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·Kate Dearden

   Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trade Union Ballots

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The draft order and the draft code of practice were laid before the House on 22 June 2026. The statutory instrument and the guidance that we are debating relate to statutory trade union ballots under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The instrument also corrects a minor error in unfair dismissal legislation in section 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to reflect changes made under the Employment Rights Act 2025. At present, the law requires almost all statutory trade union ballots to be conducted solely by post. That approach has not kept pace with the way in which people live, work and participate in democratic processes. It makes holding a ballot unduly expensive and time-consuming, and it can act as an unnecessary barrier to democratic participation in a union. The statutory instrument addresses that directly. It will bring trade union balloting into line with modern secure voting practices that are already widely used in other contexts, including by political parties and listed companies. In so doing, it will deliver on a Government manifesto commitment to supporting greater participation in the democratic processes that shape working life. The practical changes we are making are long overdue. They are about enabling trade union members to take part in union decisions in more accessible and convenient ways, while maintaining the high standards of fairness, secrecy and security that are set out in existing legislation. The statutory instrument will introduce three additional methods of voting, alongside post. First, electronic voting will allow members to cast their votes online, using secure access credentials. That will be permitted only where a union member has provided a personal email or telephone number to their union. Secondly, hybrid voting—in which members receive voting materials by post, but may choose to return their vote either by post or electronically—will enable workers to choose how they cast their vote, without requiring any voter to use online options if they would prefer not to. Thirdly, in workplace voting, which is for industrial action ballots only, voting can take place in person, under the supervision of an independent scrutineer, at an appropriately secured location in the workplace. Importantly, the statutory instrument will expand the range of voting methods that can be used, but postal voting will remain an option for unions to use. The Government are committed to bringing forward electronic and workplace balloting quickly, securely and in a way that works properly in practice. That is why we are taking a phased approach to delivery. In phase 1, the new methods will be made available across all statutory trade union ballots, with the exception of statutory recognition and derecognition ballots. In phase 2, we will extend the electronic and hybrid voting options in 2027 to recognition and derecognition ballots. Alongside that, we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders to support implementation and oversee how those voting methods are operating in practice. As part of that, in the coming months we intend to launch a senior oversight board comprised of unions, businesses, scrutineers and cyber-security experts, who will share feedback on the operation of electronic balloting. By allowing those additional methods, unions will be able to reach their members in ways that are more convenient and inclusive for those members to participate, including members who may benefit from greater flexibility and accessibility in how they engage with ballots and their union democracy. Alongside the draft order, we have laid a draft statutory code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The code will provide detailed, practical guidance on how electronic and workplace balloting should be conducted in practice, ensuring that those methods are used in a way that is secure, fair and accessible. The code will give clarity to unions, independent scrutineers and employers, and will support a consistent approach across ballots. I turn now to the question of security and safeguards, which will be of interest to the Committee, to provide reassurance to Members that the security of the ballot process sits at the heart of this legislation. Modernisation must go hand in hand with maintaining confidence. That is why strong safeguards underpin our approach and are built into each of the balloting methods that we are providing for. Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004—the enabling power under which we are making the changes—already sets clear standards. Any permitted method of voting must enable a ballot to meet those standards—namely, that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret, and that the risk of unfairness or malpractice is minimised. The draft order and the draft code also set out detailed requirements covering the operation of electronic and workplace balloting. Those include independent oversight by scrutineers, clear requirements on ballot security, and measures to ensure the reliability and integrity of the voting systems used. For electronic and hybrid balloting, that includes requirements relating to the protection of voter information, the security of voting systems and detailed audit and monitoring arrangements, alongside mandatory independent cyber-security certification that must be held by scrutineers before they can provide those methods. Similarly, clear requirements are built into the workplace option. Workplace voting is designed to operate in a limited and controlled way. It will be available only for industrial action ballots, reflecting the fact that those relate to workplace matters rather than to internal union processes. Workplace voting can be used only if the union and the employer agree and set out the terms of the voting in advance of any ballot. Where it is used, it must be independently supervised and conducted in line with detailed requirements, to ensure that the process remains secure and free of interference. The statutory instrument is essential to bringing trade union ballots into the 21st century, and will ensure that workers are provided with accessible and straightforward processes to participate in the democracy of their union. It will remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement that forces all ballots to be held by post, thereby allowing the way in which unions ballot finally to reflect the technological progress of modern life, while holding firmly to the core principles of fairness, accessibility and security that have always underpinned them. This reform is measured, proportionate and long overdue. This legislation sets out clear safeguards and technical standards to ensure the integrity and confidence of the ballot process, while making it meaningfully easier and more convenient for working people to take part in the decisions that affect them. I therefore commend the statutory instrument and the accompanying draft code of practice to the Committee. I trust that Members will support them.

