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

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

   Defibrillators in Police Vehicles

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) on securing this important debate. I am grateful to him for doing so, and to other Members for contributing. I know that if this had been a wider debate, other Members would probably have wanted to speak in it—several Members feel very strongly about this issue. The hon. Member for Torbay talked at length about the Our Jay Foundation and about the death of Jamie Rees, or Jay, who died when he was just 18. I have had the privilege of meeting Jamie’s mum, stepdad and godmother on two occasions. I discussed what they are doing and trying to achieve, and what the Home Office can perhaps do. For someone to be able to experience the death of their child and put it to positive use, in order to try to get something positive out of their child’s death, is enormously powerful and very brave. Indeed, not many of us would be capable of doing that if we lost a child. I join the hon. Member in praising Jamie’s family for what they are doing; it is enormously powerful and enormously impactful. As the hon. Member said, the foundation has been raising money; I think it has raised about £800,000 to fund defibrillators and it has now funded hundreds of them. It also has an evidence base, which was shared with me, showing the number of lives that have been saved as a result of those defibrillators. There is a conversation to be had here, and it is one that we are actively having. Last year, the Home Office funded 750 defibrillators that we gave to police—that happened before I became the Minister, so I cannot claim any credit for it at all. There was no stipulation on where the defibrillators were placed. Some will be in police vehicles and some, I suspect, will be in police buildings, but we provided those 750 defibrillators. I know my predecessor as the Minister for Policing and Crime, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), met representatives of the Our Jay Foundation as well and was very moved by them. Providing those defibrillators was a step in the right direction. As I understand it—I will write to the hon. Member for Torbay if my statistics are wrong—27% of police vehicles now have defibrillators. He cited a figure of 10%, so I will check that and write to him if I am wrong, but I think it a slightly higher proportion than that. We are having a conversation with police. If there is a debate here—and I have talked to the foundation about this—it is because there is a slight nervousness from some parts of the police about the role of policing versus the role of other emergency services. There are also questions about the ability to train police in many different aspects of first aid, and where their role ends and that of the ambulance begins.

   Hansard source
2. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

   Defibrillators in Police Vehicles

   It is not a comprehensive view across policing; there is a general concern about the role of policing versus other emergency services. We often have a wider debate within policing about the huge quantity of time that is spent responding to mental health issues, when other services should be doing that, so there is a general nervousness about that. I am in the process of writing to police forces and having a conversation with them, so that we can answer the hon. Gentleman’s point and find out whether there is a concern when it comes to defibrillators. The Our Jay Foundation would say that, where it has engaged with police forces and given them defibrillators, that has been welcomed and it is useful. I want to find out what the concerns are, if they exist, and I am in the process of doing that. I have said to the Our Jay Foundation—and I also say it to the hon. Member for Torbay and others here today—that of course we want every piece of first-aid equipment that could possibly save lives to be as widely available as possible. In police cars there are already first aid kits, and a lot of police officers carry tourniquets. It is not uncommon for police to conduct CPR on people relatively regularly; that has to be their job when they arrive before other emergency services. The step to then funding defibs—since we are talking about the funding question here—and putting them into all response cars or a proportion of response cars is the next stage we will look at. There are two stages. The first is talking to police to see what they think. As we have already given the police 750 defibs, it would be interesting to understand what they have been using them for. Moving on to the next stage, we are going through a very significant period of reform, setting up a national police service. That service will procure the kit we need for the whole of policing, so it presents a really good opportunity to consider what should be standard in all our police vehicles, response cars and uniforms, and to have a conversation with the police. We are going to have a national police service and make decisions nationally about what we need across the police service, and whether we want to use some of our funding to put defibs into all police cars.

   Hansard source
3. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

   Defibrillators in Police Vehicles

   We will engage with policing over the next few months, so that will be done relatively quickly, and we will see what people come back with. The national police service is not that far away. We will hopefully introduce legislation in September to set it up, and there are things that we will be thinking about, doing and working towards before we set up the establishment itself, to bring together aspects of the organisations that will become part of it. For example, BlueLight Commercial, which does a lot of the procurement now, will become part of the national police service. This is an opportunity for us to ask collectively what a good police car looks like and what kind of car we need, and to have a conversation about whether we put defibs into all police cars. There is obviously a cost, and if that money is spent on defibs it will not be spent on something else, so I want us to make the decision in the right way. I suspect the hon. Gentleman will come back to me even if I do not do this, but I am happy to let him and the APPG know how our conversations go with policing and how we progress this work. I cannot promise that we will do what he and the Our Jay Foundation want, but I can promise that we are actively looking at it. We have already invested in defibs for policing. The Our Jay Foundation is building an evidence base from what it is doing with police forces, and we will take that very seriously. Of course, we want to do everything we can to save lives. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) talked about bleed kits, and we are looking at those. There are campaigning organisations, also run by people who have sadly lost loved ones, putting bleed kits into police cars and many other public places, and those are also very useful when it comes to saving lives. We have decisions to make and I am actively looking at these things. I am very happy to keep talking to the hon. Member for Torbay as we progress. Question put and agreed to.

