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

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

Sitting MPs
404
Entries, last 7 days
347
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

Conservative and Unionist Party

Sitting MPs
118
Entries, last 7 days
89
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

Liberal Democrats

Sitting MPs
71
Entries, last 7 days
64
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

Reform UK

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
8
Members
270,000 CLAIMED

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

Scottish National Party

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
9
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

Green Party

Sitting MPs
5
Entries, last 7 days
0
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Plaid Cymru

Sitting MPs
4
Entries, last 7 days
2
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

All parties, latest first

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentLabourJosh Newbury

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

    Like the hon. Gentleman, I have previously been a local councillor, so I understand the importance of planning committees and of local democracy around planning decisions, but I find the idea that local councillors will have no ability to have any say or influence over officers’ delegated decisions a bit ludicrous. If a councillor is doing their job properly, they are constantly going to the planning department to speak to officers about various issues that are raised with them. It will be more than possible for councillors to speak to planning officers, knowing that they are to make a decision on something like this, to give them whatever local context they feel they would need to come to an informed decision. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with that?

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentLabourJosh MacAlister

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this important and timely debate. I will turn to a few of the remarks made by Members in this debate, starting with my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). He is right to highlight the number of former student sabbatical officers in this place, present company included, and the important history of the Windermere children. I am keen to do what I can to support the case he is making to find ways to both rebuild the school and bring greater Holocaust education to the north of England, and I share many of his aspirations in that respect. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for praising the leadership of UJS, of which many representatives are here today, and for highlighting the leadership of Michael Necus. In setting out the historical context, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) reminded me of Baron Finkelstein’s excellent foreword to the UJS “Time for Change” report, highlighting that antisemitism can be taken as a warning sign of moral collapse. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) rightly stated that we must not conflate the action of the Government of Israel with the Jewish community, and I thank him for making that point so clearly. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) powerfully brought to life the harrowing experiences of Jewish students, and I thank him for taking the time in his speech to make sure that their voices have been heard here. Universities are places where ideas are tested, challenged and, where necessary, shown to be wanting, through evidence, scrutiny and debate. Exposure to different viewpoints, including those with which we strongly disagree, is an essential part of higher education. Students should leave university having had their assumptions challenged and their perspectives broadened. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are therefore central to the university experience. At the same time, universities have a duty to ensure that all students can participate fully in university life without fear of intimidation, harassment or discrimination. That is particularly important in the light of the significant rise of antisemitism. Too many Jewish students have been subject to abuse, exclusion and hostility because of their Jewish identity. Although robust debate, including on controversial political issues, is a vital part of academic life, freedom of expression is not a cover for antisemitic harassment, discrimination or abuse. Universities must therefore both uphold the freedom of speech and take effective action to ensure that Jewish students can study, participate and thrive, free from antisemitism. Our task is not to choose between those principles, but to uphold both. In a liberal democracy, we do not resolve disagreement by shutting down debate, nor do we accept intimidation as the price of free expression. Instead, we create the conditions in which robust debate can flourish and everyone can participate with confidence. That must be our ambition for higher education. The rise in antisemitism reported by Jewish students is not simply a challenge for one community; it is a test of whether our universities can remain places of inclusion, academic freedom and respect for all. When Jewish students feel unable to speak openly, participate fully or express their identity without fear, something fundamental is at stake. The scale of the problem is clear, and has been set out by many hon. Members in this debate. In 2025, CST recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in the UK—the second highest annual total on record. Antisemitism is not an historical issue; it remains a present and persistent threat, and we must challenge the ideas and narratives that give rise to these incidents. Too often, antisemitism is expressed through familiar tropes and conspiracy theories: allegations of secret influence, dual loyalty, collective responsibility or hidden power. Those claims can sometimes appear superficially innocuous, but they draw on centuries-old racist myths used to marginalise, persecute and dehumanise Jewish people. We should be clear that those ideas are antisemitic and we should have the confidence to speak out against them, and the Government must provide leadership on that. It is never acceptable to hold Jewish people or Jewish communities responsible for the actions of a foreign state. Criticism of the Government of Israel, like criticism of any Government, is legitimate; holding British Jews collectively responsible is not. Tackling antisemitism cannot be left to Jewish communities alone. It requires a whole-society response and education is among our most powerful tools in doing so. That is why we are investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism across education and helping schools, colleges and universities prevent incidents, respond effectively when they occur, and foster environments where Jewish students feel safe, welcome and valued.

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentLabourJosh MacAlister

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    The hon. Member is absolutely right to make that point. To pick up one thread of today’s debate, a number of hon. Members have raised the power of algorithms, which feed off people’s fury and anger and the differences that exist between them. Many of the themes highlighted in this debate could equally apply to other groups in society where our attention is also needed. Government-funded training is already supporting university staff and leaders to recognise antisemitism, support Jewish students and respond appropriately when concerns arise. Last week, we agreed to fund projects through our innovation fund to help students navigate misinformation, engage constructively with difficult issues and develop a deeper understanding of different faiths and communities. We are also developing a new community cohesion framework with students in partnership with the University of Salford and the National Union of Students. Alongside that work, we continue to support University Jewish Chaplaincy to provide pastoral wellbeing and practical support to Jewish students across the country. In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked about the statutory framework. Given the time remaining, I will give the brief update that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is due to update its good practice framework for higher education providers in handling reports of harassment later this year. In addition, we are working with the sector to improve transparency and accountability for tackling antisemitic abuse. We are also working with Universities UK to undertake a rapid assessment of institutional disciplinary and incident reporting processes and we will develop recommendations and priority actions in autumn this year.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentLabourJosh MacAlister

