What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument for why the troubles Bill should be passed, because it will enable precisely the information sharing with the Irish authorities that he and I want to see, and that all the people in Northern Ireland who are still waiting for answers would like to receive. That is one of the central arguments for proceeding with the Bill.
I regularly meet the Northern Ireland Executive and the Police Service of Northern Ireland to discuss a range of issues in Northern Ireland, including community cohesion. However, given the recent serious disorder, there is a problem that needs to be tackled.
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The attack on Mr Ogilvie was truly shocking, and there was no justification whatsoever for the racist thuggery we witnessed on the streets of Belfast in the days following. I met nurses and doctors from a hospital in Belfast, and some of the nurses described to me how, because of the colour of their skin, they were too afraid to leave the hospital at the end of their shift, while others discussed whether they should leave in the back of a colleague’s car covered in a coat or in the boot, because they were afraid of the thugs who had taken control of the streets. The fact that that happened on the streets of our United Kingdom in 2026 should give us all cause for deep concern.
That was, of course, an awful feature of what we saw. One of the things I learned in my discussions was that those from the far right had taken a list of houses in multiple occupation in Belfast—a list that, in the interests of openness, was properly available on the Belfast city council website; the council has now taken it down—and used it to try to target houses during the racist violence. There is a clear obligation on social media companies, set out in the Online Safety Act 2023, and there is an obligation on Ofcom to enforce that Act, because there is no doubt that part of the violence was fuelled by that kind of online hatred.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and I am grateful to him for his question. We all have a responsibility—political leaders have a responsibility to call out what was witnessed for what it is and not mince our words, and as I have already indicated, social media companies have a responsibility to ensure that such material, if it is illegal, is not available on social media sites. I pay tribute to the police and the community organisations, who did an extraordinary job on the night of the 10th to find shelter for people who had been burned out of their homes. Parents also have a responsibility; if someone’s son comes back at 11 o’clock at night wearing dark clothing and smelling of smoke, a parent might ask, “Where have you been and what have you been doing?”
Northern Ireland is a society, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than most, that has been undergoing profound change since the signing of the Good Friday agreement 28 years ago. As the famous lines go, we have a shared history, but not necessarily a shared memory. The progress we have seen is because Northern Ireland society has been working to move beyond that. One of the people I met who was there on the night of the violence said that we now have “another other” in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the traditional divisions, but there is now another other: the ethnic minority population of Northern Ireland, who are terrified about what is happening. We do not want to add to the troubles of the past by not being clear how unacceptable it is to see that on the streets of Belfast today.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, because five of the main parties have now come forward with various proposals for reform. I have said to the party leaders that I wish to meet them to discuss those proposals. Time and effort is being expended at the moment on trying to sort out the problem of the budget. On the question of the paramilitary displays and flags, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has new powers to remove them as a result of the recommendation of Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
There is a responsibility, above all, on the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. There being no Executive in Northern Ireland for 40% of the time since the Good Friday agreement has not helped to achieve that objective. To take one issue, there is an acute housing crisis in Northern Ireland, as there is in other parts of the United Kingdom. In taking action to enable more homes to be built, one of the issues that needs to be addressed is the fact that water infrastructure cannot cope. If that is sorted out, more homes can be built.
We have already increased the number of operations and arrests in Northern Ireland in the last two years, in comparison with the previous period. About 1,000 people who had no right to be in Northern Ireland have been removed, including 500 who have been returned to the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Member will be well aware of the importance of the open border. Intelligence-led policing at the ports and airports under Operation Gull and visits to workplaces have resulted in more people being detained and removed.
I regularly meet representatives of the logistics sector and businesses trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—for instance, through the Northern Ireland business stakeholders group—to discuss how we can make the Windsor framework operate as smoothly as possible.
In respect of the EU emissions trading system, yes, we are applying a carbon charge to boat movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the same charge that is being applied between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The purpose of that is to ensure that the carbon border adjustment mechanism does not hit businesses in Northern Ireland, which the right hon. Gentleman would be very cross about if it were to be the case. Let me simply say this to him: if things are as bad as he suggests, why is Northern Ireland one of the fastest-growing parts of the United Kingdom economy?
I met the leaders of the main Northern Ireland political parties on Thursday 11 June to discuss the terrible disorder. The attack on Mr Ogilvie was truly shocking, but the racist violence that we saw in response had no justification whatsoever.