   Hansard source
4. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Hall

   NHS Corridor Care

   Let us be clear from the beginning: corridor care is unacceptable. No patient should be treated in a corridor. No family should watch a loved one receive care without the privacy and dignity that they deserve. No member of our brilliant NHS staff should be put in the impossible position of delivering care in an environment that they know is not right. I know how deeply my constituents feel about this, and hardly a week goes by without someone contacting me about their experience of Warrington hospital. They tell me about the kindness of the staff despite incredibly difficult circumstances; others tell me about the length of time that their loved ones have waited to be seen, and those experiences are reflected in the figures. In May this year, Warrington hospital recorded the second-worst 12-hour A&E performance in the entire country. Those figures are deeply concerning, and it would be wrong of me to pretend otherwise, but if we only talk about A&E waiting times, we miss the bigger picture. Corridor care does not begin in a corridor: it begins when patients are medically fit to leave hospital but the care or support that they need at home is not yet in place. It begins when patient flow slows down, leaving emergency departments carrying pressures that they were never designed to absorb. It begins when a town like Warrington grows significantly without its infrastructure keeping up.

   Hansard source
5. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Hall

   NHS Corridor Care

   I absolutely agree; the NHS system as a whole is very fragmented, and the lack of connectivity is a big issue. Social care is a core component and it needs to be a priority going forward.

   Hansard source
6. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Hall

   NHS Corridor Care

   I agree with my hon. Friend and will touch on that point in a second, using Warrington as an example. I am pleased that our local trust has already taken steps and is rightly treating corridor care and waiting times as a priority, but there is more to do. That is why I have been working closely with our local NHS, Ministers, and Cheshire and Merseyside ICB to move beyond talking about the problem, and to start changing how urgent and emergency care works in Warrington. Together with our local trust, I have developed a three-part pragmatic plan to improve health services for our town. Given the pressure on A&E and waiting times, the first priority is clear: a new urgent treatment centre for Warrington. In April, I was pleased to announce that proposals had moved forwards, with architects beginning the initial design work. Since then, the proposal has moved forward again, and detailed design and site survey work is now under way. An urgent treatment centre in Warrington means that families would not have to travel out of borough for things like minor injuries, sprains, cuts, burns or infections, or for a child with a fever who needs checking over. Such conditions can still be serious, but they do not need the full resources of an emergency department set up for life-threatening situations like heart attacks, strokes and major trauma. An urgent treatment centre would help to free up space in A&E for the sickest patients and improve the experience for others by helping them to get the right care in the right place. Easing pressure in A&E is the first step, but it is not the whole answer. Part 2 of my plan is about moving routine appointments, diagnostics and planned care into the community so that people can be treated closer to home, and the hospital can focus on the patients who need the most specialist care. However, there is one issue that none of us can ignore, and that is the hospital itself. People back home know that we need a new hospital. They see it when they go to A&E and when they visit relatives in hospital, and staff feel it every day. Much of the site was built in a different century for a different population and a very different NHS. We urgently need a new hospital—there is absolutely no question about that. Much to our deep disappointment, Warrington was never included in the previous Government’s so-called new hospital programme, despite warm words hinting to the contrary. That brings me on to the third part of my plan: modernising and replacing outdated hospital facilities, built in phases while vital services continue to run. When I was elected, I said that I would be honest about the challenges before us. Yes, Warrington needs a new hospital, but it also needs a proper plan and funding behind it, not just empty promises. My approach is a pragmatic one: we must ease the immediate pressures today, build better services around the hospital tomorrow, and put Warrington in the strongest possible position for investment in the years ahead. That is what I am fighting for. I will keep challenging where challenge is needed, keep working with our local NHS where partnership is needed, and keep putting Warrington South first until we get this right, because my residents in their time of need and our excellent NHS staff deserve better.

   Hansard source
7. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sadik Al-Hassan

   Railway Station in Long Ashton

   I would like to present a petition for a railway station in Long Ashton on behalf of North Somerset and the village of Long Ashton, which remains significantly underserved by public transport infrastructure, with no viable railway connection to Bristol and beyond. The petitioners therefore request “that the House of Commons urges the Government to undertake a feasibility study for the construction of a new railway station at Long Ashton, North Somerset, in order to serve the existing community and support the sustainable development of the forthcoming healthtech campus.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Long Ashton, North Somerset and the surrounding areas, Declares that the community of Long Ashton in North Somerset is significantly underserved by public transport infrastructure; further declares that the area is set to become home to a £1.25 billion healthtech campus which will bring substantial employment, economic growth, and inward investment to the region; further declares that the absence of a railway station serving this community places an unacceptable burden on residents who currently have no viable rail connection to Bristol and beyond; further declares that the provision of a new station in Long Ashton would reduce car dependency, ease congestion on local roads, support the region’s net zero ambitions, and ensure that the economic benefits of the incoming healthtech campus are accessible to a wide range of workers and residents; and further declares that failure to invest in this infrastructure risks undermining the full economic potential of one of the most significant development projects in the West of England. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to undertake a feasibility study for the construction of a new railway station at Long Ashton, North Somerset, in order to serve the existing community and support the sustainable development of the forthcoming healthtech campus. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003220]

   Hansard source
8. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ruth Cadbury

   European Entry and Exit System

   The right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) is quite right to highlight this challenge and the impact on Kent when these queues build up, and of course the impact on British people trying to get out through Dover, Folkestone and other places. I want to ask the Minister what can be done for British holidaymakers coming home who have been stuck at airports for hours and missed their flights because of the airlines needing to get moving under working time directives. I am led to understand that fingerprints are required on entry but not on exit from the Schengen area, yet many of these delays are being caused because airports in different countries are making holidaymakers provide fingerprints again, as well as the much easier face recognition. Could the Minister pick this up, please, and tell me what is happening?