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    The hon. Member is right to highlight the essential aspect of accountability. The Office for Students has been given additional powers in recent years. It is also true that the scale of the challenge that we see with antisemitism on university campuses, and the challenge that many universities are facing in meeting their obligations to uphold the freedom of speech while also creating the climate and culture necessary for freedom from intimidation, may lead a Select Committee to hold an inquiry on that. It would, of course, be a matter for Parliament and a Select Committee to do so, but if that were to happen, the Department for Education would be very interested in its findings. We know that many of the conspiracy theories and hateful tropes that underpin antisemitism are also features of extremist ideologies. Left unchallenged, they can create an environment in which radicalisation becomes more likely. At their most serious, they can form part of a pathway towards terrorism. Prevent data shows that in the year to March 2025, there were 8,778 referrals, 21% of which were linked to extreme right-wing concerns and 10% to Islamist extremism. Although Prevent does not record antisemitism as a stand-alone category, those figures illustrate how antisemitic narratives can, and often do, form part of extremist worldviews that carry a risk of terrorism or serious harm. Most antisemitic incidents fall well below the threshold for Prevent intervention. Nevertheless, the data demonstrates that, in the most serious cases, ideas rooted in historical antisemitic prejudice can become part of a trajectory towards terrorism. That is why, through our wider Protecting What Matters programme, we are taking action to challenge antisemitism and extremism wherever they arise. We are strengthening oversight of universities’ Prevent duties; updating guidance on external speakers and events, which is due to come out very soon; improving our ability to identify emerging extremist activity; enhancing whistleblowing protections; and increasing transparency around incidents of antisemitism.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentLabourJosh MacAlister

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    I reviewed a draft of that guidance a matter of days ago, and it is due to be published very shortly. The issue is probably more that there is a queue of things to be published, rather than it not being ready to go. We must remain alert to the actions of hostile state actors who seek to exploit social tensions, spread disinformation and undermine community cohesion. The Government are therefore strengthening their response to state threats through tougher powers to identify and disrupt hostile activity, greater transparency around foreign influence, and stronger measures against those acting on behalf of foreign states. Where there is evidence of unacceptable activity linked to foreign actors, including Iran, we will not hesitate to act. Our message is simple and unequivocal: there is no place for antisemitism, extremism or hostile state interference in our universities or our society. We will defend lawful free speech, protect students from intimidation and ensure that campuses remain places where learning, debate and mutual respect can thrive.

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentLabourJosh Fenton-Glynn

    Family Justice System

    Will the Minister reassure me that we remain committed to repealing in this Parliament the presumption of contact in family courts, to bring full justice to the 67 children murdered at the hands of abusive ex-partners with whom contact should never have been granted?

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentLabourJosh Fenton-Glynn

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    I echo what was said by my colleague from the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). Baroness Amos pointed to workforce challenges and their impact on care and safety, and she noted that 67% of midwives reported burnout. Meanwhile, a General Medical Council survey found that 63% of obstetrics and gynaecology trainees had a high or very high workload. That is higher than the 42% average. The workforce plan has to address those problems—but will it?

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentLabourJosh Dean

    Financial Inclusion: Young People

    I beg to move, That this House has considered financial inclusion for young people. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. Today, young people are one of the groups most at risk of financial exclusion. Analysis by Fair4All Finance has identified 2 million unsteady starters in financially vulnerable circumstances across the UK. That includes 11% of financially vulnerable adults in Hertford and Stortford. Predominantly under 35, those young people are facing a combination of pressures: low financial resilience, higher housing costs, insecure work, rising insurance costs and a growing exposure to online financial risks. They experience poorer financial wellbeing as a result, closely linked to poor mental health, creating a vicious cycle that can undermine their educational attainment, employment prospects and economic participation. Financial inclusion is about more than access to banking; it is about access to affordable credit, insurance, savings, trusted financial guidance and opportunities to build a financial track record. I am pleased that the Government have recognised the importance of tackling financial exclusion in the financial inclusion strategy. If we can break down the barriers to financial inclusion, we can improve the lives of millions of people and unlock growth across the country. In this afternoon’s debate, I want to examine the barriers to financial inclusion that young adults face, and consider where Ministers could build on the financial inclusion strategy to prioritise practical interventions to support young people. Although a young person may pay rent regularly, meet mobile phone payments or have built responsible financial habits, they often lack sufficient credit history to access mainstream financial products on fair terms. We know that young adults are over-represented in the gig economy, temporary employment roles, part-time work and on zero-hours contracts. The insecure and variable income they receive is compounded by the high cost of living. It is harder for them to budget effectively or qualify for mainstream financial products, and they are more reliant on costly forms of borrowing as a result. As the cost of living crisis continues to eat into disposable incomes, young people struggle to build emergency or long-term savings. They typically have fewer savings than older adults, which leaves them acutely vulnerable to financial shocks: losing a job, an unexpected bill, increased rent or transport costs. In those circumstances, without emergency savings to draw on, many face a poverty premium, paying more in the long term through instalments because they cannot afford the cost of an up-front payment.

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentLabourJosh Dean

    Financial Inclusion: Young People

    I could not agree more about the importance of financial education for young people, which I will come to in my speech. We can already see how those overlapping pressures exacerbate a young person’s financial insecurity. Insurance is another area where they are left facing vulnerability to financial shocks that they are already ill-equipped to absorb. I was shocked to learn that 18 to 24-year-olds are significantly less likely to hold contents insurance, even though they are more likely to experience flood damage, escape of water, fire damage, burglary and theft. That is especially true when they live in rented accommodation, which many young adults do. I want to draw particular attention to the cost of motor insurance. Young people often make significant personal investments in driving lessons, to make it easier to get to work or education, only to find they cannot access affordable insurance when they pass their test. That directly impacts their ability to access work, training and other opportunities, especially in semi-rural communities such as the one that I represent, and it highlights how young people can face financial exclusion even when they are doing everything right. Too often, young people are entering adulthood without the tools, confidence or support networks that they need to navigate increasingly complex financial decisions.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentLabourJosh Dean