The single most important thing that we can all do as political leaders is to be absolutely clear that everyone who has made the United Kingdom their home lawfully should be treated with equality, respect and dignity, regardless of where they come from. That is one of the characteristics of our country.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she says, and I agree with her. There was terrible disorder in Ballymena last year, as a result of which a number of steps were taken to bring the community together. It was noticeable that the recent disorder that we saw in Belfast was not replicated in Ballymena. That is an example of communities working together to build trust and respect, and we need to see a lot more of it.
I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the common travel area, which is more than a century old, is of great benefit to the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland live their lives across that border every single day. Anyone who suggests—I know that she is not doing so—that there should be immigration controls on that border is not being realistic, and it would not be the appropriate action to take. As I indicated in answer to an earlier question, we are increasing immigration enforcement activity across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, as a result of which 1,000 people have been removed in the two years since the election, including 500 who have been returned to the Republic of Ireland.
I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking and praising the brave officers of the PSNI. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) and I visited the officers at Strandtown police station, who dealt with the disorder when the bus was set on fire on 10 June. More than 40 of them were injured, and we wish them a speedy recovery. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a doughty advocate for the new training centre, and I look forward to discussing the matter further with him.
I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB, and also declare that I am a supporter of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for asking the urgent question, and pay tribute to the lifesaving work done by our local coastguard officers, as well as the brilliant volunteer RNLI officers and those in independent lifeboats, like the one at Pett in my constituency. I also thank the Minister for stepping in and pausing this process. I agree with him that it is vital for us to review the process fully and reflect on the MCA’s handling of the issue—which, in the experience of my local coastguard officers, has been pretty shocking—and to pause and take enough time to get this right for our coastal communities. Given the increase in extreme weather events owing to climate change—we are experiencing a heat wave now, we know that there will be more storms, and there might even be more sharks coming to our waters—the work of the coastguard officers is more important than ever before.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Loughborough Estate in my constituency, I wish to say that the conditions in which the residents there are currently forced to live are shocking. The lack of a straightforward remedy to those conditions is completely unacceptable, and the need for change is urgent. The petition states: The petition of residents of the Loughborough Estate in Brixton, Declares that the right to manage for residents of social housing is important and that tenant management organisations often deliver high quality services, but the Loughborough Estate is under the long-term control of a tenant management organisation which has lost its democratic mandate, and fails to deliver the essential services in respect of which it receives over £3 million per year of funds from the London Borough of Lambeth; and further declares that the current right to manage legislation is not fit for purpose, lacks essential safeguards, and enables rogue entities to retain control of council housing without democratic mandate and oversight. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons considers this issue, and urges the Government to: (i) produce regulations amending the Housing (Right to Manage) (England) Regulations 2012, introducing essential changes to safeguard the democratic integrity of tenant management organisations; and (ii) publish updated guidance in relation to the application of any such regulations, including a new Modular Management Agreement. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003218]
I beg to move, That this House has considered the National Youth Strategy and youth enrichment. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the importance of the national youth strategy and youth enrichment. I know that many colleagues share my commitment to ensuring that every young person is offered the support and opportunities they need to thrive. Youth services are not a luxury, but an essential part of our communities. I commend the Minister and her team for the Government’s national youth strategy and its £500 million commitment to rebuild the places, relationships and power structures that young people need to thrive. It aims to right the wrongs of previous Administrations and confront the challenges faced by more than 10 million young people. We must be honest about the challenges. Having been born and raised in Huddersfield, I have seen at first hand the impact of austerity on young people. Too many have had their futures torn away from them. Youth services have lost around £1.2 billion in local authority funding since 2010, with more than half of council-run youth centres closing in that time. Kirklees council, which covers my Huddersfield constituency, saw a 70% decrease in funding from 2011 to 2025. That leaves just over £47 per young person being spent on youth services in our community.
