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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

   Maritime and Coastguard Agency

   I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a GMB member. I recently met coastguard rescue officers in my office, and they told me how they respond in all conditions and at all hours. They drop everything to save life, and providing that public service often leaves them out of pocket. Can I ask the Minister to consider all options, including carving out an exemption when it comes to HMRC? Can I take this opportunity to encourage all CROs to join the GMB union, so that it can care for their needs, particularly given the recent concerning allegations in a national newspaper about the MCA, which I believe is not being straight with the Government? Can I also ask the Minister to thank the coastguard rescue officers in Bournemouth East for all they are doing to save life?

   Hansard source
2. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   My hon. Friend is giving a superb speech, and it is an honour to listen to it. I was at Bournemouth War Memorial Homes on Friday helping to open the new bungalows for our veterans, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) had toured when he was in post as a Minister. I was speaking with the veterans there, and they are under no illusions. They are aware of the threat posed by Russia. In talking with constituents, however, I understand their concern that we have been on a rollercoaster as a country since 2008 at a minimum. There is a feeling that because our psyche is somewhat low and that, spiritually, we feel somewhat deflated, to talk about the threat from Russia is to add to that feeling, but actually, as a constituent said to me on the doorstep, “It is fine to talk about the fear and talk about the plan. Talk about how you will meet the fear, and then we will come with you.”

   Hansard source
3. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing the debate. I was proud to join him, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and Field Marshal Lord Richards of Herstmonceux in creating the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. We are discussing a topic that we all agree on: the threat that faces the country and the necessity for us to rearm. I had hoped that the tone of the debate would have been slightly less political. I feel like we have had a little bit of amnesia as to how we have got to where we are. I do not intend to focus on that too much, but I am sure that others will make the point about the decline in the size of the Army over the past 14 years, the decline in the size of the Air Force, and about the frigate fleet—we talk about the frigate gap—and what happened to frigate and destroyer construction. We should remember that the threat has not just arrived. There was not a meaningful increase in defence spending after the annexation of Crimea, and there was not a meaningful increase after Putin violated Minsk I or Minsk II. Indeed, there was not a significant increase in defence spending after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That context is really important.

   Hansard source
4. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   I agree with the right hon. Member, but I am not sure whether his point is relevant to the one I was making about the broad context of defence procurement. There has been great cross-party consensus on what we are doing with Ukraine, and we should ensure that that continues. I also want to comment on the defence nuclear enterprise. Under the DIP, we will be spending £45 billion over the forthcoming period on the incredibly important nuclear deterrent. It is right that we do that, but that amounts to 25% of the defence budget. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is in his place. The other week, I was reading his arguments at the time of the coalition Government, urging them to press ahead with the renewal of Trident, which they did not do. That cost us many years and has cost us many billions of pounds that we could be spending today on conventional forces. It means that we have tired Trident submarines heading out to sea beyond when they should be doing so, and we have crews on extended patrols of 150, 200 or 250 days. That is the cost of the decisions made at that time. I want to talk a little about ensuring that we do not fall into Russia’s trap. Of course, there is a significant threat from Russia, which is both conventional and hybrid—

   Hansard source
5. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   The hon. Gentleman did not give many interventions to Labour Members. If it is relevant, I will be happy to take it.

   Hansard source
6. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice. If he gives me time, he may find that comes later in my speech. We should not allow Russia to make us talk ourselves into a place of weakness. As the then Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff put it to the Defence Committee, “If the British Army was asked to fight tonight, it would fight tonight.” Our readiness is not where we would want it to be, but that is not the same as saying that Britain is defenceless. I am not trying to be complacent; I am just making the point that we have excellent armed services and excellent people in uniform, and we should not talk as if those things do not exist. What we are saying is that we need more. In Ukraine, we have watched a country that is considerably smaller than our own, with far fewer resources, resist Russian aggression with extraordinary determination. We have to remember that Russia’s greatest weapon these days tends to be psychological. It wants us to believe that it cannot be beaten, that resistance is useless and that despite four years of attritional warfare and 1.4 million casualties, it somehow remains an unstoppable European military power that could overwhelm Britain and her allies, but it is not.