    Financial Inclusion: Young People

    I could not agree more about the importance of regulating access to financial information across social media and AI, which is an emerging challenge. Embedding financial education in school is so important, particularly ahead of the social media ban, which my hon. Friend mentions. Research has shown that young people have the lowest confidence in managing their money. The latest MoneyView survey from the Money and Pensions Service found that although 41% of adults lack confidence managing money, the figure rises to 63% for 18 to 24-year-olds. That is the highest for any age group. I welcome measures in the financial inclusion strategy to embed financial education in the primary school curriculum, helping children to develop healthy attitudes towards money at the earliest stage, but there is a need to go further. A report in 2025 by the London Foundation for Banking & Finance highlighted a significant gap in financial education provision. Financial capability programmes are concentrated in primary schools, the early years of secondary school and workplaces. There is comparatively little structured support for young people aged 16 to 24 as they transition to financial independence. That is one of the most financially vulnerable periods in a young person’s life. They have to navigate leaving school, entering work or going to university, and living independently for the first time. Particularly as students, young people are vulnerable to developing bad financial habits, experiencing a financial crisis or falling into debt. They are often having to balance their education with work. If a financial crisis hits, they face the prospect of sacrificing more of their education to pay down debt, with a potential impact on their future life chances. These significant moments in a young person’s life are when small mistakes and unexpected costs can quickly escalate. Early support in this transition period is critical to prevent longer-term financial problems. All this takes place in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. Young adults are adopting AI tools faster than older generations, which is providing them with opportunities for more accessible guidance, but leaving them at risk of exposure to inaccurate information, scams and poor or misleading financial recommendations. MoneySuperMarket’s latest Money Talks research with the Campaign Against Living Miserably found that 44% of 18 to 34-year-olds are turning to generative AI as a private space to express their money worries. That is almost half of young people who are being exposed to unregulated financial advice. Financial exclusion does not only increase economic inequality between those who have savings, access to financial education and good support networks, and those who do not; it also has a significant impact on young people’s mental health. Financial anxiety is no longer associated just with moments of crisis. For many, it has become a daily occurrence. Research from MoneySuperMarket, CALM and UM showed that one in two young adults is in debt, one in four young people has used a food bank in the past year and, more than social media, body image or relationships, money is the topic causing young people the most worry right now. Young adults are 77% more likely to have experienced suicidal thoughts because of issues with money or money worries than the wider adult population. One in 10 young adults with debt will have had suicidal thoughts in the past 12 months because of worries about making repayments. There is a profound link between financial difficulties and poor mental health. It is often cyclical, with financial stress leading to more mental health challenges, and poorer mental health making financial management harder. We must recognise that relationship and how financial insecurity and exclusion are leaving young people lacking agency in our society and without hope. Beyond arguments about economic growth and inactivity, this alone should spur us on to do better. What might solutions to the barriers I have set out look like, and where might we be able to go further? First, on credit visibility, small sum lending can support young people with thin or non-existent credit files to establish their financial identity, and therefore access affordable financial products. For example, Fair4All Finance is piloting small sum lending in partnership with Monzo, and I would be keen to hear the Minister’s reflections on the role of small sum lending in that area. What further action can the Government can take alongside regulators to support young people to establish a financial track record? Secondly, on insurance affordability the interim findings of the recent Milburn review highlighted the stark challenge of 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training. I know the Government are committed to tackling the high number of NEETs, but I would be grateful if the Minister would set out what work is being undertaken with regulators and industry to improve access to affordable motor insurance for young drivers, and to tackle the prohibitive costs restricting their access to work and education, leaving them financially excluded. Modelling from WPI Economics has found that improvement in that area could increase the UK’s GDP by £369 million annually through increased employment and participation in the labour market—there is an economic opportunity here. Thirdly, will the Minister reflect on how the Government can expand financial education and support in that critical period of transition for 16 to 24-year-olds, and share what consideration she has given to the growing influence of AI on financial decision making? Finally, on financial wellbeing and mental health, will the Minister commit to working across Departments to ensure that financial resilience forms part of the Government’s wider approach to supporting young people’s mental health and wellbeing? If we want to grow the economy, tackle the NEET challenge and improve young people’s mental health and wellbeing, we must ensure that they are not excluded from the financial system that underpins modern life. Real financial inclusion must mean that every young person can build a secure and sustainable financial future. A young adult who can save, build a credit history, access affordable insurance and make informed decisions about their finances is more likely to succeed in work, education and life. They will feel that they have agency in our society, and they will have hope for the future.

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentLabourJosh Dean

    Financial Inclusion: Young People

    I will keep it brief, Sir John. To add to the trend, I will just share the fact that my first job was in a local coffee shop. It has been great to hear about rurality, the importance of car insurance, social media, fraud and student loans; I will not share just how high my student loan bill is, having checked recently. The importance of financial inclusion has really been brought to life, as have the challenges that young people face. I thank all Members who have contributed to this important debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. Every young person deserves to build a secure and sustainable financial future. I hope that the Treasury will continue to think ambitiously about how we can support them in doing so. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered financial inclusion for young people.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentLabourJonathan Davies

    Defence Investment Plan

    I welcome this record investment in defence, and I appreciate that it may lead to us making cuts elsewhere in public expenditure. One casualty may be the expansion of the A38 in Derby, which has been on and off under successive Governments for the past 40 years. Some local people would welcome the scheme’s not going ahead, particularly on environmental grounds, but others would see a cancellation as a brake on economic growth, and we need economic growth to fund our defence. Will the Secretary of State work with me to convince the Treasury and the Department for Transport that we need more investment in Derby, so that our economy can thrive, and we can contribute to defence through public expenditure in the future?

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentLabourJohn McDonnell

    Department of Health and Social Care

    The debate we have had so far highlights the issue at hand. This is an immense change to the way in which we will determine the delivery of drugs to the NHS, and one of my fears is that it will begin to weaken the existing controls. I think it politicises the process, because what will happen now is that Ministers will be able to determine the thresholds. In addition, I am concerned that decision making in the negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies has been transferred from NHS England to the Department itself. There will be real concerns that when we look for objective advice from NICE, the system that we have will now be politicised. I say to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench that it behoves the Government to ensure that we have a proper debate on this issue. I welcome the comments that have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), because I find them interesting, just as I have found the contributions from Members across the House. The costs have been set out today, and there is a vast range of figures. This could be resolved if the Government just published the impact study that we have all been asking for. Members have emphasised that when No. 10 said very clearly that any additional costs would have to come from the NHS, we wanted to have a debate so that we could ask, “Where from? What areas of service will be reduced?”

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentLabourJohn McDonnell

    Department of Health and Social Care

    That is an incredibly relevant point in this debate. Many of us have examples of that, which is why we need to have a wider debate about the supply of drugs, their effectiveness and how they are evaluated. I thought we had a relatively objective system, but the deal throws that objectivity into question. Figures on the scale of deaths have been bandied about. I want to hear the Government’s view and their proper analysis of that, because we have to engage with the reports from Karl Claxton, Andrew Hill and so forth, as others have mentioned. The justification for the Trump deal was that it would increase UK exports to the US and increase overall investment in drugs in this country. I have yet to see any published evidence of that; in fact, the Government have not brought forward any evidence. I also say to my hon. Friend the Minister, and this is political, that I remember the commitment given by the Prime Minister and the former Health Secretary that the NHS would not be on the table in any Trump deals. This deal does put it on the table, because it has consequences not just for the supply of drugs, but for investment in the NHS and decision making about what our constituents can access. It relates not only to what level of drugs they can access, but—if there are reductions in other expenditure—to whether they will get access to a GP or A&E, or get the care services for which we have been advocating for quite a while. I thank the people who have been providing us with briefings on this issue, such as Global Justice Now and Just Treatment, which I have worked with over the years. They want to engage in the debate with the Government and to bring their expertise to the table, so I would welcome a commitment from the Minister to bring in those organisations before we move forward with implementation. This is my worry and that of those I have worked with: Kamran Abbasi, the editor of The British Medical Journal, has said that the deal “will end up harming vulnerable people to boost the profits of already obscenely profitable drug companies.” I do not want to support a deal that does that.