My hon. Friend is quite right, and I will come to that point later. Young people who have lost access to youth clubs have been shown to be 14% more likely to engage in criminal activity in the six years following closures. A recent project in Ashbrow in my constituency saw antisocial behaviour fall by an incredible 63%. Alongside policing operations, partnerships were developed with community organisations to support children and young people, alongside regular intervention programmes designed to support those most at risk. The evidence is clear: when youth services are cut, our young people and communities suffer; when they are funded, young people and entire communities thrive. The youth strategy sets out a 10-year vision, but current funding commitments cover only the first few years, so will the Minister outline how the Government will ensure long-term investment so that organisations have the certainty they need? Will she also confirm how her Department will work alongside other Departments to ensure greater alignment between all Government reforms focused on young people? Since being elected, I have had the privilege of visiting many of the youth work organisations in my constituency and have witnessed at first hand the life-changing work they deliver. They include Central Stars youth club, Yorkshire Community Development, Empower, Positive Stepz, Team KickStart, Conscious Youth, Boxpower and Temple Well-Being, as well as the foundations of Huddersfield Town football club and Huddersfield Giants. I will also mention organisations working at the national level, such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s award team, some of whom are here today—thank you for joining us [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”]—the National Youth Agency and all members of UK Youth. All those organisations and many others deliver outstanding community-led services and policy work, often in difficult financial circumstances. Crucially, many of the organisations also offer opportunities to access sustained enrichment programmes, such as volunteering, physical activity and skills development, which can help to close opportunity gaps, particularly for young people who face disadvantage. Enrichment should not be seen as a “nice to have”; activities outside the classroom also give young people direct exposure to environments that many have never previously accessed.
My hon. Friend is quite right. That is why it is so important that we fund and support these organisations sustainably. As I was saying, enrichment activities help to raise confidence, skills and aspirations, while making future opportunities feel achievable. Last week, when I visited a school in my constituency, pupils asked me what services and activities will be available in their local area once the under-16s social media ban is in place. Importantly, access to opportunities should not depend on family income. Every £1 of public money invested in the youth sector generates between £3.20 and £6.40 in benefits for the taxpayer, while for every £1 saved from youth service closures, nearly £3 is lost in educational outcomes and increased crime costs. The Duke of Edinburgh’s award is a proven national enrichment programme that helps young people to develop skills and gain experiences that can have a lasting impact on their lives. Last year alone, more than 350 students from a range of backgrounds in Huddersfield took part in it. I was pleased to see the launch last month of the “Every Child Can” programme to fund enrichment activities, and the national youth strategy’s commitment to halving the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers. Youth workers see enrichment as one of the most important commitments in the strategy, so can the Minister confirm how the Government plan to deliver on that pledge, and whether she has considered an enrichment premium or targeted funding to help to do so? Alongside enrichment, many who work in the industry believe that the most significant policy change the Government could make would be to strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a sufficient local youth offer. I understand that the national youth strategy commits to “explore reviewing” that, but the youth sector is clear that it needs to be urgently prioritised. I ask the Minister: will the Government commit urgently to reviewing and strengthening the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a local offer, and will it be backed by dedicated funding and clear national benchmarks to define what sufficient youth provision means?
That sounds like an excellent programme and I absolutely commend it. Youth workers are central to delivering the national youth strategy, but the workforce are under acute pressure: more than 4,500 qualified youth workers have left the profession in the last decade, around 60% of the workforce has no recognised youth work qualification and only six undergraduate youth and community work programmes remain, down from 37 in 2013. The strategy provides a £15 million commitment for youth workers, including new qualifications and educational pathways, which is excellent, but can the Minister confirm how that will align with the Government’s wider skills reforms to rebuild workforce capacity at scale and improve job prospects in the industry? I also want to highlight the importance of Young Futures hubs, which reflect a growing understanding of the importance of youth services and provide accessible pathways into education, employment, volunteering and community participation. However, to be a success, the hubs must effectively support young people to re-engage with education and training, and create collaborative working partnerships. Can the Minister outline the steps the Government will take to deliver that long-term approach to youth engagement? I reiterate my previous requests for Huddersfield to be included in future phases of the programme; the Minister may need to pass those on to someone else, but that would be amazing. Many young people and youth support workers have persistently been excluded from having a voice or influence in the national and local decisions that directly affect them. The national youth strategy will help to change that; it includes a commitment to placing young people’s voices at its heart, and explicitly identifies youth workers as the people holding a fragmented system together. Those are major shifts, and a recognition that the sector has fought hard for. To deliver that ambition, youth participation must be built into implementation, not treated as a one-off consultation. Young people should have meaningful opportunities to shape and monitor delivery of the strategy at national and local level. That should include long-term, properly resourced mechanisms for youth voices and democratic engagement, particularly for those least likely to be heard. I will take this opportunity to give a shout-out to my annual summer school for young people from Huddersfield; it was great to welcome them to Parliament this week. One of the main issues they raised in our sessions was the importance of their voices being central to the decisions that affect them. I heard that message loud and clear. Can the Minister confirm what long-term arrangements will be established to ensure that young people are meaningfully involved in developing and implementing the delivery of the strategy at all levels? I thank the Minister for being here, and you, Ms McVey, for chairing the debate. I look forward to hearing contributions from other Members.
