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. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Maguire

   Future of British Horseracing

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this important and timely debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I detail hospitality received from the Jockey Club. I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock. Horseracing is the UK’s second-most attended spectator sport, after men’s football, with over 5 million people visiting British racecourses every year. Horseracing attendees, contrary to popular belief, come from a diverse range of socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, with 39% of horseracing tickets purchased by women. British horseracing is undeniably a huge success story. Across all metrics, British horseracing remains a force to be reckoned with, particularly in terms of its economic and cultural impacts. Our races attract the best horses, and we have the best bloodstock and some of the best trainers. Racing is a British cultural institution.

   Hansard source
2. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Maguire

   Future of British Horseracing

   I thank the hon. Member for his excellent contribution. Racing is a British cultural institution that sets the gold standard for quality and is steeped in a rich history and prestige. Horseracing dates back more than three centuries, with thoroughbred horseracing first created here in the UK. It remains closely connected with royalty, a tradition that has continued with His Majesty the King. I was delighted that he came to the Epsom Derby this year, because this connection only further boosts its global reach. Horseracing is a soft power asset in the British arsenal that is already working hard for the UK on the international stage. Four of the top 10 races in the world are held in the UK—more than any other country. Royal Ascot alone is broadcast to over 300 million households across 180 different countries. In 2023, the British Horseracing Authority reported that the racing industry had direct revenues in excess of £1.47 billion. Its annual contribution to the British economy was a staggering £4.1 billion, and the industry supports over 85,000 people, employing them in racecourses, training yards, stables and breeding organisations, as well as in the betting industry. In Epsom, I have been absolutely delighted to go and see the training yards and meet the really hard-working individuals there. British horseracing simply would not be what it is today without those people working behind the scenes. It is vital and it underpins many local communities, particularly rural ones. I have seen the positive impact of British racing in my constituency, which is home to the Epsom Downs racecourse and hosts the famous Epsom Derby. I was fortunate to be able to attend the Derby in June, which was an incredible, exciting and fantastic event—anyone who has not attended it before should do so. A report commissioned on behalf of the Jockey Club highlights how economically significant the Epsom Derby is on a national scale, and how it is just as important on a local scale for the constituency and the county that it calls home. The report found that its economic impact in 2024 alone was over £63 million, and the races’ events, hospitality and visitor spending accounted for over £56 million of the total. The Epsom Downs training facilities and employment opportunities came in a close second and third, each bringing in an estimated figure of between £2.5 and £3 million. The revenue brought in by the event highlights that horseracing is an anchor institution in the local economy, contributing nearly £1 billion of capital through supporting regional hospitality and cultural industries in east Surrey. Given the importance of the horseracing industry, it is disappointing that the reform of the horserace betting levy did not better deliver support for it. The levy yield for the 12 months to 31 March 2025 reached almost £109 million. That is the fourth successive year of increase, and the highest yield since the levy collection reforms of 2017, but it is still short of the 2007-08 record of £116.5 million. I urge the Labour Government to reconsider their decision not to support extending the levy to overseas racing, because the income of the industry continues to fall. In the past two years, the levy board estimates that betting turnover on British racing has fallen from £11 billion to £8.5 billion. The board says, “falling turnover is unlikely to prove a positive for the sport’s long-term health.” Does the Minister agree that British horseracing is an international success story, a source of global soft power and a vital community asset in many towns across the UK?

   Hansard source
3. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Maguire

   Future of British Horseracing

   I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was recently at a Gamblers Anonymous meeting so that I could understand the real-world consequences of gambling at first hand. What actions are the Labour Government taking to ensure that British horseracing continues to thrive and prosper? Support is more important than ever and has public backing. The 2025 report of the APPG on racing and bloodstock found that 53% of Britons say that horseracing is an important part of their culture; 66% say that they view racing as an important part of the identity of towns such as Newmarket, Doncaster and Cheltenham, as we have heard from Members representing such constituencies today; and a further 56% state that they support a law requiring greater reinvestment into British horseracing. I would also like to highlight serious concerns about the future of Kempton Park racecourse—as the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne spelled out today with his racing commentary—which is currently under threat from housing development on the entire site. If that goes ahead, it will have a devastating impact on the Epsom horseracing community, due to its close proximity to Epsom Downs. Kempton Park is a major source of various racing opportunities throughout the year, offering a safe, all-weather race surface. If lost, it would require Epsom horses and their trainers to travel much further distances to find suitable races. That is simply unacceptable, so I urge the Minister to consider the consequences of that closure and redevelopment on the Epsom horseracing community if they go ahead. If such an application is submitted, is it possible to find a compromise that would keep all parties happy—for example, with a development going ahead only on the back lands of the Kempton Park site while the racecourse is maintained in its current form? As well as supporting the industry and our racecourses, we need to ensure we protect the horses, which are the backbone of the sport. Animal Aid reported that in 2025, 254 horses were killed due to racing, while 641 total whip abuses were recorded across 515 incidents. That is absolutely tragic, and we must do more to protect our racehorses. The Liberal Democrats are clear that animal welfare must always be upheld and that human entertainment will never be an acceptable justification for poor animal welfare. We are calling on the Government to prevent the abuse of racehorses and to reduce avoidable deaths by creating an independent regulatory body for horse welfare. That body would be separate from the British Horseracing Authority. I would like to highlight the tireless campaigning by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), a fellow supporter of British horseracing. For over a year, he has repeatedly championed greater equestrian safety, particularly for horses and their riders when on our roads. I urge the Minister and all those here today to listen to his campaign and support his private Member’s Bill on horse and rider safety. We cannot talk about horseracing without talking about betting and gambling, which many view as synonymous with the sport. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms. We recognise the dangers of gambling, such as psychological distress and financial and social difficulties. We also recognise that there is a distinction between the harms posed by betting on horseracing and those posed by online gaming slots, which is why we proposed doubling the rate of remote gaming duty and did not support the Government’s proposals to harmonise gambling tax rates. We are thankful that the Government listened to the Liberal Democrats and adopted our proposal, but we continue to believe that more decisive action is needed to combat the harms caused by gambling, and especially gambling advertising. I reaffirm my support for British horseracing, which is an undeniable success story. I urge the Minister to reflect on the contributions made here today and to listen to my calls to guarantee that we continue to do all we can to support this important industry.

   Hansard source
4. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Roz Savage

   Topical Questions

   T7. The Government recently shelved plans to require solar panels on new car parks, despite the significant potential to generate clean electricity, support electric vehicle charging and provide greater shade cover. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of abandoning those proposals on the Government’s clean power and net zero ambitions?

