partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Zöe Franklin

   Draft Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I appreciate that these draft regulations are technical, but they touch on issues that directly impact families in my constituency, particularly those of children with special educational needs. I hope that the Minister will bear with me and be able to clarify a number of issues. In Guildford and across Surrey, the shortage of specialist state school places has reached an unacceptable level. Parents are telling me repeatedly that there is simply nowhere appropriate for their child to go. Sometimes, children are placed miles from home and are left in settings that are unsuitable. As Surrey county council cannot always meet its statutory duties, it is increasingly reliant on expensive private placements or pupil referral units. Those do great work, but they were never designed to support children with significant and long-term special educational needs. I see that the regulations expand procedural powers around PRUs. What safeguards will ensure that councils, including Surrey county council, do not end up using the PRUs as a substitute for specialist provision that they are unable or have failed to deliver? PRUs play an important role, but they should not be the default destination for children whose needs are not being met elsewhere. Another concern I have is that, if the Government are altering how new schools are proposed and approved, where is the guarantee that councils will plan and build the necessary specialist provision? We see this in Guildford and in Surrey. The number of children who need specialist placements but do not have them is unacceptable, and the track record on place planning is not great. Families are left waiting, fighting and appealing, all because state provision just does not exist. The draft regulations assume a level of competence and capacity in local authorities that, sadly, in my county council is not always borne out by experience, despite some fantastic officers. Could the Minister set out how we will ensure accountability in proper place planning? Ultimately, my Lib Dem colleagues and I support the SI measures, but I would appreciate if the Minister could explain how the regulations will ensure the provision of high-quality, state-funded specialist support. What assurances can she give to families in my constituency that failures will not continue to be repeated?

   Hansard source
2. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Zöe Franklin

   Topical Questions

   My constituent was repeatedly sexually abused by a family member, who received four concurrent 28-year prison sentences. He threatened to murder her during the trial. After serving about 10 years, he was transferred to the Netherlands, where he was released immediately. My constituent lives in fear of his returning to the UK and carrying out the threats that he made towards her. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this complex case, and will he commit to reviewing international prisoner transfer arrangements that have the practical effect of allowing dangerous offenders to be released far earlier than the UK courts intended?

   Hansard source
3. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Wera Hobhouse

   Topical Questions

   T3. Hundreds of women are secretly filmed on nights out. The clips are then put online, accompanied by horrible, misogynistic comments. They are viewed millions of times, often to make a profit. What steps is the Department taking to close the current gaps in legislation and stop this vile of abuse of women on nights out?

   Hansard source
4. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Magistrate Numbers

   Yesterday I joined members of the Justice Committee, including the Chair, on a trip to Nottingham as part of our review into youth justice. I want to press the Secretary of State a little further on the age of magistrates, because we were told that there is a real concern about recruiting people who have only a few years of work to go, as that is not a sustainable way forward. There was also a concern about the lack of legal advisers, which, although more are being recruited, is still causing a problem. Will he comment on the relationship between legal advisers and magistrates?

   Hansard source
5. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Victoria Collins

   Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026

   It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats of course support this instrument; Ofcom has fulfilled its duties under the original direction and the legislative housekeeping is sensible. However, the Minister talks about modern mobile services, innovation and investment, and in light of that it is right to use this opportunity to highlight that for millions of people across the UK, high-speed mobile broadband and mobile services remain a distant promise rather than a daily reality. In my own constituency, just 20 minutes from London, constituents regularly write to me about patchy or non-existent mobile coverage. That is not just a problem of rural remoteness; there are people living on streets where their neighbour has full signal and they have none. Michael from Gaddesden Row, for example, has no 4G signal and very slow wi-fi, while his neighbours just down the street have double his speed of connection. I have also heard from many constituents who cannot reliably pay for parking on their own high streets because the connectivity is simply not there. We are happy to support the removal of a direction that has served its purpose, but can the Minister tell me when constituents across the country will genuinely be able to access the high-speed mobile broadband infrastructure that this legislation was supposed to help to deliver?