   Hansard source
2. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

   Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trade Union Ballots

   I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and questions. The draft order addresses a simple issue: the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today, and balloting has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That is why the range of options I outlined—online, hybrid and workplace balloting—which the shadow Minister alluded to, are necessary. The requirement to conduct ballots by post was born out of the legitimate need to guarantee secrecy and protection from union, third-party or employer interference, but those principles will not be reduced by this statutory instrument; they will, in fact, be improved upon in many cases. On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda. We are pleased to have progressed in that work and to have laid this legislation—it is a shame that the Opposition cannot support it. We have engaged with stakeholders, worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering the balloting methods for statutory union ballots. We are confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy and enables the increased participation of union members, while ensuring high security standards. The shadow Minister reflected more widely on the varied options in the legislation and asked in particular about the review. We will, of course, keep him updated as we proceed with the wider scrutiny board and as the legislation comes into force. That is important, because we want to ensure that every measure in our Make Work Pay initiative and in the Employment Rights Act works in practice in workplaces across the country, particularly for trade unions. That leads me to the shadow Minister’s second point, on the responsible person and the independent scrutineer. As he said, the responsible person will decide which voting method, or combination of methods, will be used to conduct a statutory ballot. When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be. That is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballot. We are making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Under that section, a new method may be permitted only if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard. A method meets that standard “if it is such that…those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so…votes cast are secret…the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.”

   Hansard source
3. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

   Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trade Union Ballots

   I was just getting to the powers that we are using for the statutory instrument. Trade unions will be required to be the responsible person because they are best placed to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot method. We have gone through the range of options that will be available. As I mentioned, the choice must include postal voting, even though that is not a new method. As I have mentioned, we have included in the legislation a presumption to reduce the factors and criteria to be considered for postal voting, to reflect the fact that it is a long-established method with which members will already be familiar and that trade unions know how best to approach it. However, the responsible person must not be aware of “any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relate to the means of voting which are to be used in the ballot or election.” That has been made clear to trade unions, which will have been designated the responsible person, alongside the range of other options that they must consider. That communicates clearly to trade unions their roles and responsibilities as the responsible person. As the shadow Minister knows, the responsibilities of independent scrutineers will continue in their role under the legislation. Independent scrutineers, which the shadow Minister asked about, are either named in or meet the requirements of the Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1993, which sets out clear requirements on who can be a scrutineer. The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years, and we are confident in their independence. In the coming months, we will progress work on updating that order to expand the list of named permitted scrutineers. If he is interested, we will be happy to keep him updated on that particular work strand. The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment of the introduction of electronic balloting. The primary impacts include up to £70 million of net present social value. The introduction of new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices used regularly by many other organisations, including political parties and private companies, as I said. Requiring them to pilot those balloting methods would unnecessarily restrict their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected. We have no reliable evidence suggesting that electronic balloting will increase the frequency of participation. That is why a review will be important to our understanding of how the range of available balloting methods work out in different workplaces and trade unions. The range in savings estimates varies as it will depends on the uptake of the different balloting methods. As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence. The draft order details operational, audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods well beyond those required for postal voting, to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting. We have developed those clear, secure and proportionate approaches to enable statutory ballots to be conducted via means other than post. The draft order has been carefully considered, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that their legitimate concerns about security and interference are managed while ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remain central to the balloting process. The draft order requires stringent processes to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting, to ensure that the integrity of the ballot remains unquestionable. As I have mentioned, this change is long overdue. I am pleased we are the Government to finally introduce legislation to modernise these processes. I believe I have answered all the questions, and I look forward to the Committee’s support for the draft order and the associated draft code of practice. Question put.

   Hansard source
4. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   NHS Corridor Care