   Hansard source
7. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   My hon. Friend makes the point well. Indeed, in a recent interview my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) talked about how the recent attacks on Iran had destroyed a huge propaganda apparatus, which had contributed to 3% of total nationalist propaganda for Scottish separation from the United Kingdom. It is an important point. Following on from that, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak made the important point about strength being a foundation of deterrence. We are trying to deter war, not just by having capable armed forces but by having industrial capacity, well-stocked armouries, cutting-edge technology and a properly funded plan—because the stronger we are, the less likely conflict becomes. Every capability we field, every production line we expand and every drone we manufacture add to our deterrence, and that is incredibly important. At the beginning of the debate we talked about the credibility of getting to where we need to be. To be straightforward, it is my belief that we need to reach 3% of GDP by 2030. That is the minimum needed for us to show that we are committed to our plans and to our NATO allies in having the capabilities that we need. In fairness to the Government, they have made significant progress and we will be at 2.7% in 2027-28, which is the highest defence spend in three decades. The defence budget will also be 27% higher in real terms than it was at the start of the Parliament. Those are significant commitments that need to be recognised, but unfortunately, I am worried that they do not meet the strategic moment that we are at. The pace at which Russia might reconstitute, the lessons that are emerging from Ukraine over technology, the threats in the far east to our allies and our interests, and the demands placed upon us by NATO to meet certain targets mean that we have to move faster than the Government currently say. A spending review published in 2027 could, in theory, postpone most of the increase until the final year of the period. That would technically fulfil the commitment, but it would not reflect the urgency of the moment. There is a significant difference between spending 2.8% in 2028, 2.9% in 2029 and 3% in 2030, and remaining broadly flat and trying to make a leap—if we can prove that we can do that—at the end of that spending period. The Government deserve credit for changing the direction of travel from what it was in the past, but events have accelerated and so we need to accelerate our rearmament beyond those plans. There is no shortage of priorities, and the DIP was a significant document, as colleagues have described. I share their concerns about some of the autonomy in the Royal Navy. It is unlikely that we will have the new ships designed, tested and deployed within 10 years, and there will have to be service life extensions for the Type 45s. I worry about the lack or absence of—

   Hansard source
8. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tim Roca

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, eventually, we will have to look at the Type 31 hull as a possibility. Maybe the Minister will comment on contingency plans if continuous capability sustainment does not develop as it should. On the lack of commitments around ballistic missile defence, we are now an outlier in Europe in terms of air defences. Many countries in Europe—Spain, Germany, France, and so on—have Patriot or SAMP/T—

   Hansard source
9. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sureena Brackenridge

   National Youth Strategy

   It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for introducing this really important debate on national youth strategy and youth enrichment. I truly welcome it because, as a former teacher and deputy headteacher, I saw the transformative impact that youth work, enrichment activities, sport, volunteering, the arts and outdoor education can have on a young person’s confidence, aspirations and life chances, but I also saw the consequences when those opportunities were decimated. We have a growing number of young people who feel safe only in their bedrooms on digital devices. That has to change. For too long, young people have paid the price for over a decade of austerity. Local authority spending on youth services in England and Wales has fallen by 74% in real terms since 2010, while the number of local authority-run youth centres has fallen from 931 to 379. Investing in young people is smart economic policy, too. I know that education never stops at the school gates. Young people learn resilience through volunteering, teamwork through sport and confidence through challenge. That is why I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment through the national youth strategy to ensure that every young person has somewhere to go. Backed by more than £500 million, it includes investment in youth spaces, a new enrichment entitlement and an ambition to halve the enrichment gap by 2035. I particularly welcome the Government’s recognition of opportunities that should not be based on family income, geography or background. I grew up in an area called Ashmore Park, and we had a youth club on my doorstep. I spent many an evening there—I will stop the conversation there. It was one of 30 local youth centres that were lost over 15 years, and we felt that hole in the community. But recently and despite those challenges, there are organisations in Wolverhampton and Willenhall that are delivering the vision that we set out in the strategy. I must mention the Wolves Foundation in conjunction with Wolverhampton city council. A couple of weeks ago I went to one of their community space sport activities, had a go at basketball, shot a few hoops—I do not know whether that is the right phrase—and had a brilliant time. More importantly, so did the 50 other young people with the free activities in Heath Town. We are opening up the same in Tennyson Road, in Low Hill and the Scotlands as well. I must mention the Loft youth club at the Hive in New Invention. Across Wolverhampton, the Way Youth Zone has become a shining example of what investment in young people can really achieve. I will finish by thanking the Duke of Edinburgh’s award and all the staff and volunteers that take part to give young people a brilliant opportunity to really find themselves, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield for securing this important debate.

   Hansard source
10. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

    Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

    indicated assent.