   Hansard source
5. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

   Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)

   This subject is of particular interest to me. For quite a few years I was a trustee of a charity that supported evidence-based medicine and quality improvement. The hon. Lady talked about a no-blame culture. We now tend to use the term “just culture” but it is the same kind of thing: we must have a safe space for people to come forward, like in the airline industry. We want to encourage reporting not only of mistakes but of near misses so that improvements can be delivered without tragic incidents having to take place. If we are to create a culture in which people will come forward to admit even potential mistakes and near misses, they cannot in any way fear punitive punishment under regulations. Does the hon. Lady agree that folding HSSIB into the CQC will make it difficult to create a culture in which people feel confident enough to want to come forward with and overtly discuss mistakes and errors?

   Hansard source
6. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

   Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

   For over 50 years, there has been a statutory independent patient voice in the health and care system. The creation of Healthwatch was, in part, a direct response to the issues raised by the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffs. In a 2024 Healthwatch poll, almost a quarter of NHS patients said that they had experienced poor care in the past year, but 56% of them—more than half—took no action. Of that 56%, 20% said that that was because they were scared that giving negative feedback directly to NHS services would affect their ongoing treatment. Women, people living in areas of greater deprivation, disabled people and unpaid carers were significantly more likely to give the fear of retribution as a reason for not speaking up. The Government are stripping patients of their voice in our NHS. Rather than being able to go to an independent body and express how the NHS can work better for them, patients will now be able only to give feedback to the same organisation that might have failed them. I have had experience of that in the past few weeks. My partner Emma has endometriosis, which has been an ongoing condition. She was worried that speaking to the local hospital trust specifically about the treatment she received might affect her treatment going forward. The Government have argued that the changes will bring patient insight closer to decision making, making it much more effective at securing change. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), stated that patients do not need “ventriloquists”. That blatantly disregards the vital role played by Healthwatch in advocating not only for vulnerable patients who, understandably, do not feel confident navigating health services with often complex or combative systems, but for whole communities with a pre-existing distrust of the system. We believe that removing Healthwatch leaves the health service to mark its own homework, which creates a conflict of interest. It will significantly undermine public trust, as independence is removed. Will vulnerable people who have suffered harm or poor experiences in the health and care system really have faith in a system headed by a director in the Department of Health and Social Care, which is the very organisation running the system that caused them harm in the first place? On a local level, will they have faith going to the same ICB that oversees the providers that have failed them? One need only look at the long list of maternity failings in Mid Staffs to see that internal functions can fail catastrophically. We know all too well that the NHS default is sometimes to cover up. The public knows that, too, so independence is everything. Healthwatch has been keen in spotting and exposing challenges in the health service, such as widespread failures in the NHS referral process, yet there will be no incentive for the new system to investigate such issues, which are invisible in the main NHS performance metrics. The system does not always know what questions it needs to ask, so an independent route for unsolicited feedback is important. We also think that the provisions disadvantage hard-to-reach communities and those who may have a distrust towards the NHS and public authorities, making it harder to gain the feedback and concerns of those communities. That risks inadvertently further baking in inequalities. More widely, clarity has not yet been provided on how those functions will be funded. The reform is coming alongside major reductions in ICB running costs. Healthwatch currently receives almost £26 million a year; that is already 60% less in real terms than the original DHSC estimate to fund the network. There is a risk that the money will be absorbed into wider budgets and never spent on the patient experience infrastructure. If people want to see the value of Healthwatch, they need look no further than the Cabinet Office briefing notes on the King’s Speech, which reference a May 2025 Healthwatch report on missing medical records to make the case for the single patient record. Fundamentally, the Government are conflating patient voice with patient involvement in decision making. While greater patient voice in commissioning and decision making is needed, it is not a replacement for the advocacy and other functions of Healthwatch, which helps vulnerable people to navigate a complex health and care system and performs signposting functions. Splitting local healthwatch functions across ICBs and local authorities once again separates health and care and reinforces existing gaps between them. As we know, many issues span both areas and need a joined-up investigative approach. How will the new model ensure a joined-up view of people’s experiences across the NHS and social care? We urge the Minister to reconsider this decision. We have seen overwhelming support for Healthwatch across the sector, and it is becoming increasingly clear that many people in the NHS and the medical profession think that this is a huge mistake. Healthwatch England has played a central role in escalating the findings of local healthwatch organisations and in advocating nationally. We have three examples. The first is the call to publish research highlighting inequalities in waiting times for disadvantaged groups, and for a demographic breakdown of waiting lists, which the NHS obliged with last summer. The second example arose after Healthwatch Sunderland supported a patient with a learning disability who had received accessible screening information but risked missing care because of inaccessible follow-up letters. Healthwatch England raised that gap with national bodies and highlighted inconsistencies in communication, and, as a result, the national easy-read templates were introduced across the cancer pathway, which improved accessibility and reduced risk. The third example is that Healthwatch feeds back patients’ horrific stories of corridor care—including that of a pensioner who was left in a corridor—to NHS leaders, and lobbies for increased transparency and oversight when it comes to corridor care. I have several questions in three forms. Is the Minister genuinely sure that a director of patient experience in DHSC will be eager to advocate for patients and flag issues at a national level given that they will essentially be flagging to their bosses where work is not up to scratch? Is she sure that the level of persistence that has so often been needed to advocate for change at a national level would be forthcoming from a director employed by DHSC? What will be the mechanism for escalating local concerns that indicate national or systemic issues? Will the Minister explain where the Government envision the new director sitting in the DHSC structure, and what the reporting lines will be? How will the Government ensure that they have the resources and sense of operational independence to investigate and raise concerns nationally? Healthwatch England has often flagged issues to MPs and to the Health and Social Care Committee as a way of applying pressure on NHS leaders and Ministers to enact change.

   Hansard source
7. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

   Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

   The hon. Gentleman must have read the next line of my speech. We are concerned that a DHSC employee appearing before that Committee will not clearly and openly state whether DHSC is failing. New clause 78 “would ensure that Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations are funded to the level estimated by the Department for Health and Social Care” in 2013-14. We do not just want to protect Healthwatch; we want to strengthen it. As I mentioned, it receives almost £26 million a year, which is spread over 153 organisations. In real terms, that is about 60% less than the £43.5 million that DHSC originally estimated would be needed to fund the network. The Healthwatch network does such amazing work—I will not go through it all again—despite being underfunded compared with those original estimates. Imagine the work it could do if it was adequately funded. Even more worryingly, there is still no clarity on how Healthwatch’s functions will be funded once they have been transferred to the new system. Given the ongoing constraints and cuts to ICB running costs, there is a real risk that the funding for Healthwatch will simply end up being incorporated into wider ICB budgets, and money for the patient experience infrastructure could end up being cut entirely. The new clause aims to ensure that the Healthwatch network is properly funded, but it also raises the point that, if this change is to go through, funding for patient experience infrastructure must be protected. Otherwise, the Bill risks not just weakening patient experience, but removing it altogether as the funding gets swallowed by wider NHS operational demands.

