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

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

1. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

   Youth Guarantee

   As I said, earlier this spring we announced the expansion of youth hubs to all planned areas and the launch of phase one of the jobs guarantee for the long-term unemployed, first in six areas and later to the whole country. From today, we are rolling out expanded employment support for young people on universal credit to all jobcentres in Britain. As I mentioned, from tomorrow, we are opening the youth jobs grant, which will give employers a £3,000 hiring bonus to take on a young person who has been out of work for six months or more.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

   Youth Guarantee

   I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to expanding opportunity for young people in his constituency and to reducing the NEET youth rate. As he knows, I was pleased to open the Peterborough youth hub some months ago, and my Department is working with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough strategic authority on the youth guarantee trailblazer. I congratulate Inspire2Ignite. I value positive feedback from the Minister’s visit to the BRDG site, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with a Minister to discuss these issues further.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

   Youth Guarantee

   I thank the right hon. Gentleman and send him commiserations for whatever has left him reliant on his crutches today. I am happy to congratulate the businesses he mentioned in his constituency. He raises a serious point: it is important not only to come up with the right policy, but to make it simple for businesses to use. That is something I have stressed to my officials; it is important that this scheme is simple to apply for. The money will be given in two instalments—one in the second month, and one in the fifth month—to ensure that hiring is sustained, but I entirely agree that good policy should be matched by a simple application process.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

   Youth Guarantee

   In his review Alan Milburn considered that issue and said that, “the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.” As I said earlier, 400,000 more people are in work this year than last year, and the number of young people in employment is up since the election. Our policies are designed to help business rally to the cause of getting more young people into work, and I am pleased that we are introducing hiring incentives of £3,000 to help businesses take on a young unemployed person who has been out of work for six months or more. There is a good reason to target that group with opportunity, because the longer people are on those benefits, the greater the consequences that can have for their lives in the long term. Their whole future is in front of them, which is why it is right that we help them.

   Hansard source
5. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

   Topical Questions

   Since our last DWP questions, both Alan Milburn and the Pensions Commission have published their respective interim reports on young people and on the current state of saving for retirement. I look forward to receiving their final reports later in the year. Earlier this month, I visited the Netherlands to see the impressive work of the Dutch Government to ensure that youth inactivity is a last resort, and I think there is much that we can learn. Finally, I put on record my thanks and best wishes to Sir Peter Schofield, the outgoing permanent secretary of the Department. He leaves after more than eight years at the helm of the DWP. I look forward to working with his successor, Dame Sarah Healey, who will be joining us as the new permanent secretary shortly.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

   Topical Questions

   It is important to treat customers properly and fairly and to remember that the DWP deals with some of the most vulnerable people in society. The Department takes safeguarding seriously. We have increased training, particularly for those involved in health assessments. If there are specific cases that my hon. Friend wishes to draw to my attention, I encourage him to provide me with the details.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

   Topical Questions

   I enjoy our exchanges, and I welcome the opportunity that the shadow Secretary of State has given me to point out that in the past year I have said time and again that we have to change the question that the system asks from “What benefits are you entitled to?” to “How do we help you change your life?” The debate on how we reform the system has changed to one in which we are putting opportunity and work at the centre of what we do. That is what we are doing with the youth guarantee, and that is what we will continue to do.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

   Topical Questions

   Of course, people should only receive benefits if they are properly entitled to and qualified for them. All this has to be underpinned by our being as caring and as passionate about wealth creation as we are about fair wealth distribution. That is what unites Labour people. We are asking the right questions, while the hon. Lady is still asking the wrong ones.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

   Topical Questions

   My hon. Friend has raised an important point. This has to be a joint effort between the Government and employers. We had a great roundtable at No. 10 this morning with employers who are committed to expanding youth opportunity, and I have visited Merlin, an important leisure and hospitality business, which has agreed to take on 300 young people through our youth guarantee measures. Other businesses are signing up as well, and I encourage as many as possible to do so.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    The youth hub will be able to help young people by treating them as human beings and bringing together holistic support to get them into employment, including in mental health, housing, and essential and vocational skills. As I said, it is about breaking down the barriers between Departments and seeing youngsters as people. So far, 67% of young people using youth hubs report that the support has met their needs.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We cannot allow young people to drop out and to drop out of sight of the system. It is really important, especially for 16 and 17-year-olds, because we want to see participation in education or training up until the age of 18. On my visit to the Netherlands, I saw how it takes this really seriously, with effort after effort to stop young people dropping out. I think we can learn from that and about tracking young people more closely.