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentLabourJohn Healey

    Defence Investment Plan

    We all want this defence investment plan to be a success, and I personally thank the MOD officials who have worked so hard for many months to get us to this point. I welcome the extra money the Treasury may have ceded in the last couple of weeks, which builds on the record increase in defence investment that we as a Labour Government have made since the election. However, threats are still growing, demands on defence are still rising in this dangerous world and today’s step means that, as a nation, we will be spending 2.7% of GDP on defence in 2030, the date when NATO warns we could face a Russian attack. With European security at stake, does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done in the months ahead, beyond the DIP, to develop a clear, credible funding plan that will hit 3% and meet our NATO commitment to 3.5% by 2035?

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentLabourJo White

    Topical Questions

    Ranby Prison in my constituency is undergoing a £70 million expansion. The main prison car park is across the very busy A620 road. On 1 December last year, prison officer Phillip Tetley was knocked down and killed as he crossed the road to get to work. He leaves behind his wife Eve and seven children. Eve Tetley is campaigning for a crossing to prevent such an awful accident happening again. Will the Minister meet me and Eve to discuss this further?

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentLabourJessica Toale

    Defence Investment Plan

    Dorset has a proud armed forces tradition and can play a critical role in delivering our defence ambitions. We have a strong ecosystem of cutting-edge drone technology companies at the Dorset Innovation Park and a pipeline of skills and talent coming out of Bournemouth University and Bournemouth and Poole College. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the DIP will back the businesses and institutions in my region to drive forward innovation and deliver the skills that our defence industries need?

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentLabourJenny Riddell-Carpenter

    Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the contribution of nationally significant energy infrastructure projects to communities. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am grateful for having secured the debate, and I welcome colleagues across the House who will want to contribute. With this debate I seek to ask two simple questions. First, what contribution should nationally significant energy infrastructure projects make to the communities that host them? Secondly, how should communities be supported when they face disruption from significant energy projects? As the MP for Suffolk Coastal, a constituency that shoulders more of the burden than perhaps any other part of the country, I am well placed to ask those questions on behalf of my constituents. It is often said that up to 30% of Britain’s future energy will be generated in or transmitted through Suffolk Coastal, if planning permission is approved. We will host multiple significant infrastructure projects within a 10-mile radius, including LionLink at Walberswick; Sea Link near Aldeburgh; Sizewell C, which is Europe’s largest energy project, in Leiston; and converter stations at Friston and Saxmundham. All those projects sit in or cut through nationally important landscapes: sites of special scientific interest, the Suffolk heritage coast and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reserves, all served by B roads and country lanes and all arriving at once, without any co-ordination, and some projects without any serious community benefit. I have raised this issue many times in the House, and the Minister has heard about it in much detail, both in this Chamber and one to one. He will be glad to know that I am here not to repeat many of those points but to set out new challenges and alternatives. I remind him, though, that my constituents are not opposed to clean energy—many are proud that Suffolk will be leading the charge against climate change in our drive towards green energy and away from fossil fuels—but they are taking on enormous disruption. Suffolk Coastal’s dashboard is now flashing red, and we are asking for more help. Businesses, people, community and nature are all asking for more help. The community investment programme should be the main opportunity to provide it, but we need better leadership. I ask Government to do what the previous Government failed to do: to provide leadership, which will sometimes mean challenging developers and telling them that my community and this country deserve better. I want to set out what the Government have done, and I do not want my case to be mistaken for opposition to their policy. In March 2025, the Government published the “Community funds for transmission infrastructure” guidance, which included £200,000 per kilometre of overhead line, £530,000 per substation or converter station, and bill discounts of up to £250 a year for 10 years for nearby households.

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentLabourJenny Riddell-Carpenter

    Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

    I agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman says. The projects that we are discussing should deliver that as part of their long-term investment, and many of those things do not need to sit within the community investment programme itself. The guidance also included an obligation for the transmission owners, National Grid and ScottishPower Renewables, to run grant programmes, ranging from £10,000 grassroots grants up to £500,000 strategic grants. Importantly, the guidance rests on five key principles, including lasting legacy and transparent outcomes. If the developers depart from the guidance, they must explain why. It is a serious framework and the Government deserve credit for it. But the rates are recommended rates, not diktats. They should be the minimum, not the maximum. In Suffolk Coastal, we are seeing the minimum rather than the maximum far too often.

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentLabourJenny Riddell-Carpenter

    Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

    I could not agree more. We need to make sure that we compensate for the impact, especially when projects are built out. I will come to that later in my speech. The National Grid’s Sea Link energy transmission project, a 138-kilometre interconnector between Pegwell bay in Kent and Suffolk Coastal, has a proposed community fund of £2.1 million, split between Kent and Suffolk. Let me break that down: that is roughly 0.1% of Sea Link’s total project budget. For a project that cuts through some of the most important nature sites in our country, in a county proud of nature-based tourism, 0.1% is not an investment strategy; it is a rounding error. It might meet the letter of the guidance, but it falls far short on delivering for our communities. The guidance is explicit that funds should deliver lasting benefits. I want a community-owned energy fund that is locally owned, locally governed and delivers permanent accountable benefit.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentLabourJenny Riddell-Carpenter

    Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

    It will not surprise you, Ms Vaz, that I agree with every point that my hon. Friend just made. She and I have spoken about this at length. I was about to say that under the current Sea Link plans—the £2.1 million rounding error of investment—my community is likely to have to bid for £20,000 funding pots. We can barely get a spade in the ground for a playground for £20,000. We want access to bigger sums that can deliver real ambition from these projects in the long term, where and when we need it. It is worth noting that under National Grid’s plans, training opportunities sit inside the community fund and are counted against the total. That is plainly wrong. Local jobs should be a contractual commitment built into the design project, not a line inside a community fund. The guidance states that community funds are not in addition to benefits such as local employment; I gently suggest that some developers have not read the guidance. I have raised many times the fact that there is no legal duty on nationally significant infrastructure projects to co-ordinate, even when building in the same area at the same time and impacting the same community. The Minister has heard me talk about this at length. My community is expected to host multiple billion-pound schemes simultaneously without statutory tools to enforce co-ordination. Ofgem now chairs co-ordination meetings, which is welcome, but it can only convene, and there is no obligation to attend and no powers to compel change. Co-ordination by good will is not co-ordination, and there is not even a requirement for community funds to be co-ordinated. In my constituency, we will likely see Sea Link and LionLink running separate investment programmes while co-locating on adjacent land. My constituents are therefore asking for three things: better management of the cumulative impact on businesses and communities; to be properly compensated when disruption causes real harm in real time; and genuine ambition to protect and nurture nature in how projects are designed and delivered. That brings me to my second and most important question, as I set out at the beginning. The Theberton Lion in Theberton has lost around £35,000 in trade this year because of road construction for Sizewell C. The landlord, Tom, sees the benefits that Sizewell C will eventually bring, but his business needs help now. Road closures, continual roadworks outside his pub and poor signage have all had a very real effect. The community investment fund is generous, and Sizewell C’s investment fund is held up nationally as what good community investment should look like, but it is not being used to support businesses that are struggling with the real impacts of construction today. Similarly, the Refill shop in Leiston tells the same story. Amanda runs the shop and, just like Tom, is not against Sizewell C, but her business is struggling today because of the construction works disruption. The support on offer does not reach her, because the strategy has not been designed to help businesses to manage the day-to-day impact.

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentLabourJenny Riddell-Carpenter

    Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

    I feel the hon. Member’s pain, and I share many of his frustrations in the arguments that I am laying out today. If our communities are hosting vital infrastructure, they should feel the benefit. I was talking about Amanda, who runs the Refill shop in Leiston. Her business is struggling and she needs support today. These businesses could flourish once construction is complete. Neither Amanda nor Tom is asking for extra money; they are just asking that the generous £250 million already committed by Sizewell C for community investment be made accessible to businesses that are genuinely feeling the impact right now. Millions of pounds from Sizewell C’s fund has already reached citizens advice, Home-Start Suffolk and local schools and sports clubs. That is great, as it is genuine, lasting community benefit. But businesses are also asking for support to survive. We need to hear that cry for help. Do the Government agree that National Grid’s £2.1 million for Sea Link meets the standards set by their own March 2025 guidance? If not, what action will follow? Will the Government ask Ofgem to review the fund’s adequacy before consent is granted? Will they back communities asking for a community-owned fund, as the guidance’s own principles support? Will they look at the impact of Europe’s largest energy construction project on businesses in my constituency, and what can be done to support those who are struggling because of it? Villages and market towns in my constituency are breaking under the strain of these projects—they are flashing red on the dashboard. We are asking for help, and for the Government to step in where unintended consequences risk affecting the legacy of projects such as Sizewell C. My constituents want to be equal partners around the table, and they deserve to be treated as such. I urge the Government to enforce the framework they have built, and to make clear that communities like Suffolk Coastal should not accept less than they are owed, nor pay the price for the UK’s energy goals.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentLabourJenny Riddell-Carpenter

    Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

    I do appreciate that argument, and I have toyed with saying this publicly, for good reason. Of course that is true, but in my constituency I also have lots of people who are off grid and are reliant on heating oil. With a lot of this infrastructure being built and hosted in my community, many people will not feel the benefit if they are reliant on other forms of energy. Until we understand that, we will not get to the heart of the frustrations that people living in Suffolk Coastal and other rural areas feel about this upgrade.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentLabourJen Craft

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    I very much welcome the report and Baroness Amos’s work to highlight the failings across our maternity system. It is pure and utter medical misogyny that has led us here. The value that we place on the lives and experiences of women has been brought to the fore, and it is very, very low. The throughline of this report and the ones before it is that women’s voices were not heard, their pain was not believed, and their experiences were completely and utterly disregarded. That must change. I would like to add my voice to the calls for measures to address the disparity in treatment for black and ethnic minority women. There must be proper training and continuing professional development to ensure that black women do not have the experiences that we have seen to date. I also plead with the Secretary of State to ensure that any proposals contain real accountability measures. I have a maternity unit in my constituency that is inadequate and has always been rated inadequate or “requires improvement”, but I have never seen a senior member of staff ever hauled over the coals. That cannot be right and it has to change.

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentLabourJen Craft

    Culture, Media And Sport

    Many colleagues have spoken about the importance of sports, activity and physical health, and how it is not just a nice to have or an add-on, but something that is absolutely vital if we are to deliver our goals, particularly on creating a healthier ageing population and a healthier population in general. However, I would like to touch on something that is quite often overlooked: the importance of disability sport. Particularly for children and young people, the ability to take part in local sporting events or to join a football or rugby team or a dance class is significantly impeded by a lack of accessible venues and coaches and support workers who know how to meet need. It adds another level of exclusion from public life and community to what people who are disabled often already face. In my constituency there are some fantastic groups that look to address that shortfall, such as JTD Arts and the excellent Ace network. Disability sport for young people is very important, and I believe that we should try to address the lack of accessibility on a national level. I want to talk about what disability sport means for me, my family and my daughter’s friends. Last weekend it was my birthday, and I spent it in the way that anyone would like to spend a birthday—on a rugby pitch in Coventry at TagFest, which is the biggest accessible rugby tournament in Europe. It is fantastic. It means that my daughter and people like her can be welcomed in an environment where everyone gets it. All the parents pitch in. If someone’s kid decides that they are going to start legging it towards the massive ring road that goes around the side of the rugby field, we are all running after them. No one is left out, and parents do not need to arrange 5 billion different support workers just so that their kid can take part. There is a real sense of community and belonging at these events, but they are few and far between. The event last weekend was sponsored by the rugby charity the Wooden Spoon, which allowed my daughter and her teammates to take part, but the events do not happen often enough. They are a space where people can feel welcome. I am not a big sports addict. My husband is a massive sports fan—he will watch anything where a ball is involved—but I am not. The idea of standing on a freezing cold rugby pitching on a Saturday afternoon is not my idea of fun, but my daughter’s rugby club SouthSEND was offered the opportunity to be mascots for the club’s first team. When they walked through the busy bar, with everyone getting ready for the afternoon, every single person in the bar was silent—you could have heard a pin drop—because they knew that our children needed that space to breathe. That is the power of sport and belonging. That is what we should support.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentLabourJayne Kirkham

    High Streets

    In Truro, the city council has bought a property to convert to commercial and residential use. It is using some of its town deal—what would have been Pride in Place money—to invest in properties and restore some of the flats above shops that have been empty for so long. Does the hon. Member agree that that is progress and that it would be good to have more funding available for that sort of thing?