I thank everyone who took part in the debate—I also join the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) in saying that I am not a camper either. I thank the Minister and her team for everything that they do, and all youth workers as well. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the National Youth Strategy and youth enrichment.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on helping to secure this debate. Others have already spoken about rearmament and the focus on budgets, procurement and force structures, and while those things definitely matter, there is another question that I believe we must confront as well. As touched on briefly by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), it is the question of whether we are honest enough with the British public about the nature of the threat that we face. I have repeatedly argued in this place that the United Kingdom should regard itself as already being in a sustained confrontation with the Russian state—not a conventional shooting war, but a prolonged campaign of hostile activity directed against our people, our infrastructure, our economy and our democratic institutions—and that raises a fundamental question. We often hear the term “sub-threshold”, but what exactly is the threshold, and when are we going to give an indication to the British people of where that threshold is? The answer to that question matters, because it is the hard line in deterrence and absolutely key when we are considering rearmament. I would not expect the Government ever to provide a precise answer to the question, but in a written answer this week, the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), said: “We cannot provide detail on how the MOD would respond to certain activities versus others as this would assist our adversaries.” Rather than burden the Department with a load of additional written questions, can I ask the Minister some very specific questions? Is using a cyber-attack to steal the electoral register sub-threshold? Is stealing the email addresses of Foreign Office diplomats sub-threshold? Is using ransomware to disrupt NHS patient care, contributing to the deaths of UK citizens, sub-threshold? Is using lasers to threaten the safety of RAF pilots sub-threshold? Is targeting a major UK business with a cyber-attack costing hundreds of millions of pounds and meaningfully impacting Bank of England interest decisions sub-threshold? One has to assume that the Government consider all of these to be sub-threshold, because Russia has undertaken all of these activities. Let me go further. Is poisoning UK citizens on UK soil sub-threshold? Is firing shots near a civilian yacht in the English channel sub-threshold? Is launching drones from a shadow fleet vessel to monitor UK air bases and critical national infrastructure sub-threshold? Is recruiting activists on Signal and having them commit arson attacks against property sub-threshold? Is endangering a UK aircraft carrier by dropping sonar buoys in its immediate vicinity sub-threshold? Is attempting an arson attack against the British Prime Minister sub-threshold? Once again, Russia has undertaken all of these activities. We are not alone, and for anyone who wants to track this activity across Europe, Emma Burrows from AP News has a fantastic website with up-to-date information. At what point do Governments say enough is enough, and at what point, crucially, do they tell the British people that a line has been crossed? The Kremlin does not view these kinds of activities in isolation. It sees them as different tools being used in the pursuit of the same objectives: to weaken our democracy, undermine confidence, gather intelligence, create division and test our resolve. While we may not be the only country this is happening to, I am concerned that our public might be the least aware of these co-ordinated actions and the effects they have on their daily lives. This is why warfighting readiness is about much more than what sits in the inventory of our armed forces; it is about national capability and public awareness. In a recent article written with my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), we argued that politics too often becomes obsessed with targets instead of capabilities. We must show Russia that we have the capability to effectively respond and to deter these kinds of attacks. The Government must begin to attribute these attacks directly to the ultimate perpetrator in the Kremlin, to trust the British people with that information and to ask for their help in building the necessary capabilities to defend against it.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the ways we can go about building trust in the Government and in how they respond to a crisis is by trusting the people with the information. The people will be the ones who can press us to take the action that they know requires to be taken, if we give them the information. We must use our secrets more effectively and bring the British people along with us. The central question cannot just be whether we spend 3%, 3.5% or some other percentage of GDP. The real question must be: what capability are we creating? This is where I believe the Government deserve a lot of credit. Although the DIP was delayed, what we are seeing in it is a commitment to fighting the next war and not the last one. That includes the improvements in pay and support for serving personnel and their families and in housing, which is leading to increases in recruitment, retention and morale. That is all a vital part of rearmament and deterrence, showing our adversaries that our armed forces are ready to fight tonight, as was