   Hansard source
8. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

   Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
9. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

   Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

   New clauses 3 to 5 are related to the publication of risk assessments of contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside the UK. They would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic, UK-based suppliers in the case of technology systems and contracts involving the handling of NHS patient data, and place restrictions on the signing of such contracts with non-UK-based suppliers. New clause 5 would require the Government to publish an NHS digital sovereignty strategy setting out how they intend to address risks to relevant information systems posed by foreign interference and reliance on foreign technologies, including by supporting the use of domestic technologies. We had a Westminster Hall debate on this subject recently. The lack of transparency in how some contracts are awarded is one of the central concerns about Palantir’s involvement with the NHS. We are particularly concerned about the national security considerations of offshoring the whole of our nation’s health data to any foreign company, which makes us vulnerable to political and economic changes in other countries, but especially to companies of questionable integrity in an increasingly authoritarian jurisdiction with little respect for privacy and sovereignty. We should all be worried that our health data has been so closely linked with such an organisation, which has shown itself all too eager to work closely with Donald Trump’s Administration. We know that his Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has been using health data to identify people’s immigration status, and there is a lot of concern that people are not coming forward for medical treatment as a result. Doctors and patients have already voted with their feet and shown that they do not trust Palantir and its system for this very reason, which is also a key reason for the limited uptake of the federated data platform so far. As such, we have tabled various new clauses to try to address those concerns, to ensure that they do not plague the single patient record, which we absolutely support and want to help the Government to deliver, along with any other vital technology or data system. New clause 3 would ensure that a risk assessment is conducted of all non-UK tech and data suppliers, with particular regard for national security. It is centrally important that doctors and patients trust the systems that hold their health data and that, as a country, we trust them to be safe and secure. We should not trust rogue actors with our nation’s health information. New clause 5 deals with how we mitigate that risk. It would require the Government to publish an NHS digital sovereignty strategy, setting out how they intend to address the risks of foreign interference and reliance on foreign technologies. Our potential answer to both those questions lies in new clause 4, which would prioritise domestic suppliers that handle sensitive or confidential NHS data. We recognise that that will not always be possible, but where domestic capability does not exist and it is therefore necessary to work with foreign suppliers, to ensure the transparency and effective oversight of a contract with a foreign supplier, it must be brought before Parliament. Should a contract be signed with a non-UK supplier, it would also be subject to consultation with patient groups, national security experts and staff unions to make sure that the system is onside. If it is not, uptake of it will be stunted, as we have seen with the federated data platform.

   Hansard source
10. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The size of the contract would be pretty much irrelevant; what matters is the implications arising from the contract being signed. Does a contract potentially compromise our data sovereignty? Alternatively, if a contract failed for any reason, whether it was because of the action of a state actor or a non-state actor, would the service continue to function?

    Hansard source
11. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I would not always object to that, because the whole point of the new clause is that such a contract would come to Parliament and then might well be approved if it turned out to be the best system and in our national interest. The thrust of all three new clauses is to ensure that we do not get exposed and make ourselves vulnerable, which could affect the functioning of the NHS and compromise people’s data. A future Government could set up their own AI system in the UK. How would data be used by that system? We are looking at future-proofing people’s privacy and future-proofing the ability of our country to deliver a service properly. There is also an economic opportunity. We should always prioritise domestic suppliers where possible, and even cultivate them, and help them to innovate and develop, because spending potentially tens of millions of pounds with foreign companies will not do anything to grow our own economy. Given the world-beating talent in our country, we see no reason why the long-term effect of domestic options to foreign systems could not be developed with sufficient Government support. As such, where a contract is signed with a foreign supplier, new clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to support domestic alternatives. We recognise the complexities involved with NHS procurement, and our new clauses represent one vision built on the core principles of domestic resilience and digital sovereignty. I have a few questions for the Minister, which I would appreciate some comments on. How do the Government intend to build trust in the single patient record to make sure that it is not undermined, rather like the federated data platform has been? Does the Minister agree that the poor reputation of Palantir and distrust has been an important element in the slow roll-out of the federated data platform? Has she considered undertaking a risk assessment with a national security focus of current NHS digital and tech contracts? Does she agree that, in an ever more turbulent world, building domestic capability in this area is central to the security of our country? Does the Minister agree that the domestic life sciences and tech sector is more than capable of developing and scaling many of the systems that we rely on foreign companies for at the moment? The Government have very much positioned AI and technology as the NHS’s white knight. We agree that the potential is huge, but do the Government not think that the NHS needs a long-term digital strategy to support a joined-up development and roll-out of these systems and technology? An analogy to this is how the defence investment plan and future defence procurement can help prioritise and boost economic growth in the UK. We think this is another way that economic growth could be nurtured.

    Hansard source
12. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    This is not about closing off markets or shutting off the potential to use foreign companies if they are most appropriate. It is about prioritising and investing in UK technology and our economy to solve some of our domestic problems while also providing security. Saying that we are closing off domestic markets is misunderstanding the thrust of the new clause.

    Hansard source
13. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I appreciate the Minister’s response and the comments of other Members, which were insightful as usual. When we discussed whether carers could access parts of the single patient record, Members made very good points about privacy and historical health issues that a patient might not want a carer to know about. Those are very sensible concerns, but someone watching these proceedings or looking back over the record would think that there had been a lot more agonising over whether someone caring for a patient could access relevant information than over the potential systemic misuse of health information facilitated by private companies. A lot of people are worried about that when it comes to procurement, trust and sovereignty. I thank the Minister for her comments on new clause 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 4 Duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic suppliers “In the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1CC (inserted by section 6 of this Act) insert— ‘1CD Duty to prioritise domestic suppliers (1) In exercising functions in relation to the health and care service, the Secretary of State must prioritise the awarding of any contract that will involve the handling of NHS patient data to suppliers based in the United Kingdom. (2) The Secretary of State may only seek to procure technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data from suppliers based outside of the United Kingdom where a viable domestic alternative does not exist. (3) Before signing any contract for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must consult with— (a) patient groups, (b) national security experts, and (c) staff unions, on the proposed contract and lay a report on such a consultation before Parliament. (4) Where it is proposed to sign a contract for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must arrange for a motion agreeing to the signing of such a contract to be tabled in each House of Parliament, and no such contract may be signed where a motion for its agreement is negatived by either House of Parliament. (5) If a contract is awarded for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must place a statement before both Houses of Parliament setting out whether the Government is taking, or is planning to take, steps to develop or support long-term domestic alternatives to the systems provided by the contract.’”—(Dr Chambers.) This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic, UK-based, suppliers for technology systems and contracts handling NHS patient data, and places restrictions on the signing of contracts for such systems with non-UK based suppliers. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
14. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Climate Change

    Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lib Dem-run Winchester city council on its fantastic initiative, Solar Together, which installs solar panels on council houses? So far, it has installed solar panels on 35 properties, reducing energy bills, lifting people out of fuel poverty and reducing carbon output. What support is the Minister giving to ensure that such initiatives can continue, in Winchester and throughout the whole country?