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentLabourJayne Kirkham

    Topical Questions

    One of my constituents experienced horrific abuse at the hands of her ex-husband. Deepfakes were put online on porn sites. This is something he did to other women as well. He is now in prison, but when my constituent tried to divorce him, she could not get access to legal aid for the arbitration service, or to further legal aid, because of his bail conditions. Will the Minister meet me to discuss access to legal aid for people who have suffered domestic abuse in such circumstances?

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentLabourJas Athwal

    Financial Inclusion: Young People

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate on an issue that matters greatly to my constituents. My first job was as a paper boy; I would not say that I had to lie, but I certainly had to say that I was a little bit older than I really was to secure the job. In a debate about financial inclusion, it would be remiss of me not to mention student loans, one of the greatest barriers to young people achieving financial security. In the financial inclusion strategy, the Government rightly recognised the importance of embedding financial literacy in the curriculum to empower young people to make informed financial decisions. However, there remains a glaring gap when it comes to student loans. Young people seeking to go to university do not have a proper understanding of what they are signing up to. They are either unaware of the scale of the student debt they may incur or are misled into believing that student loans are not real loans. Some are told, “You don’t even have to pay them back.” One constituent told me that although she wanted to pursue an apprenticeship, she was instead encouraged to go to university. All the virtues of university were relayed to her, but none of the drawbacks. She was told that student loans would be the easiest loans she would ever take out. Now she is saddled with tens of thousands of pounds-worth of debt and mounting anxiety about how she will ever pay it back. Financial literacy cannot simply mean learning about taxes, savings and budgeting. It must also mean understanding student loans, the first debt many young people will ever take on, so that they can make a genuinely informed decision about whether university is the right path for them. Although I welcome the Government’s ambition to encourage saving and prevent people from being burdened by debt, unless we fully address the student loans crisis, millions of young people will be saddled with loans of around £30,000 and upwards right at the precipice of their adult lives. The debts continue to grow despite repayments, imposing a seemingly insurmountable financial burden on young people for the majority of their working lives. That inevitably impacts their ability to save. A Barclays survey revealed that savers with student loans put away £2,000 a year less than their peers without student debt. If we are serious about improving financial inclusion, helping young people to save and building financial resilience, we cannot ignore their single biggest financial commitment, which many of them make before they have even entered the workplace and can end up feeling for the majority of their working lives. I welcome the Government’s financial inclusion strategy and the steps they are taking to ensure financial inclusion for young people, but we must tackle every barrier to financial security. That includes addressing a student loan system that leaves young people feeling weighed down by debt before they even have the chance to get ahead.

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentLabourJames Naish

    Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland

    I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for bringing this important urgent question to the Chamber. I welcome the Government’s ambition on British steel, but British Gypsum in my constituency has raised concerns about the short-term impact of tariffs and called for transitional arrangements for steel to avoid unintended consequences in the construction industry. Will the Minister comment on the idea of better, stronger transitional arrangements?