   The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and I are deep in the Health Bill Committee, and I have not seen them all day, so it is nice to have the opportunity to get back into the swing of our discussions. I am really grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing this important debate. Her commitment, and her pride in St George’s hospital and all the staff who work there, is always so clear to see. She did a great job for them and the rest of the country again today. She has given us an opportunity to discuss something that matters so much to patients, their families, NHS staff, Members from across the House, and the staff who work here. I recognise the important contribution of frontline clinicians, professional bodies and organisations such as the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and the Corridor Care Coalition. Their experience and expertise have helped shape our work to establish a consistent national definition of “corridor care” and strengthen national guidance. We share the same objective: to ensure that every patient receives safe, dignified care in an appropriate clinical setting. We will continue to work with these experts across NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. Let me be absolutely clear: corridor care is not an acceptable standard of care, and it must not become normalised or, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) said, a habit. Wherever possible, patients should be assessed and treated in an appropriate clinical environment with dignity, privacy and the highest possible standards of care. Equally, NHS staff deserve to work in an environment that allows them to provide the compassionate care that they are trained to deliver. That is why tackling corridor care is a priority for this Government. If we are to solve this problem, we have to be honest about why it occurs, and we have heard some of the reasons today. Corridor care is one of the clearest symptoms of pressure across the entire urgent and emergency care pathway—it is not simply an emergency department issue. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), it also responds differently in different places, such as rural cities or coastal areas. Historically, care in non-designated clinical areas was an exceptional escalation measure during periods of peak demand, but over time sustained increases in demand alongside capacity constraints across hospitals, community services and social care mean that what was once exceptional has become more routine in some places, and that is not acceptable. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham might not remember exactly how and when that happened, but I know that when I worked in urgent and emergency care in Bristol, under the previous Labour Government, we eradicated such pressures in A&E, and they somehow crept back—not by magic, but by neglect—under the Conservatives’ stewardship. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) about her mother’s experience, and I do hope people are witnessing that. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) talked about her father’s experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) had a terrible experience of her own. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph)—again, he is on the Public Bill Committee and doing great work—went to observe his emergency department, as I know many hon. Members do. So we have direct experience of this in the House and have seen it for ourselves, and I have of course visited my local systems in Bristol. Pressure in one part of the system affects other parts, and when patients who are medically fit cannot be discharged because appropriate support is unavailable, beds remain occupied, reducing hospitals’ ability to admit new patients from emergency departments, and the result is overcrowding, delayed patient flow and an increased risk of patients being cared for in temporary environments. We heard about that in detail from my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), and that is why we are tackling it. The first step was bringing in consistency and transparency about how corridor care is measured. For too long there has been no single national definition, making it really difficult to understand where the pressures were greatest or to compare performance across the NHS. We cannot improve what we do not measure, as was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan). NHS England introduced a clear national definition of corridor care and began daily reporting in March 2026, and since June that data has been published, providing greater transparency and enabling targeted support for those organisations experiencing the greatest pressure. Let me make it clear to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, that part of getting the definition and the data right did mean that did not come out immediately. It is difficult to get this right, and we continue to work on doing so. I also make it really clear that, in overseeing this, I am not hiding the experience of things such as ambulance waits. We are absolutely monitoring those things as part of my overseeing of the wider system. Alongside improved reporting, NHS England has strengthened the national guidance for trusts where temporary care environments cannot immediately be avoided. The guidance is clear that patients must continue to receive the same clinical standards of care wherever they are treated. They must be prioritised according to clinical urgency, supported by senior clinical oversight, named nursing responsibility and ongoing monitoring, with clear escalation arrangements, where required. I know that Members are rightly concerned by patient safety, and of course no patient should receive a lower standard of care because they are being treated in a temporary clinical environment, but the safest care is in the right clinical setting, and that is what we are aiming to do. We have also ensured that, following the spending review, the Government allocated up to £1.9 billion of capital funding over the next four years to support improvements in urgent and emergency care to help restore the constitutional standards talked about by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. The Conservatives did not hit any constitutional standards for over 10 years, and we are determined to right that wrong. Along with that investment, NHS England has published its model emergency department guidance, supporting faster clinical decision making, improved streaming of patients and stronger whole-system responsibility for performance. While there is much more to do, these reforms are already contributing to improvements, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, including the shortest waiting times for four years and the fastest ambulance response times for about five years, despite continued and increasing high demand. Targeted support is where we need to do the most work, and early national data shows that much corridor care is concentrated in some key places. The specialist “Getting it right first time” teams are therefore working directly with those trusts to help improve patient flows, strengthen the discharge process, make better use of data and share learning from organisations that have already made progress. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), who highlighted the improvements at West Suffolk hospital, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for the great work happening at Blackburn and the work he is doing with other east Lancs MPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) talked about the improvements happening there. We heard about North Herefordshire and I am going to hold them to the autumn deadline raised by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). There is nothing like putting it on the record for them, is there? Great work. As colleagues have said, we want to take the best to the rest and some people are doing amazing work in difficult circumstances. Ultimately, as Members have said, eliminating corridor care means improving flow across the whole system. That requires: faster discharge; stronger community and neighbourhood services, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh); improved social care; and more people receiving care closer to home, so that hospitals can focus on those who need in-patient care. That ambition sits at the heart of our urgent and emergency care plan and our 10-year health plan, which of course includes more prevention, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. The shift from hospital to community care will improve patient experience, reduce avoidable hospital attendance and create the capacity needed to restore urgent emergency care standards. This is about lasting reform, not a temporary response to seasonal pressures, whether they be the current heat or winter. Before I conclude, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary professionalism of NHS staff: doctors, nurses, paramedics, health care assistants, porters, pharmacists and so many other people who continue to provide outstanding care under immense pressure. No member of staff comes to work expecting to treat patients in corridors, and many have spoken openly, rightly, about the moral distress it causes. They deserve not only our gratitude, but practical action to improve the conditions under which they work. Part of what we are doing—introducing the national definition, being transparent about the data, strengthening patient safety guidance, investing additional urgent care capacity, providing targeted support to the most challenged trusts and addressing the wider pressures that drive corridor care—is the start of doing just that. Every patient deserves care delivered with dignity, compassion and respect. Every member of staff deserves a system that enables them to provide that care safely. Corridor care is not inevitable. It is the consequence of pressures that have built up across the health and care system, and it is a challenge that this Government are determined to overcome. By improving patient flow, increasing capacity, supporting frontline services and delivering long-term reform, we will restore urgent emergency care standards and end the routine use of corridor care before the end of this Parliament. That is our commitment to patients, NHS staff and this House.

