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·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   NHS Corridor Care

   I absolutely agree. The NHS is devolved in Scotland, but that sounds like a very unwise decision that it should certainly reconsider. I am sure my hon. Friend will be a doughty campaigner in ensuring that it does so. That brings me to the next part of my speech, which is about the extra space in emergency departments and the importance of caring well for people in A&E. I ask the Minister for an update on the work that Dr Acheson and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine have been doing on on-time medication, as we need to make sure that patients do not suffer detriment in A&E because they are not given medication on time. An hon. Gentleman on the Labour Benches talked about the extra space on wards and the number of beds. The number of beds has reduced over time, partly because we do clinical care differently—for example, people now stay in hospital for a much shorter period after having a baby, and that is true of other operations too. However, my understanding is that the total number of beds has dropped further since Labour came into office. Can the Minister explain why that is? It is fair to say that we did not get everything right when we were in office, but we did increase the number of emergency department doctors by 100% between 2010 and 2024, and we met our manifesto commitment to hire 50,000 new nurses. We developed a long-term workforce plan, but this Government did not want our plan; they wanted their own. They said that they would deliver it by the autumn, and then by the spring. It has now been “imminent” for quite some time, but how soon is imminent? As many Members have said, we need to tackle corridor care, but we also need to tackle the back door: social care. Two years ago, this Government promised cross-party talks. As has been mentioned already, they took nine months to have the first meeting and have only recently had the second meeting. That is not tackling the problem with the urgency that it needs. The Casey report is not due till 2028, and this is being kicked into the long grass. We can only hope that the new Prime Minister will make a difference. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) said, the Government need a plan. I hope the Minister will explain in detail how they intend to deliver on their plan, because delivery is key. We often hear of targets and aims, which are easy to set but hard to reach. What have we seen so far? Long A&E waits are up, and we have seen overall waiting lists increase by 112,000 on the previous months. The number of people waiting for operations and procedures is up on last year and last month. The Government have ditched their promise to deliver a doubling of medical school places, and delayed the workplace plan. The promise to roll out fracture liaison services is running behind schedule, and there is still no response to the Hughes report. I could go on, but the basic issue is that the Government seem keen to set targets—worthy and important goals—without knowing how to deliver them, leading inevitably to disappointment. Can the Minister say how she will meet the target of abolishing corridor care? What will be the effect of reducing the capital budget, as announced in the defence investment plan? What does she think will be the effect of removing the social care voice from ICBs? Importantly, as we look forward to winter, what planning is being done now to make sure that patients are kept safe in the autumn and winter?

   Hansard source
2. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Ben Spencer

   Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

   It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for bringing forward this interesting debate, and all the Members on both sides of the House who have taken part. I recognise many of those who have participated in many debates such as this and who will, I am sure, participate in many more to come. I will start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—I wish I had attended his lecture in 2000, not least to have had the experience of being in a room where everyone disagreed with him, which must have been rather unique—for making an important point about how slowly Parliament regulates and responds to change. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a similar point about our responsiveness to this rapidly evolving sector. I also very much welcome his point about education and the challenges involved, particularly given his experience in the sector. However, more than anything, I welcome his point that nobody knows what the future outcomes will be—a point I shall come back to a bit later. I want to focus the bulk of my remarks on employment. I share the desire of the hon. Member for Poole to look at how to support and enhance employment through the AI transition, and we do need to have more such discussions. However, I am saddened that one core proposal from Labour Back Benchers is a plan on who or what we should tax now. I regret that the hon. Member’s plans for an employment levy, which he is very passionate about and has written about previously, would not work to protect jobs—protectionism never does. It would simply put a brake on the ability of organisations, large and small, to adapt to AI, and leave us behind our competitors, losing jobs across all sectors. The history of protectionism is, sadly, frequently a very tragic one. With each technological intervention and change, there are often calls for protectionist approaches, and when they come in—

   Hansard source
3. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Ben Spencer

   Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

   I thank the hon. Member for his challenge regarding a future hypothetical that has yet to be realised. I think I will be able to address some of his points, but I think the premise he is setting is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I can give some concrete proposals for protecting human jobs. As a starter for 10, rather than inventing a new tax, we could start with some old ones, and rather than inventing new regs, we could start with some newish ones. The Labour Government’s approach has been to make it as difficult as possible to employ human labour by increasing national insurance contributions from employers; making it more difficult for younger people to compete in the workplace by increasing the minimum wage; and increasing employment regulations, making it a greater gamble for businesses to take on new starters. To support jobs in the UK, we should, before looking at AI, look at the Labour Government’s policies, which are uniquely designed to make it more and more difficult to employ a person over a machine. We are right to think about the workforce implications of the adoption of AI, but the future is always unclear and uncertain; that is the challenge of working in this sector, and I am very mindful of that position of humility as I move on to the following, more specific remarks. Other technological disruptions, while displacing jobs, have ultimately led to more jobs through elasticity of demand. As costs decrease through automation, demand increases. That is the story of what happened with mass manufacturing in the automotive sector: to begin with, people were concerned that mechanised manufacturing would reduce jobs in the sector. Of course, the car sector exploded because the cost of a car went through the floor, and as a net result there were more jobs in the automotive sector. The issue was that they were different jobs; it is more of a transition than a replacement. There are signals and concerns that the current decrease in the number of youth jobs is due to AI. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, it is unclear whether that is due to AI replacement, the current prevailing economic circumstances, or a mixture of the two. The data remains unclear, but I appreciate that we need to be thinking now about what possible futures could unfold. Equally, our tech sector provides growth and jobs. The UK could be the world’s fastest AI adopter, but only if it is not punished with burdensome taxes and regulations. We are already seeing a hint—just a hint—of what AI can offer, especially in the research and health sectors. Our economic future needs AI, or we are going to be left behind. Before I come to my final questions for the Minister, let me touch on AI and tech sovereignty, which is increasingly being talked about in the media and in this place as people focus on it more and more. AI and tech sovereignty, as described in this debate and in other forums, is illusory. We work and operate in global supply chains, with technology enmeshed around the world. Whether it is microchips built by TSMC in Taiwan, microchip etches created in the Netherlands, quantum tech built in the UK or frontier models, most of which are based in the States, our sectors are completely and utterly enmeshed. Rather than talking about tech and data sovereignty, we should be talking about resilience and leverage. What are the core functions and features that we want to have on domestic soil? We can have a discussion about that. What should it be necessary to have on British soil, and what are the core technologies on which we want to be elite? We want to be world leaders, and to be indispensable to the world so that it looks to us, as opposed to the other way around. We need resilience and leverage rather than to chase the illusory rainbow of tech and data sovereignty. Given my remarks about regulation and competitiveness, can the Minister rule out any part of the UK being brought into the EU AI Act? That would reduce our competitiveness with the EU. Will the Minister summarise the impact on the UK AI sector of Government taxation and employment policies? Have they been positive or negative? If they have been negative, to what extent? Can he confirm that there will be a decent statement before recess, as has been promised, on social media and the regulation of chatbots? Has he spoken to the virtual Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), about the importance of anti-protectionist policies in the UK’s AI sector?

   Hansard source
4. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Ben Spencer

   Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I have three questions about this statutory instrument. The first is a request for clarity from the Minister, because I was a bit confused by some of his comments about the caps that are being updated by this SI. On my reading of the explanatory memorandum, the reciprocal arrangements with caps of EEA operators in Norway were already below the proposed caps, in fact quite substantially so: about 50% on voice, between 33% and 66% on SMS, and between 50% on data. That demonstrates to me the success of the free market. The impact assessment says very clearly that the impact of this SI is zero, given that the market has already found a solution. Will the Minister clarify that a bit further in case I have read that wrong? Will he celebrate the impact of the free market? Will he also update the House on the work that is being done to reduce barriers to other roaming charges, particularly in jurisdictions such as Canada, the US and Mexico, which are of particular interest to many of our citizens at this moment in time? I see that the agreement was made in November 2025. Why has it taken seven months to bring this SI to us? Is that indicative of the performance of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in turning around SIs? Finally, given that the impact assessment says that this SI has no impact, can the Minister tell us the cost of drawing it up and putting it in front of us today?