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the national maternity and neonatal investigation. Less than a week ago, I stood at this Dispatch Box to respond to the report by Donna Ockenden that exposed devastating failings over more than a decade in Nottingham. As many right hon. and hon. Members rightly made clear following my statement, the shocking report into what had happened was far from the first: in 2015 we learnt of the failures at Morecambe Bay; in 2022 we were appalled to hear about what had happened at Shrewsbury and Telford; and that same year the Kirkup inquiry exposed failings in East Kent. There were also other reviews and reports over the years on specific issues related to maternity care, and it is deeply upsetting to recognise that Donna Ockenden is preparing to undertake further reviews into failings in Leeds and Sussex. Despite all the warnings, the NHS is still failing women, babies and their families on a scale that shames our society. Bereaved and harmed families are hearing once again the unbearably painful and distressing consequences of the opportunities that have been missed to put things right. As I stand here, I think of how they must be feeling. I know from meeting some of the Nottingham families that their unwavering determination is accompanied by a sense of exhaustion—a sense that however many times they have told their stories, however hard they have campaigned for justice and accountability, and however strongly they have fought to stop what happened to them from happening to others, hardly anything has changed. That feeling will be shared by mothers and their families up and down the country who have suffered so appallingly too, and there will be deep sadness and distress as they are forced to relive their trauma. The burden they bear must sit with us all. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) decided last year to announce a national investigation into maternity and neonatal services. That investigation has been carried out by Baroness Amos, whose report is published today. I put on record my thanks to her and her team for the comprehensive and compassionate way they have carried out their work. The Amos investigation gathered evidence from more than 10,500 people, with Baroness Amos and her team personally meeting more than 450 affected families. They visited 12 NHS trusts and heard from over 9,000 staff through surveys, site visits and one-to-one discussions. Although they found that many women experience good and safe care, the report paints a bleak picture of failings at every stage for too many: from pregnancy, labour and delivery to the first hours, days and weeks after birth. When I read about those systemic failures, I found them not only shocking and upsetting but devastatingly familiar, because they are explicitly repeated in review after review. Baroness Amos found a system that is fragmented, overly complex and far too slow to learn. It needs to be radically overhauled. Last week I spoke about the need to avoid having review recommendations accepted but then sitting on a shelf gathering dust. Other hon. Members agreed with the need to break that cycle, so that is what we will do. As I told the House last week, the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, which I chair, will create a comprehensive action plan by the end of this year. Today’s recommendations from Baroness Amos include a proposal for a modern service framework in line with the 10-year health plan to support system change and drive consistent, quality care. Those recommendations, along with the national-level recommendations from Donna Ockenden, will feed into our plan, which will make sure that women and babies receive safe, compassionate care no matter where they live. But I do not want people to have to wait for the plan to be completed for us to start making progress, so I am also taking immediate measures in response to Baroness Amos’s investigation, which I shall now set out for the House. In considering Baroness Amos’s recommendations, the words of a Nottingham mother I met ring loudly in my ears. She said that “accountability drives action”, so today I can confirm that, in response to these recommendations, the Government will appoint the first ever maternity and neonatal commissioner. The holder of this new statutory role will have responsibility for driving change across all parts of the NHS, including those who provide, regulate and investigate care. They will co-chair the national taskforce, along with me. They will hold the system to account, and their role will be to champion the voices of women, babies and families; to ensure that those voices are heard within Government when decisions are made and implemented. Last week I announced that the Government would roll out Martha’s rule, so that women and their families can demand a second opinion if they feel their concerns are being ignored. That meets a key and familiar concern that the Amos investigation pointed to: women not being listened to as a common factor in maternity failings. Because those concerns are too often batted away before women even arrive at hospital, I can today confirm that we will this week publish new national standards for maternity triage, so that care is consistent across the NHS and women’s concerns are recognised, valued and acted upon at every turn. I expect every trust to prioritise the implementation of these standards and I have asked NHS England to make sure that this is the case and to report progress directly to me. Some of the starkest examples of racism, discrimination and inequality happen in maternity and neonatal settings, as the Amos report laid bare. The result is that the risks are notably higher for some women and babies and, as Baroness Amos points out, this is a critical safety issue. Black babies are still more than twice as likely to be stillborn as white babies, and black women are almost three times more likely to die during pregnancy or shortly after birth than white women. While tackling inequalities will be a core component of the national action plan, we will make a start straightaway by rapidly expanding the roll-out of the perinatal equity and antidiscrimination programme to every trust. All teams will be mandated to receive hands-on support, to hear first-hand experience, and to undertake face-to-face learning and development programmes. Every trust will have completed the programme by the end of next year. Births that are safe for mothers and babies depend on health services having skilled, trained midwives. As Baroness Amos rightly identified, staff shortages can have a dangerous impact, with examples of some services being forced to delay admissions when they get too busy. Since coming to office, we have recruited 2,000 more midwives, and last year our graduate guarantee gave 850 more newly qualified midwives an immediate route into the profession. I can tell the House today that we have now created a further 1,000 temporary roles to help newly qualified midwives join the NHS. These new posts will be accompanied by investment, too, and I can confirm that we are investing an extra £41 million, on top of the £145 million already invested, to upgrade outdated and rundown maternity and neonatal facilities. Alongside these practical measures comes a far more profound challenge that we must face. It is clear from my conversations with affected families, with Donna Ockenden and with Baroness Amos, and from the findings of all the reports, that culture is where so much of the responsibility lies. That culture is the most deep-rooted cause of the failures we have seen, and the most fundamental thing we must change. We know that when families have been in distress and looking for answers, they were too often ignored, sneered at, disbelieved, blamed and lied to. We know from review after review that wrongdoing is covered up and that bullying towards staff who try to sound the alarm is rife, so we will dismantle toxic dynamics, boost staff morale and support better teamwork between midwives, doctors and other clinicians. We need not only the right policies, procedures and processes to be in place, but a fundamental reset in the culture of a service that too often puts the desire to protect itself above its duty to protect women and babies. That culture change must come from the top. It is time for trust leaders, executives and senior clinicians to pay attention to what is happening on their watch, to put professional tribalism aside, to lose the bunker mentality when things go wrong and to ensure that the safety of women and babies always comes first. This has to be a watershed moment. We must break the cycle of recommendations sitting on a shelf gathering dust. We cannot go on having review after review while women and babies, as well as their fathers and other family members, continue needlessly to suffer injury, death and lasting trauma. We should all feel a responsibility to ensure that this opportunity is not squandered. We owe nothing less to every family the NHS has failed in the past, and to every family who will rely on it in the future. I commend this statement to the House.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    I thank the shadow Secretary of State not only for his questions, but for his tone and approach. When I gave the statement about Donna Ockenden’s report last week, we all agreed that the responsibility to deliver real change is shared by everyone in this House, so I appreciate his approach. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the investigations in Leeds and Sussex, to which Donna Ockenden will be turning her attention over the rest of this year. It might be helpful for the House to understand that in developing a comprehensive action plan through the national taskforce, a framework will be devised so that any recommendations from future reviews can be incorporated into that plan and its implementation. That will ensure that we do not have a situation in which the plan is developed and future reviews come to conclusions or recommendations without a clear way for those to be integrated into the action plan. I hope that that gives him some reassurance over the process. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about recognising families who have been harmed, as well as babies who survived and have grown up into children and adults while living with the harm of failings in maternity care. I am very conscious of them, not least because of the people I have met who sometimes feel forgotten or feel that their children are forgotten when we have these conversations. They live with the impact of brain injuries or other issues that arise during birth. They must not be forgotten, and I will ensure that they are included in the process. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the roll-out of the new national triage standards, which will be published this week. The NHS England chief executive is meeting with NHS system leaders today to begin the process of ensuring that the triage standards, along with some of the other urgent measures that I have spoken about today, are rolled out. Although it is right to take time to get the comprehensive action plan in place by the end of the year, we do not want to waste time before we get on with the measures that we have decided should progress more quickly. NHS England leadership is progressing with those today. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the funding for critical safety works in the maternity estate. Those critical safety measures are important, but the action plan will set out a more comprehensive approach not just for the physical infrastructure, but for the culture, which we have spoken about many times. We cannot invest money in culture in the same way as we can do so in physical infrastructure, but it is something that we need to address. We all agree on that. I sense that I had agreement from the House when I raised the importance of addressing cultural problems in maternity services. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the responsibility being placed on the commissioner as just one person. I reassure him that my vision is for the commissioner to play a crucial role, but not on their own: they will co-chair the national taskforce with me, help to ensure that the national action plan is implemented, hold the system to account and, crucially, be a voice for women in the system. One way of the Government starting to address the issue of women being ignored in maternity services—an issue I have heard about so many times—is by ensuring that the commissioner is a voice for them when decisions are taken. The temporary roles are an immediate step this year to ensure that newly qualified midwives have a way into making a contribution to NHS maternity services. Funding for those will be baselined in future years, and trusts will decide, trust by trust, how the funding is distributed among different roles. That will vary depending on needs in local areas. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the importance of identifying women who are at higher risk because of different circumstances or problems they may face in giving birth. That is exactly what I hope the new triage standards will begin to address. If the triage standards can identify issues before they escalate and ensure that women get the right support more quickly, we will have an opportunity to avoid the extra, avoidable harm caused to women by delays in getting the right support. The shadow Secretary of State closed his remarks by talking again about the need for a change in culture. He talked about the support from the Opposition, who will of course robustly challenge us where appropriate but support the aims that we are seeking to achieve. I thank him for that.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, and again put on record my thanks and tribute to him for having initiated the investigation that Baroness Amos published today. He has been a committed champion of change in maternity services in this country. I could not agree with my right hon. Friend more about the importance of accountability in culture change. Without accountability, we will not have culture change across maternity services, and the culture of cover-ups will continue. Senior clinicians will feel that they can continue to get away with any mistakes. They will feel that they can avoid scrutiny when investigations take place, and will continue, in too many cases, to be more concerned with protecting themselves than with protecting women and babies. On what we can do to change that culture, culture is deep-rooted and requires us to take a number of different actions, but the duty of candour is the single most powerful change we can make clearly, loudly and publicly, because the message it will send to senior clinicians thinking about what to do in the future if they make a mistake, or if they are tempted to cover up things that go wrong, is that one day they will be held to account, and there is no avoiding that. With a duty of candour in place, there will no longer be an opportunity for clinicians, in particular senior clinicians, to refuse to engage in that process, to refuse to be held to account and be part of the justice process. People will face up to two years in prison if they refuse to co-operate, so it is a serious measure. I very much agree with him on the importance of ensuring that the Hillsborough law gets on the statute book so that this duty of candour can apply to future maternity investigations.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and she puts it well when she talks about Baroness Amos’s investigation confirming our worst fears. I was shocked but not surprised, sadly, to read the investigation report. It was devastatingly familiar to read what it set out as being the failings across the country. The report’s recommendations will now become part of the work of the taskforce, which I chair, to produce the comprehensive action plan by the end of this year. My intention is that the taskforce will take all the national recommendations from Baroness Amos’s report, as well as the national-level recommendations from Donna Ockenden’s report last week and recommendations from any other investigations and reports, and ensure that the action plan it produces comprehensively addresses all the issues raised. I think that we would all agree that there is not—one, two, three—a small number of actions that we need to take; this has to be a comprehensive plan to truly transform the service.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and agree about how shocking the failures in maternity services are, particularly because these failings and the failure to listen to women happens at a point when they are at their most vulnerable. It is at that moment when they are let down. When they need the NHS the most is when the NHS fails them, and that is one aspect of this that makes it truly devastating. My right hon. Friend also rightly highlights the impact on black women and their babies, who are at more risk than white women and their babies, and the inequalities that exposes. As I mentioned during my earlier statement, we will begin by ensuring that the perinatal equity and anti-discrimination programme is extended to all trusts by the end of next year, but that is an immediate measure we are taking rather than the sum of all measures that we will take on this front. Inequality, racism and discrimination will be a central part of the action plan that the taskforce develops.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. Again, I agree with him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on the importance of accountability for changing culture. During the statement on Donna Ockenden’s report last week, he commented that this is about having accountability structures embedded throughout the system, because this is not something that the top of the NHS, the NHS chief executive, the Secretary of State or the ministerial team can control throughout the NHS. The structure has to be embedded to ensure that accountability happens at every level—something I very much took to heart and agree with when it comes to what we need to do next. On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point about the Hillsborough law and how that will address the issue that he refers to about legal departments effectively advising a cover-up, that sounds concerning, so I will look into that as part of our work to ensure that the system works properly. The expectation with the duty of candour, which will come in under the Hillsborough law, is to ensure that we never again have a situation as happened in Nottingham—I could not quite believe it, if I am honest—where many senior clinicians simply refused to take part. It is outrageous. It is unacceptable that so many senior clinicians were able to, and felt able to, just say no. That is not accountability if it is optional, and that is what we need to change.