   Hansard source
6. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

   Antisemitism: University Campuses

   It is an honour to serve under your guidance in the Chair this afternoon, Sir John, and a genuine privilege to follow the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards); I congratulate him on making an excellent speech, on putting this issue forward and on giving it the prominence that it deserves. Like him, I was a sabbatical union officer—some time before him, I suspect. In the late ’80s and early ’90s, I was a member of the national executive of the National Union of Students, when the marvellous Maeve Sherlock, now Baroness Sherlock, was president, followed a year after by a friend of many of us here, Stephen Twigg. I remember the role that the Union of Jewish Students played not just through the Jewish society in Newcastle University, where I went, but nationally. It was a place where I felt safe as a non-Jewish person spending time with Jewish students who just wanted to talk about the things that students mulled over in the late ’80s—normally the fate of Margaret Thatcher and other such things. I was aware even then, in a perhaps less fevered time, of the threats to Jewish people, as someone who comes from a gentile background and a relatively non-diverse part of north-west England. As I became friends with many in the JSoc at Newcastle, I understood what it means to live life as a Jewish person and the persecution that is always around the corner. Antisemitism is perhaps the oldest and most insidious form of racism—and all forms of racism are thoroughly evil. I pay tribute to the UJS again today for the work it is doing in even more fevered and dangerous times: supporting its members, reassuring Jewish families and challenging university establishments so that they actively take care of Jewish students and positively fight against antisemitism on campuses. I recall being in this place a week or a fortnight after the 7 October pogrom. I was in Portcullis House at about 8 o’clock in the evening, and saw two Jewish friends of mine having a cup of tea in the atrium, as everything else had closed. “Why are you still here at this time?” I asked them, and their answer was, “I don’t feel safe going out in this”—there were, of course, anti-Israel, pro-Palestine protests taking place on the street right around Westminster. As the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley said, it is perfectly legitimate to strongly criticise the Israeli Government; I do it all the time. Netanyahu is an appalling man and the current Israeli Government are guilty of all sorts of terrible actions. That is probably the view of the majority of citizens in Israel, and we await an election there with some eagerness. Nevertheless, let us remind ourselves what it means for two young Jewish people to feel that they cannot leave this building when there are protests of that sort going on outside. Give me all the what ifs and what abouts—that does not change the fact that two Jewish people felt unsafe walking on our streets. All of us here have security at our surgeries these days. We regret that we have to have it, but after the deaths of our dear friends Jo Cox and David Amess, we accept it. Last week, I was talking to the security guard at my surgery in Kendal. He said his work has increasingly been around Greater Manchester supporting Jewish communities at primary school gates and synagogues. It occurred to me that I can just walk into our local primary school and go to my church without any thought whatsoever of security. Yet for some Jewish people in our communities, these are not safe spaces to go. We have heard accurate reports of Jewish children who go to Jewish schools being told not to wear their uniform on public transport. That should make us shudder and feel totally appalled. In the past couple of years, I have been privileged, as many Members have, to meet with the hostages’ families. We post supportive comments on social media and then see the bile we get for having done that. That gives us a tiny fraction of a sense of what it must be like to be Jewish in this utterly toxic environment. Earlier this year, I was privileged to do something that I had never done before: I took advantage of a four-day visit to the west bank and Israel. I am obviously not an expert from having spent that time there, but it gave me great insight. It gave me the opportunity to meet with victims of the Nova festival massacre and visit a kibbutz where Hamas murderers—racist, violent thugs—attacked and murdered people in front of their children and children in front of their parents. I got a sense of why the people of Israel feel a sense of utter and complete collective trauma. Unless we understand that, we will not have wise reactions to what is happening. Again, that does not change the fact that I am a complete opponent of the current Israeli Government, but we can separate that from the question of believing that the state of Israel has a right to exist and the people of Israel have a right to self-determination. I saw how appalling the illegal settlements on the west bank are. I saw how the Israeli Government withholds tax money from the Palestinian Authority in the west bank. That is costing schools and hospitals and causing active harm. I spoke to many Palestinians and saw many things that I am deeply angry at the Israeli Government for, but I also saw a country that is the only liberal democracy in the middle east, which we should be careful to respect. I also recognise how important Israel is in the hearts and minds of so many Jewish people around the world and in this country. If we conflate the Jewish people with the state of Israel, and especially with the actions of the current Israeli Government, we will have sadly tip-toed, if not strode confidently, into antisemitism. The Minister will be unsurprised to hear me ask: what can we proactively do to tackle antisemitism in education? My constituency may not be the most diverse, but, as the Minister and hon. Members will know, it is the place where half of the children who survived the Nazi death camps were rehabilitated in August 1945. They are collectively known as the Windermere children, and we are deeply proud of their legacy. Some are still with us, but sadly most have now passed on. Their story is one of the horrors of the consequences of antisemitism in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, but there is a little extra something to the story of the Windermere children. It is a story not just of the horror of the death camps and of where antisemitism can lead, but of hope and what it meant for those young people when they began life on the banks of Windermere in my constituency. Those young people, in their own words, went “from hell to heaven.” They went from the horrors they had experienced to being welcomed by a country that they fell in love with, served and became utterly committed citizens of. That is a reminder of what is true about Britain—certainly in my community, and everywhere else as well. In our hearts, we are an accepting and tolerant people. That does not apply only to our Jewish communities, of whom we are deeply proud. As the Minister knows, we have put a bid in to honour the lasting legacy of the Windermere children by rebuilding the Lakes school on the site where they lived. It will be a place for Holocaust education and remembrance, where hope can be built for a country that does not tolerate antisemitism and where we teach a hatred of hatred to the youngest in our society. That is a real opportunity, and I ask the Minister to look favourably on the bid to rebuild the school and create a lasting memorial to the Windermere children. Antisemitism is with us in every single generation, as is racism of all kinds, and that makes me angry, but it is our job to sow the seeds to tackle antisemitism from the youngest possible age and to declare proudly that this is a country where we welcome our Jewish family and friends—our brothers and sisters—and that we support and stand alongside them against the scourge of antisemitism.