   Hansard source
5. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Justin Madders

   Maritime and Coastguard Agency

   I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB trade union. I am sorry to say that it beggars belief that the response of a Labour Government to a court judgment confirming workers’ rights should be to run in the opposite direction, in some perverse form of fire and rehire. I hope the Minister will make it clear that that is not what we stand for, and that he will do his utmost to address the situation. However, there is a wider point, isn’t there? Too often we see ambiguities in employment status dealt with by the courts on an ad hoc basis. Is that not a reason for us to get on with our manifesto commitment to move to a single status of worker?

   Hansard source
6. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Kevin Bonavia.

   Hansard source
7. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

   Hansard source
8. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   I call the shadow Minister.

   Hansard source
9. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

   Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

   Order. Please can I remind you that saying “you” is not acceptable in this Chamber, because it refers to me?

   Hansard source
10. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    I call Mike Martin to wind up very quickly.

    Hansard source
11. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    NHS Corridor Care

    I am sure the hon. Lady understands how much support there is in the Chamber for this debate, and will be coming to a conclusion shortly.

    Hansard source
12. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    NHS Corridor Care

    We will start with an immediate five-minute time limit.

    Hansard source
13. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh Dean

    National Youth Strategy

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this debate. I welcome this Labour Government’s national youth strategy, and how it recognises the importance of achieving good work and the emphasis that it places on trusted adults. Too often, those relationships have been seen as a soft offer—a nice to have—when in fact they are a key strategic asset in tackling youth unemployment. That is because today we risk having a lost generation. There are a million young people neither earning nor learning, with hundreds of thousands of them disconnected from traditional employment support and hidden from the system entirely. A growing evidence base suggests that trusted adult relationships, whether with youth workers, coaches, mentors or others can act as the connective tissue to the wider support that will help to address the barriers locking young people out of education, employment and training. They can transform a young person’s journey to employment through the continuity, advocacy and encouragement that many need to navigate a system that is often confusing and isolating. That consistent, person-centred support can be vital in identifying those hidden NEETs too. On Monday, to mark Youth Employment Week, I hosted a roundtable with the Youth Futures Foundation where we heard the powerful testimony of its youth ambassadors: Aarya, Elaina, Grace, Niamh, Serena, Sharna and Yusra. They talked about the impact that the presence, or absence, of a trusted adult had had on them. I am living proof that trusted adults can succeed where traditional provision falls short. When I dropped out of school feeling like the world had ended, it was a local youth worker called Russell who helped to rebuild my confidence and set me on a positive journey. I would not be here representing the home that I love without the support that he gave me. In a fragmented and often confusing landscape, trusted adults can act as a golden thread, bridging young people into the right support at the right time. They can also help to draw this Labour Government’s offers together, aligning work across employment, education, skills, health and youth policy, delivering the system change required to tackle the NEET challenge. Young Futures hubs can act as centres of excellence for relational practice, offering open access and co-ordinated support for young people across employment, mental health and crime prevention in every community. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out in her response how she is working across Government to deliver this manifesto commitment, and how she thinks we can strengthen and support the role of youth workers like Russell, and trusted adults more generally, across this important policy area.

    Hansard source
14. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

    Manufacturing Supply Chain

    1. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the domestic supply chain for manufacturing in Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source
15. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

    Manufacturing Supply Chain

    Does the Minister agree that the defence growth deal is a chance for Northern Ireland businesses to access the wider UK defence supply chain? What efforts is he making to achieve that?

    Hansard source
16. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Grady

    Recent Disorder

    7. What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on recent disorder in Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source
17. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Grady

    Recent Disorder

    The Roma have suffered centuries of prejudice and hate. Under the Nazis, they were subjected to concentration camps and genocide. Roma people have made their home in my constituency and in Northern Ireland, and should be treated with decency, yet they have been subjected to terrible racist violence in Northern Ireland. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with the Northern Ireland Executive to safeguard the Roma community in Northern Ireland?

    Hansard source
18. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Grady

    Engagements

    Q4. The Family C official report, about the most depraved sexual abuse of children, identifies serious failures by Glasgow city council and other bodies. The report says that one child victim “banged on the windows shouting at the health visitor not to leave”,but this was treated as “streetwise”, instead of a desperate cry for help. Staff described the same child with contempt, saying that the child’s behaviour was “nasty” and interfering. The children desperately needed compassion, love and safety, not contempt. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the council must accept robust, independent scrutiny of what has happened and independent scrutiny of the implementation of improvements?