mentioned earlier. Alongside the human infrastructure, the Government have also invested in physical infrastructure. I know that it is attracting some scepticism and questioning from across the House, but the leap to hybrid warfare is the right thing to do. That is why I welcome the decision to build six common combat vessels and ensure that we are building ships more quickly, to give us flexibility on the capabilities that we need. I hope we make progress on that very quickly indeed. It is something I have raised with the Department since the publication of the DIP. On future infrastructure capability, I will be slightly parochial and ask the Minister to respond to a couple of questions around submarine infrastructure when he is winding up. First, we know that to bring Dreadnought into service as quickly as possible we need a contingent docking facility. The Royal Navy has said that that would have to be at Rosyth, and with time moving on to get that operational, can I ask the Minister for a progress update? Secondly, on the decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines that remain tied up at Devonport and Rosyth, occupying valuable dock space, can the Minister update the House on when the next part of this programme will commence, releasing capacity in both the dockyards and strengthening our sovereign capability? Preparedness for war is not warmongering. Warfighting readiness begins long before the first shot is fired, but it must start with an honest assessment and acknowledgment of the threats that we face, and with making clear to the public and our adversaries what we mean by sub-threshold. Rearmament, preparedness and public clarity are the best way to ensure that Vladimir Putin and those around him never conclude that Britain lacks either the capability or the determination to defend itself.
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way, and she is making an important speech. The crisis of young people not in education, employment or training is one of the biggest problems we have in this country. Does she agree that youth clubs and the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme are part of how young people get the skills that will help them to get into the world of work?
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that embedding that culture of innovation and iteration in the MOD is critical to ensuring that we can move as quickly as possible?
My hon. Friend is being generous in taking interventions. There are few Members of this House, if any, who know about this subject in more detail than her. In Scotland, where my own constituents are facing the problem of corridor care, the Royal College of Nursing said a few weeks ago that we are “trailing behind” even what is happening in England, partly because the NHS in England is publishing statistics on corridor care. Does she agree that the Scottish Government should do the same so that we can track corridor care and therefore help resolve it?
I am very grateful to hear that the Minister has engaged with coastguard rescue officers in Southampton, which is typical of his diligent manner and his approach to difficult issues like this. I invite him to interact with my constituents who are part of the Plymouth coastguard rescue team, who tell me harrowing stories of supporting the ambulance service and the police—sadly, too often with suicide-related issues. It is an unbelievable service and, yes, CROs deserve remuneration, but they also deserve a lot more recognition. Will the Minister agree to speak to those constituents of mine?
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
Last month, I had the opportunity to host the Southbank Centre in my constituency for its 75th anniversary. It is one of the many centres that I am proud to have across Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. The House may know that the Southbank Centre was built as part of the festival of Britain in 1951, which successfully saw people come together to share their identity after the ruin of world war two. Seventy-five years on, sadly, the world is a more divided place. Recently, we have seen two far-right marches—one went through my constituency—leaving many members of the community feeling afraid. There is hope, however, as we see the world cup bringing people together, showing the power of culture and sport. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that now is the moment to continue to invest in the things that bring us together, just as the Government did in 1951?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I have rewritten my speech because I do not want to repeat all the things that have been said. I think we are in agreement, although we may have different perspectives. I want to take us back to 80 years ago, to a country house a few miles from Milton Keynes in my constituency. A handful of mathematicians built a machine that cracked the enigma code, and it gave birth to modern computing. That was Bletchley Park, where Britain proved that it could outthink the world. That inheritance still runs through Milton Keynes in the data centres rising on our edge, the British Standards Institution at Knowlhill—the oldest standards institute in the world, whose kitemark has told people that a product is safe since 1903—and a plethora of AI start-ups that outnumber Oxford or Cambridge. Britain is standing at another one of those moments, as we see with our economy and our military tech coming together and pushing forward either for the good of the nation or for its ultimate damage. The potential benefits of artificial intelligence are enormous, and not only for the private sector. AI is a