    Hansard source
12. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    When the history books are written about this, they will show that this number rose by a quarter of a million in the last three years during which the hon. Member’s party was in power, and the Conservatives did precisely nothing about it. That is what the history books will show. We are responding with a youth guarantee that puts work and opportunity at the heart of welfare reform. I wish they had done it—they did not—but we are.

    Hansard source
13. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    My hon. Friend raises a really important point. There should not be an automatic transition. We also have to consider the life chances of people on long-term sickness benefits. So this is worth considering, while always making sure that people in need of disability benefits get the help and support they need to lead as full a life as possible.

    Hansard source
14. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    I have discussed this with my hon. Friend. There are great schools I have visited that have a record of NEET zero. They do that by paying attention to employability and work right from year 7, so I believe there is more that can be done to reduce the figure and put work and opportunity at the heart of the reform of the system that we are bringing forward.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    If the right hon. Gentleman has just noticed that there are 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, one has to ask what was he doing when he was a Minister in the last Government when the figures went up by a quarter of a million and he said nothing at all about it? We have brought forward a youth guarantee that will put work and opportunity at the heart of the reform of the system. That is in stark contrast to his record of complete inaction on this issue when he was in a position to do something about it.

    Hansard source
16. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The report published today is really important, and it shows the lack of opportunity for white working-class children at schools. Our agenda of maximum opportunity for young people and of not letting people drop out and be left behind is really important in getting more opportunity for this group of young people.

    Hansard source
17. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    I encourage local businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency to look at the new incentives available from tomorrow. They can access a hiring incentive of £3,000 to help them with the cost of taking on a young person, provided that person has been out of work for six months or more. We want to do that in partnership with business. It is an important policy and I look forward to her being a champion of it in her constituency.

    Hansard source
18. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to work with businesses. I want this to be seen as a national cause, a national endeavour, and a good partnership between business and Government, because it is in the whole country’s interests to make maximum use of the very best resource we have, which is the talents of the British people themselves.

    Hansard source
19. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    The hon. Member raises an important question, which young people themselves are alive to. AI is an all-purpose technology; it will both destroy and create jobs. The leadership task is to ensure that this country is best placed to use the technology and is a good home for investment in it, as well as ensuring that AI adds to the skills of our people.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Topical Questions

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a fantastic champion for Stafford and her constituents. The youth guarantee will help young people in her constituency through hiring incentives, apprenticeship changes and more work experience placements. I know that she will work with me and the rest of Government to be a champion of opportunities for the young people of Stafford.

    Hansard source
21. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Topical Questions

    The Pensions Minister knows that there is no retirement on a dead planet, so will he commit to writing to the 50 largest UK pension funds to ask them to set out their timetable for divesting from fossil fuels?

    Hansard source
22. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Stella Creasy

    Asylum Accommodation

    We are having this debate because of the cost to us all of trying to move from the broken system that this Government inherited to a fair and effective one. We are in this position because the previous Government failed to process people, and the Conservatives now seem to want to rely on creating fiction, rather than fact, about what actually works. The Minister is absolutely right to argue that we need to tackle the root causes and try to stop people getting into boats. It is also right to recognise that where people are fleeing persecution and that is proven, it is the mark of a good society to help them. It is also more cost-effective. Given that last week the Government lost legal proceedings on the proposal about good character and citizenship, and given the likelihood of more litigation because of the fictitious idea that somebody travelling by an irregular route is somehow less of a person, does the Minister recognise that we will save money by changing the policy and putting integration, not ill will, at the heart of a future system for refugees?