    Hansard source
15. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

    Draft Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The Liberal Democrats support the justification for the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor, or RR SMR, and the development of SMRs in general. We recognise their potential to strengthen energy security and reduce reliance on imported gas when they can provide a safe and cost-effective contribution to a decarbonised electricity system. We believe that the best way to cut bills is to invest in home grown clean power, creating well paid jobs across the UK, improving energy security and supporting economic growth. The development of the RR SMR will help towards that goal. We support this statutory instrument and remain clear that the Government should prioritise accelerating renewable generation, electricity storage and emerging nuclear technologies such as small modular reactors, enabling a fleet approach, rather than deepening the UK’s reliance on large-scale, expensive and slow-to-deliver one-off nuclear projects.

    Hansard source
16. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

    Topical Questions

    Private companies looking to deploy new nuclear at Oldbury will need to address skills shortages, particularly around roles such as welding. When assessing proposals for the site, how will Ministers ensure developers invest in skills so that local people can benefit from the jobs created?

    Hansard source
17. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Christine Jardine

    Topical Questions

    The Government have stressed the importance of energy independence, sovereignty and security. How concerned are they that it is difficult to pin down, as we have tried to do, exactly how many, and what percentage, of the wind turbines in this country are produced in China, considering that a thousand of them were recently discovered to have been manufactured using asbestos?

    Hansard source
18. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlotte Cane

    Future of British Horseracing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I detail hospitality received from the Jockey Club last July. I am also a member of the APPG on racing and bloodstock. Much of the home of horseracing is in my constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire. The July racecourse, Newmarket equine hospital, many of the studs and yards, including the National Stud, and Newmarket’s famous rearing stallion statue are all in my constituency. Horseracing provides jobs and great days out, and it cares for much of our beautiful landscape, yet it feels under attack from many angles. As we have heard, horseracing depends on the income from the betting levy. I am grateful that the Government listened to calls to double gambling duty on remote betting, rather than harmonising all gambling tax rates, but I am worried, like others, that plans to extend affordability checks could damage horseracing. I recognise the dangers and problems that gambling can cause, including the psychological distress and the financial and social difficulties. Government attempts to reduce that damage are worthy, but they will be counterproductive if they continue to drive people to unregulated sites. I understand that the Gambling Commission has announced that it will introduce financial risk assessments, with a phased implementation. I ask the Minister to monitor that closely and ensure that those assessments do not cause unintended harms. In my constituency, I have a small bioenergy plant that is under threat of closure due to the removal of Government subsidies. Its sister plant in Thetford takes the bedding waste from local stables to produce energy and organic fertiliser. That plant is also under threat. Gaining a small income from waste bedding instead of having to pay for its disposal is important for the industry. I ask the Minister to talk with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to help them understand the significance of these small bioenergy plants to horseracing and other rural industries. Planning policy, as we have heard, also needs to respect the horseracing industry. Breeding, training and racing horses needs a lot of land. The Newmarket area has wonderful soils and clear water from chalk streams, which grow the excellent grass that in turn develops thoroughbred horses. We must not allow the genuine need for new housing and green energy to damage the water and grassland, or to restrict the land available for the horseracing industry. The Sunnica solar farm has been approved, despite the concerns expressed by the horseracing industry, among others. It is vital that we mitigate any damage. In particular, we must have strong regulation and enforcement to ensure that any fire in the battery energy storage units can be managed without damage to the surrounding area, people, horses, wildlife and our precious watercourses. Applications for further solar farms must take account of the needs of the horseracing industry, particularly the studs where breeding mares need a calm environment. We also have a speculative application in the area for something called Forest City. That is causing a worrying amount of concern and stress for people, because it would completely destroy the environment of the area and really damage the horseracing industry. Unless it puts in a planning application, answers all questions and has that planning application decided, it can continue to cause stress and angst in the area with its well-funded plans that have no detail behind them. To end on a positive note, I was honoured to attend the National Stud graduation ceremony last week. We celebrated with the 29 graduates, all of whom have jobs to go to following their qualification. They are people from all areas of our economy and from all backgrounds. Of course, some of them have always been interested in horses, but some did not know they were interested until they heard about the scheme and got involved. We had a taxi driver and someone who had been cooking burgers. They have all qualified with this prestigious qualification and, as I say, they all have jobs to go to. These people are the future of horseracing. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the graduates and thanking the staff at the National Stud for running an excellent training programme?

    Hansard source
19. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Charlie Maynard

    Topical Questions

    Regarding contracts for difference, will the Government now consider moving from a 100% revenue guarantee model to a partial coverage model, along the lines of what Australia now has?

    Hansard source
20. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Caroline Voaden