tool that can pull our public services back from years of managed decline. The technology will allow us to detect diseases earlier and cut NHS waiting lists. It will free nurses and other public servants from back-office grind for work that only people can do. However, every country can see that prize, and the question that decides whether Britain leads or merely buys in is whether we make the technology or just import it. A maker exports its products, services and ideas around the world, as we did in world war two, but the UK is at risk of becoming an AI taker and simply handing over the keys to giant US tech firms that are buying up our best young AI companies. It is still our technology; it is just being bought up, packaged and sold back to us so that we become indebted. As we are talking about the impact on our economy and our society, I want to point to Palantir, which has the contract with the NHS. We know that UK companies could do exactly the same work, because I and many Members present have spoken to them. Even more concerning is that the Ministry of Defence now uses the company. With the activist Government in the US turning off technology and restricting its availability outside the US, that puts at risk not only our NHS but, most importantly, the defence of our realm against Russia, for which others may have more sympathy than we do. There is also a social cost, as people look at a company such as Palantir and say that it does not reflect their values. It is used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and by Israel to target Gaza. That has a huge impact on public trust. It is also bad for the UK economy and innovation, because it crowds out UK firms that could have those public contracts. That is just one example of a dependency that is putting us at risk both socially and economically. It does not have to be that way. British AI firms need three things to succeed: customers who will buy their products, the ability to increase supply to meet demand, and a USP that British AI is the most trusted. The Government can help with all three. First, we have to act as a good customer. Why should those NHS and MOD contracts not go to British AI firms? Not only would that increase trust, but those products would be developed in a way that meets our needs; we would not be buying something that had been developed elsewhere. That would also mean that we had to invest in the entire British AI stack—it must be British from start to finish. The second issue is supply. We need to make sure that we have the compute power we need and that we are not relying on US firms again for that. We are overly reliant: despite the fact that we part-own Crown Hosting, that accounts for only 6% of public sector data; the rest is nearly all on Amazon Web Services, which is a significant risk. We need to look at how we diffuse the supply of compute power—the underused capacity—to increase that. Finally, we need to increase AI take-up across British businesses by building trusted products. The British Standards Institution is at the heart of that. It does not always have to be about regulation; it can be about standards that lift everything up. What attracts the world to the BSI is that it is known for doing that and its standards become international, so we get first-market advantage. This partnership model of an industrial strategy is mission-driven, creates public trust, evaluates the impact on society and creates opportunities for our ideas and innovation to flourish. That is something we did with the innovations at Bletchley Park. We need to become an innovation leader again—an AI maker, not just an AI taker, which puts us at risk.
Q5. The Deputy Prime Minister and most of us in the House have been victims of AI-generated fake news, also known as deepfakes. They mislead the public and disrupt our democracy. BBC news coverage and coverage from other news channels is also being AI manipulated to tell untruths. Will he, alongside MPs from across the House, support my amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, which would force anything that is AI created to be labelled as such, stop the production of deepfakes of ourselves and colleagues, and protect the UK from these destructive tactics, used by foreign states and others who wish to weaken our democracy?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing this debate and for her years of work in the A&E at St George’s. Emergency care is in crisis in the NHS, and corridor care is just an overspill because we cannot cope. That is because we are doing a few things wrong that we could remedy. I work as a GP. I did a surgery last Friday and actually tried to admit someone. I rang up A&E and they said, “Well, I wouldn’t send them up at the moment, as we’ve got a six-hour wait.” I realised that, quite often, we do not have an operable emergency care service, and this is something we need to work on. I will briefly go through a few causes and then a few remedies, and the remedies could be clinical as well as organisational. First, we have an ageing population. Frailty is increasing. In Stroud alone, in four years, the number of over 90-year-olds went up 29% in just that short period of time. We have an enormous cohort of very elderly and frail people. Secondly, as we have heard, we have a lack of beds due to delayed discharge—I will not say any more on that. Thirdly, we have a lack of care beds in the community to enable discharge. There is also a lack of capacity in GP surgeries for on-the-day appointments. In my surgery, 45% of our appointments are on the day, but we obviously need to increase that so we can absorb the demand in primary care.