   Hansard source
9. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rebecca Long Bailey

   NHS Corridor Care

   Let me first offer huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her brilliant speech, and for the work that she does most weeks and about which, in my opinion, she does not speak loudly enough. My mum has been rushed to A&E twice in the last two months, and I have been with her. The paramedics were amazing and the hospital staff were amazing, but nothing prepared me for what I witnessed: trolley after trolley backed up along corridors as hospital staff and family members visiting patients in A&E walked hurriedly up and down, trying to cause as little disruption as they possibly could. I saw staff trying to pull a curtain across halfway down the corridor to provide some semblance of dignity for vulnerable patients who were trying to use bedpans, but it was futile, given the number of people walking up and down. It was harrowing. I can only describe it as something that one would see in a war zone rather than in modern Britain. When I asked the staff, “Is it always like this?” they said, “Yes. It comes and goes when it gets busy. It gets worse at weekends. But ultimately we do not have enough beds, and we do not have enough staff to be able to cope with this level of pressure.” I heard similar stories from my constituents, but I will give the House just one today. An 80-year-old who attended A&E with his frail wife spent 15 hours there, eight in a wheelchair and the rest on a trolley in a corridor. This is not just a symptom of winter pressures; it is the visible sign of a healthcare system that has been stretched beyond breaking point by years of political decisions. For years we saw hospital beds disappear, staff vacancies grow, social care neglected, community health services hollowed out, and local authority budgets slashed, and the consequences were entirely predictable. Now we see patients who are well enough to leave hospital but have nowhere to go, emergency departments overflowing with wait times that no sick person should ever have to endure, and people being treated in places that were never designed to deliver healthcare. No one should pretend that this can be fixed overnight, but if we are honest, we know that we have to act fast. Emergency departments are still operating beyond safe capacity, and people remain stuck in hospital because social care, community services, mental health support and general practice still do not have the necessary capacity. If we want to end corridor care, we must deal with its root causes, not just the consequences, because it does not just begin when someone arrives at A&E; it begins when they cannot get a GP appointment, when mental health support is not there, when local authorities cannot provide a care package. It begins when care cannot happen at home. Community nurses who should be visiting vulnerable patients regularly cannot do so, because they are stretched beyond breaking point. There is a lot of talk about virtual wards providing hospital-grade care at home. That sounds brilliant, but the fact is that the system does not have the staff capacity to deliver it, so we need a properly funded long-term workforce plan that delivers fair pay, expands education and apprenticeships, improves retention, ensures that we have safe staffing standards, and gives frontline staff a real voice in how services are designed. It also means finally delivering a national care service that brings care back under public ownership and control, that delivers a universal entitlement to care based on need, not ability to pay, and that is publicly accountable, properly funded and built around people’s needs, not the fragmented marketised provision that we see at the moment. It also means investing in community nursing, neighbourhood health teams, rehabilitation services and mental health, so that fewer people reach crisis and more people can leave hospital safely when they are ready. It means taking prevention seriously too, because every £1 spent on improving housing, reducing child poverty, cleaning up our air, and supporting healthier communities strengthens public health and saves many more pounds further down the line. Our NHS was founded on a simple principle—healthcare should be based on need, not the ability to pay—and corridor care betrays that principle. We need to see our Government restore the promise that when someone is at their most vulnerable, our national health service will be there for them—not in a corridor or on a trolley, but with the compassion, privacy and care that every person deserves.

   Hansard source
10. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachael Maskell

    National Youth Strategy

    It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. If we are going to make interventions that will have a real impact on lives and change opportunities and trajectories, we have to look at where we place those priorities. Of course, these transition points in life are those opportunities: the 1,001 critical days, the start of school and the transition between primary and secondary. Then there are youth services, and I believe we are at a juncture where we need to bring our services together around our young people. We are doing incredible work on people not in education, employment or training and in the criminal justice space; we have the national youth strategy; and we are looking at young people’s wellbeing and mental health. We need to bring those into one space, because ultimately they are about the relationships that young people build with trusted adults. They do not compartmentalise themselves, and these different areas are completely interwoven, so I urge more joining up of the different strategies as we move forward. As part of that, statutory youth services should be returned and local authorities should have the obligation but also the necessary funding. Often, we are talking about the same children who need that security as they go through their teenage years. I am bringing the organisations together in York. We have so many brilliant organisations, such as the Scouts, Guides, churches, Door 84 and the Island—I could spend a few minutes just talking about them—but, ultimately, they are working in siloes because we do not have that integration. I have the jobcentre, the local authority and the police coming, and we want to ensure that we are able to lead on having one integrated service for youth in our city. I look to the Minister at this point in the debate, recognising the way that these services were ripped of their funding in 2011 and lost so many youth workers across the board. We lost 60% of our workforce; we can rebuild that under her leadership, but we need to ensure that services are built and co-produced by the young people so that they can take a lead in determining their future and the outcomes they want to see. As we enter this conversation as a city—I will also be bringing it to the Minister’s door—I want to ensure that young people transition well from those years of exploration as teenagers into adulthood, with the securities that they need around them in every part of the system. That will take funding. I note the incredible £500 million, which will be transformative, but we must ensure that it is sufficient for the services that we need. Young people need opportunities and confidence as they grow into adults, and I want to ensure that our Government deliver that for them.