    Hansard source
19. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim Dickson

    National Youth Strategy

    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. In Dartford and our towns and villages we have an increasingly youthful population, with a quarter of households in the constituency comprising a family with children. Our young people do our community proud, from our brilliant Kent youth county councillors, including Madalena, Amelia, Sam, Stephan and Flourish; our Dartford youth councillors; Heritage, who got to the final of Monday’s Poetry by Heart national competition; and so many others who star in our cultural and sporting life. And let us not forget eight-year-old Ruth, who wrote a brilliant and persuasive handwritten letter to me last week about YouTube. Ahead of the Government’s very welcome national youth strategy last year, it was a pleasure for me to work with the YMCA to host an event to discuss with our Dartford young people what they wanted to see in the strategy. The concerns they shared at the event were many and varied. They worry about their futures: how they will find affordable housing, cope with the cost of living and deal with growing challenges to their mental health and to their sense of community in a digital age. There was a strong feeling in the room that their generation needed better public transport, access to more varied job opportunities locally, and more places for them and other young people to come together. Last year’s national youth strategy was a wonderful document. It rightly promised a place-based approach to rebuilding a local offer for young people, and I hope that for Dartford it will mean more sports facilities such as a rebuilt Swanscombe Pavilion and more youth provision in the town centre. I hugely welcome the youth guarantee. The challenges faced by young people getting into the early stages of a career come through in the people I meet and the stories I hear across Dartford. It is welcome that Dartford will host one of the Government’s new youth hubs, providing access to expanded employment and wraparound support services. But we need to go further, as others have said, to rebuild the youth services lost over the past decade and a half, and to give young people a chance to meet, create, play sport and learn. One of the great underacknowledged dimensions to young people’s excessive use of social media and its effect on their mental health is the loss of such opportunities. We owe it to young people in Dartford and across the country to give young people back the chance to grow, to take risks and to unlock their talent.

    Hansard source
20. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jen Craft

    NHS Corridor Care

    My local hospital, Basildon university hospital, is in the 40th worst trust for delivering hospital care. Does my hon. Friend agree that not having the right community equipment, such as community disability aids and home adaptations, can quite often be a leading cause of delayed discharge? Will she urge the Minister to look at this issue when she commits to ending corridor care by the end of this Parliament?

    Hansard source
21. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jeff Smith

    Engagements

    Q2. In three weeks’ time, Greater Manchester residents will have the chance to vote for Labour’s brilliant candidate, Bev Craig, to be their next mayor. I have worked with Bev for many years, so I know her strong record as a leader and what an outstanding mayor she will be. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming Bev’s pledge to extend free travel on public transport to all 11 to 18-year-olds, so all our young people in Greater Manchester can have the independence to travel to the work, education and leisure opportunities they deserve?

    Hansard source
22. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

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

    Does the hon. and learned Member agree that we will be aligning ourselves with this regulation? We will consult on aligning with it in the autumn. I understand that these regulations will make batteries safer and easier to recycle. In the long term, we need to do this anyway.

    Hansard source
23. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    NHS Corridor Care

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for organising this debate. It is really important and very timely. Corridor care is a visible symptom of the pressure our NHS is under. According to Age UK, the number of people experiencing corridor care has grown 563-fold since 2015. In Cornwall, where I am from, it is no longer a seasonal response to winter or summer pressures but happens all year round. This is true of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS trust in my constituency, which includes Treliske, Cornwall’s only major acute hospital. On any given day in May, 31 patients in RCHT were receiving corridor care in the emergency department and 16 on the wards. One ex-clinician said to me that corridor care “distresses patients, costs lives and demoralises staff”. Patients treated in temporary escalation spaces face a lack of privacy and dignity and limited access to necessities such as food, water and toileting. They experience worse outcomes as well. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine has estimated that in 2024 there were 16,500-plus associated excess deaths related to stays of 12 hours or more before being admitted. We know that part of the root cause of the problem is a lack of bed space and staff in hospitals. While Treliske’s overall four-hour performance has averaged 45.8% so far this year, its performance for patients admitted to hospital averages 26.3%, so patients just are not moving through the system quickly enough. Since this Government came to power, there have been some welcome improvements, particularly in ambulance handover times. Our local ambulance trust, the South Western Ambulance Service NHS foundation trust, has got much faster at moving patients from ambulances, so that the ambulances do not waste so much time sitting outside the emergency department, but of course, moving patients faster can increase the queue in ED and the need for corridor care there. On any given day in May, 103 hospital beds were occupied by patients who were fit to leave, which represents over 15% of all general and acute beds within the trust. It is crucial that we address gaps in community and social care provision and strengthen the integration between hospitals and social care so that these patients can come out faster, reducing the pressure. The 10-year plan is committed to ending corridor care, and I welcome that emphasis. Part of that approach involves strengthening co-ordination between the NHS, social care and the voluntary sector. We have very good neighbourhood health teams in Cornwall. They are ahead of the game and their community health and wellbeing workers are proven to make a real impact on hospital admissions. The NHS’s urgent and emergency care plan sets out a number of other important measures to reduce corridor care, including reducing internal discharge delays of more than 48 hours and investing £450 million in same-day emergency care. I welcome the expansion of same-day emergency care capacity at our community hospitals and the efforts that are being made by mobilising the third sector. However, that must be balanced with the fact that sending people home so early without proper rehab can increase the risk of them coming back and increase the demands on GP surgeries. Kernow Health CIC runs out-of-hours GPs, a 111 advice service, and a line for clinicians to talk to paramedics. That has led to some people not having to go into hospital. We also have a specialist falls car that can help with nine callouts a day, and stop people going into hospital when they fall. So much more could be done and there have been many suggestions, but ultimately, corridor care needs to be treated as a system-wide problem. We must also look again at the way we treat people at weekends, because closure over a weekend can make such a difference.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Janet Daby