   Hansard source
7. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

   High Streets

   The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. I concur with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The removal of banks from our high streets and village centres in Westmorland has had a huge impact. The relationship with post offices is important. High street banks have saved about £2 billion every single year by evacuating our town and village centres. For doing their work, post offices receive from the banks merely £350 million a year, less than 20% of that saving. Does the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) agree that to underpin our post offices, which are the centre of our village and town centres, the banks need to pay more of what they have saved?

   Hansard source
8. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

   Court Transcripts

   13. What steps he is taking to make all court transcripts free for victims.

   Hansard source
9. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

   Court Transcripts

   I am particularly keen that this matter is progressed at speed, because the fees for victims who want to get their transcripts are eye-watering. My constituent is a victim of domestic violence and her barrister needs transcripts of her hearing in the family court now to appeal against procedural irregularities and errors in the published judgment, but the transcripts will cost her thousands of pounds. Will the Minister address this gross inequality and waive court transcript fees as soon as she can for all victims, including for the family courts—with the requisite redactions to protect anonymity of the parties—to ensure robust justice, transparency and fairness for all?

   Hansard source
10. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Susan Murray

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate. Local businesses are the heart and soul of our communities. The independent café, the family butcher and the local hardware shop create jobs, pay taxes and invest in our communities. They are the reason people feel proud of where they come from.

    Hansard source
11. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Susan Murray

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on business rates. I have heard repeatedly from businesses in Mid Dunbartonshire that they are unable to afford to hire young people and give them their first experience of work, or that they have had to cut their hours due to rising costs. At the same time that they are being hit by rising costs and static VAT thresholds, they are competing with online giants that pay a fraction of the tax they pay. Amazon’s five main UK companies paid just 7.1% corporation tax last year, while our main high street businesses are expected to pay 25%. The Government have the ability to put us on a different path by cutting VAT for hospitality and attractions. Our cafés and restaurants are the beating heart of the high street. They bring footfall, they create atmosphere, they give people a reason to go to town centres, and they create community. A great example of this is the Bookmonger at Bearsden Cross, which celebrates its first birthday on 11 July. Aside from transforming the Cross with a new, fresh business idea, Caitlyn, who owns the business, is a cancer survivor who raises a lot of money for the Beatson cancer centre in Glasgow, and I hope that this business can also survive. The Government should close loopholes that allow online giants to pay a fraction of the tax that our high street traders pay in full. We cannot ask local businesses to compete with not only the economies of scale that those conglomerates bring, but a tax system rigged to punish those who play by the rules. The sad truth is that the soul of our town centres is being slowly eroded: businesses are taxed into administration, their customers have moved online and our favourite shops are slowly replaced by the neon signs of vape shops and barbers. The Government have a choice to back our local businesses.

    Hansard source
12. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Susan Murray

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need more powers to make sure that the playing field is fair for local businesses in our town centres. Finally, I ask the Government not to continue loading costs on businesses that hold our town centres together. I ask them to review business rates, cut VAT for hospitality, level the playing field on corporation tax and back the businesses that make us proud of where we come from.

    Hansard source
13. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steve Darling

    Department for Work and Pensions

    There are 96,000 civil servants working for the DWP; it is very much a leviathan. Most of those that I have come across are incredibly committed individuals who are professional and want to do the best for their community. What a sad thing it is that it feels like they are lions led by donkeys. When the Work and Pensions Committee has engaged with senior civil servants and the Secretary of State, it feels as if they are trying to wrestle a greased pig; there is a lack of grip and engagement with some of the challenges, and there are many moving parts in the DWP. When they come to wrestle the pig, it is disturbing that they then discover that the Chancellor has set them up to fail with the national insurance hike, which has sabotaged the opportunities for many young people who then end up NEET. It is also disturbing that there has been a failure to properly reform business rates and manage utility bills, which continue to be an issue, particularly for our hospitality sector. There is much that I had hoped to cover in this speech, but I will cover just a couple of areas. Access to Work is a scheme that can result in real opportunities for people with disabilities or long-term illnesses. The Public Accounts Committee published a report on 12 June which highlighted that the target date for dealing with new Access to Work claims is five weeks, but it now takes up to 37 weeks. That puts people with disabilities and their employers in an invidious situation. Again, we need better tech to process claims, simpler systems and, as the Public Accounts Committee said, a firmer grip on the situation. At the other end of the spectrum are the WASPI women—women who the Labour party campaigned with before the general election, made promises to and then promptly dropped like a hot potato. Labour Members said all the right things when the report came out—they even apologised—but they failed to deliver the compensation. WASPI women have again resorted to judicial review, but there need to be safeguards around the cost challenge that they face. The Government are failing to give those assurances. While it does not interfere with the judicial review, will the Minister give some assurances about the cost limitation for those campaigners? WASPI women deserve their day in court. I would welcome the Minister commenting on what appear to be 130 job cuts at Cotswold House in Torquay, which were announced last week by the Department for Work and Pensions. There are alternative locations elsewhere in the country for those people, but there are none in Torquay. That is disturbing. The DWP took on new, young people at entry-level jobs only in March, yet a few short weeks later they are effectively on notice. They either have to move to Exeter or Plymouth to work or be out of a job. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

