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·Matt Turmaine

   NHS Corridor Care

   I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing this important debate. The previous Government wreaked havoc on the NHS, with waiting times at an all-time high even before covid-19 hit a bruised and battered system. Under-investment and undelivered promises saw corridor care become commonplace, with its subsequent indignity and risk. It is a clear visual demonstration of a system on its knees. This Labour Government are determined to act. The urgent and emergency care plan for 2025-26 provided more than £450 million of investment in urgent and emergency care. Additional millions of pounds of capital investment, reaching £1.9 billion over the next four years, will help to deliver it. Links between hospitals and social care are clear and critical, which is why the Government are working to implement a national care service and initiatives such as the first-ever fair pay agreement for adult social care staff. Watford general hospital in my constituency is on the new hospitals programme, but it was previously delayed endlessly under the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government and subsequent Conservative Governments. However, under this Labour Government, it is seeing tangible action in preparation for the rebuild. West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has worked incredibly hard in my constituency to deal with corridor care, and I am delighted to say that corridor care has been eradicated altogether at Watford general hospital. It has not had a single incident of corridor care for six months. How has it managed that remarkable achievement? First, the hospital has taken a whole-hospital approach to flow, making it everybody’s business and therefore everybody’s concern. The trust states: “The simple rule is we don’t accept corridor care in our wards. We find other solutions.” Secondly, the hospital has embraced data, embedding it into everything that it does to manage the flow of patients. It has real-time data tools such as electronic bed management, e-whiteboards and a digital command centre. Six key measures have been identified, which staff are using and which are easy to understand. Thirdly, the trust has engaged in partnership working—it could not tackle corridor care in A&E alone. There is a care co-ordination centre to reduce the number of ambulances coming into A&E for those who do not need emergency treatment; a multidisciplinary team to advise paramedics on where people should be treated; and close working with social care, treating people away from hospital, as is included in the NHS 10-year plan. In conclusion, I place on record my thanks and admiration for the staff at the trust. Their hard work has paid off, and it demonstrates what can be achieved when working together as a team to deliver for their patients and population.

   Hansard source
2. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Rodda

   NHS Corridor Care

   It is important to recognise this wider legacy. In my area of Reading, we are waiting for a new hospital to be built. One was promised by the last Government, but no funding was provided, and there are very real-world implications of continuing with old buildings in such a state, like our A&E. I appreciate my hon. Friend raising this matter, and I look forward to the Minister providing further details.

   Hansard source
3. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mary Creagh

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

   I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I have immediately availed myself of your generous offer to take some clothes off; it is always a good way to start the afternoon. If anyone has had the scampi and chips in the Members’ Tea Room, that will keep us powering through. These draft regulations were laid before the House on 4 June. In 2023, the European Union replaced its 2006 batteries directive with a new batteries regulation, which introduced updated “placing on the market” requirements for batteries, including design, information and labelling specifications. The EU regulation achieves several objectives. By introducing new requirements relating to carbon footprint, performance, durability and recycled content, and by updating the requirements for the removability and replaceability of batteries from containing devices, it addresses the environmental and safety performance of batteries. The EU regulation introduces specific safety requirements for stationary battery energy storage systems and updates information requirements, including on batteries’ state of health and expected lifetime. The EU regulation introduces a digital battery passport and supply chain due diligence policies for larger businesses that are placing batteries on the market. Previous requirements relating to the restriction of certain substances in batteries are also carried forward. The EU regulation introduces conformity assessments with the CE mark to demonstrate compliance with the requirements that I have just listed. Those changes reflect the rapid growth in sectors such as electric vehicles—including cars, vans and e-bikes—portable electronics and energy storage, alongside the increasing volume and complexity of batteries now in circulation. Those requirements apply directly in Northern Ireland, as they do in EU member states. They phase in over time, meaning that some requirements are already in force, and others are due to come into force on future dates specified by the EU regulation.

   Hansard source
4. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mary Creagh

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

   I am not aware of any research, but there is work going on through our circular economy strategy, which we have co-designed with industry. As part of that, we have looked at transport and waste electricals, and I am certain that there are transport experts in those working groups. We have to get to a circular economy, not just for batteries but for tyres, which also have a habit of miraculously catching fire after being collected. We need to consider that as part of our circular economy work, but I am happy to take a note and write further to the right hon. Gentleman on that. It is mostly a matter for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but as I said, the complexity and location of batteries are changing, and we do not want to end up with contaminants and pollutants.

   Hansard source
5. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mary Creagh

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

   I will undertake to do that. If I cannot do it myself, I will pass it on to my DESNZ colleagues.