    Hansard source
23. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Polly Billington

    NHS Breast Screening

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this debate. Gemma Reeves is a breast cancer nurse at the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, my local hospital in Margate. She started a petition that I noticed on my Instagram feed a few months ago, which calls on the NHS to establish annual mammograms for 40-year-old women. I noticed that it was getting a lot of traction on my feed and that a lot of people I knew were signing up to it. I explored it more and wanted to understand where the policy would end up, but then—my colleagues will recognise this—it became another one of those campaigns I said I would do. One day, however, I found that Gemma was up here in Westminster with her son, Mason, and I came to meet her in Central Lobby. She told me what she had seen as a breast cancer care nurse in the hospital in Margate, during the pandemic and since: an increase in the number of women under 50 presenting with breast cancer. What she saw corroborates research from CoppaFeel! showing that breast cancer in young women is on the rise. She became increasingly concerned that the people she was caring for could have had screening that might have meant that, when they finally presented at hospital, their cancer was not so advanced. More than half of all breast cancer cases in the UK occur in people outside the national screening age—one in six are under 50. From having those conversations with Gemma, and since with the Minister, I know that many challenges come with tackling breast cancer in women under 50. We need to work out the best way of tackling breast cancer in younger women. I am delighted that the Minister met me, Gemma and her friends, who were previously her patients. They have become not just her friends but her co-campaigners, because they have experienced getting breast cancer under 50 and also wish that there had been some kind of screening to identify their cancer earlier. We and many people contributing to this debate know that screening is currently designed for older women; mammograms are designed for women over 50. Therefore, if we are looking for a way of screening young women, we may need to think about and explore different kinds of technologies, from MRIs to ultrasound. We also need to avoid false positives, as many of my colleagues have referred to. More women could end up fearing that they have breast cancer than actually have it if we introduce screening that produces false positives. We also need to recognise that, for many people, having an early test or check-in that includes things such as family history would enable them and their medical carers to spot the risks they are exposed to and decide whether they should go for early screening. Whatever the answer, it is clear that the status quo is not acceptable, because it is not built for young people. It is also clear that the evidence on the occurrence of breast cancer in under-50s is out of date; the most recent evidence is from 2018. Therefore, I am absolutely delighted that Gemma has been able to come forward and lead this campaign, gathering so many signatures to her petition from across the country, particularly in east Kent. I hope that the Minister will take seriously her request not only to publish the evidence, but to act on it, and to find new ways of making sure that women younger than the current screening age of 50 are able to access screening to get their breast cancer spotted early. One of our big missions in our mandate from the election was to tackle healthcare via prevention. Around 30% of breast cancers could be prevented through exercise, diet and alcohol control. Additionally, the earlier women are screened, the more likely it is that we can prevent illness and death. That is why I have supported Gemma in this campaign. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to exploring further ways of making sure that young women can be confident that breast screenings will spot cancer early.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Polly Billington

    NHS Breast Screening

    I am interested in the possibilities of AI helping with detection and speeding up that process, freeing up resources to be directed into earlier detection by focusing on screening for younger women. If we are to harness the potential of AI, surely the first thing that we should do is to redirect the resources that are saved into ensuring that we can save more lives, potentially those of the young women who have campaigned so strongly on this petition.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Sharon Hodgson