    Outdoor Education

    I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that all children in primary and secondary education spend a minimum of thirty minutes a day outdoors during school hours; to require primary and secondary schools to provide a minimum of one lesson of teaching each week outdoors; to require that every child be offered at least one outdoor education experience during primary school years and at least one such experience during secondary school years; and for connected purposes. Modern medicine is always looking for the next big discovery to change lives, yet we are missing out on the cheapest, easiest and quickest way to turn around the vicious mental health crisis we see in our children and young people—a crisis that affects their ability to learn, to achieve, to work and to live a healthy and happy life. The answer is outdoor learning. It is staggering to read that the amount of time children spend outside has fallen by 50% in a single generation, that children roam just 300 metres from home and that a fifth of children in the most deprived parts of the country never spend meaningful time outdoors. Research shows that being out in nature makes children happy, that children who spend time outside care more about nature and that unstructured, risky, nature-based play outdoors improves confidence and cognitive development. Research funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs through Natural England found that 95% of children found outdoor learning made lessons more enjoyable, and that 90% reported an improvement in students’ engagement with learning and an increase in student health and wellbeing. These figures are staggering, and they deserve to be taken seriously. This Bill is about improving the lives of our children and young people and, by using outdoor learning, raising a generation of people who will care more about nature, which is the one thing we know will protect us from the most devastating effects of climate change. Andy Jasper, the chief executive officer of the Eden Project, told us last week on a brilliant parliamentary visit that there simply will be no future without nature. Shockingly, a third of children never have school lessons outdoors, yet in many schools in South Devon outdoor learning is a regular weekly part of the curriculum, in playgrounds, school veg gardens, parks and little bits of woodland. Children who live the furthest distance from green or open outdoor spaces spend more time on screens and have poorer mental health than children living in close proximity. A lack of time spent outdoors is linked to childhood health disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obesity and depression. However, it is not just kids from the inner city who are missing out on the benefits of the great outdoors. In my beautiful constituency of South Devon there is a stark disparity that might surprise many in this House. I often hear of children who live just a couple of miles from our stunning beaches but have never been to them. There are few buses to the beach and the parking costs are a serious barrier for some. This mirrors research showing that young people in communities all around the UK coast view the beach as “not for them”, but for visitors and tourists. This is why taking kids outdoors to do lessons at school is so vital to introducing them to the idea of being in nature and developing a familiarity with the great outdoors. There is not a subject on the curriculum that cannot be enhanced by outdoor learning. The Fibonacci sequence is seen in the petals of a flower, the scales of a pine cone and the seeds of a sunflower. English, science, music, poetry, drama and geography can all be enhanced by teaching outside. As one child said: “When we were on the field trip, we did maths, English and science, but it was like we didn’t realise we were doing it”. For teachers, that is pure magic. Totnes St John’s Church of England primary school is located in a large housing estate and has a 44% special educational needs and disabilities cohort. Its brilliant example could be replicated by schools up and down the country. The headteacher told me that her pupils regularly use the school’s outdoor spaces to support emotional regulation, and that this is incredibly effective. She said: “They thrive outdoors, so we take as much learning as possible into our grounds. Delivering learning in this experiential, immersive and hands-on way makes it more purposeful, as well as easier for children to understand and retain.” The school has adapted its uniform to enable children to be outside as much as possible, regardless of the weather—all the children have wellies in school. At Blackawton and East Allington, children have a dedicated afternoon of forest school and an hour of outdoor PE every week. Headteacher Liam Fielding said: “The opportunities to explore, problem solve, take risks, work collaboratively and simply spend time outdoors have a significant impact on children’s confidence, resilience and wellbeing. For some children, particularly those who may struggle within a traditional classroom environment, outdoor learning provides a different opportunity to succeed, develop relationships and build self-esteem. We regularly see children return to the classroom calmer, more focused and more ready to learn after spending time outdoors—phonics in the mud, maths with sticks”. I was thrilled to be able to connect Harbertonford Church of England primary school with volunteers from Force 4 Nature, who turned up and built raised veg beds in the playground so the pupils can learn how to grow healthy food, which they can eat in school. This kind of learning is straightforward and can engage those who struggle in a traditional classroom environment; the child who can be disruptive in the classroom is hard to spot once outside with the whole class. However, this takes confidence from school leaders and teachers, so it is crucial that outdoor learning features in continuing professional development and training. I want a curriculum and assessment review that includes outdoor learning, which Ofsted should include as a plus when assessing how schools are performing. Any school in the country can open its doors and take learning outside. To take it one step further is the holy grail: the outdoor residential. I still remember the school trips I enjoyed at the Lagganlia centre, near Aviemore—the experiences have stayed with me for many decades. However, we are still waiting to see Labour’s access to nature Green Paper, which the Government promised in this Parliament. That creates uncertainty for those who deliver programmes that provide such invaluable opportunities. The Government have also decided not to renew the generation green programme, which provided access to nature, through structured outdoor learning, residentials, farm visits and more, to over 125,000 children, including 26,000 from the most disadvantaged communities. The recent Milburn review is clear that mental health has become a primary driver of youth disengagement, not a secondary consideration. Rising anxiety, neurodiversity and long-term health conditions are reshaping who participates in post-16 education. If we want to help our young people achieve more, getting them outside is a good place to start. Yes, residentials cost money, but let us talk about the return on investment. DEFRA-funded research from the University of Cumbria demonstrates a social return on investment of £4.32 for every £1 spent on outdoor education as part of the curriculum. The Scottish Government have already acted on this, and we should too. Outdoor residentials can literally change lives. They pull kids out of their comfort zone and teach them that they can do things they thought were impossible. Activities teach teamwork and problem solving, improve self-belief and build friendships. Those are the skills that will give children the resilience to help them cope with all the stuff that life throws at them as they grow up. They also offer space to connect with peers and teachers in a new way, offering valuable side-by-side moments. “It’s like being in Minecraft” is a phrase often heard as the kids walk through the woods near Beesands in South Devon. For many children who come here to experience the great outdoors on a school residential, this will be the first time they have set foot in a wood. They might be nervous of sitting on the grass, or find it hard to walk down a steep grassy field towards the sea, but all these little moments are teaching them resilience. Pete and Andrea Moore both gave up traditional teaching jobs to open the brilliant Forest and Beach outdoors centre, such was their passion for teaching children the value of experiencing the outdoors, not just seeing it on a screen. Kurt Mockridge, who runs Grenville House outdoor education centre in Brixham, told me of kids who come to his centre from a primary school just the top of the hill but who have never been down to the beach or in the water that is right on their doorstep. Parents who do not have the familiarity, confidence or time may struggle to take their kids out. That is why such trips are so crucial, especially for those from more deprived areas. For many young people living in urban areas, their only realistic opportunity to experience nature comes through residential outdoor learning, where they are taken out of their local environment altogether. By building their confidence in the outdoors, we instil in them a respect for, and understanding of, nature, which will be crucial as we face the challenges of a changing climate. We simply cannot expect future generations to nurture our planet if they do not understand the wonder of nature. For the mental health and wellbeing of our children and young people, for the enhanced learning outcomes that they will gain, for the joy of learning and for the future of this planet that we call home, I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Caroline Voaden, Tim Farron, Dr Roz Savage, Dr Danny Chambers, Maya Ellis, Sir Julian Lewis and Chris Law present the Bill. Caroline Voaden accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 111).

    Hansard source
21. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Brian Mathew

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    The hon. Member mentioned multilaterals. We have seen massive cuts to aid. As many people will know, I worked for 30 years in the WASH sector, which had been cut by 85% before the recent aid cuts, and is so important in changing people’s lives. Does the hon. Member agree that, given the movement to multilateralism and multilateral support, we should see that channel used to direct much larger funds to the very poorest and to sectors such as WASH—although not to WASH exclusively—so that we can see a real improvement in people’s lives around the world?