    Recent Disorder

    11. What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on recent disorder in Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source
25. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Janet Daby

    Recent Disorder

    I cannot begin to imagine what the victims of the recent disorder felt and experienced, and the devastation that it has brought upon their communities. My Labour values are about respect for others, and about treating people fairly and justly. This act demonstrated none of them. Will my right hon. Friend please say what is being done to rebuild and restore every aspect of these communities, from dealing with their trauma to ensuring their protection and restoring the loss of possessions?

    Hansard source
26. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

    NHS Corridor Care

    I have sat through the debate, and I do not believe that community pharmacy or independent prescribing have been mentioned. Does my hon. Friend, with his experience as a GP, endorse the changes that the Government are making to maximise the use of pharmacists to deal with some of the pressures that he mentioned GPs face?

    Hansard source
27. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

    NHS Corridor Care

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I appreciate being called. Before I begin my speech, I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) mentioned coastal communities. She was absolutely right to do so, and I will refer to rural communities, because there are equal challenges with delivering healthcare to that particular demographic. I will start with some good news for my constituents. Last year, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust was named among the 10 most improved trusts in England for four-hour A&E performance, and sixth nationally for 12-hour waits. That is not a small thing; it reflects genuine hard graft by staff at Queen’s Medical Centre and Nottingham City hospital, and it earns the trust a share of a £3 million reinvestment fund from NHS England. That sounds good, but I would be doing my constituents a disservice if I stood in this place and pretended that the job was done, because just over a week ago, on 29 June, NUH declared a critical incident after the recent extreme heat drove demand across the trust far beyond what its emergency department could safely absorb. What is more, it was the fourth critical incident over the past year. At its worst, during the latest incident, there were 188 patients in the emergency department and 20 ambulances queuing outside. Patients were experiencing lengthy waits on corridors, and more people than expected were medically fit but unable to be discharged. I recently asked the Government about this issue, and the Minister’s response was clear: corridor care was “unacceptable”, and should never become normal practice. That should not even need saying, and it is only after 14 years of drift that it did. What matters now is action, and the Government have published a national definition of corridor care for the first time and started daily reporting, so that neither trusts nor we in this place can hide the problem. Thankfully, that transparency is being backed by some new money: over £450 million is going into urgent and emergency care capacity this year alone, and £215 million of capital funding is delivering 40 new and expanded urgent care sites across England. For my constituents, this means two things locally that I genuinely welcome: confirmed funding for an expanded urgent treatment centre at QMC, and a trust-funded reconfiguration of the emergency department, because our chief executive has found the money internally to get on with that work now, rather than wait. I was particularly pleased to be able to tell this to one of my constituents, Renee, after she contacted me to tell me about her experience in A&E. As a lady in her 70s with a long-established heart condition for which she has ongoing consultant care, after a heart attack, she found herself spending nine hours waiting for care in A&E for a condition that should have been treated immediately. Nationally, A&E waiting times are at their best level in five years, and elective waiting lists are at their lowest in three and a half years. That is progress, but it will ultimately count for nothing in Rushcliffe if a bad winter, a system failure or a staffing gap can still tip a good department into crisis extremely quickly. As such, my ask of the Minister is simple: keep funding urgent and emergency care, keep the pressure on trusts that are lagging behind, and keep listening to Back Benchers, who regularly hear about this issue from doctors and constituents at our surgeries.

    Hansard source
28. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Irene Campbell

    NHS Corridor Care

    I would just like to highlight that the Scottish Government do not record or publish any statistics on the number of patients being treated in corridors. However, we know that it happens. The Crosshouse hospital, which serves my constituency, was recorded in January as having one of Scotland’s most under-pressure emergency departments. It exceeded capacity by 50% in December, revealing corridor care conditions in the hospital. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to record accurate data so that we can track improvement?