    NHS Breast Screening

    How long do I have to speak? I have a lot to get through; let us see if I can make it. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), her constituent Gemma, Gemma’s son, Mason, and the other ladies in the Public Gallery today for their campaigning on this petition and for gathering so many signatures that we can debate it. I pay tribute to them and thank them for joining us. I was very pleased to meet them last month to discuss this important issue. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). I commend her constant courage in speaking so openly about her experience of breast cancer. I send my very best wishes to her throughout her ongoing treatment. Behind all the figures we are discussing today, there are women, men, families and communities who have been affected by breast cancer in the most difficult and personal of ways. I pay tribute to NHS staff in breast screening services across the country, who work tirelessly to ensure that women and men are offered this important preventive measure. Last year, our highly effective NHS breast screening programme screened nearly 2 million women. Each year, the programme is estimated to save 1,300 lives, but we must be honest about the scale of the challenge. Around 11,500 women still die from breast cancer each year. Many thousands more go through treatment, with all the fear, uncertainty and disruption that brings for them and the people who love them. That is why I am clear: we need to do more and will do more. The national cancer plan published earlier this year sets out how we will improve outcomes for breast cancer patients. We will speed up diagnosis and treatment, ensure that patients can access the latest treatments and technology and, ultimately, drive up this country’s cancer survival rates. The plan commits to rolling out breast pain clinics nationally by the end of the year. It also builds on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening units. Cancer alliances will receive funding to work proactively with local communities and providers so that more cancers are diagnosed earlier. I will now speak to points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)—there might have been others, but those are the names I scribbled down. They raised issues about serving ethnic minority communities as well as underserved, deprived communities. Building on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening, as I mentioned, cancer alliances will receive funding and work proactively with local communities and providers to improve early diagnosis rates. They will focus on increasing people’s awareness of symptoms, and support primary care to spot the signs of cancer early. The work will also include reducing the gap in screening uptake between the most and least deprived areas. There will be particular efforts to reach ethnic minority communities and underserved groups because no one should be left behind. The NHS also runs its “Help Us, Help You” campaign in England, which helps to increase knowledge of breast cancer symptoms and address barriers to acting on them, as well as encouraging people to come forward to see their GP as soon as possible. I understand why many people ask whether screening should begin at a younger age. It is a deeply human question that is often asked by people who have seen the impact of breast cancer at first hand. We are looking carefully at the evidence, but the picture is complex. I will come on to everything about that that has been raised. As we have heard, younger women tend to have denser breast tissue, which can make mammography less effective. Screening can save lives, but it can also cause harm through false positives, unnecessary tests, avoidable anxiety and overdiagnosis. That is why decisions must be made carefully and on the basis of robust evidence. My hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Broxtowe and for Edinburgh South West, as well as other colleagues, no doubt, raised that issue. As we know, some women will have denser breast tissue and unfortunately that makes mammography less effective because a potential cancer can be harder to spot. We are working to find the best solutions to that problem. A study called BRAID—breast screening risk adaptive imaging for density—is looking into whether supplementary imaging techniques like MRI or ultrasound could be used for women with dense breast tissue. The independent UK National Screening Committee is in contact with the researchers and reviews the evidence as it becomes available. Ministers in the Department and across the Government will consider its recommendations as soon as they are made. A number of colleagues asked about the AgeX breast screening trial, which is the biggest trial of its kind ever undertaken. It will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of screening in age groups above and below the current screening age. The trial has been looking at the effectiveness of offering some women one extra screening between the ages of 47 and 49 and one between the ages of 71 and 73. AgeX is the biggest trial of its kind ever to be undertaken and will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness, benefits and harms of screening in those age groups. The UK NSC will review the publication of the AgeX extension trial when it reports. The trial began in 2009, and results are expected in 2027, something the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) asked about. Screening trials require extended follow-up periods to generate robust evidence on whether screening reduces disease or death, while also assessing any potential long-term harms. The UK NSC continuously monitors emerging evidence through horizon scanning and maintains active engagement with international peers. Should robust evidence regarding the extension of breast screening age thresholds become available, the committee will look at it right away. In the meantime, NHS England has produced a suite of public-facing information resources, communicating that women, especially those aged 71 or over, can have screening every three years if they so wish. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also asked why we do not screen annually. The three-year intervals of the national breast screening programme are based on a successful Swedish trial. The frequency of screening balances the risk of harm from over-diagnosis with the benefits of early detection, and women at high risk of breast cancer are often called more frequently.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Sharon Hodgson

    NHS Breast Screening

    As I said, the AgeX trial has been running since 2009 and has been researching the efficacy of providing breast cancer screening to people above and below the current screening age. It is due to report next year, so hopefully it will provide the further evidence that is necessary. It is already in train. These decisions are not taken lightly, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), asked me about AI. We are supporting the early detection using information technology in health, or EDITH, trial. It will test new AI technologies that could enable one specialist—rather than two, as is currently required—to complete a mammogram screening process, increasing capacity in the screening system while maintaining patient safety. We are entering a new era in science and technology. Advances in data, genomics and predictive analytics will allow the NHS to deliver care that is more personalised, more proactive and better matched to each person’s individual risk. New tools, such as liquid biopsies and other non-invasive tests, may help us to detect cancer much earlier, and often before symptoms appear. The NHS is preparing to seize those breakthroughs so that patients can benefit from the full power of modern innovation. The national cancer plan has identified priority areas to accelerate access to new technologies, including artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation of pathology images for suspected breast cancer diagnosis. We will continue to horizon-scan for better methods of screening and to build the evidence base for any future changes. Our ambition is clear—to save more lives, to diagnose cancer earlier and to do so in a way that brings more benefit than harm.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Sharon Hodgson