    Hansard source
14. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Olney

    Financial Inclusion: Young People

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on his work to secure this debate and his excellent opening remarks. The decline of high street services has been an ongoing issue in the UK, with banks and other essential services disappearing at an increasing rate. Local high streets provide a variety of vital services to their local communities, but the current landscape is extremely challenging for many local enterprises. I join other Members by referring to my first job, which was at WH Smith on Camberley High Street; I reflect on how many of the jobs from our small sample this afternoon were in a retail environment on a local high street, and how important that is for young people looking to get their foot on the ladder of a future career. I am sure that colleagues from across the House have heard from countless local businesses in their constituencies, on their high streets and in the hearts of their communities, about the challenges they face, from the Government’s national insurance contributions rise to sky-high energy bills, and uncertainty about what the Employment Rights Act 2025 means for them. This is placing an unsustainable burden on many businesses and services. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 bank branches have closed across the UK, due to declining in-person transactions and the rise of online banking. Many villages and small towns now do not have even a single bank, forcing residents to travel long distances for financial services. These challenges are often compounded by limited broadband or limited access to the internet, leading to swathes of people in rural communities being excluded from online services and digital banking. Alternative solutions such as banking hubs are emerging, but there are not enough of them. The Government should be facilitating more to ensure that people across the country can access vital services when they need them and to prevent digital exclusion. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the inequality of provision as the 5G network is rolled out. We believe it is wrong that people should be disadvantaged simply because of where they live. I urge the Government to prioritise major investment in broadband for underserved communities. It is deeply concerning that some 2.4 million people are unable to complete basic tasks such as opening an internet browser and that over 5 million employed adults cannot complete essential digital work tasks. It is reported that basic digital skills will become the UK’s largest skills gap by 2030. Beyond that, 1.7 million households have no mobile or broadband internet at home, and around 1 million people have cut back or cancelled internet packages in the past year, as cost of living challenges have forced people to find ways to cut and save. As we live in an increasingly digital world, the lack of access to digital services will exacerbate the difficulties faced by young people in trying to get their first job. The Liberal Democrats made a manifesto commitment to introduce a national financial inclusion strategy, requiring both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to have regard to financial inclusion, such as protecting access to cash, especially in remote areas, supporting banking hubs and expanding access to bank accounts. We are also supportive of the introduction of a fair banking Act in the UK to help to tackle financial exclusion. Compared with similar economies, the UK has some of the worst levels of financial exclusion, leaving millions without access to essential financial services. Even before the pandemic, over 10 million people in the UK were unable to access affordable credit, with over 3 million resorting to high-cost lenders such as payday loan providers, which often charge extortionate interest rates. Small businesses also struggle to secure fair financing and receive only a small fraction of bank lending. This has created a multibillion-pound financing gap that stifles economic growth, particularly in underserved regions outside London and the south-east, as well as within marginalised communities. We must do more to bring an end to the affordable credit crisis and help millions of people who are struggling with unsustainable debt. Regarding broader financial inclusion in education, a lack of financial engagement is an issue that permeates much of the UK beyond the younger generation. Research by TheCityUK shows that the UK has relatively low levels of retail investment compared with international peers, which has implications both for long-term household outcomes and for how effectively domestic savings are channelled into the real economy. Britain’s investment gap undermines our economic future. The Financial Conduct Authority estimates that around 22 million adults with £10,000 or more in cash savings might be missing out on the benefits of investing, and many small businesses are missing out on the benefits of receiving that investment, which would help them to grow. The UK continues to have a relatively narrow base of retail participation, with a significant proportion of households not engaging in market-based investment products at all. This limits both wealth creation at the individual level and the breadth of capital available to UK markets. One in four UK adults invest outside their pension, which is the lowest rate in the G7. It is a structural brake on household wealth, economic growth and social mobility. This is a systemic challenge. Low levels of retail investment reinforce economic inequalities, weaken the link between savers and UK businesses, and reduce the overall effectiveness of the UK’s saving and investment ecosystem. Mobilising long-term savings into productive investment is central to unlocking future growth, strengthening UK capital markets and ensuring that the UK remains internationally competitive. The investment gap reinforces financial inequality. Those who invest pull further ahead while millions remain outside the wealth creation system. Proactive individual investment can help to bridge the gap, offering the potential for higher returns and greater financial security in later life. However, that requires proper financial education, and the gains are so much greater when young people can start investing earlier and see the value of investing. The recent review of youth unemployment warned that one in six young people will not be in education, employment or training in five years unless action is taken, with more than 1 million already not in education, employment or training. That is a really alarming figure. The Liberal Democrats repeatedly warned that Labour’s job tax would hammer job opportunities for young people, and that their business rates hikes would kill off high street job opportunities that give so many young people their first job. The Government must urgently take action to unlock the skills and opportunities that young people need to build a future they can believe in, and that includes, critically, ensuring access to financial education, financial services and employment.