    Hansard source
29. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is great to see a fellow Edinburgher in the Chair, Ms Jardine. [Interruption.] I will not divide the Committee on the pronunciation of “Jardine”. The draft regulations are required in order to amend the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023 by updating the international mobile roaming wholesale rates that they set. Wholesale rates are those that mobile operators charge other mobile operators, as opposed to retail customers. The amendments will give effect in domestic law to a November 2025 decision of the EEA EFTA-UK free trade agreement joint committee, the governing body of the agreement, on which each party has a seat. I note, however, that one EEA EFTA member, Liechtenstein, has opted out of the international mobile roaming provisions in the free trade agreement. The amendments to the international mobile roaming wholesale rates are being made to ensure that they continue to reflect current international benchmarks, which reflect market conditions. This is consistent with and necessary under the terms of the free trade agreement. Let me provide some background for the Committee. In 2021, the UK and the EEA EFTA signed a free trade agreement. Its core terms included provisions on industrial goods, digital trade, services and investment and, of course, fisheries and agriculture. Under digital trade, in a telecoms chapter, it contained provisions on international mobile roaming. These provisions set a wholesale cap, which limits what mobile operators can charge each other. In 2023, the UK introduced the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations to implement these provisions in UK legislation. The draft regulations will amend those regulations. As per the free trade agreement, the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations covered wholesale charges only. The free trade agreement contains a review clause, under which the wholesale rates should be reviewed by all affected parties every two years “with a view to determining whether those rates are still appropriate”. The UK is one of the affected parties, along with Norway and Iceland. The rate set under the agreement has now diverged from the “relevant international benchmarks” that the agreement states should be considered. The benchmark relevant to EEA EFTA-UK is the European Union-set international mobile roaming wholesale rate, called the Euro rate. EEA EFTA adheres to the Euro rate as part of its access to the EU single market. The UK adhered to the Euro rate until 2021, with the end of the Brexit transition period at the end of 2020. The EU benchmark is based on the principle that the wholesale cap must be high enough to allow operators fully to recover reasonably incurred costs involved in building, maintaining and operating their networks. This principle, based on market conditions, is supported by the United Kingdom. In 2025, Norway, supported by Iceland, requested a move to reflect the Euro rate. The reason was that the wholesale cap in the UK-EEA EFTA agreement should reflect international benchmarks and current market conditions. Ministers agreed to proceed with legislation for these new rates to demonstrate the UK’s willingness to align with the provisions of the free trade agreement. In November 2025, the governing body of the agreement, the UK-EEA EFTA joint committee, made Decision No. 1/2025, which agreed that the wholesale rates should be changed. The draft regulations will amend the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023 to give effect in domestic law to the commitments that the UK has made to the joint committee. I should start asking questions, to see whether people are still keeping up with all this. I think I am. The draft regulations are strictly about amending the wholesale rate set out in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations. It is a very technical amendment. However, I believe that it would be helpful to conclude by setting the context for the wholesale cap in the free trade agreement.

    Hansard source
30. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    That is an incredibly good question. That is why we are making the draft regulations, because the wholesale rates, or the Euro rates, are much lower than the rates currently in operation. For example, a voice call, which is €0.032, will go down to €0.019; an SMS, which is €0.01, will go down to €0.003; and data, which is €2.50 per gigabyte, will go down to €1.30 per gigabyte. The Euro rate is €1 per gigabyte. One would hope that if wholesale prices are being lowered, the savings will be passed on to consumers, as I am sure the Committee agrees they should be. Although the hon. Gentleman’s question was not strictly about the draft regulations, it was a great question to which I am delighted to have the answer.

    Hansard source
31. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    That is a good question. Actually, yes. This is purely about the EEA EFTA-UK agreement countries, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, although Liechtenstein is outside it at the moment because of its relationship with the European Union. On the prices, we are looking to align with the Euro rate, which the European Union uses, so the answer to my hon. Friend’s question, by default of the technicalities of the measure, is yes. I can confirm that surcharge-free roaming has not been delivered for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland. Mobile network operators EE and Three continue to surcharge their customers roaming in Norway and Iceland, so they should be passing that on. It is welcome that Vodafone removed the surcharges as a result of the change, and VMO2 did not reintroduce roaming charges to the EU and EEA EFTA post Brexit—post the transition period, in any case. The Government have continued to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming for UK travellers to Norway and Iceland, in line with the aspirations of the free trade agreement. I fully agree with hon. Members that if there are wholesale rate savings, companies that have not yet taken off surcharging for Norway and Iceland should do so. I stress that the draft regulations are strictly about amending the wholesale rates contained in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations and fulfilling the commitments that the UK made under the international treaty. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

    Hansard source
32. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    The shadow Minister is correct that we should be doing things at a greater pace, but I disagree with him about the value of the wholesale rates. The voice call rate is already higher. As I said to the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, it is going from €0.032 to €0.019, and SMS is going from €0.01 to €0.003. That is a reduction. Data is going from €2.50 to €1.30 per gigabyte, and then €1 on the Euro rate. That is about formalising in the SI what was in the EEA EFTA agreement to reflect the wholesale prices at these international benchmarks. The international benchmark used by EFTA in this agreement is the Euro rate, which is the rate that will come into effect for the wholesale charges. I hope that that answers the shadow Minister’s question. The reason that there is no impact on consumers is that this measure does not directly affect consumers at this moment in time. As I say, some mobile operators have already reduced their surcharges regardless. In fact, VMO2 did not reintroduce any roaming surcharges at all to EEA EFTA countries post the Brexit transition period. Operators EE and Three continue to surcharge their customers roaming in Norway and Iceland, and Vodafone removed its surcharges as a result of the agreement, so this instrument will have no impact on consumer prices, because it is a wholesale issue, not a consumer issue. On the time and the cost that it has taken to get here, I may have to come back to the shadow Minister. The cost of bringing this SI to the House is the cost of doing parliamentary democracy. It is a price worth paying for the hon. Gentleman to have his voice heard.