    Hansard source
11. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

    Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

    I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, and to that of its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, which have been broadly in the spirit that I and the people and Government of Gibraltar would have hoped for: reasonable, fair scrutiny with broad support. It is important to emphasise that, because it sends a strong signal that complements the strong support of the democratically elected Parliament of Gibraltar for the draft UK-EU agreement. I will respond to specific points as I go, but will start by paying a tribute to all those involved in the process over many years: His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar—the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, the Attorney General and all their officials and teams—and our teams in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, particularly the senior officials who did sterling work in taking us through the detailed process. The treaty is a big one, with many associated administrative and practical arrangements. I know there have at times been frustrations about the length of the process and the detail, but it was important to get it right. This is about the future of Gibraltar and our relationship with the EU, Gibraltar and Spain. I also pay tribute to our friends in the EU and Spain for the constructive spirit they have shown throughout the discussions and negotiations. We have come to a conclusion that is beneficial for people, which is what we all sought to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a party political point but an important one: in the end, this was about people and businesses, their lives and their ability to move, to trade and to get on, without the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Gibraltar was not included in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement that was negotiated by the previous Government following the UK’s departure from the EU. That meant serious uncertainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why we have worked together to find a practical and lasting solution that protects Gibraltar’s economy and way of life for the long term, while crucially safeguarding our sovereignty. We had previously reached the provisional and political agreements, and have been involved in the detailed process for some time. We have now achieved an agreement that ensures the free circulation of people and goods between Gibraltar and the EU by removing the physical barriers on the border between Gibraltar and Spain. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that, not least because of what the people of Gibraltar went through for so many years. That will mean jobs, investment and stability, not just for Gibraltar but—it is important to emphasise—for the whole region. That involves EU Schengen area rules relating to border checks being applied in Gibraltar and a customs union being established between the EU and Gibraltar. That will bring certainty to the territory. Let me turn first to some of the questions about scrutiny; I will answer the questions from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), in detail in due course. The CRaG Act 2010 gives statutory form to long-standing constitutional conventions on the scrutiny of treaties and is the process we are legally obliged to follow to ratify treaties. Despite the very particular approach of the CRaG system, transparency has been at the heart of our approach. I gently rebuff some of shadow Minister’s comments, because we published the draft text of the agreement on 26 February, and I gave an oral statement to the House on the same day. We have had this debate today and I have appeared before Committees and answered many questions. We have attempted at all stages to be transparent and open. I have offered private briefings to shadow ministerial colleagues and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).

    Hansard source
12. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

    Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

    indicated assent.

    Hansard source
13. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

    Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

    I will come back to the timeline in due course. It is quite right that throughout the process Parliament has provided scrutiny, as it has been doing in this debate, which is very welcome.

    Hansard source
14. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

    Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

    Indeed; that is a fair point, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making it. We did appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we have endured scrutiny in the media and from businesses and others—and quite rightly so. On my visit to Gibraltar, I met with the leader of the opposition, businesses and others, who had legitimate and reasonable questions to ask. We have done our best to answer those transparently and in good faith. What matters most at this point is providing clarity and certainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why I am pleased to say that the UK and EU will provisionally apply the agreement from 15 July—next week. This is an important milestone for Gibraltar. The UK and the EU, along with Gibraltar and Spain, are committed to fully ratifying the treaty as soon as possible, and we are all working at pace to achieve that. My understanding is that the process in the European Parliament will take place this autumn, up to December. We will be operating under a similar timeline, in accordance with the discussions we are having with the relevant Committees and others regarding the CRaG process. Once signed, the treaty will be provided immediately to the UK Parliament, and I will make the appropriate statements to signify that moment. We will then have the CRaG process and ratification. I hope that satisfies Members who asked about the timeline, but I will go into a little more detail later. Much of the legislative and operational work to bring the agreement into force is being led by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and they have made very strong progress in a short space of time. They have already put in place their main primary legislation and are working tirelessly on the many practical steps needed to apply the agreement. I am pleased to say that there is very strong co-operation between the Spanish and Gibraltarian authorities across areas of shared implementation, including the physical infrastructure works required at Gibraltar’s airport. We stand ready to assist in whatever way we can, and have done so throughout the process. It is important to emphasise, as many Members have, that negotiations on sovereignty were never on the table during the treaty negotiations, and that was not in doubt. The agreement is about technical arrangements that govern Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU. I appreciate the compliments paid by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), and others about article 2 of the treaty, which makes it clear that the agreement in no way affects our sovereignty position on Gibraltar and cannot be used to challenge it. As I set out both in opposition and now in government, we remain committed to the Gibraltar double lock, which means we would never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, and we would never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar was not content. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is protected in the treaty for the long term. If it had not been, we would not have agreed it. Many Members raised important points about the military base. Safeguarding the operational autonomy of the UK’s military facilities has been a red line for the UK Government throughout our discussions. The agreement protects that autonomy and allows our facilities to continue their vital contribution to regional security and prosperity. The Ministry of Defence has been closely involved in the negotiations at every stage. We have the full backing of the Defence Secretary and defence teams on this agreement. I am glad that that was confirmed by colleagues’ experiences of engaging with the Commander British Forces in Gibraltar. The agreement also removes immigration checks at Gibraltar’s land border with Spain. That is crucial for the nearly 15,000 people who cross the border every day for work, and for protecting Gibraltar’s economy. To unlock the benefits of a fluid border, travellers arriving at the airport will undergo dual immigration controls. Under this system, visitors have the benefit of crossing freely into Spain without checks. Time spent in Gibraltar will therefore count towards the EU’s 90/180 days requirement. The Government of Gibraltar have assessed that the significant impact of an open border outweighs any challenges that might result from it. Because Gibraltar automatically already applies a period for UK residents coming into Gibraltar, it has been pointed out that, practically, this means very little. It does not, of course, affect the residents of Gibraltar itself. The agreement delivers a solution that the Government of Gibraltar want, and the Chief Minister has been very clear on that. The treaty has a series of benefits for wider relationships. The shadow Minister rightly pointed out the welcome announcement regarding non-co-operative jurisdictions from our friends in Spain. That is important to Gibraltar and is a testament to how things have moved forward. We have seen tangible and positive developments in our relationship with our friends in Spain across a whole series of issues that matter to people here in the UK, including our co-operation in business, security and trade. That is welcome. The treaty is, of course, one of the crucial aspects of the reset in our relationship with the European Union. This agreement is good for Gibraltar and for the United Kingdom, and it is good for all the people, including our people. Right hon. and hon. Members have accurately reflected the work and statecraft that has gone into it and the practical benefits it will deliver. This marks a turning point. Before I conclude, let me respond to some of the specific points that have been made. I have answered the questions about the timing of the CRaG process, but Members will appreciate that bringing a treaty of this complexity into effect has required a set of interlocking processes. We are not the sole guardians of the process; there are processes in Gibraltar, Spain and the European Union, and the treaty can be signed only once those processes—including the EU’s translation of the text into 23 other official languages—have concluded and been aligned. Rather than delaying the publication until that point, we chose to bring forward the draft treaty so that Members could scrutinise it and see the detail. I assure Members that the text published in February remains substantively unchanged. The intervening period has been used for legal verification, technical checks and the preparation of authentic language versions. That is one of the reasons why the final treaty will be published and signed imminently. The provisional application will take place from 15 July, and we will then make the appropriate statements in this House and start the CRaG process, in line with discussions with the secretariat of the European Affairs Committee regarding the practical arrangements.