    Hansard source
11. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Swallow

    NHS Corridor Care

    Of course, we must fix the back door and help people get out of hospital quicker, but there is also a challenge at the front door, with too many people feeling that they need to go to secondary care for health treatment. Is it not so important that we fix the foundations of the NHS by having a shift to community treatment, so that fewer people feel that they have to go to a hospital in the first place?

    Hansard source
12. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Perran Moon

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    On the point about proportionality, a lot of concerns about AI have rightly been raised in the debate, but let me sound a more positive note about public services. In my constituency, North Kerrier integrated neighbourhood team, which covers one of the most deprived regions in the UK, is using Brave AI to identify frailer and more vulnerable patients earlier and thereby prevent avoidable hospital admissions. Given the opportunities of AI, and the risks the right hon. Gentleman is talking about in great detail, does he agree, particularly in relation to healthcare, that the right approach is proportionate regulation, so that we do not stifle innovation, but maintain public trust and safety?

    Hansard source
13. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Perran Moon

    NHS Corridor Care

    On my hon. Friend’s point about burnout, we are entering what for many Cornish men and women is the dreaded tourist season, when our population doubles or trebles. My constituents in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle are concerned about the chronic capacity issues and the impact of the tourist season on patient safety at Treliske, our one general hospital that covers the whole of Cornwall. Does my hon. Friend agree that NHS workforce planning and funding for places like Cornwall need to reflect the additional pressures placed on healthcare services during periods of peak tourist activity?

    Hansard source
14. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    NHS Corridor Care

    I thank my hon. Friend for her fantastic work in the NHS as a doctor; it is much appreciated. Like many NHS workers, she struggles against the odds and sees on a daily basis the impact of corridor care. Does she agree that NHS staff feel frustration with corridor care as much as patients do, and that they want to act and see it end as much as anyone else? Crucially, the key is more staff. Is that not, ultimately, what we all want?

    Hansard source
15. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pamela Nash

    Draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

    I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman wants to make a political point about the Windsor framework, but does he accept that wide consultation was carried out by the Government in Northern Ireland ahead of these regulations? The explanatory memorandum in front of him shows that out of 182 stakeholders, only one replied to the consultation. That seems to me to show that there is not wide concern about this piece of legislation. Does he accept that?

    Hansard source
16. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pam Cox

    Engagements

    Ruth Ellis was the last woman to be executed in this country. Her case serves as a haunting reminder of a time when our justice system ignored the realities of domestic abuse and coercive control. In the decades since, members of Ruth’s family and supporters have campaigned unwaveringly for her to receive a posthumous pardon. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that their courageous campaign and the terrible lessons of Ruth’s case must strengthen the Government’s resolve to free women from devastating cycles of abuse?

    Hansard source
17. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Noah Law

    Engagements

    Q7. I am deeply grateful for what the Prime Minister has helped us deliver in Cornwall in the past couple of years, whether that is free breakfast clubs, urgent capital funding for GP surgeries or the Kernow industrial growth fund. [Interruption.] However, what has held us back at various points—besides the chuntering from the Opposition side—completely unnecessarily, I would argue, is something to which the answer is patently obvious to all in Cornwall: the question of who should be the masters of Cornwall’s strategic destiny. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the answer to this question must always be Cornwall? Will he make time for the Government to lay the statutory instrument required to make Cornwall once and for all a strategic authority, so that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) comes in, we can ensure good growth in every postcode and the reindustrialisation of Cornwall?

    Hansard source
18. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    I beg to move, That this House has considered Government policy on AI and its impact on society. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I think we all agree that AI is a transformational technology with the potential to bring many benefits to our society, but to fully realise them we will require the Government to look at radical changes to taxation, welfare and our industrial strategy. Everyone in the UK needs to benefit from a managed AI transition that puts workers and human dignity at its heart. It must make the world fairer, not more unequal, and it should give UK citizens a meaningful say in decisions that will affect their lives. Evidence from the New Contract, a pro-worker AI campaign organisation, reveals that the public are deeply suspicious about AI. Around six in 10 people expect the gains to flow to wealthy investors and big corporations, while just 7% think they will be shared fairly across our society. Understandably, seven in 10 workers are worried about the impact of AI on their jobs. Even the Foreign Secretary said recently that AI poses a Hiroshima-style threat to humanity unless global rules are put in place. In today’s digital age, a cartel of technology giants—Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple—wield extraordinarily influence over our lives online. These platforms have become so embedded in daily life that meaningful participation in society depends on using their services. Similarly, the digital infrastructure that facilitates our work and public services is now an essential layer of the economy, but that gives oligarchs like Elon Musk enormous power to distort public discourse. We have effectively subcontracted our right to information to a handful of big tech gatekeepers.