   Hansard source
6. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mary Creagh

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

   I will make a little progress, if I may. The changes will apply directly in Northern Ireland and will phase in over time. They apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework. As an EU regulation, the obligations within it apply directly, without the need for transposition. The draft instrument, in a reserved policy area, is the domestic legislation required to enable effective enforcement of these obligations in Northern Ireland. Implementing the measures helps Northern Ireland to maintain its dual market access. It does so by establishing a proportionate enforcement, offences and penalties regime in Northern Ireland for the EU regulation. Offences are put in one of three penalty groups: summary-only offences, such as those subject to a fine, which can be unlimited; either-way offences; or imprisonment for up to 12 months and/or an unlimited fine for the most serious indictable-only offences. Offences include failure to keep appropriate due-diligence documentation; failure of a supplier of battery cells and modules to provide documentation to manufacturers; and failure by an importer to comply with certain battery safety-related obligations. Those fall into penalty groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The Office for Product Safety and Standards enforces the existing “placing on the market” requirement across the UK and will act as the market surveillance and enforcement authority for “placing on the market” matters set out in this draft instrument in Northern Ireland. The SI also includes supplementary measures arising from the EU regulation, relating to conformity assessment. That includes a requirement for the NI indication to accompany the CE mark in certain circumstances, making the Secretary of State the designated authority for notified bodies and putting in place an appeals process for decisions made by notified bodies. The draft SI also consequentially amends the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008 by revoking them in respect of Northern Ireland, so that they now apply only in Great Britain. To be clear, the instrument does not introduce new policy objectives or regulatory standards beyond those arising from the EU batteries regulation. The batteries regulation required the penalty regime to be in place by 18 August 2025. Further parts of the EU regulation remain to be implemented in Northern Ireland, after that 18 August 2025 date. They include changes to waste and to extended producer responsibility requirements. Those matters are not covered here. I will now respond to the submission noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee regarding the impact on the UK internal market and the costs arising from the draft instrument. The UK has had an integrated UK-wide approach to batteries and waste batteries for many years. Let me be clear that we will take any steps necessary to continue to meet the Government’s commitment to protect the UK’s internal market. That is why we will consult in the autumn on an aligned regime in Great Britain that is consistent with the EU’s 2023 batteries regulation. The consultation will be UK-wide and conducted with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland and with the other devolved Governments as a four-nation approach. Such an approach will avoid duplicative administrative burdens and provide a unified framework across the UK and EU for batteries. Crucially, it will also deliver against our environmental objectives. Battery manufacturing is a highly sophisticated global sector, and major manufacturers are already adjusting to the new standards. A unified approach is what businesses are asking for, so the autumn consultation will seek views not only on the application of the “placing on the market” regulations in Great Britain, but on the outstanding waste and producer responsibility provisions. We believe that pursuing this approach provides the best outcome for the UK. I welcome the collaborative approach taken in the development of this draft SI, which has drawn constructively on expertise in industry and the relevant Departments. The provisions set out on enforcement in this SI meaningfully strengthen the application of the EU batteries regulation in Northern Ireland, where it has been law since its publication in 2023. By improving compliance in key areas such as battery safety, hazardous substances and environmental performance, I expect positive environmental and human outcomes through the reduced risk of unsafe or environmentally harmful batteries being placed on the market. I am also reassured by the de minimis assessment undertaken in respect of this draft instrument. Given that the associated costs are minimal, and that the draft instrument introduces no contentious or disproportionate impacts, the approach is both reasonable and appropriate. I am satisfied that the instrument falls within the scope of the parent Act and represents an appropriate use of those powers. For that reason, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

   Hansard source
7. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mary Creagh

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

   What a peach of a debate! On the one hand, the Conservative party gave us gentle encouragement and asked questions about how the policy has been enforced in the interim. Once again, I was questioned about the previous Government’s inaction and inability to take any steps to bring in this law before they left office. On the other hand, two parliamentarians from the Democratic Unionist party reopened the debates on Brexit—

   Hansard source
8. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mary Creagh

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

   No, I will not give way; I am replying to the debate. They reopened the debates on Brexit, which detained this House from 2016 until I left in 2019 and much beyond. When the former leader of the Conservatives said that we should “Get Brexit done” in 2019, little did he know that Brexit would never be done. This issue is the perfect example of why Brexit will never be done and of the difficulties it brought to this Parliament and Northern Ireland, with its unique protected status under the Windsor framework. It demonstrates the difficulties and the bureaucracy faced by every single business and householder trying to do the right thing and stay safe. We have had a long and abstract debate about laws and who votes for them. This Committee is our chance to scrutinise the law—I feel scrutinised—and our chance to vote. We will vote later.

   Hansard source
9. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mary Creagh

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

   Let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman a little about what Northern Ireland thinks. I am going to make my point, and then I hope we can get into a much longer debate. Translink in Northern Ireland bans e-batteries, e-bikes and e-scooters from its networks because of the risk of fire. Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council has a “Buy Safe, Be Safe” campaign because of the risks of electric batteries. Waste management organisations all the way across Northern Ireland, including Newtownards, have all made complaints about the proliferating risk of batteries, battery waste and illegal batteries. I want to talk about a couple of my constituents, Karlo Bogdan and Natasha Johnson-Mall. Karlo was 24 and Natasha was 27 when they died in a fire caused by an unsafe e-battery in my Coventry East constituency. That is not an uncommon occurrence because lithium battery fires spread incredibly quickly, and those two hard-working young people, lost their lives unnecessarily in part because these regulations and protections—which we are bringing in, yes, first in Northern Ireland, but later in our own country—were not in place to protect them from the dodgy salespeople and resellers on Amazon and all the dumping that has happened as a result of the great Brexit deal. I am very happy to give way if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to come back on any of that.