    Hansard source
15. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

    Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

    I am conscious that in between there will be a recess. I will ensure that that does not affect this House’s ability to have the proper period to scrutinise under the CRaG process. That may be what the shadow Minister was going to ask.

    Hansard source
16. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

    Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

    I do envisage the treaty coming forward, but I want to ensure that we do not start the clock and then Members feel they do not have a chance to scrutinise it over the recess. The minute that the treaty is signed, it will be provided—within appropriate transmission times—to both Houses. We will ensure that we are in close contact with the Committees and that we have an agreement on the CRaG process, and we will make the appropriate statements. Sir John, you will know that the timing of statements and debates in the House is a matter for the usual channels between the Government and the Opposition, but I do not want to shy away from scrutiny, and that is why I welcome this debate. We will not try to curtail the CRaG process in any way. In practical terms, this treaty will have had far more pre-scrutiny and Committee scrutiny in this House than many other international treaties. I hope that provides some assurance to colleagues. Members asked a number of other questions. I have covered the questions about article 2 and sovereignty. I was asked about future scenarios that might emerge with respect to the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar. It is important to emphasise that the Gibraltar Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the UK to ratify the treaty, subject to the existence of a concordat assuring that the UK can exercise its powers in the treaty only with the consent of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and that the people of Gibraltar have the right to determine in a referendum whether the treaty should be terminated in the future. Obviously, we hope to never get to that scenario, but it is important that we have those safeguards in place. To answer the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked, I quote from my letter to the Chief Minister on 2 March: “It is therefore politically inconceivable that in any normal circumstances, should a democratically elected Government in Gibraltar or indeed the Gibraltarian people determine that this agreement does not serve their interests, His Majesty’s Government would not take action.” I hope that provides assurance, as it is certainly the tenor of my discussions with the Chief Minister and, indeed, of the discussions he has had in the Gibraltar Parliament. I have touched on the questions about the 90-in-180-day rule, but for the record, under the agreement, non-resident British nationals can visit Gibraltar for up to 90 days, as is the case today—there is no change in that—but, as visitors will be free to enter Spain without checks, time spent in Gibraltar will count towards the 90-in-180-day requirement of the EU. Importantly, immigration into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. The agreement provides a unique solution, a fluid border, and puts different procedures and processes in place. On the military base, there are lots of details, but I was asked a specific question, so I want to be clear that UK military personnel entering Gibraltar will not be subject to Schengen checks under the proposed arrangements. That will enable our facilities to continue their vital operations without interference or interruption. The posting of UK military personnel serving in Gibraltar and their families will not depend on Schengen border checks; as is the case now, the UK will decide who will serve in Gibraltar. We also have important agreements on goods entering the base. As colleagues will understand, we do not disclose sensitive operational details, but we have agreed special arrangements to ensure the functioning of the new arrangements.