    Hansard source
15. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Green

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the closure order powers that we have in this country are not fit for purpose? Until local authorities have the power to act swiftly and decisively, organised criminals will continue to exploit our high streets with impunity.

    Hansard source
16. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Gibson

    Topical Questions

    Will the Minister join me in thanking and paying tribute to Carole Gould and Julie Devey from the action group Killed Women? They are constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who unfortunately cannot be here due to ill health. Will the Minister pay tribute to the enormous dedication, persistence and courage that they have shown in trying to get changes to sentencing for domestic abuse?

    Hansard source
17. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

    High Streets

    We are talking about vacant shops, but there is also a lot of antisocial behaviour on our high streets, which in some cases is largely due to the existence of vacant shops. I was speaking to the headteacher of a school in Glastonbury that is based just off the high street. The children there are already vulnerable; they are being exposed to violence and antisocial behaviour on the way to school, and teachers cannot get into school safely because there are altercations and violent incidents daily. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current arrangements for managing some prolific and repeat offenders are simply not working, and that we need to make our high streets a safer place?

    Hansard source
18. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

    High Streets

    The Minister is talking about driving footfall, but driving footfall in rural areas is sometimes quite difficult because of the sparsity. Rural high streets face significant challenges—if car parking charges are forced on our local authorities, for example. Will the Minister outline what specific support she is putting in place to help our rural high streets to thrive?

    Hansard source
19. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Dyke

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    A retired paediatrician and constituent told me recently that after giving 50 years’ service to the children of the NHS, she was devastated by the treatment of mothers and babies and loyal staff, whose concerns are routinely ignored, as when Yeovil’s specialist baby unit was recently closed without notice. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new maternity commissioner, will the Secretary of State set out how the commissioner will intervene in a trust like Somerset, rather than simply reporting on failures after harm has been caused?

    Hansard source
20. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Topical Questions

    Following an attack that led to long-term mental and physical health difficulties, a constituent got a disappointing offer of compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, after a two-and-a-half-year delay. It took an appeal and my intervention for her to finally be offered fair compensation. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that victims of crime receive a good service when applying for criminal injury compensation?

    Hansard source
21. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wrote to the Justice Minister in the other place, Baroness Levitt, on 20 March this year on behalf of my constituent Lowrie Roberts, regarding the existing policy and legal framework relating to contact rights between extended family and children following parental separation. Despite repeatedly chasing a response by email and by written parliamentary question, I have yet to receive a response for my constituent. I would like your advice on how I might be able to secure a response from the Ministry of Justice.

    Hansard source
22. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

    Culture, Media And Sport

    I congratulate the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), on securing this important debate on sport and youth services. The debate is timely because it coincides with the world cup and Wimbledon—and yes, like other hon. and right hon. Members, I will be hiding behind a sofa somewhere on the estate from 5 pm tomorrow for the England match. It is also timely because it coincides with the recent publication of the Milburn report and this week’s findings from the Children’s Commissioner that show a 10% rise in children and young people’s referrals to mental health services over the past year. For too long, sport and youth services have been an afterthought for Government. As many hon. Members have already said, young people need space and the opportunity to express themselves, and they need trusted role models and structure in their lives. Both sports and youth services give them the chance to discover their talents and build their confidence, as well as helping them improve their mental and physical health. Yet the Milburn report showed that failing to invest in prevention carries through into poorer education and employment outcomes. If we want happy, healthy, hopeful and productive adults, we must first invest in happy, healthy and hopeful children and young people. I strongly support the Select Committee’s recommendations to hardwire two hours of physical education into the school week. PE is funded largely by the Department for Education, with some support from the Department of Health and Social Care—although we know that there has recently been a tussle between the two over funding. The resulting announcement saw annual funding for PE slashed by a staggering 22% under the Government’s new PE and School Sport Partnerships Network, with primary schools hit the hardest. The cuts are being rushed through mid-year, leaving teachers, parents and sports co-ordinators scrambling. That comes at the worst possible moment. In England, 2.1 million young people do less than 30 minutes’ physical activity a day and only 57% of teachers say their schools deliver the recommended two hours of PE each week. Sky’s “Game Changing” report estimates a participation gap between girls and boys in secondary school of a staggering 280,000,000 hours of sport per year. If we want to see many more years of Lionesses and Red Roses lifting trophies, we need to invest in the next generation now, through sport both in school and in our communities. Cutting budgets at a time when children need them most—when they are spending more time in front of their screens, as we have just heard—is incomprehensible.