    Hansard source
22. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Bobby Dean

    Climate Change: Resilience Planning

    13. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of his Department's long-term resilience planning for climate change.

    Hansard source
23. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Bobby Dean

    Climate Change: Resilience Planning

    The Office for Budget Responsibility fiscal report, out today, highlights some of the long-term risks of climate damage to the UK’s finances. Unlike other OBR reports at formal fiscal events, there are no implications for the Government; they do not have to make any adjustments to their current financial planning. If he were to be moved to the Treasury, would the Secretary of State consider changing the fiscal rules to encourage more long-term planning for things like climate change?

    Hansard source
24. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Fraud Strategy 2026-29

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of increasing fraud protections and the Fraud Strategy 2026 to 2029. It is a pleasure to lead this debate with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, and I thank the Minister for being here. Fraud has been spreading like the plague for years, infecting almost every aspect of daily life: online, on the phone, at work or out and about. People do not know who or what to trust. Fraud costs the UK economy more than £1 billion a year, yet sentencing is well below its 2010 level. In 2025, British consumers lost £1.2 billion to fraud—a four-year high. What does that rise mean? My constituent’s small business in Ilton was scammed out of more than £3,000worth of orders through a credit card scam, wiping out their business. Another constituent’s elderly mother had debts run up by an estranged relative, who used her details to the extent that bailiffs came round. Another constituent was tricked into investing hundreds of thousands of pounds into a building company that then shut down. Lots of constituents have been defrauded out of thousands of pounds by tradespeople for half-done work or work that never actually happened.

    Hansard source
25. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Fraud Strategy 2026-29

    They are good things and I will come on to them later, but we do need more support for vulnerable adults and young people—something I will also come on to.

    Hansard source
26. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Fraud Strategy 2026-29

    I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I will come on to talk about why banks should have more face-to-face contact with people instead of sending them online. It is even simple, little things. One constituent was scammed into paying a clean air zone charge, which does not exist, because it popped up on a sponsored page on Google. Another agreed to send Amazon vouchers to their elderly mother, but they actually sent them to a scammer. In April, in response to this problem, the Government came forward with the 2026 to 2029 fraud strategy. They have committed £250 million to the plan over the next three years. There is a lot to welcome in the strategy, particularly the establishment of the fraud victims charter and the new Report Fraud scheme to replace Action Fraud, which was totally useless.

    Hansard source
27. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Fraud Strategy 2026-29

    I totally agree that Scotland should join, because we should work together against fraudsters, not in isolation or silos. Short of catching the fraudsters themselves, my constituents who were defrauded provided every scrap of evidence that they or their businesses could, but they were all told by Action Fraud that there was no line of inquiry. I welcome the strong start on international co-operation and the introduction of an online crime centre, a new abuse taskforce and more data-driven policing. If properly supported, that work could help us to take a proactive approach to addressing the types of fraud that my constituents were victims of. Will the Minister look into whether the cases that Action Fraud failed to follow up can be reopened with those new systems in place? Lots of my constituents are still out of pocket. Despite that, there are still some real challenges with the strategy. The big question is whether, given the scale of the problem, £250 million is enough. Will we be able to afford the technology and the workforce to keep up with fraudsters? Is the strategy fully costed, or will we find ourselves in a situation like that of the defence investment plan, for which the money just is not enough? I know for a fact that we do not have enough police officers to do outreach to all the people vulnerable to fraud in Yeovil and south Somerset. Given that we are losing billions to fraud, surely it would be a smart move to invest a bit more in fighting it. The expansion of awareness campaigns such as “Stop! Think Fraud” is great, but what are the challenges to that? How will current approaches be improved to reach more people and be more effective, given that fraud cases are still on the rise? Another glaring issue is that the strategy provides no changes to the current system of largely voluntary charters and Ofcom oversight of social media and tech platforms to prevent fraud. Two thirds of authorised UK financial fraud last year happened on social media. In fact, through things like paid advertising, these companies could be making a profit from fraud on their platforms. It is not good enough, so why are the Government and Ofcom not doing more? The Online Safety Act 2023 gives us tools to fine social media companies for not reducing harm, but will they be properly used? Will the Minister commit to push Ofcom to prioritise fraud enforcement? Will the Government give Ofcom a hard deadline to implement the fraud advertising codes of practice, which would set out rules for ads online? We could talk for hours and hours about the different types of protection that need to be in place, but sadly for me—and luckily for everyone else—we do not have hours, so I will focus on the cases of two constituents and the questions about safeguarding that they raise. Christopher lives with developmental language disorder and struggles to produce or retain complex information. He is very agreeable and is known to give consent even if he does not really understand, which makes him incredibly vulnerable. He was targeted by romance fraudsters, who misled him, largely online, into believing that he was in a romantic relationship with one of their gang. He was convinced to travel to Hungary to buy a property for them to live in. He invested £70,000 in a property that was never transferred to him. After that, he was persuaded to purchase a rundown property in Yeovil and was misled into joining a property scheme that he could not afford. He ended up taking on loans to manage his debt. My team and I managed to get him the £70,000 back from Lloyds after his therapist reached out to us, but that case raises serious questions about how effective protections are for the most vulnerable people. About 7% of the population have DLD, and many more have other forms of learning difficulties, which can make them just as vulnerable, so we are not talking about a small number of people. Banks’ fraud protection systems rely on automated texts or AI, which the fraud strategy continues to support as a key safeguard, but that is not good enough for someone with communication challenges or learning difficulties. Christopher’s therapist faced endless barriers in trying to get in contact with Lloyds; they were turned away from the branches and told to go online. We need clarity from the Minister about how the Government will work with the banks to ensure that their safeguards are accessible for people with neurodiversity and disabilities. Will the fraud victims charter establish a right for vulnerable people to access in-person specialised support in bank branches or banking hubs? We also need clear routes for therapists and support providers to flag concerns to financial services and the police. Christopher should not have been able to take out those loans without it being flagged. The second case that I want to raise is that of Jason, a veteran who served in the Navy. He has come up from Somerset to sit in the Public Gallery today—welcome, Jason. Jason was a victim of wealth creation and property investment schemes run by trainers who styled themselves as social media influencers and targeted veterans and military personnel. These influencers promote themselves and their lifestyle online. They then go to veterans such as Jason, bigging up their military background to build trust. The combination of slick social media, a background that people think they can trust and the promise of training courses that offer financial freedom can be pretty convincing. That is especially true when we consider that far too many of our veterans are facing hardship that, according to Trussell, means that they are twice as likely to run out of food than those who have not served. In reality, the training courses do not deliver the skills and high-figure salaries promised. Instead, people get basic technology and mindset training. The people running these schemes know that what they offer is absolutely rubbish, but they will convince people to invest in more sessions and to recruit others until they are trapped. Jason ended up spending over £20,000 on training. It got so bad that he even considered taking his own life. Thankfully, Jason is with us and has turned things around. He is now working a fantastic job and has completed an Ironman to raise awareness and money for his community. Sadly, others felt they could not find a way out, like Danny Butcher, who took his own life and in whose name a foundation has been set up, of which Jason is a trustee. The fraud strategy does not give us much on how to deal with cases like that, where people are clearly being taken advantage of and misled, but where proving fraud is a challenge. I hope the Minister will commit to looking into how measures in the strategy can be used to investigate these types of practices. What we urgently need is proper protections and warnings on social media about the risks posed by this industry. We already have warnings in place for gambling and social media. We even provide warning labels for public service broadcasts. Why can we not do that for wealth creation influencers? Jason and other veterans have been fighting for the Financial Conduct Authority to fully regulate the property training industry across the UK. Jason is not the only one, and I have heard from many people who have been drawn into this. The Government also need to investigate the practices and impact of the broader influencer wealth creation industry. It is not just veterans, and if we do nothing, more and more vulnerable people will be ripped off. It is no overstatement to say that we are fighting a war with fraudsters. For far too long they have been one step ahead. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the issues we have raised today and will commit to setting up a meeting with me and her ministerial colleagues, so that we can talk in more detail about these cases. This issue is not going away, and I will not either until I have seen stronger protections put in place.