    NHS Breast Screening

    Yes; saving more lives and freeing up resources is exactly what we should be doing. In relation to the AgeX trial evidence and other evidence that is being looked at, that will be happening within the next year. Hopefully for my hon. Friend and others here today and the campaigners, the evidence will be looked at and, if it is strong enough, things will change. Colleagues raised a number of other issues that I want to touch on. The hon. Member for Wokingham, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, always reminds us that it is not just women who are affected. Sixty thousand people a year are diagnosed with breast cancer, and a small proportion of that number will be men. It is always important that we remember that, and he is doing an amazing job as chair of the all-party group. If I am here and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who speaks for the Opposition, is here, the hon. Gentleman is often here as well—we have become a regular trio in these debates on a Monday. I must mention my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), who gave a very emotional speech about his constituent Sarah and her husband David. What happened was so tragic. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that, and I want him to know that all of us here having heard it already means that it was not in vain. He said that he wanted to make sure that their story had been heard—how tragic it was, its consequences, and how long-lasting the effect of this awful disease is, not just on those who suffer, but on the wider family. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North asked me about cancer waiting times more broadly, and I cannot let this moment go without stressing that cancer patients are now getting diagnosed in the shortest time on record. I am pleased to report that. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the very important issue of women with physical disabilities. We have spoken about this before. The NHS has an obligation to make appropriate accommodations for people with disabilities, as I know she is aware. Unfortunately, however, some mammography machines are not a good design for people in wheelchairs and those who cannot support their own torso. For women for whom mammography is not an option, a physical exam can still be offered; and where a GP is concerned about the findings following a physical exam, the woman can be referred for further diagnostic tests. The NHS is talking with manufacturers about amending the design of mammography machines, and NHS England is considering whether alternative testing tools could be used instead of a mammogram in those specific circumstances. I can reassure the hon. Lady that the workforce plan is still imminent; I have nothing further to add on that. She mentioned lobular breast cancer and the Moon Shot project. As she is aware, in April Lord Vallance, the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, and I, alongside NIHR and MRC representatives, met the Lobular Moon Shot Project team to discuss how best to progress research in this area. Following that meeting, a scientific roundtable on lobular breast cancer was organised earlier this month. Lord Vallance hosted the roundtable, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, executive chair of the MRC, chaired a discussion considering the challenges and opportunities for progress in invasive lobular breast cancer research. The NIHR is actively encouraging high-quality, ambitious research proposals on lobular breast cancer, having launched a highlight notice in late 2025. We hope that the team will make an application for that. I cannot finish my speech without stating one message as clearly as I can. If hon. Members or their constituents are, at any time, worried about breast cancer symptoms, such as a lump, an area of thickened tissue in the breast or any change in how their breasts look or feel, no matter what age they may be, I say this: “Please do not wait to be offered screening. Please contact your GP at any stage.” Coming forward early, as we know—and as Gemma and her friends know more than most—can make all the difference. I want to make sure that message goes out loud and clear.

    Hansard source
28. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Toby Perkins

    Topical Questions

    T7.   Support for young people wanting access to the world of work has never been more crucial, but the success of youth hubs will depend on their ability to connect with, be useful to and understand the needs of employers. What steps will the youth hubs take to ensure that they are communicating with businesses and understanding their needs?

    Hansard source
29. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Toby Perkins

    Asylum Accommodation

    The Minister is right that all we saw under the previous Government were the numbers going in the wrong direction and the operation of Government coming to a standstill. Of course, we should never forget the role of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who does not grace us with his presence in the Chamber, but who was the orchestrator of all this. The Minister is right to bring down the numbers, which are now heading in a positive direction. He will know, because of the many times I have contacted him, about the urgency of returning the Sandpiper hotel in Chesterfield to its proper purpose. It is now being massively underutilised. Will the Minister tell us when we are likely to see the Sandpiper, which has done its turn, being returned to proper use? On appeals, can he tell us more about how we will ensure that the cases of those whose appeals have no serious prospect of succeeding can be expedited so that we do not have the appalling backlog in the appeals process?

    Hansard source
30. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Connor Rand

    Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

    I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful speech she is making, and for her campaigning work on this really important issue. I recently met my constituent Susannah, who is a victim of the DES scandal. She spoke movingly about the impact it has had on her life—20 gruelling operations since she was a teenager, precious time with her friends and family lost and the shadow of a life-threatening illness, because of course as a DES sufferer, she is 40 times more likely to suffer from cervical cancer. Does my hon. Friend agree with Susannah and me that the Government should very carefully consider the merits of a full public inquiry into this scandal?