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    My hon. Friend draws out an important point: a key part of developing the national action plan is to ensure we have the right metrics and mechanisms for monitoring its implementation and the right structures in place to make sure it is implemented across all trusts. In working with members of the taskforce, I will ensure that those accountability mechanisms for the delivery of the plan are in place, because I have spoken many times today about the importance of recommendations not sitting on shelves. We need to ensure we have the structures in place such that the actions in the national action plan are implemented, we can see they are being implemented, and we can give people confidence that that is the case.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    In describing the role of the commissioner, the hon. Lady is right to emphasise that it cannot all be on one person. The commissioner is a vital role, and it being on a statutory basis will give the position real weight within the system to hold the system to account and help the Government to ensure the implementation of the comprehensive national action plan. But she is right to say that accountability has to include the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, because it is a duty that we all hold as MPs, that the Government hold and that I hold as Secretary of State, and the Prime Minister ultimately holds that responsibility too. It is not in any sense intended to be a passing of responsibility to a commissioner. The commissioner role is being established to support the effectiveness of the work we are seeking to do as a Government to implement the national action plan, but crucially, when accountable politicians are taking decisions, the commissioner will be a voice for women in the system. I have heard so many times that women’s voices are not being heard in the healthcare system, particularly when things go wrong and women have concerns in maternity services. This commissioner will be a way of making sure those voices are right at the heart of decision making.

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    The action plan, which will be developed through the taskforce that I chair—the commissioner will co-chair it when that position is established—will publish its national action plan by the end of this year. That will consider all the recommendations from Baroness Amos’s report, as well as Donna Ockenden’s reports. My hon. Friend makes a point that is worth drawing attention to, which is that many midwives and others working in maternity services do a really important job and work really hard to provide excellent care to women. That is not to diminish the scale of the failings, but it is to give the right perspective on all those midwives who do a really important job and work hard to care for women and their babies. That is evidenced by the fact that 9,000 members of staff came forward to give evidence in Baroness Amos’s investigation—they are concerned, and they want to see change as well. While this is, of course, primarily about women and their babies and families, staff also have a really important voice in this, and we need to improve the system so that they can make their contribution as well.

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    I thank the hon. Lady for sharing her experience and raising the importance of this issue for the benefit of maternity services more widely. I am very happy for myself or one of the ministerial team to meet her to discuss this in detail, because it is very important that that is part of the national action plan and our wider response.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentLabourJames Murray

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right to call this what it is in many cases, which is misogyny in maternity services, and to draw attention to the different impact on different mothers and the racial and ethnic inequality within the system. The anti-discrimination programme that I mentioned, which is being rolled out over the next year and a half, will be an important first step, but it cannot be the sum total of what we do to address discrimination and inequality. That will be a focus of the national taskforce, as will—to repeat a point many Members have rightly made—accountability, because it is only by embedding accountability throughout the system that we can be truly confident of change.

    Hansard source