    Hansard source
23. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

    Culture, Media And Sport

    Partnerships are valuable, of course, and I do not oppose the Government’s approach, but the overall funding envelope is declining and being spread across both primary and secondary schools. This is resulting in a real-terms cut in the sports that are, as we are hearing from both sides of the House, so important to our children’s wellbeing and health. Moving on to grassroots sports more broadly, with Sport England losing its function as a statutory planning consultee, it is hard to see how the Government’s aim of promoting healthy communities can be met when facility provision is declining due to closures, ageing infrastructure and uneven availability. Local authorities are trying their best, but they need help. The Udney Park playing fields in Teddington in my constituency have been lying dormant for over a decade, land banked by developers and out of reach for the local community, who are crying out for additional pitch space. This is not just limited to my constituency. London Sport told the Select Committee that it had had to look at running sports activities in car parks, empty shops and libraries because of the massive disinvestment in parks, leisure and community centres and youth services. As this debate also covers youth services, I want to briefly touch on that, if I may. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a fair, long-term funding settlement to support youth work, resources and infrastructure, so we very much welcome the Government’s national youth strategy, and particularly their promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements. However, we need them to deliver on that promise. Earlier this year, the YMCA reported that spending on youth services by local authorities in England and Wales fell by 10% in a single year, the largest annual reduction since 2016-17. We know that, as well as improving educational outcomes, youth services provide the relational infrastructure that prevents disengagement from becoming entrenched, protects our vulnerable young people and creates a sense of belonging. I have seen for myself what that investment can achieve at the WEST Youth Zone in London, where there are over 30 activities every evening serving a very disadvantaged community. I was told that if those young people did not have that space, they would be in their bedrooms on their phones all the time. In conclusion, as investment in youth services has fallen, spending on youth justice has risen. We need to focus on prevention, whether through youth services or sport, and we hope that the Government’s rhetoric will be matched by investment and a commitment to delivery.

    Hansard source
24. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

    Culture, Media And Sport

    Could the Minister clarify one point for me? The previous PE and sport premium was just for primary schools. Am I right in saying that the new funding she has announced is for primary and secondary schools, and it is therefore being spread across far more schools, so there will be less money per school? How will that help her meet the chief medical officer’s targets?

    Hansard source
25. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Joshua Reynolds

    Magistrate Numbers

    Magistrates are a humongous volunteer force, which the Magistrates’ Association says are close to breaking point. With the Government aiming to increase the number of magistrates to almost 21,000, what will the Secretary of State do to attract more young people and working-age people in full-time roles to that challenging volunteer role, for which they might have to give up some of their paid employment?

    Hansard source
26. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Joshua Reynolds

    Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland

    Businesses across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are concerned that from tomorrow they may face tariffs on the steel that they are importing even if that steel is not manufactured in the United Kingdom in the quantities or grades they need. The Under-Secretary has requested that we write to him with specific examples, and I did so on 19 June on behalf of Hewland Engineering in my constituency, but it is concerned that it has not heard back yet and 1 July is coming quickly. The Minister mentioned in his response to the urgent question that he was working hard to ensure a single market in this area between us and the European Union. The Liberal Democrats are really grateful to hear that, because we have long argued that this friction is an inevitable result of our leaving the European Union and the single market. Will he help support the Liberal Democrats’ campaign to ditch the Government’s red lines and have a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union, along with joining the single market for our new growth and defence partnership with the EU, to help protect British companies and help get Britain growing again?

    Hansard source
27. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

    Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

    The Minister knows that in the highlands we have had three massive pump storage sites move to the next level of development. Cumulatively, they will store 4 GW in an area that has the highest fuel poverty in Britain, at a cost of £5 billion. At the moment, the pumps will do very little for the highland economy, as there will be almost no local jobs, no legacy housing and no community benefit. It is a sorry state; it is all downside and no upside for the people of the highlands. I would love to see that addressed.

    Hansard source
28. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mike Martin

    Defence Investment Plan

    This is a tale of two DIPs. The first DIP is covered by the period in the current spending review, up to about 2030, and the second DIP is the bit beyond that, from 2030 to 2035. The first has detailed spending commitments, and the latter has quite vague spending commitments. The former has small investments and the latter has big investments. I will give two examples: air has £28 billion versus £70 billion, and land has £19 billion versus £36 billion. On behalf of the Government, whoever might be in it by that point, can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the Treasury has guaranteed that those figures will be in the next spending review—that is, that the Defence section of the next spending review has already been written?