    Hansard source
19. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I will deal with AI sovereignty a bit later in my speech. We should ensure that, like a socialist Government’s approach to energy or water, the public have a stake in the development of AI technology, to ensure that the value it creates is captured and shared for the good of society as a whole. Previous waves of technological change have brought with them huge economic disruptions, but the human and social costs that followed were not inevitable. They were the product of political choices, as Governments left workers and communities to absorb the shocks alone.

    Hansard source
20. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about no place being left behind as a result of the AI revolution. I will develop that point a later. We can already see the first signs of AI impacting on work here. We have record numbers of young people not in employment, education or training because many entry-level jobs have disappeared.

    Hansard source
21. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    Yes, young people and their employment prospects are intrinsically linked to the debate about the future of AI. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to get that right for those people to have a future. We also need the Government to introduce a raft of measures to manage AI-driven changes to work. Those measures should include an employment levy on companies that replace large numbers of workers with AI, training subsidies for displaced workers, redeployment programmes to move workers into sectors with skills shortages, and a job subsidy scheme for workers and companies at the sharp end of industrial change, along with, of course, stronger social security support for those who face unemployment. We know that if it is left to the market, firms will often reach for the crudest form of automation, stripping out roles and degrading the work that remains. The alternative is that we start to advance the case for dignified work, and recognise that that will mean having meaningful worker involvement in every step of the process. The involvement of workers in adoption is often what turns a promising tool into a productive one. That is why I agree with the TUC that the Government should strengthen the Employment Rights Act 2025 to give workers a real say in decisions. There should be a duty on employers to disclose their use of AI, and a right for the workforce to be consulted and negotiate over how AI is introduced. One of the biggest challenges of AI is to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the gains. The AI and big tech corporations in the US stand shortly to become some of the wealthiest and most powerful private actors in history. Their wealth has been built on public research and public investment, as well as all our shared written inheritance, which has trained the models they use. The fact that our tax system taxes income from work far more heavily than income from capital gives firms a direct tax incentive to automate a worker out of a job rather than employing them, and could see AI facilitate a further shift of national income away from labour and towards capital, eroding the tax base that funds the public services that we all need and want.

    Hansard source
22. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second intervention—let us see whether he can make it a hat trick before I finish. The reality is that AI is here now. We have to deal with how it impacts on today’s workers and future workers as well. This is not one generation against another, and I know the hon. Gentleman understands that. The Government could seek to equalise tax treatment, actively explore widening the digital services tax to include AI companies, which it currently excludes, and raise the level of the tax from 2% to the European average. We cannot allow the use of machines to be made artificially cheaper than employing people. It is important to look at AI sovereignty, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) mentioned earlier. The UK is growing increasingly dependent on US tech, and owns little of the data infrastructure and AI models on which the future economy will increasingly rely. This repeats the pattern of recent decades in other sectors, whereby essential national infrastructure has passed into overseas ownership and money has flowed offshore, leaving British people with less and less control over the essentials of a good life. That dependence not only creates security risks, as has been mentioned, but prevents the UK from capturing and distributing any AI windfall. We need to give UK companies a meaningful chance to compete. The Competition and Markets Authority could use existing powers to take on the concentration in the cloud market, which underpins the AI companies’ business models. A progressive sovereign AI programme should involve an industrial strategy that seeks to expand public investment in the sector and impose strict conditions on private access to public assets, alongside active support for models such as co-operatives, public interest companies and other democratic ownership models, so that the gains of AI can be captured and shared throughout the UK. At the heart of this debate is the role of the public. Big decisions about AI, such as where data centres are built and how AI is deployed in public services, are being taken with little democratic input.

    Hansard source
23. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    One data centre, even a modest one, uses the same amount of electricity as 100,000 homes. The bigger the data centre, the more electricity it uses. Very few of them run off renewables, so that is another issue we need to address. The communities that host the infrastructure see the costs, in water, energy and land, without getting any of the benefits that we have discussed. These big debates are why the Government must embed ongoing public and democratic oversight of the AI transition and legislate for community benefit where infrastructure is built, including a share of the value created locally. We must ensure that the AI revolution does not lead to more power being in the hands of a few who can determine our future. Governments must build independent, publicly funded alternatives to ensure that AI is developed for the common good. Only public investment can support AI that prioritises social and environmental challenges. We need an “AI for the people” strategy—one that starts to recognise the challenges we face and has the ideas to meet those challenges head on.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    I thank all Members for their contributions to an excellent debate that showed we need to have more of this discussion. I will make some very quick points. First, we need to act with speed, as I think was accepted by a number of Members. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned, we cannot wait 25 years. We also need clear democratic oversight of what is happening. We cannot allow people we do not know and do not control to make our futures for us. We have to be in control of our own destinies. That is very important and will require global regulation. We will have to work with other authorities across the globe to come to the necessary arrangements. Finally, the protections we will need must ensure that the next industrial revolution, which is already here in effect, benefits everyone and not just a few. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

    Hansard source
25. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Navendu Mishra

    Community Cohesion

    5. What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on community cohesion in Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source
26. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Navendu Mishra

    Community Cohesion

    I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. What assessment has he made of the level of online co-ordination during the recent unrest in Belfast, and what discussions has he had with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other security partners about addressing that issue?