   Hansard source
5. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Community Cohesion

   The Secretary of State is plainly taking this very seriously, which is very much to his credit. Can he say what points of agreement and dissent there were in the discussions that he and his Ministers are reported to have had with the party leaders in Northern Ireland, and what actions the UK Government undertook to advance in order to try to reduce the possibility of these dreadful scenes—which, for many of us who lived through them, are reminiscent of the 1970s in Belfast—happening again?

   Hansard source
6. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Simmonds

   The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am sure that Members will be pleased to know that, because the Opposition agree with the principle underlying the statutory instrument, we will not seek to divide the Committee. The Minister has brought his usual clarity to introducing the order. Although I am sure that there are many questions that could be hotly debated, because there is always discussion about whether measures have the correct boundaries and powers, I would simply like to ask him a few questions that my colleagues have raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne touched on the impact of local government reorganisation on the proposed development corporation. One issue is that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 envisages that new mayors will take on many of these development powers. Given that a decision on local government reorganisation structures in greater Cambridge and many other areas is likely to be imminent, what thinking has there been about how the powers of the corporation will be transferred to the new mayoral or combined authority once it comes into being, if at all? The Minister might have already decided that that is not going to happen, but it would be helpful if he clarified how that will work. As the instrument establishes a new development corporation that transfers planning powers that currently sit with two district-level authorities, how does that sit alongside the amended planning regulations that the Minister set out to a Delegated Legislation Committee last week, and on which a deferred Division took place earlier today? In particular, what impact will the changed numbers and the changed responsibility for members have, given that the instrument will aggregate planning responsibilities that are covered by legislation on political balance in each of the constituent authorities? How will that democratic capacity be carried through so that the new authority reflects that legislative requirement? How will the new planning authority that the instrument brings into being handle accumulated section 106 balances? As greater Cambridge is a very economically vibrant part of the world, a significant number of housing, economic development and transport projects are already in train. Many of those involve existing legal agreements that determine if a section 106 or community infrastructure levy contribution will be paid. Some of that will be paid at commencement, and some at milestones during those projects. Given that there will be residents’ expectations about what those contributions will fund, how will the process operate? Excellent as he is, the Minister is not the Minister responsible for local government reorganisation. A brief glance at the map reminds us that greater Cambridge sits at the boundary with numerous authorities, including Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Suffolk, that either envisage or have recently gone through a process of local government reorganisation. A good many politicians, including some involved in that, hold the view that the boundaries of the zone will need to be larger if the process is to achieve its potential, particularly given the zone’s location in the Oxford-Cambridge arc. Will the Minister set out his thinking on the future of the zone? How can we provide a sense of certainty to those who have that concern, and to investors who may be wondering about the contribution to the development of new transport links that would attract their business to invest in this location? What is the timeline for that?

   Hansard source
7. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Reed

   Maritime and Coastguard Agency

   In Exmouth and Exeter East, the local coastguard rescue team covers the Exe estuary, mudflats, tidal waters and busy open coastline. It is called on when local people or visitors are cut off by the tide, trapped in mud, in difficulty in the water, or at risk of self-harm. The Minister says that a move to an expenses-only model is needed following the Court of Appeal judgment, but the House has been told that an impact assessment has already combined incident demand, survey data, demographics, employment information and financial analysis. Will he therefore publish that assessment as soon as possible, including any modelling for Devon and high-demand coastal areas such as Exmouth? Most importantly, can he guarantee that the charge will not proceed unless he is satisfied that he will not reduce coastguard rescue officer availability or weaken emergency resilience in communities such as mine?

   Hansard source
8. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Mundell

   European Entry and Exit System

   I echo the point made previously about the Scottish holidays having already begun and the need to focus on holiday hotspots, if I can use that expression, such as the Spanish and Greek islands, to ensure that travel is made as easy as possible for Scottish travellers. May I raise the issue of coach travel? Many people travel by coach. What assessment has the Home Office made of the impact of the EES on not just passengers but coach drivers?