    Hansard source
29. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

    Family Justice System

    8. What steps he is taking to reform the family justice system.

    Hansard source
30. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

    Family Justice System

    When family courts decide that care is to be split between parents 50:50, we might expect that fair financial arrangements follow. However, when courts make that ruling, and the Child Maintenance Service makes decisions based on which parent is the recipient of child benefit, one parent often finds they are significantly worse off than the other. Will Ministers have a word with their colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the justice system and the CMS work more closely to achieve financial fairness for both parents in cases where courts rule for 50:50 care splits?

    Hansard source
31. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Liz Jarvis

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    Recommendation 3 of the report calls for improvements to how the system responds when something goes wrong, including providing a sincere apology. Will the Secretary of State apologise now to my constituents Charlotte and James, who lost their baby Norah at Winchester hospital, and to the thousands of families who have suffered the loss of a baby due to systemic failures in NHS maternity care?

    Hansard source
32. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate and setting us up very strongly with his excellent opening remarks. Antisemitism has no place in our society. That should be a simple statement, and it should be agreed by all in this House. The Liberal Democrats have continued to be clear that we must be committed to tackling hatred in all its forms. My constituents care about this issue and they raise it with me. They are worried about the rise of antisemitism in our country. I am grateful to my constituent Caroline from Marple, who came to my advice surgery just this Saturday to share her thoughts about the worrying rise she sees across our country. Even though most believe that antisemitism has no place in the UK, there is evidence that for far too many Jewish students, the university campuses where they should feel free to learn and build friendships have instead become places of fear. The “Time for Change” report from the National Union of Students shows that almost a quarter of Jewish students have witnessed behaviour that targets them for their religion or ethnicity.

    Hansard source
33. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that incident. He will not be surprised to hear that I strongly agree that it is wholly unacceptable and entirely abhorrent. It is a well-trodden path that those who seek to divide us and sow hatred in our community use graffiti, which is a cowardly way to convey a message of hatred and divisiveness. When I was in Bournemouth last year, I felt honoured to be invited to visit the synagogue and its rabbi who had been the subject of an antisemitic graffiti attack on his home. The impact that had on him and the whole community was profound, and I am grateful that he took the time to explain it to me. I can only imagine the fear that must have been felt by those who were targeted. The hon. Member is entirely right that it is wholly unacceptable. The report I mentioned earlier showed that one in five students would be reluctant to, or would never, house-share with a Jewish student—others have mentioned that. In the report, Jewish students described physical and verbal abuse, social exclusion and antisemitic attitudes that have become disturbingly ordinary on the very campuses that are meant to welcome them. Additionally, almost half of students have heard slogans or chants glorifying Hamas, Hezbollah or other proscribed groups. I am grateful to the colleagues who have brought the voices of students into Westminster Hall. The hon. Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the experience of Jewish students on campus, while the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) powerfully reminded us of why we should care about what is happening on university campuses. We have seen, throughout history, what this looks like. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the experience on German university campuses. My grandmother, who was Jewish, came here from Germany in the 1930s at the age of 18—not as a student, but as a domestic worker—because of the climate in which fear and hatred were being sown. As the hon. Member rightly said, it often starts on university campuses. The Liberal Democrats will always defend free speech. Universities should be home to rigorous and well-informed debate, because the freedom to question and explore difficult ideas sits at the heart of academic life. Criticising the actions of any Government, including the Government of Israel, is legitimate and must remain so, but there is a world of difference between vigorous debate and the harassment, intimidation and abuse documented in the report that I mentioned. It is possible, of course—I will say it again—to fairly and rightly criticise the actions of the Government of Israel, but let us be clear: the dangerous antisemitic trope that suggests that British Jewish people are somehow puppets for a foreign state, or that there is a secret conspiracy to exercise undue control over the Government, must be actively called out. We should robustly and unequivocally reject any such antisemitic conspiracy theories. No one should use concerns, whether about foreign interference or otherwise, to stir up hate or to smear and stigmatise the Jewish community on university campuses or elsewhere. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for reminding us of our role in positions of political leadership. Some of our colleagues would do well to remember that their inflammatory statements have an impact. Under the previous Government, the Liberal Democrats did not support the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. We did not believe that it was evidence- based or proportionate, and many universities and student groups, including Jewish student groups, warned that it risked compelling universities to give a platform to speakers with known extremist views. From September, the Office for Students will operate a new complaints scheme that will allow university staff, external speakers and non-student members to make free-speech complaints. The OfS will then investigate claims, and has the power to issue fines. The scheme should not be a mechanism for the back-door legitimisation of hate. More than that, we believe that the Government should bring forward an urgent comprehensive action plan to tackle antisemitism at its root and ensure adequate high-visibility police protection for synagogues, schools and Jewish community centres nationwide. The “Time for Change” report sets out a sensible path and enforceable standards for universities to investigate and punish hate crime, with mandatory reporting to the Office for Students and real sanctions for those who fall short; proper co-ordination between universities, the police and the Government; and sector-wide best practice on Jewish inclusion, including antisemitism awareness training. Other colleagues have mentioned the excellent work of the Antisemitism Policy Trust. I have been lucky enough to benefit from some of its training, which was very strong. We should also welcome initiatives that celebrate Jewish life, not merely defend it. I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who reminded us of the story of the Windermere children. He spoke about how the country could use education to build on our history and foundations, and about how we should push for a hatred of hatred—I warmly welcome that. Universities exist so that students from every background can come together without fear. Right now, that promise is being broken for too many Jewish students. The Liberal Democrats will keep using our voice in this House to speak out against antisemitism in every form. I ask the Government and the Minister to match their words with action and a timeline, to offer Jewish students not just warm assurances but the safety, protection and respect that they are owed.