    Hansard source
31. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Alex Barros-Curtis

    Youth Hubs

    5. What recent progress he has made on the expansion of youth hubs.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Alex Barros-Curtis

    Youth Hubs

    I thank my right hon. Friend for that brilliant news, and I hope that they will focus on mathematics skills as well—I could do with some of that. Young people were left behind by the previous Conservative Government, with 13.2% in south-east Wales not in employment, education or training. Youth hubs offer personalised wraparound employment, skills and wellbeing support in targeted areas, so does the Secretary of State agree that the new youth facilities in Cardiff football club and Ely in my constituency, with proper consultation, are a clear demonstration of Labour fixing the mess left by the Conservatives and giving young people the best opportunity in life?

    Hansard source
33. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve in this Committee under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 May. Before I outline the provisions to be made by the statutory instrument, I will briefly provide some context. The Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning, which for the sake of all our time I will now call OPRED, minimises the impact of the offshore oil and gas sector on the environment by controlling air emissions and discharges to sea, and by reducing disturbance over the life cycle of operations, from seismic surveys through to post-decommissioning monitoring. OPRED recoups the eligible costs of its regulatory functions from industry in the offshore oil and gas sector in two ways: first, by using regulations that are covered by these draft fees regulations; and, secondly, by five charging schemes. The charging schemes do not require legislative change and will be amended administratively. OPRED’s average income from fees is about £7.3 million annually, recovered from about 100 companies. Currently, the fees that OPRED charges are based on rates of £210 an hour for environmental specialists and £114 an hour for non-specialists. Environmental specialists are technical staff who carry out the functions of the Secretary of State, and non-specialists are support staff. OPRED’s fees are determined by multiplying the appropriate hourly rate by the number of hours worked by environmental specialists and non-specialist staff. The current hourly rates have been in force since July 2025. Having reviewed its cost base, OPRED has concluded that the existing rates needed to be revised to reflect today’s costs for regulatory services. During the review, OPRED also identified that some regulatory costs were not being fully recovered, in particular the cost of statutory advice from nature conservation bodies and certain costs associated with the UK energy portal, which is OPRED’s digital system for delivering regulatory services. The revised cost base ensures that all eligible costs are met by those who benefit from the services, rather than by the taxpayer. That is consistent with the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” principles, which require full cost recovery where appropriate. The revised hourly rates were approved by the Treasury in January 2026. The draft fees regulations will amend the charging provisions by increasing the hourly rate for environmental specialists to £256 and for non-specialists to £130—there will be a quiz at the end to make sure that people know the difference between those two sets of numbers. OPRED formally consulted the offshore industry on the rate change proposals and the cost base revision in February this year. The consultation, which launched on 17 February and closed on 13 March, sought views on the proposed rates and their implementation, and we received five responses. While that is a limited number of responses, the issues raised were broadly consistent. Respondents commented primarily on the scale of the proposed increases, including the cumulative impact over successive financial years, and made comparisons with inflation rates, and they expressed concerns about the transparency of the underlying cost base and the timing of implementation. OPRED considered the consultation responses and concluded that the new rates accurately reflect the cost of carrying out its regulatory functions, despite being higher than the rate of inflation. OPRED acknowledged that the timing of the rate increase could cause issues for industry in relation to planning and budgeting, but it saw this as part of an anticipated annual process. The new hourly rates are expected to be brought into effect at the beginning of July, in line with rate changes in previous years. OPRED concluded that failure to implement the revised rates would result in costs falling on the taxpayer, rather than on those benefiting from its services. OPRED determined that the rates should be increased in accordance with the proposals in the consultation. A formal response was published in April 2026. OPRED’s fees regime guidance will be revised to reflect the new hourly rates. I conclude by emphasising that the revisions to the hourly rates introduced by the draft regulations will allow OPRED to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from those who benefit from them, rather than those costs falling on the taxpayer. I hope that all hon. Members will support the measure.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026

    The shadow Minister and I have this bout regularly, and he makes the same points as he always does. I congratulate him on the one by-election that his party has won, but I am afraid that I do not have time to name all the by-elections it has lost in recent years. However, I am absolutely delighted to find a bit of consensus between our two parties, and I welcome his support for the regulations. On the wider point, as I have said repeatedly, our domestic oil and gas industry is hugely important and will continue to be so for many years to come, but so too is investing in the future of our energy industry beyond oil and gas. I hope that the same consensus we saw at the start of the shadow Minister’s speech might yet be found on our wider investment in the North sea, which benefits his constituents and indeed those of the new hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden). Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    Cabinet Office