   Hansard source
9. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

   Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

   I commend the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), as well as his two friends and allies who have just spoken, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), on bringing this important subject to Westminster Hall. This is in danger of turning into one of those rare debates in Parliament where one learns something from everybody who speaks and we all come away better informed and equipped. This subject is enormous, and it is only a 90-minute debate. It obviously will not be the last time we discuss these matters, and I freely confess to not being an expert on the subject. Like many colleagues, I am trying to educate myself more to understand better the implications, including the upside for productivity, the implications for energy and water, and the effect on all manner of things in the public and private spheres, such as healthcare, education, international relations, and foreign and security policy and so on. I am no expert, but one thing I have learned is that no one knows what the societal effect of AI is at this moment in time. A lot of people have a story to tell, but no one really knows. That is one of the reasons why we have to keep coming back to these subjects as our understanding iterates and evolves.

   Hansard source
10. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    I agree with large parts of what the hon. Gentleman says. The timeframes are obviously shorter this time than they were for say, the industrial revolution, the printing press or any of the other massive changes that we have seen in the past. When Gutenberg invented his printing press, I am not sure it was foreseeable to even the most far-sighted, omniscient individual what all the effects of that would be. That does not mean we do not try to scenario-plan and to think about the different possible outcomes and try to mitigate them. Labour market effects are probably what we as politicians worry about the most, along with all the other implications, like the consequences for income distribution, intergenerational fairness and so many other aspects. People already say that AI has had a big impact on job markets, particularly on the graduate job market. I honestly do not know whether that is true or not. It strikes me that it is quite an easy thing to say: if a company is not doing that well this year and is not employing graduates to the same extent that it used to, it is a great thing to say, “Well, we’re investing in AI.” I do not see how a professional services firm, with the current technology deployment, would be able to substitute people for AI in quite that way. In the future, it is true that there is a scenario in which there is mass unemployment. But it is also true that when there have been huge upheavals previously, labour markets have adapted, albeit over time, and sometimes it is that gap that makes the difference. Labour has found its way into different sectors—

    Hansard source
11. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman; this is, of course, not a left versus right argument. For example, the antitrust regime in the United States exists precisely to prevent the concentration of power. Indeed, all the companies in the list we heard earlier were American. We did not mention ByteDance or Huawei, which we could easily have done. As the right hon. Member for Oxford East said, sovereign capability is obviously important, too. On labour markets, there is also a risk—actually, the hon. Member for Poole did not do this, but I thought that he was going to keep saying, “Universal basic income, universal basic income.” He did not, but a lot of people do. Universal basic income is a policy prescription that those people calling for it tended to believe in years earlier, before they had even heard of AI, and now it fits this scenario. I do not know what the outcomes and therefore the mitigations of AI will need to be, but we must keep an open mind.

    Hansard source
12. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Damian Hinds

    Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

    I had better press on, because we have a number of colleagues to get through. Regarding generative AI and its effect on information integrity, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to earlier, we should bear in mind that so far the massive growth in fraud, misinformation and disinformation has all been done with cheapfakes. People talk about deepfakes, but it is done with rubbish, which can still take in large numbers of people. Just imagine what happens when such fakes become convincing. For example, there is the email that says, “I am stranded in Bermuda”, or whatever it is, “and I need you to send me £100 overnight.” Imagine when that scam actually involves a video of someone’s child saying it to them. However, we soon realise that those things seem relatively benign when people start talking about agentic AI and super-intelligence, whereby machines take control of a situation, which some people have described as being ultimately an existential threat to humanity. I do not know what all the answers are, but I think that as politicians—as the House of Commons—we need to ensure that our organisational architecture is equipped to consider all these questions as they evolve. However, I do not think that our Select Committee structure today is equipped in that way. For example, I do not think that having a Science, Intelligence and Technology Committee, which obviously covers technology, is a suitable way to address all these matters, and I also do not think that it is appropriate to expect every other Select Committee to develop such expertise themselves. Somehow, we need to meld the two structures. We must have some form of super-Select Committee—a support team, or something like that—to work with all the other teams or Committees across the piece. I will finish by mentioning two specific things that we can do right now, because there is a ticking bomb with AI, specifically regarding children. In education now, if someone asks the typical year 9 pupil, “How many of your friends use AI to help them do their homework?”, that child would just laugh and say, “All of them.” The idea that we have some sort of issue where we have to encourage children to use AI is just nonsense. It is also crazy to suppose that we can just say to them, “Don’t do it,” and they will comply. Every child in the country learns computing in primary school. We need to make sure that the curriculum evolves so that children get to understand how the thing works, how it generates its content, why it might hallucinate, why it tries to flatter the questioner and why we cannot fully rely on it. There is a real danger. Cognitive offloading is a fancy term, but it basically means relying on a machine to do the work for us. One way we can mitigate that effect with schoolchildren is ensure that when they do their exams at the end of the year, they do them with a piece of paper and a pen in exam conditions. I am afraid there is a move across exam boards to make more exams digital. Of course, they will say that the computers are not attached to the internet and children cannot do this, that and the other, but pen and paper is the safest thing. Of course, there should be exceptions for children with a special educational need or disability that means they need to use a keyboard, and exceptions for computer science, but in general, children at school doing their public exams should do them on pen and paper. That will make sure it happens lower down the school as well. It will also ensure that children continue to write. This sounds like a stupid thing to say, but people already ask, “Why is my child learning to write with a pen, because by the time they grow up nobody will be doing that?” Finally, we are about to make the same mistake with chatbots as we did with social media. I am talking about anthropomorphism, where a computer program develops a personality of its own and develops relationships with people. I welcome the development of an age-appropriate design code for chatbots, but it is not enough. The regulatory regime we have in this country, with Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, relies on there being evidence of harm. The evidence will not come before the harm. We need to change that system and adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to protecting children.

    Hansard source
13. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Karen Bradley

    European Entry and Exit System

    The Minister must think he is having déjà vu after our exchange at the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. I implore him once again to make every endeavour and to use his best offices with the EU Commission and the French to try to get them to understand that we cannot wait for there to be delays; we have to anticipate switching off the system. The Port of Dover, Eurotunnel and others have extraordinarily intelligent and complex ways of forecasting flow. Will they look at those flow forecasts and use them to decide when to put measures in place, not wait for the delays to start?

    Hansard source
14. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Charlie Dewhirst

    European Entry and Exit System

    Further to the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Minister will no doubt be aware that Bridlington is the lobster capital of Europe, and therefore any delays at Dover have a serious impact on our vital export market. However, I want to address the wider issue of tourists this summer. Does the Minister agree that other countries—such as France, Spain and Portugal—should follow the lead of Greece and delay the implementation of the EES system until such time as it is fit for purpose?

    Hansard source
15. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Charlie Dewhirst

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I am sure the Minister will join me in paying tribute to the team at the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre at Bridlington, who keep people safe all the way from Northumberland down to Suffolk across 250 miles of coastline 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The proposed changes to make CROs unpaid is just one of the problems facing the MCA. National issues include recruitment and retention, understaffed teams in high-pressure environments working long hours, leading to stress and sickness, and pay that is not commensurate with other emergency services. Will the Minister ensure that the agency is appropriately resourced, but also that it is putting that resource into the right place to ensure our frontline teams have the tools they need?

    Hansard source
16. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
17. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
18. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    I thank the Minister for his answers this afternoon. I remind Members that large slogans are not appropriate and perhaps Members might do up their jacket so I cannot see any. If I had spotted the one he is wearing, I would not have called the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).

    Hansard source
19. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Point of Order

    I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. This is a matter for Government Ministers rather than the Chair, but Ministers are expected to provide timely responses to correspondence from Members. I have no doubt that those on the Front Bench will be able to pass his concerns on to the relevant Minister, and the hon. Member will have the opportunity to raise the issue with the Leader of the House at business questions tomorrow.

    Hansard source
20. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Royal Assent

    I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act and Measure: National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 Clergy Conduct Measure 2026. Bill Presented Public Procurement (British Goods and Services) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sarah Champion presented a Bill to make provision about public procurement in respect of British goods and services in relation to social value and contract award notices; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 112).

    Hansard source
21. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    I impose an immediate six-minute time limit.

    Hansard source
22. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    Order. I call Ian Roome.