   Hansard source
10. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mary Creagh

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

    Let me begin by apologising to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that he is a member of Traditional Unionist Voice. I did know that, but I forgot it in the heat. We are in the process of doing exactly what he is exhorting us to do, which is to make sure that we have a complete internal market across the United Kingdom while also protecting Northern Ireland’s unique protected status under the Windsor framework. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that it is a model. Brexit has not delivered the freedoms it was supposed to deliver. In the end, the e-bikes, e-cars and e-batteries we buy are not made in Great Britain; most are made by Bosch in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the regulation applies in Northern Ireland, and there is what I would consider a halo effect because most people placing batteries on the market are abiding by it. What we are doing today is beginning a clampdown on rogue merchants who may be competing unfairly and whose products may not meet that new European standard. I wanted to put my constituents’ deaths on the record, because while we talk about the abstract principles and ideals of subsidiarity and sovereignty, sovereignty was not able to save their lives. My mission is to save lives, not least the lives of waste transfer station staff—the most invisible and neglected sector in our country—who are dealing with batteries on a weekly basis, especially in temperatures such as those we are enduring at the moment. On interim enforcement, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest asked—it is not on me to defend him from attacks by other Members, but I have some sympathy, because it is a totally reasonable question to ask. The Office for Product Safety and Standards tried to enforce the pre-2023 EU battery regulation on a UK-wide basis, including in Northern Ireland, but of course it does not apply here. The OPSS is not set up as the enforcement authority until this mechanism goes through, so it cannot enforce it. That is the simple answer, and it is why we are here today. On why we did not introduce the regulations sooner, we brought forward the legislation to support “placing on the market” requirements as soon as was reasonably practicable, taking into account the need for stakeholder engagement. We have consulted stakeholders and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke mentioned, we wrote to all the trade associations and got one reply back. Most businesses are already doing this because they are placing products on the European Union market, and this is just stuff we are doing. The right hon. Member for East Antrim says the cost is £30,000, but that is the total cost across all those businesses, not for one. It is the cost of a couple of hours of someone’s time to familiarise themselves with the new regulations. It is not the cost for each business, so my understanding is that it does not affect small and medium-sized enterprises in that way—I gently correct him on that. We engaged with stakeholders, we appointed a market surveillance authority and we did quite a lot of complex policy work on what this means for our existing regulation. We will do a wider review of the existing battery producer responsibility regulations. We hope to bring that in on a GB and UK-wide basis. On the figure of £35,017, that is across all affected businesses. Another question was, how does this affect the UK internal market? In a limited way—the majority of batteries are manufactured to meet Northern Ireland and EU standards already, whether they are physically placed on the market in Europe, Northern Ireland or GB. That is the halo effect I was talking about—they have raised their standards, and we are passive beneficiaries. Batteries meeting Northern Ireland requirements can be placed on the GB market, so there is no border down the Irish sea, which was of great concern to everyone here. This autumn, we will consult on an aligned regime across the whole UK that is consistent and will provide a unified regulatory framework across the UK and the EU. The draft regulations do not introduce new policy, nor does it impose any significant new regulatory burdens on businesses. Without them, we would have rules but no means to uphold them, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. That is not an acceptable position to be in, so the instrument provides clarity, certainty and, crucially, enforceability. It equips the enforcement authorities with the powers they need to make sure that batteries placed on the NI market meet required standards. On the divergence questions, the reality is that most of these batteries are standardised right across the EU. As I said, this is not the end; we are consulting on an aligned regime, but this is the essential first step to ensure that existing “placing on the market” requirements are properly enforced and support compliance with our Windsor framework obligations while broader work continues. This is a very low-cost and proportionate measure. It did not require an impact assessment, because it was way under the de minimis requirement of a £10 million extra burden on businesses. It does not change the underlying requirements that businesses must meet and it imposes nominal familiarisation costs, so compliant businesses will not see any change in their day-to-day operations. To come back to the issue of battery safety, we already have some of the strongest consumer product safety protections in the world, requiring that only safe products, including batteries, are placed on the market. These draft regulations help to ensure that unsafe batteries are identified and removed from the market by more effectively enabling enforcement of safety, labelling and performance requirements. Through our Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, we retain the ability to go further, if needed, to strengthen protections for consumers throughout the UK. As I said, we are not complacent, and those two young people who lost their lives in Coventry are very much front and centre of my mind. We recognise the real risks to life and limb posed by faulty or non-compliant products. That is why we are taking action across the board with regulators and industry to understand and address the causes of battery-related fires. It does not matter how small the battery is, whether it is a tiny battery in a hearing aid or a vape battery, it must go back to a battery WEEE—waste electrical and electronic equipment—provider. Every store that sells a vape, including the regular high street supermarkets, has a vape take-back scheme. Batteries, when compressed and baled, become incredibly heated and really dangerous. We could end up taking out our municipal recycling facilities in extremely dangerous and complex fires if we do not dispose of batteries properly, so we have already acted to reduce one major source of battery-related fire risk by banning the use of single-use vapes in 2025, and by supporting their collection and recycling through a dedicated WEEE category. Before we introduced that category, vapes were classed as toys. That is what was done—they were classed as toys under the regulations, which is absolutely incredible. The early signs are encouraging, because 8 million vapes were sold in 2023-24, but the figures for ’24-25 show that it has already gone down to 6 million, which is accounted for by the regulations coming into effect in June ’25—so that is only a half-year reduction. I am therefore optimistic that sales will come down even lower from that 8 million.[Official Report 13 July 2026, Vol. 789, C. 10WC.] (Correction). We are working with industry and standards bodies to improve the safety of e-bike and personal electric vehicles through the development of a new publicly available specification. DEFRA has strengthened its capability by bringing in specialist expertise from industry to help ensure that the work to tackle these risks is informed by real-world experience and, crucially, technical knowledge. The draft instrument supports environmental protection, ensuring standards on hazardous substances are upheld—to go back to the question of the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold about batteries, hazardous substances and forever chemicals. These measures have been developed across Governments and with industry, and concerns have simply not been raised by stakeholders. I hear the comments and concerns of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the right hon. Member for East Antrim, but this is a practical, proportionate and necessary instrument. It will ensure that the law operates as intended and that our obligations are met as Members who were sent to this place to protect the life and limb of the people we represent, while facilitating consumer, business and environmental protection and our obligations under the Windsor framework. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.