    Hansard source
17. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

    Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

    The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. The practical checks that take place at the airport are not dissimilar to the juxtaposed controls at St Pancras and elsewhere. We tried to come up with a practical solution to the new arrangement, and it is one that has the full agreement of the Government of Gibraltar. Everyone arriving at the airport will undergo Gibraltar immigration controls carried out by Gibraltar officials, followed by Schengen entry checks carried out by Spanish officials on behalf of the EU. On completion of those checks, individuals will be able to enter both Gibraltar and the Schengen area. As I said, that set-up is similar—it is not exactly the same—to how we make the arrangements work practically at St Pancras. Of course, 18,000 people use Eurostar every day, and we have heard about the 15,000 people crossing the border in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar and the different authorities are working closely on a whole series of practical and physical arrangements for how things will work—I will not go into the detail of all the different maps, plans and architect’s drawings that we scrutinised in great detail. As was rightly pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, another benefit of the agreement is that, subject to commercial interest, new flight routes into Gibraltar from other areas within the Schengen area could open up. Again, this will provide an economic boost and benefit. I pay particular tribute to the Deputy Chief Minister, who has taken a keen role in relation to the airport and its functioning over the years; it has been at the heart of the agreement throughout. On customs checks and the business impacts, I recognise the points made by Members about the questions they have been asked by businesses. The UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar are confident that overall, the economic benefits of the agreement will massively outweigh any issues with changes. Obviously, there will be implementation periods for the taxation arrangements, which are for Gibraltar to decide on; for example, there will be a period coming up to the VAT rate changes. On customs checks for businesses, to allow for free flow across the Gibraltar-Spain border, goods in Gibraltar must meet EU standards. Over half of all goods in Gibraltar arrive from the EU and already meet those standards, as do many others that arrive from outside the EU. They are going to be pre-cleared away from the land border by relevant customs officials. The Government of Gibraltar fully support that new model, which brings in the benefits of an open border and protects Gibraltar’s economy. Points were made about security. I think there is a steadfast commitment on both sides to work together, with practical arrangements between law enforcement agencies. None of us wants anything going on in Gibraltar or indeed over the border in Spain that will put anyone at risk. We all know the types of threats, which we share. That is at the heart of the wider discussions we are having with the EU about how we better align on law enforcement and security and defence. I want to conclude by thanking everybody for their scrutiny, which has been hugely important. I thank the all-party group for its consistent engagement over many years, and I thank friends in the Gallery for their engagement. I really do think this is a milestone moment in finalising something that was left undone by Brexit. The agreement will have practical benefits for the people of Gibraltar, for the people of the whole region, for the United Kingdom, and for the UK and the EU. There are wins across the board in the agreement. I very much hope that Members will engage with the CRaG process as it goes forward. I will keep the House fully informed, as appropriate, the minute the treaty is signed and deposited. With that, I thank Members for their contributions.

    Hansard source
18. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    National Youth Strategy

    Of course. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate, and I am grateful to all those who contributed to what is an important conversation. We heard some brilliant contributions that highlighted just how important it is to support young people across the country. This generation is the most connected but most isolated one, and our national youth strategy aims to tackle that and the challenges associated with it. Members made a number of points on spaces, places and funding, which I will address throughout my contribution. A specific point put to me was around the importance of providing streamlined funding, particularly access to both revenue and capital funding. The Government have merged some funding regimes, and I am happy to write to Members with more details. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) not only made important points but paid tribute to their work experience students. I add my thanks to those students for their contributions. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) put two specific points to me, including one about GoWild Outdoors in his constituency and the changes to school sport. I understand the concerns about the decision to replace the existing PE and sport premium for primary schools; however, despite sustained investment through that premium for more than a decade, fewer than half of children get the 60 active minutes a day recommended by the chief medical officer, and persistent inequalities remain for girls and people from disadvantaged communities. That is simply not good enough. The Government are determined to close those gaps in participation, which is why we have committed more than £1 billion in funding for PE and school sport over the next three years. That includes £580 million for a new PE and school sport partnerships network to replace the PE and sport premium, alongside investment in improvements to school sport facilities and transitional support for primaries. That change includes secondary and primary, and capital and revenue funding. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that further, if it would be helpful. He also asked about the overnight levy. That policy is led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury have significant interest in it, and I work closely with my ministerial colleagues. The consultation on that is yet to be published, but I will happily write to him on that point in due course. I will now take the opportunity to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. Over the last seven decades, the award has changed the lives of countless young people; I saw that in action and at first hand when I visited Barnsley academy in Kendray in my constituency. We know the transformative power the award can have on young people: learning new skills, developing confidence and making friends are just a few of the benefits of completing the DofE award. I am delighted to be attending the parliamentary reception for the 70th anniversary next week; it is great to see that some representatives join us today. I thank the teachers, volunteers and all those who have worked hard to achieve the award across the country. Just a few months ago, I visited Centrepoint just outside of the centre of Barnsley, which is working with homeless young people on their Duke of Edinburgh’s awards. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) referenced, more than six million hours of volunteering is phenomenal, and just one of the contributions made by the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. As the Minister with responsibility for youth, I am proud of the conversations that the Government have had and continue to have with young people. Last month, I signed the power of youth charter to demonstrate our commitment to youth empowerment. That sends the clear message that we are listening and will act, and illustrates the importance that we place on youth voice, which was raised by a number of Members. We always said that our youth strategy would be not about young people, but made with and by young people. We wanted to know what mattered, and we listened. The voices of young people are right at the heart of the decisions that we made. The Government’s landmark national youth strategy is ambitious, long term and cross cutting. “Youth Matters” radically transforms how we work, to give every young person somewhere to go, someone who cares and a community that they feel part of. We have been clear about what that means: by 2035, we want to halve the participation gap in enriching activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and for half a million people to have access to a trusted adult outside their home. We have the ambition to halve the participation gap because we do not believe that a young person’s background should determine the opportunities that they get. We are fiercely committed to breaking down barriers, and are working across Government and with partners to make that a reality.