    I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which could not be more timely given the crucial NATO summit next week in Ankara. I was hoping that we would be inundated with contributions from across the House, but sadly it looks as though we might be limited to one or two. Keeping the country safe is the first responsibility of any Government. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has undertaken a huge amount of work during this Parliament to examine the Government’s approach to protecting the UK’s national security interests. From critical national infrastructure to the defence of our very democracy, our Committee has been working hard to highlight areas in need of vital improvement. There is no one “National Security Department”, of course, but the Cabinet Office co-ordinates the Government’s approach to national security and is the home of the national security secretariat. The Cabinet Office’s main estimate states that it plans to spend about £1.1 billion on day-to-day running costs and £600 million on investment projects, of which around £200 million in day-to-day costs and £25 million in investment will go towards keeping the country safe. However, national security is, at its core, a whole-of-Government responsibility, and it is therefore often difficult to get a handle on how much is being spent on the UK’s security and resilience—a point that I made to the Backbench Business Committee. In an era of unprecedented uncertainty and hybrid warfare, the case for increased spending on security and resilience could not be stronger. We see a proliferation of threats not just from hostile state actors, but from organised proxy groups and radicalised individuals. Take the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover in August 2025. The New York Times now reports that it was Russian in origin, and the evidence suggests that the Kremlin was either directly responsible for it or responsible for facilitating it through proxy actors. The impact was severe: it cost the British economy £2.5 billion, directly cost Jaguar Land Rover £485 million in the quarter and affected more than 5,000 firms. It was so significant that it impacted our quarterly growth figures. Threats are increasingly facilitated through the weaponisation of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and quantum. Those who would seek to destabilise our democracy, our safety and our way of life have more opportunities than ever before to do so, and they know that. Meanwhile, the Government and NATO allies have already acknowledged this reality with their commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, with 1.5% of that being earmarked for security and resilience.

    Hansard source
36. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    Cabinet Office

    That is such an important point, and I do not think that we as a Chamber have given it enough airtime. If we think about what would happen if any other premier of any other country was attacked like that—their home attacked and their car set on fire—the reaction from the media was quite muted. Now that it has become more obvious what happened, despite all the nonsense that circulated on social media at the time, it is important that that conversation happens. We are at a crucial juncture, as the hon. Member suggested. We are running out of time to ensure that we are prepared for a worst-case scenario of increasing Russian aggression, both conventional and hybrid. At a time when the United States’ security presence in Europe is being questioned, the threat from China looms ever larger, and the UK finds itself in a difficult position as a middle power in the midst of global strategic competition between the United States and China. As such, it is imperative that the Government are robustly held to account in delivering their spending commitments on defence, security and resilience.

    Hansard source
37. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    Cabinet Office

    The hon. Member is absolutely right. The nature of our security is so multifaceted now in a way that it would not have been 30 years ago. Globally, we are beginning to get our heads around—I am sure the Government recognise this—how we need to pivot and reset ourselves into a very different defence and security posture, because our defence is as much on our mobile phone and our laptops, and to our way of life and our democracy, as it is at our borders, and that is crucial. My Committee was encouraged to hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Government believe that they are on track to hit the target of 1.5% of GDP on security and resilience by 2035 by 2027—well ahead of time. But they have also been evasive on exactly what the spend will entail. Like any target, there is a risk of money being merely shuffled from one pot to another—an administrative exercise rather than genuine additional funding. My Committee recommended that the spending is prioritised on investment in systems that can help build long-term resilience, in addition to spending on maintenance of basic civil infrastructure. When we questioned the Minister, we sought to clarify what new resilience projects and capabilities the 1.5% would entail. We were given, I am afraid to say, only vague answers. Disappointingly, the Government’s response to our report on the national security strategy failed to elucidate much further. We recognise that there are reasons for being protective about certain information and not disclosing too much detail, but we seek more specificity in exactly how the Government are making critical infrastructure in the UK more resilient through this spending. In fact, I recently met the high commissioner of Canada who explained that they are investing hundreds of millions in large-scale infrastructure projects in their part of the High North, be it railways, road networks or deep sea ports. They are all planned to boost resilience across the nation.