    Hansard source
11. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Marsha De Cordova

    Community Cohesion

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

    Hansard source
12. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Marsha De Cordova

    Community Cohesion

    The scenes we witnessed in Belfast last month were truly horrific. The knife attack was an abhorrent act, and I pay tribute to the courage of those who intervened to help, but what followed in the days afterwards was equally disturbing. Innocent people were targeted because of the colour of their skin, families were literally burned out of their homes, and businesses were attacked. Does the Secretary of State agree that overt racism and violence has no place on the streets of Belfast or anywhere in our society, and that those in positions of authority and influence should stop inflaming tensions and legitimising racism and prejudice?

    Hansard source
13. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this timely debate, and for his comprehensive report on his visit to Gibraltar. His experiences there closely match my own. On that note, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In June last year, I had the pleasure of going to Gibraltar at the invitation of the Government of Gibraltar. While I was there, Guy Dumas, an employee of the Government of Gibraltar, showed us around, and he and I got on so well that I ended up recruiting him as my parliamentary assistant. He has provided enormous assistance with my speech for the debate, for which I am very grateful. He is flying back to Gibraltar in just over a week’s time to marry the love of his life, Holly, and I am sure we all wish them well in their marriage. There has been one cloud—the levanter cloud, as it is known in Gibraltar—hanging over the Rock since 2016. As has already been mentioned, Gibraltar did not vote for Brexit; 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the EU, but they have had to deal with the consequences. And rightly so, because they are part of the British family. After a decade of uncertainty since the referendum, a positive future is finally beginning to shine through those clouds. Much of the focus in the lead-up to the agreement was on the key issue of sovereignty, which is completely understandable. Gibraltarians are proudly British. They have reaffirmed that in two referendums, in which 99% voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. Thankfully, as has already been stated, article 2 of the draft agreement says that the agreement is “without prejudice to” the legal positions of the UK and Spain regarding sovereignty over Gibraltar. The House of Commons Library notes that the agreement includes that term and that the Government of Gibraltar have obtained legal opinions confirming that the agreement makes no concessions over the issue of sovereignty. From an entirely legal perspective, an important box has been ticked. I will focus my remarks on a different principle: Gibraltar’s right to self-determination and the democratic will of its people and its elected Government. My visit to Gibraltar last year began with an unexpected detour. As anyone who has visited will know, the mile-long runway, combined with the strong winds across it, means that planes often cannot land and have to take a detour to Málaga. That was my experience, too. That meant I had to enter Gibraltar via the land border, which is a routine experience for everybody living on the Rock and the surrounding area. Thankfully, I did not experience a particularly long queue to cross from Spain into Gibraltar, but I know that is not always the case. There are over 15,000 cross-frontier workers in Gibraltar, and that border is the only land entry point into Gibraltar. Delays of minutes can quickly become hours, and those hours are taken away from time with family or time at work. With this agreement, the routine passport checks that have caused those queues will come to an end. The agreement is intended to ensure that the free circulation of people and goods continues, and it removes those physical barriers at the border. As a Labour MP, I welcome any agreement that improves the lives of working people. During my visit, I met Gibraltarian Government Ministers, the chamber of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses. I spoke with businesses, just as the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham described, and with many others. At that point, the agreement had not been announced—it was announced a few days later—but they all spoke about the implications of any potential agreement. They also spoke about Gibraltar’s turbulent history, with Spain being a factor. Their feelings were definitely mixed. There was a mix of hope and anxiety, and there was an acceptance of the reality facing them. There was anxiety among the business community about the effects that new tax arrangements might have on their businesses. The controlled border, while frustrating in the way I described, provided a sense of security, and some worried that removing those routine checks could affect crime on what is a very peaceful peninsula. They also acknowledged that the alternative to the agreement is a hard border. Some of the people I spoke to had lived through the closed frontier years of 1969 to 1985. They did not have to imagine what a no-deal outcome would look like, because they had already lived through it, and they were cautioning me and the people I was with against it. What struck me was that there is both a passion for their home and a practical approach to the reality they face. I remember speaking to one of our drivers during the visit. We discussed the agreement, and although he had concerns—the ones I have set out—he was very practical. He told me that he crosses into Spain every single weekend and that if the agreement would make that easier and save him hours of queuing, then he was all for it. Gibraltarians are a thoughtful and politically minded people. I know that because I am pleased to be a member—a secret member—of the “Speak Freely” Facebook group. I hope they do not kick me out after that declaration, especially as I am not a resident of Gibraltar, but it has been wonderful to follow the political discussions. I have no doubt that some of that political awareness comes as a result of years of vigilance with a neighbour that claims sovereignty over their Rock. The visit left me in no doubt that while Westminster scrutiny is absolutely valid and welcome, and while we have to ratify treaties here, it should not override the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. The UK, the EU, Spain and Gibraltar announced the political agreement days after my visit, and the draft agreement was published this February. Gibraltar’s Parliament subsequently passed a motion supporting ratification. Every single one of its 17 Members voted in favour of ratification—that is the kind of consensus we can only dream of in this place. There can be no doubt that the agreement has democratic legitimacy from the Government of Gibraltar. I recognise the desire of Members, who no doubt have the interests of the Gibraltarian people in mind, to scrutinise the agreement to the fullest. The UK has a constitutional duty towards Gibraltar, even though Gibraltar is almost entirely self-governing, but if the agreement commands the support of Gibraltar’s elected Government and every single Member of its Parliament, we must give considerable weight to that democratic judgment. Our Parliament can and should scrutinise, but it should not substitute its own judgment for the democratic will of Gibraltar, particularly when the agreement protects sovereignty and military autonomy. I want to say a word on military autonomy. Gibraltar continues to play a key strategic military role. Defence is one of the United Kingdom’s reserved constitutional responsibilities, so I fully understand why Parliament must carefully scrutinise that aspect of any agreement, but here, too, a very important box has been ticked. The UK military base is not affected by the agreement, and those are not my words; they are the words of the outgoing commander of the British forces in Gibraltar, Commodore Tom Guy, who said that the agreement is positive from a military perspective because it protects the key principle of “military autonomy”, and our armed forces will “continue to operate to, through and from Gibraltar unhindered”. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, treaties must be laid before Parliament before ratification, but the political principle, I hope, is clear: the power to decide Gibraltar’s future should rest with the people of Gibraltar. Our Government and Parliament should respect their wishes. I have only two questions for the Minister, who I know is very highly regarded on the Rock. Can he confirm to the House and to the Gibraltarian people that there will be a legally binding mechanism to ensure that no UK Government will be able to withdraw from the agreement without Gibraltar’s consent? In a similar vein, can he confirm that no future UK Government will be able to block Gibraltar from withdrawing from the agreement if it is the democratically expressed will of the Gibraltarian people? That would be the strongest way to ensure that Gibraltar continues to control its own future. Next week, the levanter cloud over the Rock may finally begin to lift. Gibraltar may feel different, but British sovereignty has been protected, and military autonomy is completely unchanged. Now it should be the Gibraltarians who determine their future in accordance with the principle of self-determination.