    Hansard source
19. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephanie Peacock

    National Youth Strategy

    I totally appreciate my hon. Friend’s point. Under the previous Government, my area of Barnsley saw some of the worst cuts in the country, but despite that, the then Labour council invested in the youth zone and free transport for under-18s. I know that the challenges in Stoke will be similar to those in Barnsley, and of course there will be pockets of deprivation in London and other areas. We want to ensure that every young person, whatever their postcode, gets the support they need. Obviously, this is in the context of 73% cuts in England over the last so many years. That will not be reversed overnight, but we have an ambition to work towards reversing it. The strategy is backed by £500 million of DCMS funding. That will include funding for new builds, refurbishments and capital equipment, so that organisations can improve or expand their services. I have seen the impact of schemes like that, from the reopening of the Double Six Youth Club in Sheffield, to Eloquent Dance in Birmingham. The second ambition is increasing access to trusted adults—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) spoke about this—because we know how important it is for young people to have someone in their corner. As the Minister responsible for youth but also civil society and sport, I often hear about the fantastic work of youth workers, volunteers, sports coaches and many others. I have also seen that at first hand in places such as East Bierley Community Sports Association in Kirklees, which I visited a few weeks ago and which is just down the road from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. In the interest of time, I will not mention any more, but I have seen so many. However, as many as one in five young people still does not have a trusted adult outside the home to talk to. We want to change that. Our recent joint investment with the King’s Trust of £10 million will expand young people’s access to a trusted adult. That money will be matched with corporate and philanthropic investment, bringing the total to £20 million to build young people’s skills and tackle youth unemployment. We will follow that with £15 million, over the next three years, for youth workers, volunteers and others who work closely with young people. An additional £5 million will help organisations to spread good practice, improve data and build strong local partnerships. Expanding enrichment is a key aim of our strategy. Young people have told us that they want more in-person opportunities, whether that be through arts and culture, sports, volunteering, or being outdoors in nature. We know that those experiences are invaluable for wellbeing, belonging, school attendance and future employment opportunities. That is especially true for disadvantaged young people. Those who attend after-school clubs achieve, on average, a two-points-higher total score in their key stage 2 assessments in English, maths and science at the end of primary school. That is the value of enriching activities, and that is why the Government recently published the enrichment framework to give every school and college the tools to offer high-quality enrichment. That framework is for all pupils, to ensure that access is not limited because of who someone is or where they are from. Building on the enrichment framework, my Department will invest £22.5 million to support up to 400 schools to meet the benchmarks. That will help them to listen to the pupils in their school about what they really want, and to act on it. We will work with schools in some of the most deprived areas of England to ensure that where young people live is not a barrier anymore. We have also announced Every Child Can—an investment of £132.5 million of dormant assets funding to fund opportunities across the five key categories of enrichment. That includes ensuring that every school has access to a library. When talking about enrichment, I think of organisations in my own area, such as the Barnsley Youth Choir, which is giving hundreds of young people amazing experiences, opportunities and skills, Beat the Street, whereby primary schools get together and get kids more active, or our brilliant new Base71 Youth Zone. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), spoke about cross-Government work. We have a Young Futures ministerial group. Delivering for young people is a shared responsibility; we are not doing that alone. Across Government, we are working with incredible partners that are delivering on the ground and galvanising action—uniformed youth organisations, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award of course, and many others. We are working closely with local authorities and developing a network of up to 50 youth hubs. We have already opened eight pilot hubs, and the learnings will inform the remainder of the programme. That includes how we align with other Government initiatives such as the Young Futures panels and the Department for Work and Pensions youth hubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), who of course is the chair of the all-party group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), as well as others, spoke about strengthening the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a sufficient youth offer. We are already taking steps to address that. Our local outcomes framework outlines key priorities and accountability for local government. We will explore reviewing the statutory duty, but we must ensure that any change is properly funded in order to empower, not burden, local authorities. Every time a young person discovers their passions and pushes themselves outside their comfort zone, that has an impact far beyond the youth club or sports pitch. It is a step towards them becoming a more resilient, positive and connected adult, and it is a powerful reminder of our nation’s story—one that has produced world-famous musicians, actors, athletes, inventors and entrepreneurs. They all started as a young person who was told that they could reach their potential. This Government are ensuring that young people hear that same message again. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield and all other Members who contributed to the debate.