    Hansard source
38. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    Cabinet Office

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not been to Canada in recent decades, but I am hearing that its approach should be of real interest to us, including how it is prioritising certain sectors and has identified certain capabilities. Although people are protective about what those capabilities might be, I would certainly welcome conversations behind closed doors with Ministers about what we are looking to do in a similar vein. It is striking that the Canadians are outlining their major projects and how they will spend their money, but they are also focusing on their capabilities. Here we have suffered from a lack of long-term commitment to investing in national security and preparedness. Our Government must also clearly outline what additional capabilities they are committed to developing through the target spend, prior to the start of the NATO summit next week. We need a national conversation about our nation’s defence and security. Over the last 18 months my Committee has heard repeatedly about the need to get the public on board when it comes to increased spending on defence, resilience and security. With the public purse under such strain, our constituents must understand why spending on such areas must be prioritised.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    Cabinet Office

    As if on cue, the hon. Member’s point is one I am just about to develop. The strategic defence review called for a national conversation, and during our inquiry on societal resilience we heard much about how our allies are engaging their citizens with that essential work. The UK is, I am afraid, a little behind the curve. Beyond the Baltic and Scandinavian nations, whose security and resilience is well documented, other nations are also moving up a gear. Their Governments engage significant numbers of military reserves, volunteers, firefighters, private defence organisations and NGOs in that conversation. In certain countries, everyone between the ages of 18 and 65 has a role in resilience—every single person. Some countries conduct wargame exercises on civilian defence, to identify weaknesses in their systems. Less obvious countries such as the Netherlands and Canada are making painful choices that are necessary to ensure that societal resilience can be strengthened. The situation warrants a reset of our whole approach to resilience and security, but to do that we must bring the public with us through a national conversation.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    Cabinet Office

    I thank the hon. Member, who I would also call a friend, not just for his kind words, but for his valuable contributions to the Committee over the past 18 months or so. Yes, it is vital that we engage the public, and it is incumbent on our media to start spelling some of this stuff out—not fearmongering, but explaining some of the harsh realities of what we face. There are certain nations who wish us absolute harm—we are their public enemy No. 1. We need to be much more open about that in our discourse with the public, not so as they become overly alarmed—as I may have been as a kid growing up—but so that they recognise the sorts of pressures that we face economically, socially and militarily. The situation demands that we bring the public along with us. The Committee has discussed how we develop that nationwide conversation, possibly including an education programme, by being more honest with the public about the threats that the UK faces. The pandemic highlighted huge gaps in our country and society’s resilience. Are we ready for the next crisis that might be heading our way? We must not fearmonger, but the Government must learn all they can from our allies who are further ahead of us with spending on resilience and preparedness. I want to stress that the situation was obvious to the last Government too. It is increasingly clear that for too long the UK has outsourced its security and resilience needs elsewhere, and is now entirely dependent on others for critical elements of its infrastructure. It is only through increasing the scale of investment in its sovereign capabilities, particularly in the realm of emerging technologies, that we can wean ourselves off these dependencies. The defence investment plan is crucial. It is essential in guiding businesses and investors. Direction is needed, as well as dynamism and agility. At a time when UK firms need certainty, we still lack clarity on exactly how investment will be allocated. As we highlighted in our report on the national security strategy, the longer businesses lack an adequate signal from Government about what investment might be on the way, the more vulnerable they are to acquisition by foreign investors and the more difficult it becomes to achieve our sovereignty goals. The Government have made steps in the right direction through investments as part of the AI opportunities action plan and the work of the sovereign AI unit. Those are to be commended. The UK has a strong base of talent in those technologies, but the Government need to go further and faster to secure our advantage in the long term. Now is the time to secure the investment, the jobs and economic security we need through a proper digital sovereignty strategy. As we saw last week in the series of cyber-attacks, economic security is national security. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will continue to fulfil its role and to press the Government on all these points and more in a constructive and collaborative way, as it has done these past 18 months. It is only through robust challenge and scrutiny that we can ensure the Government are doing all they can to keep the people, businesses and critical systems of the UK safe and secure. As Lord Robertson of Port Ellen told the Committee earlier this year, “it is much better to pay for deterrence than to pay for war.” It is also, ultimately, less costly. I urge the Government to take heed.

    Hansard source