    Hansard source
14. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    The Minister talks about the price reductions for the three countries. By my maths, that is a 70% reduction in the price of sending SMS texts, which is incredibly welcome, although I am not sure who sends those any more. Is he working on similar agreements with other countries not covered by the changes that we are making today?

    Hansard source
15. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Myer

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    The Teesside region has the potential to bring nationally significant investment in new AI data centre infrastructure. We welcome that investment and we are open for business, but will the Minister commit to meet colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that the governance arrangements around the Teesworks site attract business, rather than deter it?

    Hansard source
16. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Myer

    Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that creating industrial clusters is the best route to bringing in some of the new companies that look to scale up and invest? I recently met UnionDAC, which is looking to invest in Teesside. That is partly because of the huge amount of investment that is coming to the east coast cluster carbon capture, utilisation and storage project, which is creating 3,000 construction jobs as we speak. Does he therefore agree that the Government must continue to maintain the momentum for those clusters and new ones in next year’s spending review to create skilled jobs across the UK?

    Hansard source
17. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Murphy

    Engagements

    Yesterday, I was proud to host members of Basingstoke’s Nepalese community here in Parliament, including a number of Gurkha veterans. One of the issues we discussed was Gurkha pensions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) for all her work on that—I have been proud to work alongside her. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is time to resolve the long-standing issue of Gurkha pensions, recognising the service and sacrifice of Gurkha veterans to our country?

    Hansard source
18. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lorraine Beavers

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    Fleetwood and Lytham have been officially recognised as the two busiest coastguard stations in the UK, and I place on the record my thanks for their amazing dedication to keeping our people safe. Will the Minister reassure the House that the GMB union and volunteer coastguards will be fully consulted at all stages, and that communities like mine in Blackpool North and Fleetwood are not going to be put at risk?

    Hansard source
19. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liam Conlon

    NHS Corridor Care

    We talk about getting people out of hospital, but it is also about keeping them out of there. I spent years in and out of hospital as a teenager; I was one of the youngest people in Britain to have a hip replacement when I was in sixth form. The rehabilitation services that I relied on at the Royal London hospital were sadly closed by the last Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we invest in those services for them to reopen, so that when people leave hospital, they stay out of hospital?

    Hansard source
20. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Pitcher

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    The last time we saw a change of such potential scale was when we moved from being a manufacturing economy to being more of a service economy. There were trade-offs at that time, and some people, cities, towns and villages were left behind—including in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that on this occasion we can plan because we know it is coming? We need to be thinking about jobs, access and skills for younger people, and ensuring that the benefits are felt right the way across the country and not just clustered in one place.

    Hansard source
21. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Pitcher

    Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset

    Interconnectivity goes across not just buses but other modes of transport such as trains. There is a petition in one of my rural areas where, pre-covid, trains ran every 30 minutes; that is now every two hours, and there is a big gap in the middle of the day. Does the hon. Member agree that we need strategic planning in the mayoralties across all modes of transport?