    Hansard source
23. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Caroline Nokes

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    Order. The time limit will be reduced to five minutes after the next speaker.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. The first four years—the near-term investment period—covers the period until the next election. The second half—the longer-term investment period—covers the next five years, all the way up to 2035. However, the DIP is a 10-year plan, so it should in fact go beyond 2035, and beyond two elections’ time, to 2036, which it clearly does not, because the number “2036” does not appear once in the defence investment plan.

    Hansard source
25. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    The hon. Member is making a very important speech. I agree that there should be a life extension plan for the Type 45, but we know that there is not one. It is not costed, it is not in the DIP, and the plan is to take them out of service over several years from 2035. Does he agree that the common combat vessel would be better suited, in terms of putting that capability within the Type 31s that are being built, and that, indeed, that is what will likely happen?

    Hansard source
26. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alison Griffiths

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    Last week, I met Paul Greenwood of the Selsey coastguard, one of a team of CROs who cover my constituency. The Court ruled that coastguards can be workers when paid for duties; it did not order Ministers to scrap payments. Can the Minister tell me what lawful alternatives were considered, why the impact assessment has still not been published and whether he will publish the MCA survey? Will he pause September’s change while considering an approach that will not risk gaps in emergency cover when people in coastal communities such as mine dial 999?

    Hansard source
27. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alex Burghart

    Troubles Legacy: Legislation

    If the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was any of those things, why did the former Armed Forces Minister, when he resigned last month, say that it remains “remains unfit for purpose. It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect”? Why does the Secretary of State think that the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said that?

    Hansard source
28. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alex Burghart

    Troubles Legacy: Legislation

    It is clear from the Secretary of State’s answer that the former Armed Forces Minister quit because he could see that the Bill remains unfit for purpose and fails to protect the very veterans that it claims to protect. The Secretary of State must realise that there is no cross-party support in Northern Ireland for his legislation, and nor is there support in the Labour party for his legislation. Will he now accept that the Bill should not progress and that we should return to the legislation that the Conservatives brought forward?

    Hansard source
29. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alan Mak

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency

    Hayling Island coastguard rescue team provide a vital service in my south-coast constituency. They fear that the MCA’s proposal will have a massively detrimental effect on local recruitment and retention, particularly from the island. How will the Minister ensure that CROs are properly consulted? Will he come to Hayling Island and meet the CROs who do this fantastic work?

    Hansard source
30. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Yuan Yang

    Topical Questions

    Putin’s war in Ukraine and Trump’s war in Iran have shown us the need to make Britain more resilient against global energy shocks. Can my hon. Friend set out what the Government are doing to ensure that domestic electricity prices are decoupled from global gas prices, so that my constituents can get the best out of cheap, green, local renewables?

    Hansard source
31. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torcuil Crichton

    Topical Questions

    On heating oil, the Scottish National party Government boasted that they would add £5.4 million to the £4.6 million the UK Government gave to domestic consumers. However, there is scant evidence that that is reaching my constituents in the Western Isles, which have the highest fuel poverty figures in the country. Will the Minister join me in encouraging constituents to apply for support? Will he ask the Scottish Government to broaden the criteria and Advice Direct Scotland to get that money out the door, so that people are not left high and dry?

    Hansard source
32. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    It feels to me that there is scope for the UK and European Union countries to work together more closely to tackle the rising global anti-rights movement. Given the progress in Hungary, it feels like there is an opportunity to start to push back on the age of impunity. Does the right hon. Member agree that we should put human rights—especially sexual and reproductive rights and health—on the agenda of the upcoming European Political Community meeting, which will be held in Dublin in October?

    Hansard source
33. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    The right hon. Gentleman makes a critical point. Obviously, we have seen public support wane in recent years, but protecting and preserving that narrative of the good that we do in the world is important. As a country, we often tend to look at the floor rather than looking up at the sky. As a country, we have a monarch of high standing, we are a permanent member of the Security Council, a NATO partner, a founding member of the United Nations and a global financial hub, and we have world-leading universities and research institutions. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things that can come out of this and other debates that we have around the topic is not hand-wringing, as we have heard repeatedly in this Chamber, but an opportunity to think about how we build on our successes and celebrate the good that we have done?