    Hansard source
27. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Naushabah Khan

    NHS Corridor Care

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for bringing this important matter to the House, and for talking so eloquently about her experiences on the frontline. Few issues speak to the state of our national health service more than this one. Since being elected, my inbox and advice surgeries have been inundated with heartbreaking and, frankly, harrowing stories from constituents who have either experienced care in a hospital corridor themselves or have witnessed the experiences of loved ones. May alone saw more than 90,000 instances of patients receiving care in clinically inappropriate settings, which is almost 3,000 people every day across our nation. In their most vulnerable hour, patients are being stripped of privacy and dignity, and left without a call bell or even sometimes access to a toilet. I will give Members some examples of the cases that have been raised with me. One constituent wrote to say that their mother, who was on end-of-life care, was treated in a corridor. I cannot even begin to imagine how distressing that must have been. Another reported on how she was treated in a single patient cubicle that had been stripped of its bed and fitted with six chairs, and hearing other people’s medical history, watching their cannulas being inserted and, harrowingly, witnessing a confused elderly man beg for his daughter. I look to Conservative Members—unfortunately, not many of them are here—when talking about this and about exactly how we got here, because the normalisation of these practices over 14 years of Conservative Government has brought us to this point. Indeed, it was under their watch that 12-hour waits in A&E rose twentyfold. Lord Darzi’s report laid it all bare. We inherited a health service in a critical condition and broken by over a decade of under-investment.

    Hansard source
28. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Naushabah Khan

    NHS Corridor Care

    I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very important issue. Yet while corridor care was rising in our hospitals, the previous Government did not count the numbers. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who as Health Secretary chose to publish the official data, because how can we fix what we cannot measure? I also welcome the steps taken by the Government to turn the tide on the mess we inherited, such as the millions of extra appointments delivered, bringing waiting lists down from record highs, and the commitment to end corridor care by 2029. However, corridor care does not begin in the corridor itself, as many Members have noted. It begins with the hospital bed that cannot be freed, as well as the lack of investment in the wider landscape and the lack of support in our communities. This January, the data suggested that one in 10 NHS beds were occupied by people who were medically fit to leave but had no safe place to go—a failure that costs the state £2.7 billion a year, and that costs some of our constituents their lives.

    Hansard source
29. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Naushabah Khan

    NHS Corridor Care

    The hon. Member makes a very powerful point. I will come to adult social care in a moment. We simply cannot end corridor care at the front door of the hospital when the back door remains jammed shut. I welcome the steps taken to reform adult social care—a £3.7 billion funding boost for local authorities—but it is clear that we must go further. I eagerly await Baroness Casey’s independent commission on adult social care. However, I am concerned that the review’s terms of reference call for recommendations to be implemented in a phased way over a decade. That is simply not fast enough. Social care reform must work in lockstep with NHS reform. A commission reporting in 2026 and 2028, with implementation stretched over a decade and beyond, will not be able to enact the scale of change needed to meet our targets. I urge the Government to move at pace.

    Hansard source
30. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Naushabah Khan

    NHS Corridor Care

    No, I will not take any further interventions, thank you. Lastly, I would like to pay tribute to the nurses, doctors and staff who keep Medway hospital in my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham running. In this House, we all receive correspondence from frustrated members of the public regarding the state of our NHS. However, it is the staff who carry the moral injury of apologising, shift after shift, for conditions that they did not create.

    Hansard source
31. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Natasha Irons

    National Youth Strategy

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this important debate. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs, I know the importance of services for young people, and I welcome the Government’s leadership on this issue. When I meet young people in my constituency or through my work on the APPG, I am struck by how tough it is to be a young person in Britain today. Whether through the 73% cut in youth services over the last decade, a housing crisis that prevents some young people from moving on to the next stage of their lives and means that others grow up in temporary accommodation, or youth unemployment, our young people are growing up in a world that is economically challenging, internationally volatile and often hostile to them. Our young people are just as ambitious, just as determined and just as willing to work for their future as anyone who has gone before them, and in that context of hope, opportunity and ambition for our young people, the national youth strategy is so important. Around £1 billion has been taken out of the sector since 2010, more than half of council-run youth centres have closed, and the statutory framework is often too weak. We have been left with a postcode lottery for youth provision, where spending on youth services can range from as little as £1 per young person in one area to £137 in another. Co-created with young people, and backed by £500 million of Government investment, the national youth strategy is a 10-year plan to provide young people with somewhere to go, something meaningful to do and someone who cares. Although I wholeheartedly welcome this landmark strategy, for it to have a truly meaningful impact it must be backed by statutory protections for the services that our young people rely on. That is why I introduced the Youth Services Bill last year, which aims to strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities by introducing clear, measurable benchmarks for what sufficient youth provision looks like. It includes expectations around qualified staff and accessibility, and it embeds the conditions needed for long-term improvement through joined-up safeguarding, quality standards and meaningful youth voice in the design and delivery of services. I have seen at first hand the impact of a lack of statutory protections for youth services. In Croydon, London’s youngest borough, the council shut down the youth engagement team, a group of wonderful youth workers who were a critical link between the voluntary sector and the council. The lack of statutory protections meant that it could be closed down without real consultation with young people, the NHS or the police. Protecting our youth provision is not about placing unrealistic burdens on local authorities; it is about making a practical investment in our young people’s future and financial savings for our communities. As has been outlined, for every £1 we save on youth services, we save up to £6.40 in social value. Although I wholeheartedly recognise and welcome this strategy, I urge the Minister and the Government to think again about how we can provide statutory protections for our youth services.