    Hansard source
22. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kevin Bonavia

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this important debate. We live at a time when our country is being targeted—not just threatened or tested, but actively targeted. We have already heard from many hon. Members that the reality is that hostile states are seeking to harm us every single day. Cyber-attacks batter our systems, malign actors push relentlessly at the seams of our national security and disinformation campaigns seek to warp our public debates, including in Clacton in the weeks ahead, where Russian bots will have to decide whether it is going to be the current outgoing Member for Clacton or Count Binface—that is the choice they face. More seriously, we know these threats in our day-to-day work as Members. They happen to us and to anybody who wants to speak out in public debate. And why is that? It is to undermine our common security. We have had discussion today about whose fault it is that our defences have been run down in recent years. Let me be bipartisan: we all lived off the peace dividend from the end of the cold war—that is understandable and we get that—but in that time, we came together as a country and as a House to defend countries in need, not least Ukraine. We have done that, but now we need to look to our home defence, which is under threat in a way that it has never been since at least the second world war.

    Hansard source
23. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kevin Bonavia

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    That is fantastic news for the future of NATO. I pay tribute to our Prime Minister for speaking up for NATO. This country has a NATO-first policy, and rightly so. We put our nuclear deterrent and our own taxpayers’ money to the service of NATO. We must come together as an alliance and we must recognise that our country’s contribution has been great, no matter what the debate about how we get to 3.5% of GDP in the years ahead. I thank my own Government—as a Labour MP, I should—for what they have done to support our armed forces by increasing pay and taking housing back into public ownership, so that the armed forces can have the morale that they deserve. But we need to keep doing more. I thank our defence industry in this country too. I want to mention two defence firms in my constituency of Stevenage. Airbus helps to produce between a quarter and a third of all satellites in space, but the company cannot manufacture the satellites in my town alone; it collaborates with companies in sites across the country, including in Portsmouth—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is in her place. We need to come together and support our SMEs. Last week, I visited Astute, a defence logistics firm in my constituency that needs our support. This Government are and must do more to support such companies in the armed forces industries, but that is not enough if we are going to truly make our country safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) made an excellent point about how we have to face the threats from hostile actors around the world. It is not just about the hardware or about the people we need to recruit to our armed forces. As many hon. Members have said, it is about a whole-of-society approach. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) talked about national resilience, and this really has to be a national cause. The excellent strategic defence review finishes with that point and talks about a whole-of-society approach. Can we really do that? Members have said today that the public do not really feel that yet, but many Members and veterans do. The armed forces and our intelligence services see it. There are things that I do not even know about, but I do know—from what I am allowed to know—that this issue is serious and affecting us now. Russia’s grey-zone war is there, and it will not just be Russia in the years ahead—we know that there are others—so how do we take this approach? Before the second world war, many people thought, “Never again. We cannot rearm; we cannot do all this.” There was a famous debate in the Oxford Union, where they voted not to fight for King or country—and that is said about our young people today, but I do not believe it. I see countries, such as Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, that feel and see the urgency. Maybe we do not feel it yet in this country, but it behoves all of us, in this place and beyond, to help people understand what is going on. That will be harder now. In the 1930s, we had the mainstream media, or whatever it was called back then; now, we are going to be dealing with disinformation. When we try to make our case, there will always be somebody out there to talk about poor, maligned Putin. I have that in my patch—only a few days ago, a Russian state broadcaster wanted Stevenage to be attacked with missiles. We must do better, and I am sure that we will.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for tabling this urgent question on what is an incredibly important matter. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the remuneration of coastguard rescue officers, and I want to begin by recognising the extraordinary contribution made by CROs across the United Kingdom. For generations, His Majesty’s Coastguard’s coastal response has depended on people from local communities who choose to serve, often alongside full-time employment and family life. The reason we are here today is that the model had to change. For years, when people signed up as volunteers, they had their expenses covered and an offer of hourly pay—which they did not need to claim—in recognition of the incredible service they undertook and the impact it had on their personal life. A Court of Appeal judgment has clarified that this payment overwhelmingly shifted what many considered to be a volunteer relationship into a work-wage bargain, and that this in turn conferred worker status. Everything we have done since has been to respect that judgment, understand what we do next, and allow CROs to continue fulfilling their vital public service and retain operational capacity. There is no perfect solution, but ultimately, the volunteer model was judged at the time to be the better outcome for the service. That was the judgment reached by the MCA, which—as experts in search and rescue—took into account a variety of factors including profiles of incident types, geographies and organisational implications, as well as a survey of CRO sentiment and legal analysis, with which it made a recommendation. That recommendation allowed CROs to retain volunteer status, with the aim of protecting flexibility and the ability of people to serve alongside their primary employment. Careful consideration was given to options, including legal position, the operational implications and the wider organisational impact. I have heard the concerns of the CRO community about this change. That is why the next stage of the process—the engagement sessions that were due to take place this week—have been postponed while I carry on working with CROs, trade unions and colleagues across the House. I will reflect on what has been raised in these discussions and consider how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised in the long term. Volunteering has been at the heart of His Majesty’s Coastguard’s response for over 200 years. It enables individuals to serve their communities alongside their primary employment, maintaining choice and flexibility. I remain grateful to all members of the Coastguard Rescue Service for their unwavering commitment to their communities and people in distress around the UK coastline.