    Hansard source
34. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
35. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    In which case, continue.

    Hansard source
36. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

    I used to work in the international development sector for Oxfam, thinking about how to increase public support for international aid. I agree with what everybody in this room is saying, but we have a problem in our country that people in growing numbers do not support it, and I fear that we, as a Parliament, have to tackle the complacency that we are exhibiting here in the Chamber. Leadership matters, but how can we in Parliament actually grow that support to sustainably fund poverty alleviation?

    Hansard source
37. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Taiwo Owatemi

    Human Rights in Kashmir

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing the debate, and all Members who contributed. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who could not be here today, but who has continually raised this issue with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It is clear from the debate that there remains strong interest across the House in the situation in Kashmir, and deep concern for the welfare, rights and aspirations of people living on all sides of the line of control. As we have heard again today, the issue continues to resonate strongly with many communities across the United Kingdom, including those with family, cultural and emotional ties to the region.

    Hansard source
38. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Taiwo Owatemi

    Human Rights in Kashmir

    I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The communication blackout is an issue of concern, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the Pakistani Government in June to raise the Government’s concerns. Let me begin by setting out the Government’s current policy and position. The UK has strong and long-lasting relationships with both countries and has consistently encouraged both sides to maintain dialogue and pursue lasting political solutions that support regional stability and security. That is why the Government’s position remains that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator. This has remained the position of successive UK Governments.

    Hansard source
39. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Taiwo Owatemi

    Human Rights in Kashmir

    The UK has remained steadfast in its position since the 1970s, and it retains that stance today. A number of hon. Members have raised concerns regarding recent events in parts of Pakistani-administered Kashmir, known locally as Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The Government are concerned by reports of unrest, loss of life and injuries during a recent protest in the region. We have followed developments closely and discussed them with Pakistani authorities. We are also aware of concerns relating to communications restrictions in the region, which have been especially concerning for British nationals and members of the British-Kashmiri diaspora seeking contact with friends and family. The safety and welfare of British nationals remain one of our highest priorities. In the light of developments on the ground, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has updated its travel advice and currently advises against all but essential travel to the region. Those already in the region should leave to avoid potential disruptions. More broadly, whenever allegations of human rights violations arise, whether in Indian-administered Kashmir or Pakistani-administered Kashmir, our position is clear. We encourage all Governments to ensure that their domestic laws and practices are consistent with international standards. Any allegations of human rights abuse should be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. Effective engagement with affected communities is essential.

    Hansard source
40. 7 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Taiwo Owatemi

    Human Rights in Kashmir

    I agree that the issue in the region is concerning, especially in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), that is the reason why the Minister for the Middle East is continuing to raise the issue with the Pakistani Government. Several hon. Members have spoken about human rights in Indian-administered Kashmir. We regularly raise human rights concerns with partners around the world, including India and Pakistan, and we continue to encourage all states to uphold their international obligations. The Chamber has also heard calls for the United Kingdom to play a more direct role in resolving the dispute. I understand the strength of feeling behind those views, but the Government believe that durable progress can be achieved only through peaceful engagement by those directly concerned. Our role is to encourage dialogue, support stability, advocate for human rights and reduce the risk of escalation. Recent events have also served as a reminder of the importance of maintaining calm in a region that has experienced periods of heightened tension. The United Kingdom has consistently encouraged de-escalation, restraint and diplomacy. We will continue to engage with partners across the region in support of peace and stability. Many Members raised concerns about communications restrictions, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East, for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I understand that communications restrictions are particularly concerning for those with ties to the region, and these issues have also been raised by my constituents in Coventry North West. The continued use of some internet restrictions is worrying, and the United Kingdom is clear on the importance of rights being fully respected. It is important to ensure effective and constructive dialogue with the communities affected and, as I said earlier, that is why the Minister for the Middle East raised those concerns with the Pakistani Government. On human rights abuses, which were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), we strongly support individuals’ rights to freedom of assembly and expression, and to peaceful political protest. We have consistently emphasised that any human rights violation should be fully investigated in line with international human rights law. Our overseas networks continue to monitor human rights issues across the country and raise them when appropriate with the Government of Pakistan.

    Hansard source