    Hansard source
32. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr James Frith

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) on securing the debate, which speaks directly to the kind of country and society that we want to create for everyone we represent, and our friends and family—the type of country and society we want to live and thrive in. The Government recognise that AI is, as Members have said, already changing our economy, the delivery of public services, our expectations of each other and the ways in which we interact and engage in debate. For me, it is not merely the latest thing, or the something new and shiny that is so attractive to politics and politicians; in my mind, it is equivalent to a new atmosphere in which we now all expect to feature and play our part. We see the potential of AI in everything from scientific discovery to better public services and stronger economic growth. The Government have a clear responsibility to make sure that the change at the heart of this debate reinforces rather than weakens the fabric of our society. That includes standing up to big tech firms when we deem it necessary—examples will follow—when they facilitate harm to UK citizens. As so many Members have powerfully made the argument for, it also includes developing sovereign capability—determining what comes next and honing it for best benefit. As we bring this debate to a close, it is important that we continue to consider those questions. We must collectively decide how we build a better society in an AI-enabled world. AI must serve us, and not the other way round. The Government recognise the pressure to internationally compete on AI. That means we need to actively shape the transition towards it to secure benefits for the UK while managing risk or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) put it, exert the domestic control that we need. That is why we are working hard to ensure that the UK has the capability, access and influence it needs in the technologies that will shape our economy, public services and national security. It is why we established the sovereign AI unit with £500 million to enable the Government to back promising UK firms. The UK already attracts the third highest private investment in AI.

    Hansard source
33. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr James Frith

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    If I am considered worthy to meet in a few weeks’ time, I will be very happy to do so. This is not about self-sufficiency or about turning away from trusted international partners; it is about ensuring that where the UK has genuine strengths—in research, talent, creativity and innovation—we can translate them into long-term economic benefit. Significant private investment is now flowing into areas that would have seemed like science fiction even a decade ago, including therapies that slow or reverse biological ageing and AI-accelerated drug discovery that could compress timelines for curing major diseases. If realised, such developments would profoundly reshape expectations of health, work and the role of the state. That is why the Government have already committed to ambitious plans to transform services and digitise government, as set out in the road map for modern digital government published earlier this year.

    Hansard source
34. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr James Frith

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    The Government’s principle is to regulate at the time of deployment or at use. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but it is important that we strike the right balance between innovation and regulation. Of course, as I will come on to discuss in more detail, where there have been examples of harm we must call that out and call in those who caused them. The Government have already committed to ambitious plans to transform services. For a radiologist, that means access to the best tools for detecting cancer—tools that can save lives and cut waiting lists in our NHS. The public sector is where it is perhaps most crucial that the Government ensure that we embed frameworks, standards and guidance to ensure that AI is deployed in a way that is fair, transparent and accountable. We are doing so with the data and AI ethics framework, the AI playbook, and transparency standards that ensure the public can understand how systems are used. We are also supporting UK firms that provide third-party AI-assurance ecosystems, demonstrating that AI systems are safe and reliable as well as creating new jobs. That is critical not just for risk management but for building businesses, building confidence in those deploying AI, and building trust in the systems we use. To the points that were made about the job market, AI has the potential to enhance job roles and the performance of each of us at work, but it is necessary and reasonable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole pointed out, to distinguish the jobs that are most at risk—those least likely to be enhanced and most likely to be replaced. That is a very reasonable proposition. We recognise that one of the primary areas where people will interact with AI is in the labour market. To zone in on labour markets, and the issue of young people and entry-level jobs, an estimated 12.8% of all people aged 16 to 24 in the UK are not in education, employment or training. That goes well beyond data-entry or access-level jobs, or a potential shift of culture in relation to entry-level jobs. To date, there is little conclusive evidence that AI is reducing employment. However, the International Monetary Fund estimates that around 70% of UK workers are in exposed occupations. Around half of those exposed workers are in high complementary roles, where AI will enhance rather than replace their work. The Government are committed to supporting the worker experience through the AI transition, and have a proud record of advancing workers’ rights. To that end, earlier this year the Government established the AI and the future of work unit, bringing together expertise from across Departments and industry to monitor how AI is affecting jobs, wages and opportunity in real time. We are putting in place the institutions, data and cross-Government co-ordination needed to ensure that AI transforms the labour market, that workers are supported and that opportunities are widely shared across society. We are also investing in people, because the opportunities of AI will be realised only if the workforce are equipped to harness them. That is why we have launched one of the most ambitious skills programmes anywhere in the world. Our AI skills boost programme is already delivering results. In an answer given to the House last week, I referred to the early careers funding and work on curriculum reforms to come, such as an AI-inclusive GCSE in computing. This is about ensuring that workers at every stage of their career, and whether in small businesses, large firms or public services, have the tools that they need to thrive in an AI-enabled economy. AI will have—is having—seismic impacts on our working lives and productivity, and we must embrace the democracy this gives us. We must democratise access to AI to ensure that communities across the country reap the benefits. Central to that effort is ensuring that support is delivered to the graduates and young people entering the world of work for the first time. Much has been made of the rising level of NEETs. Programmes such as TechLocal are creating new jobs, traineeships and professional training, while scholarships and fellowships are supporting the next generation of researchers and innovators. Nobody is waiting 25 years to tackle the threats, however. AI harms are very real, and we do not sit idly by when it comes to tackling them. We are not standing still. The AI Security Institute is conducting world-leading research to understand the capabilities and impacts of advanced AI. In response to the generation of vile and degrading non-consensual sexual deepfakes on Grok earlier this year, the Prime Minister himself, and the Government, stood up to Grok and X and won that fight. We have criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes and legislated to require platforms to remove them. Separately, we have banned nudification apps and criminalised AI tools designed to create sexual abuse material, as well as learning the importance of sovereignty when considering the recent switching off of the latest Anthropic AI tool. I was asked a specific question about the social media ban. I was a proud early adopter of the policy and I am pleased to say that it remains the Government’s intention to update the House before recess. The UK is proactively responding to the AI revolution—we are shaping it. AI has extraordinary potential to improve healthcare, accelerate scientific discovery, personalise education, strengthen public services and drive economic growth. We will harness the opportunities across every region and community to shape UK society for the better for all.