    Hansard source
28. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Fraud Strategy 2026-29

    I thank the Minister for her answers. Does she agree that we should fully regulate the property training industry? That is a huge issue across the whole country and affects lots of people. As the Minister rightly said a second ago, people do not come forward because they are embarrassed, which is also why, unfortunately, they take their own lives.

    Hansard source
29. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Adam Dance

    Fraud Strategy 2026-29

    On banking, one of the biggest issues for Christopher was that his carer was turned away by Lloyds many times and sent online. We often see that issue because banks are shutting and we have banking hubs. Does the Minister agree that the banks should work more with people with neurodiversity and disabilities and work more to see those people face to face? There should also be more support in our banking hubs.

    Hansard source
30. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Hannah Spencer

    Summer Jobs

    I very much agree with Members who have talked about the importance of summer jobs for young people, but as the hon. Gentleman says, we also need to think about providing more long-term jobs. Does he agree that it is vital that the Government reinvest all the money from the growth and skills levy in skills, and do not let the Treasury take away a top slice? We also need to make sure that the apprenticeship budget reflects the ambition of the sector; it could drive transformational change, and get our young people into the good jobs that they all deserve—good, long-term jobs and summer jobs.

    Hansard source
31. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Hannah Spencer

    Summer Jobs

    Does the hon. Member agree that there is a problem in Clacton, in particular, with certain people applying for jobs and then not actually doing them, or doing lots of other jobs instead of the one they should be doing? Perhaps we could think about a scheme where people like that do work experience with some of the incredible, hard-working young people who do vital jobs so that those people could learn a thing or two about how to behave in work and how to work hard.

    Hansard source
32. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and an honour to follow the contributions by the right hon. Members for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I thank the former for securing this very important debate. It is shocking that we are in this position—that a Labour Government, who are supposed to share the principles of concern for the vulnerable, for equality and for solidarity, are the Government who have presided over the biggest ever single cut to the UK aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, aid, our investment as a country in international development, has historically been a matter of cross-party consensus. That is crucial. This is not a party political issue; it is about our fundamental humanity as politicians and as a nation. Disappointing is not the word; it is shocking and shameful that we are in this position and that this Government have slashed aid to such an extent. It is short-sighted, because aid is an investment in building a better and a more secure world, and it is immoral, because aid does work. As the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with all her experience in public health, communicated so clearly, aid saves lives. The effect of the cuts that we have seen in the UK and globally will be millions more deaths—millions. Every single one of them is an individual human being whose life could have continued. This is utterly extraordinary. It is immoral.

    Hansard source
33. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    I thank the hon. Member. We know that aid works; I have seen it myself. I worked in international development for several decades before coming to this place. I have seen, in Malawi, how the provision of clean water literally saves lives. I have seen, in Burundi, how work on HIV and AIDS literally saves lives. I have seen in northern Uganda how investment in conflict resolution, conflict prevention and rehabilitation of child soldiers works to rebuild lives and livelihoods. I have seen, in the Philippines, how international aid has helped a community devastated by a tornado to rebuild lives and livelihoods. Aid works. No, it is not perfect—of course it is not. Yes, we do need to do better. Yes, we know how to do that. We know how to build longer-term programmes, how to work better with local partners, and how to channel money in ways that are focused on outcomes rather than just on bean counting. We know all that, and we have been doing it for decades—yet what has happened? The rug has been pulled out from under aid, and for what purpose? To put the money into defence spending, which, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, has itself too often been a black hole, with cancelled programme after cancelled programme costing billions. In the aid sector, we have focused on results and on outcomes. No other sector is so closely focused on results. Why was that done? Let us remember that this aid cut was put in place on 25 February 2025. That was one month after Donald Trump returned to the White House and two days before the Prime Minister went to the White House, touting this aid cut and redirection of funding into defence, as part of his strategy for sucking up to Donald Trump. Look how well that worked. It did not—it was never going to. This country has betrayed its proud record of supporting international solidarity, and for what? It is crucial that we move back towards investing in aid, because it is lifesaving, because it is the long-term investment that we need to make the world a safer and more secure place, and because international solidarity has to be part of our identity as a country. That is not just about aid; it is about engagement with the debt crisis and with our trading relationships, and it means that we need to look at new sources of funding, such as “polluter pays” taxes, to generate new streams of revenue to invest in these lifesaving and life-changing programmes. But one thing must be clear: we cannot cut aid and expect to build a more secure world. This aid cut—this shameful Labour aid cut—makes the world a less secure place for us and for the millions of people directly affected. I very much hope that the new Labour Government will reverse course.

    Hansard source
34. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    The argument that aid is only a small part of the solution to global poverty and inequality is not a controversial one, but lower-middle income countries have not been calling for the change that the hon. Member’s Government have delivered: the biggest slash in the aid budget altogether. If he believes that aid expenditure and development investment need to be done slightly differently, let us make the argument for that, but cutting it should play no part in the sorts of changes he talks about.