    Hansard source
25. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    May I begin by thanking the right hon. Member not only for his championing of CROs, but for doing so in such a fair-minded, open and constructive way? I will respond substantively to some of the points he has made. On parliamentary scrutiny of prospective changes or working through options for the future of CROs, I make the commitment to him that Members of Parliament will be updated fully on any changes and on the next steps. During the Westminster Hall debate on this issue, he made the important point that MPs need to be allowed access to CROs to have meaningful conversations about what they think the future of the service should look like. The right hon. Member asks whether survey data was used to inform the judgment that was made. I can confirm to him that survey data was one constituent part of a package of advice in regard to an operational recommendation by experts at the MCA about what the future model should look like. That was used alongside impact assessments and modelling. He raised this in his contribution to the Westminster Hall debate, but if he has further information about how CROs believe this change will impact them, and about the reality for his rural constituency and the island communities that he represents so fulsomely, I strongly encourage him to share that with me. I reiterate that I want Members of Parliament to be able to play a full role in representing CROs throughout this process.

    Hansard source
26. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I have already made a commitment to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) to keep the House fully informed about any next steps that are taken, but my hon. Friend raises a broader point about how CROs have been engaged throughout this process. There are some fundamental truths that I keep coming back to. One is that remuneration takes place because it allows CROs to carry out the work that they do. They do not do it for the money, but it allows them to carry out this vital public service. Another truth is that it is not always possible to reflect the scale of the contribution that CROs make. I was in Southampton the other day and spoke to around 15 CROs. They were talking about the system not recognising when they take the van for an MOT or douse down the equipment after somebody has been rescued from mud. Ultimately, it is about fairness and recognition, and that is what I want to do my level best to inject into this process.

    Hansard source
27. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    On what I am doing personally to solve the problem, the reason that those consultation sessions are not going ahead this week is that I am honouring the commitment I made to the House last week in the Westminster Hall debate in responding to the number of concerns expressed by Members of Parliament about the operational implications of the decision that was taken. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised serious concerns and questions were asked about parliamentary engagement with CROs. Allegations were made that MPs were not granted proper access to engage with CROs prior to the decision being taken. Those things are all of serious concern to me, and that is why this pause has gone ahead. I question what the shadow Minister says about the data standing alone in the operational judgment that was made. I reiterate that a package of measures enables us to make a decision. It is based on impact assessments, operational evidence and the surveys that he references. The surveys only form a constituent part of that process. The salient point remains that it is right to reflect on the concerns that have been raised across this House and to consider long-term options that will ensure that CROs feel valued and that operational capacity is retained in every part of the United Kingdom, including our rural areas. That is what I am committed to doing.

    Hansard source
28. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I thank my hon. Friend for her doggedly determined support for her CROs. She is absolutely right to do what she is doing. I would be pleased to engage with the evidence sessions that are taking place next week, and I look forward to seeing the findings from them. She is right to point to the fact that CROs have decades of experience. I spoke to a CRO in Southampton just the other day who had served, including through the MCA, for the best part of 50 years. We cannot afford for that experience to slip through the cracks. She also mentions that CROs often have to respond to the most tragic of circumstances, when unfortunately it has not been possible to save people. Remuneration does not obscure that fact or make it better, but it is a way of recognising the enormous contribution that CROs make. That point about fairness and due regard for the contribution that CROs make has to run through the centre of what comes next.

    Hansard source
29. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    The Liberal Democrat spokesperson was right to say that CROs do not do it for the money, but it is the money that makes what they do possible. He also said that £11 an hour does not constitute remuneration in the way that it might, given that we would all hope that CROs can be respected. What it does do is go some small way towards compensating for the Christmas dinners and birthdays missed, the call-outs in the middle of the night, and the disruption to family life. That is a part of the CRO experience that I think needs to flow into our decision making and that was certainly reflected to me when I spoke to the 15 CROs in Southampton the other day and learned about their lived experience of processing these changes. The hon. Gentleman asked me about risk, about mitigating risk, and about operational certainty. I can confirm to him that operational impacts were carefully considered in the advice that was put to me, and that that modelling has been done and has informed this part of a package of data, alongside the survey information. That informs the experts in the MCA, who are there to advise on what the operational impacts would be, of the reality of the situation.

    Hansard source
30. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    My hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to reiterate that CROs, their lived experience and their views on these changes must be at the heart of what happens next, which is why the meetings that were scheduled to take place this week are not taking place this week. I want to take the time to reflect on what hon. Members have told me, and also what CROs have had the opportunity to tell me about how these changes will affect them. Nowhere is that more important than in rural communities like the one that my hon. Friend represents. Let me build on that point. As the local Member of Parliament, she should be able to engage with her CROs on this matter where it is most convenient to do so—perhaps at the station itself—so that she can represent them. It is also important for trade union representation to be factored into ongoing engagement with CROs, so that we can make sure we get the details right.

    Hansard source
31. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    We need to ensure that the CROs who are affected by these changes have an opportunity to carry on raising their concerns, but also to raise other instances. The hon. Gentleman has argued forcefully that the worker model is an appropriate way in which to continue, and that could be true in a great number of cases, but it is not true in every case. Indeed, I spoke to a CRO in Southampton for whom it is not the case. We need to tease out the detail of all these matters. We need to listen carefully to CROs, and we need to create the space to allow that to happen. I am not going to say specifically what options I may or may not take in the coming days, but by pausing the sessions that were meant to happen this week I am creating the space that will make it possible to weigh up those options dispassionately and ensure that we can get them right, so that CROs can continue to share their views and we can make decisions that reflect the incredible contribution they make.