    Hansard source
35. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is attending the NATO summit. Working with our allies, we are strengthening Europe’s role in the alliance, which remains the cornerstone of our national security. Yesterday the Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of Norway, and I am sure the House will join me in wishing good luck to the England team ahead of the world cup quarter-final. This week, we mark the awful anniversary of 7/7, a day when people travelling through London on a bright summer morning had their lives ended and changed forever, including my best friend James Adams. We remember all those affected by those terrible attacks, and we will always stand against terrorism. The Labour party also pays tribute to Sir George Howarth. He was a champion for Knowsley, a distinguished colleague and a wonderful gentleman. We will miss him deeply, and our condolences are with his wife, Julie, and his family. This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

    Hansard source
36. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    That is not bad for someone who represents a premier league side, but two years since the election, the hon. Member still needs to engage with the facts about the Tories’ failed period in government. His colleagues now accept that. The former Treasury Minister, the former Communities Secretary, the former Health Minister and the former Immigration Minister—and that is just the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—wrecked the country and helped wreck the Tory party, and now wants to do it all over again with Reform.

    Hansard source
37. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I agree with my hon. Friend: Bev Craig will be a brilliant mayor for Greater Manchester. I am proud that Labour is putting power over bus services back in the hands of local leaders. This Government have extended franchising powers, capped fares and invested to deliver better services, and we are ensuring that children can enjoy free bus travel this summer. I am sure my hon. Friends will want to get behind Bev in Greater Manchester so that we can defeat Reform’s divisive candidate and drive forward the agenda under a new mayor.

    Hansard source
38. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I am delighted to welcome the shadow Housing Secretary to the Dispatch Box. He, of course, could have been doing that job every week if he were better with numbers. He was the Foreign Secretary in the Government who botched Brexit, the Home Secretary in the Government who decimated neighbourhood policing and one of the shortest serving Education Secretaries in our history. The right hon. Gentleman asks about a very serious issue, and every decision we have taken has been based on public safety and delivering justice for victims. Let us talk about the context. The last Labour Government built 28,000 prison places. We are building 14,000 by 2031, and we have already delivered 3,200. The Tories closed 23 prisons: Gloucester—closed; Shrewsbury—closed; Portsmouth—closed; Holloway—closed; Northallerton—closed. And what is it now? A block of flats. That is why we have to have an early release scheme and why we passed the Sentencing Act 2026, and we are putting in community powers locally to make sure that we protect the public.

    Hansard source
39. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    This is a very serious issue and the right hon. Gentleman is experienced in this House. He knows that while he was Home Secretary, the Conservative Government had an early release scheme that let out 10,000 offenders—10,000. They had six schemes within a year. They had a scheme that they announced on 6 June 2023, another scheme on 17 October 2023, another scheme on 8 March 2024, another in April, another in May and another in June—all before the election. That is why the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), it is rumoured, called the election in the first place. They left a system with just 83 empty cells. That is what the previous Justice Secretary inherited when she came into office. That is why we had to pass the sentencing scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has not said what the Conservatives would do now to fix the system. Of course we think of every victim. That is why we are notifying victims and are in discussion with all victims. I sat, last week in my surgery, with a victim of grooming gangs. All of us want to see offenders locked up. That is why we must have prison capacity.

    Hansard source
40. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    The right hon. Gentleman has not proposed what the Conservatives would do if they were in office. They released 10,000 under four different schemes, with no impact assessment when they released them, no victim contact when they released them, and no warning. They did it on the sly. Let us be clear: we have more probation officers, while the Conservative Government cut probation—decimated it—because of Chris Grayling. We have invested £700 million in probation. We are rolling out the largest programme of tagging in our history. We are forcing offenders to stay boxed in certain areas, rather than where victims are. We are creating alcohol, pub, football and driving bans. We are implementing income reduction orders. We are expanding chemical castration for sex offenders. None of that happened when they were in power.

    Hansard source