    Hansard source
20. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sojan Joseph

    NHS Corridor Care

    We must continue to highlight corridor care, as it puts a spotlight on the pressures facing the NHS. One of the first visits I made after being elected to this House was to William Harvey hospital in my constituency. During my visit I was shown around an A&E department where 19 patients were being treated in corridors, even in the summer months, when emergency departments are typically under less pressure. That was deeply concerning, and demonstrated how under the previous Conservative Government corridor care became increasingly normalised. I have previously spoken in the House about the incident at William Harvey hospital last September, when a coffee shop had to be converted into an emergency ward to accommodate A&E patients because it ran out of corridor. That was not an isolated incident, but part of a wider pattern caused by years of under-investment and rising demand. NHS staff continue to provide outstanding care in difficult circumstances, often without the capacity, workforce or facilities that they need. One lesson we must learn from the failures of the previous Conservative Government is that health infrastructure must keep pace with population growth. I recognise the need to build more homes to address the housing crisis that this Government inherited, but we must ensure sufficient capacity in GP surgeries, community health services and urgent care facilities. While schools and shops often come as part of a new housing development, healthcare infrastructure has too often been an afterthought. We need sufficient primary care capacity to prevent avoidable hospital visits and admissions that make corridor care more likely. Will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that, as new homes are built, health infrastructure planning and investment keep pace? I welcome the Government’s commitment to end corridor care by the end of this Parliament. We should never accept a situation in which hospital corridors become makeshift wards. No patient should receive treatment without privacy and dignity, and no member of staff should have to provide care in an environment that falls below the standards they strive to uphold. Our constituents rightly expect to be treated in safe, appropriate and dignified settings. I was pleased by the announcement a few months ago that East Kent hospitals NHS trust, which covers William Harvey hospital, will be part of the new intensive recovery programme. I am hopeful that such targeted support will help to tackle the significant challenges facing the trust, reducing waiting times, improving patient flow, and ensuring that people across east Kent receive the timely, high-quality care they deserve. I hope the programme will help to ease the pressures that have contributed to corridor care, and that the Minister will update the House on the new intensive recovery programmes. I also welcome the forthcoming opening of an upgraded same-day emergency care unit at William Harvey hospital, which I recently had the opportunity to visit. Funded through the trust’s use of part of a £29 million investment from the Labour Government, the unit will increase capacity and help to relieve pressure across the hospital, enabling more patients to receive timely assessment and treatment. I also welcome the recent announcement by the local ICB about the single neighbourhood provider. GP services in my constituency are proactively reaching out to frail patients, which will help to avoid them going to A&E. This Government have made important progress through additional investment, workforce expansion, improved discharge arrangements and targeted support for struggling trusts. Those steps should be welcomed, but there is more to do. If the Government are to fulfil their commitment to end corridor care, they must continue to pursue reform with urgency and determination—

    Hansard source
21. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Simon Lightwood

    Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate. He has been a committed champion of bus services and transport needs in his constituency, and I thank him for the constructive tone with which he has approached these subjects. Buses are at the heart of our vision for better and more integrated, reliable, affordable and accessible public transport. The Government have set out an ambitious plan to deliver better bus services, grow passenger numbers and ensure that communities that have too often been underserved can benefit from reliable public transport. Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to local bus services. That is particularly the case in rural areas such as West Dorset, where there can be additional challenges to running a good local bus service. The Bus Services Act 2025 puts decision making into the hands of local leaders across England, including in rural areas, so that they can determine how best to design their services for their communities and have greater control over routes and timetables. As the hon. Gentleman knows, since he was on the relevant Bill Committee, it expands the options available to local authorities, allowing each area to pursue the model of bus service delivery that best suits their needs while safeguarding the needs of passengers. The Act also tightens a requirement around the cancellation of vital bus routes, particularly those relied on by vulnerable and disadvantaged passengers. The Government are committed to monitoring the effectiveness of those measures, including the impact on rural services, with a review five years after their introduction. We will provide meaningful financial support to improve bus networks totalling more than £3 billion over the next three years. That includes nearly £700 million per year for local transport authorities through the local authority bus grant. That funding can be used to support the introduction of new routes; for more frequent services; for safer, better, more accessible bus stops; for new electric buses; and for improved real-time information so that passengers can travel with greater confidence. It could also be used to increase the provision of community transport, for instance. At the end of last year, we published individual multi-year settlements for local authorities under the local authority bus grant for the next three years. As the hon. Gentleman said, those allocations were determined by a new, revised formula. Gone are the days when it was a competitive funding bid—each local transport authority now receives funding. For the first time, the formula considered rurality to ensure that rural areas are not disadvantaged. Other parts of that formula include population size, levels of deprivation and the extent of current bus services. I hear what the hon. Gentleman was saying about not just protecting what is there, but going further and building back. He has my assurance that we will continue to look at that funding formula to make sure that it is the fairest possible way to distribute funding across the country. We have already allocated multi-year settlements for the next three years, so it would be after that period. I am pleased to confirm that Dorset council will receive slightly over £12 million through the local authority bus grant for the next three years. That is nearly £200,000 more per year than the allocation in 2025-26, or roughly a 5% increase. Under the local authority bus grant, local leaders will be able to invest in transport priorities that are right for their area, such as enhancing bus services in rural communities. Alongside the multi-year funding, this Government’s bus reforms are fundamentally about giving local leaders more powers and more choice over how to deliver services. That includes unlocking franchising as an option for all areas. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Different areas face different challenges because of their geography, population density and demographics. That is why work is under way to provide active support to local transport authorities that wish to explore franchising, particularly in rural areas. The work includes our bus reform and franchising pilot programme, which supports authorities with feasibility assessments for bus franchising. The programme is designed to test different types of franchising model to understand how they could be best implemented to deliver improved bus services for passengers in rural locations. Case studies, guidance and templates from the programme will be shared with other local transport authorities, ensuring that learning is captured and can support other areas considering franchising. These products could be particularly important for small towns and rural communities, including in West Dorset, where members of the community may rely on buses as their only realistic public transport option. We also know that in some areas, traditional stopping bus services may not be viable. We want to encourage local leaders to consider a range of options to deliver better services for passengers. That includes incorporating demand-responsive transport and community transport services into the local transport network. DRT has the potential to improve local transport in areas where demand is more dispersed over longer distances, which makes it harder to provide conventional fixed-route services that meet residents’ needs. Our franchising guidance outlines key considerations for LTAs exploring franchising regarding DRT, including how local bus services integrate with alternative models such as DRT. We have recently published guidance on best practice for local authorities to set up and deploy demand-responsive schemes, from planning and procurement through to launching and sustaining those services. Making bus fares more affordable is one of the Government’s transport priorities because that really matters to passengers. The Government continue to cap single bus fares at £3 on thousands of routes in England, outside London, until March 2027, helping millions of people access affordable travel and better opportunities. That cap can be particularly beneficial for rural passengers, helping to limit the cost of journeys where single fares can otherwise be significantly higher. The Chancellor went further in May, announcing more than £100 million additional funding for the bus sector, to help children travel free this summer, and to continue supporting services. Under the offer, children aged five to 15 will be able to travel free on participating local buses in England throughout August, helping families to get out and about for less, at a time of increased cost of living. Further details will be announced shortly. To pick up on the point about better integration, I draw Members’ attention to a fantastic read—“Better Connected”, the Government’s integrated national transport strategy. That looks at how to dovetail buses with trams, trains, micromobility and active travel. I highly encourage Members to take a look at that, because we recognise the challenges they have mentioned today.

    Hansard source
22. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Simon Lightwood

    Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset

    That will be a commercial decision for First Bus about whether to invest in those services. The option remains for local leaders to consider whether they want to pursue franchising and take greater control over that issue. They could also lift the ban on establishing new municipal bus companies. There are options there. I will continue to work across Government to ensure we get grid connections for future deployment of electric buses. Funding from local authority bus grants and other sources can be used to purchase electric buses. In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for West Dorset for securing this debate, and to the other hon. Members for their interventions. Improving bus services, importantly in rural areas, is central to the Government’s mission to drive growth and opportunity across the country. We know there is more to do, but we are taking meaningful steps to ensure that wherever people live—in a city, rural area or small town—they have access to the reliable, accessible and affordable transport that they deserve. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
23. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

    Defibrillators in Police Vehicles

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

    Hansard source
24. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

    Defibrillators in Police Vehicles

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

    Hansard source
25. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

    Defibrillators in Police Vehicles

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

    Hansard source
26. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Hall

    NHS Corridor Care

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

    Hansard source
27. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Hall

    NHS Corridor Care

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

    Hansard source
28. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Hall

    NHS Corridor Care

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

    Hansard source
29. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sadik Al-Hassan

    Railway Station in Long Ashton

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

    Hansard source
30. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ruth Cadbury

    European Entry and Exit System

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

    Hansard source
31. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rebecca Long Bailey

    NHS Corridor Care

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

    Hansard source
32. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachael Maskell

    National Youth Strategy

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

    Hansard source
33. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Swallow

    NHS Corridor Care

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

    Hansard source
34. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Perran Moon

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

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

    Hansard source
35. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Perran Moon

    NHS Corridor Care

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

    Hansard source
36. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    NHS Corridor Care

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

    Hansard source
37. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pamela Nash

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

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

    Hansard source
38. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pam Cox

    Engagements

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

    Hansard source
39. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Noah Law

    Engagements

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

    Hansard source
40. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

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

    Hansard source