    Hansard source
35. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Climate Change: Weather Events

    The Secretary of State has referred to the number of people who are already losing their lives annually due to excess extreme heat, and that number will reach 10,000 by mid-century. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that the costs of putting in place the adaptations that are needed are less than the costs of not putting those adaptations in place. Will he be adopting the Climate Change Committee’s “A Well-Adapted UK” recommendations and investment plans in full?

    Hansard source
36. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Future of British Horseracing

    The hon. Gentleman is clearly passionate about the horseracing sector. Did he see the incident at the Grand National festival earlier this year, when Gold Dancer broke his back during the race and was whipped to continue? As a result, when he got over the finishing line, it was too late for the vets to save him. That is not an isolated incident. Last year, there were 254 deaths of horses due to horseracing. In too many cases, the horses could have survived their injuries, but the owners judged that the damage was not worth it in terms of the financial value the horses could bring. Given all that, and the 641 instances of recorded whip abuses, if the horseracing sector is serious about its future—I recognise it matters to many people—it needs to show that horses will not be treated as expendable assets but as the beautiful animals they are, and future deaths must be avoided.

    Hansard source
37. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important and timely debate. As ever, he brings considerable knowledge and experience on development issues and, importantly, an understanding that the world in which we deliver development has fundamentally changed—as indeed do a number of other speakers today, not least my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I think it is fair to say that few in this place have the depth of knowledge that he brings to the debate. Today, the international landscape is defined by conflict, instability and strategic competition. Russia continues its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Sudan has become the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. Fragility stretches across the Sahel and the horn of Africa. China is using finance and infrastructure investment to expand its geopolitical influence. At the same time, donor budgets across western democracies are under increasing pressure. Against that backdrop, Britain must ask a simple question: how do we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—our national security, our prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients? That is why we Conservatives believe the debate should not simply be about the size of the aid budget; it must be about reform. Following the Government’s decision to reduce ODA from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI, the spending review allocated £8.9 billion in ’27-28 and £9.4 billion in ’28-29. We believe it is right to go further, reducing ODA to 0.1% of GNI, and delivering almost £7 billion of savings across those two years, to help fund the sustained increase in defence spending required in today’s far more dangerous world. But reductions in spending alone are not enough; they must be accompanied by genuine reform. That is where I fear the Government have failed to provide the meaningful clarity that we deserve. After two years in office, Ministers continue to speak of moving from donor to investor, yet we still do not know what that means in practical terms. I gently point out that it was almost a decade ago that the Conservative Government published a strategy for how to do economic development. Can the Minister explain what criteria are now being used to determine whether a programme represents value for money and serves Britain’s national interests? Which programmes have been cancelled? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which priorities have been strengthened? What measurable outcomes will the Government use to judge success? I believe the British taxpayer deserves answers and so do we, as parliamentarians. The Conservatives’ approach is clear. We believe Britain’s development mission should be redefined. Development assistance must be tightly focused on advancing Britain’s economic interests, national security and wider strategic influence. That means asking of each and every programme whether it strengthens Britain’s security, supports economic resilience, helps to prevent instability, counters authoritarian influence or creates stronger, long-term partnerships.

    Hansard source
38. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    The hon. Gentleman always brings great passion to this place and is never afraid of sharing ideas. I think we are at a stage with development where we are, I think all of us, looking for more answers and ideas. It is also important that we look to partners in other donor countries, and learn from them too. Coming back to the point about longer-term partnerships and areas where programmes should be helping us, if they do not we should ask why not and why British taxpayers are funding them. That also means introducing far greater conditionality. The British taxpayer rightly expects the organisations and countries receiving our support to demonstrate accountability, transparency and good governance. That principle must apply equally to the multilateral system. Under the previous Conservative Government, Britain led international efforts to reform UN agencies, reduce duplication and introduce stronger performance-based funding. We challenged international organisations to deliver better value and greater accountability. What reforms is the Minister pressing for across the United Nations and the wider multilateral development banks? What conditions are attached to UK funding? What discussions has he had with our international partners about driving greater transparency and accountability throughout the multilateral system? What are the Government doing to promote positive reform where it takes place, such as that being rolled out by the president of the World Bank, Ajay Banga. Equally important is the role of bilateral and minilateral partnerships. Britain’s relationships, particularly across the Commonwealth, remain one of our greatest strategic strengths. Rather than relying on large multilateral institutions, how are the Government exploring more agile bilateral and minilateral partnerships that can better advance our economic and security interests? What discussions has the Minister had with key partners, particularly across the Commonwealth, about developing those new models of co-operation that deliver greater impact, stronger accountability and better value for the taxpayer? Have the Government also explored the potential for development partnerships with countries such as Japan and South Korea, as well as the Nordics and Germany? These are allies whose interests align with ours in different parts of the world, and they matter for our security and prosperity. Economic development must sit at the heart of our approach to international development. Conservative Governments demonstrated that development is not simply about grants, but creating jobs, building markets and enabling countries to stand on their own feet. As we heard today, British International Investment has become one of Britain’s genuine development success stories, mobilising private capital to support sustainable economic growth. Can the Minister tell the House whether BII will receive further support, and what level of private capital do the Government expect to leverage through development finance? If development is to support Britain’s national interest, global health must also remain central. The Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Those investments have not only saved millions of lives but strengthened Britain’s own health security. Can the Minister confirm today the Government’s future commitments to Gavi and the Global Fund, and, importantly, the sequence of that funding? I want to turn quickly to a humanitarian crisis, because Sudan cannot be ignored. It is now the world’s worst humanitarian emergency. Will the Minister tell us what additional action Britain is taking to secure humanitarian access and what discussions are taking place with regional partners? I am conscious of the time. I am coming to an end, but I first want to touch on Ukraine, which I visited earlier this year. One of the gravest humanitarian issues arising from the war is the systematic abduction and forced deportation of Ukrainian children. Can the Minister update us on the latest support the UK is providing to help locate, identify and reunite the children with their families? Conflict is increasing, donor funding is under pressure and strategic competition is intensifying. Britain’s development policy must change, too. I hope the Minister will explain not only where the Government are spending the money, but how their approach is being fundamentally reformed to meet the realities of a more dangerous and contested world. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
39. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    Summer Jobs

    Is it not the truth that we have a Government who simply do not understand business? They think that they can squeeze and squeeze, tax and tax, legislate against and tangle up in red tape the very businesses that we need to drive our economy, get the growth that the Government say they want and provide jobs and opportunities for working people and young people. They simply do not get it.

    Hansard source
40. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    Summer Jobs

    If the situation is so rosy, will the Minister explain why youth unemployment among 16 to 17-year-olds is currently running at a staggering 30%—up from 24.7%?

    Hansard source