    Hansard source
33. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    Let me start by answering the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. It will depend on which package he is on, of course. I have a worldwide roaming package, which means that I take my package with me wherever I go, but that is the package that I purchased; it is not necessarily open to everyone who has a mobile phone. On the challenge with Canada, Mexico and the US, there will be many fans over there at the moment—maybe not many Scotland fans, but a lot of England fans. Some will be racking up huge bills, while some will not; it will depend on which package they are on. That is why I am very clear that this is about wholesale prices and implementing the provisions in the agreement, not about the charges to the consumer. That explains my answer to the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill about the consequences and whether we should be passing the savings on. The answer to that is, of course, yes, but they do not need to be passed on to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, because he has a package already and is paying in other ways to cover these kinds of issue. I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, that this Government’s manifesto was perfectly clear about what we want to achieve with the EU. The current Prime Minister has been very clear about resetting the relationship with the European Union. The EU-UK summit agreement from last May is coming into effect; that is deepening our relationship in a whole host of ways, from defence to trade in goods, digital and things like EU touring, which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport looks after closely. That will be renewed every year; there is a summit every year now, deepening that relationship even further. The direction of travel from this Government is very clearly to get closer to our allies in the European Union. The Prime Minister has led the charge on defence spending through NATO and with our European partners, and that has been recognised, particularly by the NATO Secretary-General. There is no doubt at all that we are deepening that relationship, because it is right for our economy, it is right for our people and it is right for issues like this. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
34. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Troubles Legacy: Legislation

    The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will establish a reformed, human rights-compliant Legacy Commission to carry out investigations and provide answers on behalf of families who have waited too long, enable information sharing by the Irish authorities and provide, in law, safeguards for our veterans.

    Hansard source
35. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Troubles Legacy: Legislation

    The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the new Defence Secretary, who himself served in Northern Ireland, said on Monday: “This Government are absolutely committed to the troubles Bill”.—[Official Report, 6 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 15.] The right hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too much longer—[Interruption]—to see the substantial package of amendments to which he refers.

    Hansard source
36. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Troubles Legacy: Legislation

    My hon. Friend makes an important point about this piece of legislation. As we know, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 did not command support across all communities in Northern Ireland. How can we hope to proceed if that is the case? That is why the Government are committed to reforming, repealing and replacing the legacy Act—that is what is in the Bill. I hope that when people see the full picture they will realise that it is fair, balanced, proportionate and reasonable, and that it seeks to command the confidence of all communities in Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source
37. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Troubles Legacy: Legislation

    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) will have to answer that question, but, with respect, I disagree with him. He worked on the package of amendments during his time as a Defence Minister. In the end, we have to strike a balance, as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) is well aware. When people see those amendments, they will realise that they are fair and reasonable with regard to the protection of our veterans. Crucially, they will put into legislation for the first time protections that were not in the Act passed in 2023.

    Hansard source
38. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Troubles Legacy: Legislation

    I do not accept that, because all the Northern Ireland political parties were opposed to the immunity that was at the heart of the 2023 legacy Act. It had no support from political parties in Northern Ireland or from victims and survivors’ organisations. That is why these changes have to be made, and that is why the Government will proceed with this Bill.

    Hansard source
39. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Troubles Legacy: Legislation

    We will come to debate that amendment, along with all the other amendments that hon. and right hon. Members have tabled, when we get to the Committee stage. The judgment in the Thompson case was absolutely clear—it was also referred to by the Dillon judgment—that the ultimate responsibility for protecting national security rests with the Government. That is a long-established principle that has support on both sides of the House. At the same time, I have made it clear that I wish to see the maximum possible disclosure, consistent with that requirement that falls on Ministers.

    Hansard source
40. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Troubles Legacy: Legislation

    As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Irish Government published on 8 June their legislative outline, entitled “The General Scheme of the Legacy of the Troubles Bill 2026”. That is intended to fulfil the commitment that the Irish Government gave in the joint framework to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with the commission. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the position today in the light of the Dillon judgment, and I happen to agree with him. Now that the Dillon judgment has made it quite clear that the commission, even in its current form, is compliant with the European convention on human rights and capable of carrying out investigations, I hope that we will see co-operation in response to the requests that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery is making of the Irish Government.

    Hansard source