That is absolutely true. We need to look at all the ways of reducing demand on GPs and, therefore, on A&E departments—that is what my speech is totally involved in—and pharmacies have a really good role to play. There is another thing here, which was noticed in the doctors’ strike. When we have senior clinicians on the front door of A&E, that makes the department much quieter, because they make decisions quickly and can take a bit more clinical risk as they are more experienced. Perhaps we need to rearrange how care works in A&E departments so that we do not get a backlog. I turn to the remedies. We are beginning to turn the NHS around—that is clear from working in it and from what my patients say. Things are beginning to change. We need to do a lot more, but we are investing a lot of money in it. We must not say that things are getting worse, because I believe they are slowly getting better. As so many have said, we need to fix social care. We could have a system whereby the community is responsible for a patient as soon as they are ready for discharge. Perhaps the community should have to pay for the patient to remain in hospital after that to encourage it to get them out of hospital. We must stop agency working in social care, because that is causing a huge amount of stress to carers. We need care to be based on a community model so that carers cover small areas and do not have huge travel times. We also have to improve GP access. I think we should also make it so that A&E departments see only accidents and real, genuine medical emergencies. So we need a little bit of an increase in funding for primary care. We also need GPs to be assessing emergencies up until 10 o’clock at night to relieve the pressure on A&Es. There are a couple of other things. I have said about getting more experienced doctors involved earlier in the process, but we also need to invest in scanners—so many people in A&E are waiting for tests before they go home. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) said, it is not appropriate to have mental health assessments in A&E; we need mental health assessment units, which I do believe the Government are bringing in. There are a few clinical factors. Perversely, we need not to be so risk-averse. For example, admitting a patient for risk of falling is ridiculous, because they are more likely to fall in hospital than in their own home. Dementia fluctuates, so just because someone has seen a slight increase in confusion, that does not mean that they need a whole batch of tests. We need to treat dementia more holistically. Polypharmacy—that is old people on loads of drugs—causes about 10% of admissions, so let us reduce that. We need good end-of-life care. Some 50% of people with cancer die in hospital—many of them face corridor care—and we need to reduce that, because most of them want to die at home. Every older person needs an advance care plan so that, when they become ill, we know whether they want to go to hospital. That is incredibly important in pathways of care. Corridor care did not appear overnight, and it will not disappear overnight. But, by rebuilding the NHS from the community upwards, fixing social care and investing where it matters most, we can ensure that no patient is left waiting for care in a hospital corridor ever again.
In Scotland, the holiday season has already started. I understand why the Minister has rightly focused on the connection with France, but people in Edinburgh South West are concerned about there being real issues in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece when it comes to delays at airports. Is the Minister speaking one to one with those countries to ensure that, at the very least, we are aware of what the challenges could be?
I beg to move, That this House has considered NHS corridor care. I express my sincere thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time to the important subject of corridor care, and I declare my interest as a proud serving NHS emergency doctor working in A&E at St George’s hospital in my Tooting constituency. In my 21 years as a doctor—I know; I can hear the audible gasp because I do not look old enough—I have never felt more proud to serve with a group of individuals such as those at St George’s hospital. The leadership team, to which we welcome a new CEO in Mat Shaw, and the team of nurses, doctors, reception staff, porters and healthcare assistants in my emergency department, make me proud to go and do every single shift that I do there, and it feels like a pleasure, not a chore.
My hon. Friend and I are not performing a double act today, but he leads me on perfectly to the next part of my speech, as I go on to say that “corridor care” is something of a misnomer. Treatment in a corridor, far away from oxygen, proper equipment and emergency cords to pull, without privacy or dignity, without access to decent and appropriate toilet facilities, and without the highest standard of infection prevention and control, cannot be classified as care in any realistic sense. It is important to say that the staff go above and beyond with what they have. It is not the case that patients are suffering in pain because the staff do not care or do not provide a first-class service; it is because, quite simply, a corridor or any other space not built to serve and care for patients in is not the right place for a patient to be. It is not just corridors, because patients across the NHS have been seen in antenatal rooms, store cupboards, waiting rooms and even car parks, filling every conceivable inch of a hospital. Members can imagine that people are coming in feeling particularly vulnerable, and they are happy to get the care wherever they can get it. I have never heard of any of my colleagues across the country say that they have had a patient who refused to be seen in a cupboard; they are just grateful to be seen. Even the official definition of so-called corridor care is problematic. NHS data relies on local clinical judgment about whether an environment is safe and whether patients’ privacy and dignity are being maintained. Trusts are applying these standards differently, and some feel the need, sadly, to game the system to artificially lower their corridor care statistics.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am so sorry to hear of the situation in her community in Scotland. It is regrettable, and patients and their families deserve better. Absolutely, if we cannot accurately assess the issue in full, it is impossible to deal with, and I hope the Minister will talk today about how she will commit to revising this definition to make it more robust.