    Hansard source
32. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in the House of making sure that workers and their rights are protected, but his characterisation of the situation at the start of his question was one that I could not reject more strongly. Changes in the coastguard rescue service operating model are the result of a legal judgment which meant that the current model could not legally continue. What we are attempting to do is maintain a system whereby CROs feel valued in their work and feel motivated to turn up and carry out their shifts, and ensure that the fairness that is inherent to that is respected and implemented. That is exactly why I have postponed those meetings this week, and created the space in which to hear from CROs directly about their concerns and to get the detail of this right.

    Hansard source
33. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I understand that for the hon. Gentleman it is not an option to have a coastguard service that works effectively; it is an absolute necessity to protect people in his coastal community. What I can say to him is that we will continue to engage with CROs. When one of his colleagues in the Westminster Hall debate asked me what information could be shared, I made a commitment that I would go back to my officials and ask that question, and that is something that I am currently working through. However, what I have derived from this process is the need to ensure—this has been my enduring objective throughout the process—that CROs feel heard and are able to share their concerns, including through their MPs, and the hon. Gentleman has rightly allowed that to happen.

    Hansard source
34. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I thank my hon. Friend for raising those points, and for enabling me to reflect on a question that has been raised by a number of Members: the question of about how engagement is to take place from now on. Let me make it absolutely clear that my expectation is for all engagement with CROs, whether through the MCA or meetings with Members of Parliament, to be conducted as openly and transparently as possible. I want CROs to feel able to share their views openly in all their complexity—and I found some of the allegations made last week by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about CROs being made to feel uncomfortable about sharing their views deeply concerning. Let me reiterate that I will be making it clear to the MCA’s leadership that that is how I want them to approach this engagement. It includes ensuring that MPs and trade unions play their full role, and I hope that my hon. Friend can do so.

    Hansard source
35. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I share his view that we cannot afford to lose the level of experience that we have within the MCA and the CRO community. I, too, heard the scale of concern that he so ably references and has experienced among his own coastguard volunteers. It is critical to recognise all the work that CROs undertake that lies outside the call-outs they receive. They do an enormous amount of work, which is not fully recognised and needs to be. On treating them with due respect and esteem, it is essential that we figure out a way forward that allows us to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has picked up the necessity to do that, and it is certainly my intention that that will inform whatever comes next in this process.

    Hansard source
36. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I would be glad to speak to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and he raises an incredibly important point: very often, CROs are not only discharging the responsibilities that we would expect of coastguard rescue officers; they are increasingly filling in the gaps for other emergency blue light services that, for whatever reason, are not able to get to people in time, or are thinly stretched and require CROs to step up. That requires them to go beyond the operational requirements that we would expect of them. This process is not just about recognising the incredible service that they contribute within the envelope of what is expected of them; they go beyond that every single day. My hon. Friend explains the issue well, and I would be happy to engage with his constituents.

    Hansard source
37. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully about the contributions that CROs make in the most tragic and emotionally traumatic circumstances. We need to do a number of things, including building a system that allows us to retain operational capacity so that we can keep people safe in our water, and granting CROs, and the MCA more broadly, the resilience to be able to carry out their meaningful work. We also need to treat CROs with the fairness, dignity and respect that they require. He is right to say that remuneration allowed us to do that. We are now dealing with the consequences of the Court of Appeal judgment to process how we move forward, to make sure that fairness and due respect continue into the future. I hope that he can continue to hold me to account as we do so.

    Hansard source
38. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about rural and island communities in Scotland, and about the impact that coastguard services can have. From speaking to CROs in Southampton, I am cognisant of the principle of demotivation, and I am deeply concerned about its implications. A CRO said to me that this is ultimately about fairness—the money is not anything to brag about, but it is fair recognition for what they do. I do not want any CRO to feel devalued, or to feel less motivated to turn up to a call-out, because of decisions that have been made. That is why it is so important that, with regard to the engagement that is happening next week, we take a beat, take some time to reflect on what CROs are saying, and try to find an equitable solution. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be part of that process.

    Hansard source
39. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    The hon. Gentleman is a far more seasoned Member of this House than I am, so I will leave it to him to opine on whether “the law is an ass” is parliamentary language or not. It is incumbent on the Department to deal with the legal reality that has been created as a consequence of the judgment. It is also right to say that the volunteer model that exists for CROs, with hourly remuneration, is rather unique with regard to how volunteering works, and it therefore requires a bespoke response. I can assure him that I am weighing up options for the long-term future of CROs to ensure that recognition can take place. There is a potential primary legislative route that I want to explore, which involves a carve-out, but it would take a lot of time to do; it is very legally complex, and it has other implications that go beyond the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I very much respect and thank the hon. Gentleman for his urgency, but I have to take these decisions dispassionately and with full cognisance of their implications.

    Hansard source
40. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I have already been very clear from the Dispatch Box that I do not just want, but expect, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to allow trade unions to play their full role when it comes to working with CROs to articulate their vision of what they want the future of the service to be. I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to comment on negotiations between a trade union and an employer in the way that my hon. Friend expects, but I am very clear that trade unions must be allowed to play their full role in this process.

    Hansard source