craig and Lindsay Foreman. They are innocent. They have been arbitrarily detained there for more than one and a half years, after a flagrantly unfair trial. It has been reported that Craig has now been sentenced to a further two years, for reasons that seem entirely opaque. The couple have been on a hunger strike for 68 and 59 days, and both have lost significant weight. I welcome the appointment of a special envoy for consular cases and the state threat designation for the IRGC, but what steps are the Government taking that will give the Foremans and their family hope that welfare items will reach them, that full communications will be restored, and that the Government have a plan to get them home?

    Hansard source
38. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    Iran

    Building on the intervention by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), is the issue not as simple as this: in recent years, although Presidents have called on European Union countries and Britain to spend more on defence, we have not done so because America would fund the defence of the western world? President Trump is refusing to do that and is willing to look to other parts of the world to meet America’s strategic interests, and as a consequence, European countries are stepping up. Missing in this debate is the realisation by the Americans of what they gain by making a fair contribution to the defence of the west: they are not just burning their bridges with their allies, but harming their own defence. We ought to be emphasising that we will invest in our defence, but also that we will call out American behaviour where it is harming alliances and endangering US security.

    Hansard source
39. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    Iran

    The hon. Member is 12 minutes into his speech, and we have not yet got into a debate about Iran. As he has said, there is a one-sided dimension to the US-UK relationship, in which the US is vastly stronger than the UK at this moment. If he were he Prime Minister—just imagine—and he had to deal with President Trump, what would the hon. Gentleman do to achieve his aims in trying to bring peace to the region, protect our cost of living and further the UK’s national interest?

    Hansard source
40. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    Iran

    My Jewish constituents will be watching this debate, so I put on record my support for the Government’s ban of supporters of the IRGC. I also welcome the fact that the Government have sanctioned that organisation and 500 Iranian-linked entities and individuals. The hon. Gentleman is an outspoken critic of the IRGC, so will he use this debate to repeat his criticism of it, and to support the Government’s moves?

    Hansard source