    Hansard source
34. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Layla Moran

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    I, too, thank Baroness Amos, her team and, most especially, the families who so bravely gave the evidence that has formed this report. Further to the conversation about accountability, the Secretary of State will have noticed that some families are concerned that the commissioner is just one person, and that there is too much for them to do. Can he make clear that the buck stops with him and, indeed, the PM, and that he will not let go of this? The commissioner will report every six months to the Health and Social Care Committee—we welcome that—and once a year to Parliament. Further to that, will he personally commit that the Secretary of State will seek permission from Mr Speaker to make a statement to the House once a year, so that they can be held personally accountable for the progress made too?

    Hansard source
35. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Layla Moran

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on the NHS estimates and, in particular, the impact of the UK-US pharmaceutical deal. Let me start by briefly talking about the estimates themselves. I am sure that every Member has a copy of them; I have one every year. Given that we spend £211 billion on the NHS, it is rather extraordinary that £201 billion of that is simply two lines in this document. Last year, I made a request of the Department of Health and Social Care, in the light of the deal, that we get not just a better breakdown of the costs of the deal, but, more importantly, the ability to scrutinise the estimates. The Treasury’s own guidance says that the information in the estimates should be “informative” to readers. We can all read it, but—goodness me!—it tells us absolutely nothing. My request of the Department again, and much more publicly, is to sort this issue out. Other Departments do this much better, so there is no reason why we cannot. The information exists; it is a question of putting it correctly in a spreadsheet. Today, I hope that we will discuss the pharmaceutical deal. I have to admit that I had seen stuff about the deal, but it was not until a whistleblower came to my surgery that I really began to understand the implications of it. They said: “I am a doctor, a public health specialist, and a NICE employee. I am deeply concerned by the plan to change the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. I continue to believe that the NHS would be better off if ministers decide to scrap their original plan to spend more on new, less good value medicines, and used the money instead to provide basic things that we already know are good value, but don’t manage to provide adequately.” Let us start by explaining what this deal does. It is worth mentioning that it is not a free trade agreement. That is quite important, because we will not get the normal mechanisms of scrutiny. This is one of the only ways that we can scrutinise it. We certainly do not get a proper vote on it. Different Committees of this House have raised that as a key point, so I am delighted that we are able to discuss it. The deal agrees with the USA that there will be no tariffs on UK pharma exports until January 2029, and we have agreed a series of measures in return. The most important of those, which was raised by my whistleblower, is the changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds. We must remember that NICE was set up as an independent body of Government to make health economics assessments for treatment and medicines, to maximise value for money. I do not need to remind the Minister that providing value for money for the taxpayer is in the NHS constitution. The Government gave themselves powers to direct NICE on cost-effectiveness thresholds, raising them from £20,000 to £30,000 up to £25,000 to £35,000 for each quality-adjusted life year. In plain speech, that is basically the amount of money that we would spend on a medicine to increase people’s good life expectancy by one year. Historically, the NHS has had a very good deal on medicines. That is in part because of where the QALY is set; in fact, research has been done that suggests that we could have put the figure even lower. It is not a budget, and does not have to increase with inflation. Some have made that case, and I will come back to that point in a moment. The second part of my speech relates to changes to the rebate mechanism. There is a voluntary agreement between the British pharmaceutical industry companies, and the NHS caps the amount that it spends on branded medicines. If the NHS spends more, it claws back some of the money from those companies. Under the deal, the UK Government are limiting that to 15%, which is down from 22.9%. Let us put those two things together: we have the NHS paying more for medicines, and receiving less back through rebates. There is an agreement in the deal that the UK will increase support for life sciences and spending on new medicines from 0.3% of GDP to 0.6% of GDP by 2036. That is an increase of spending on medicines, particularly, from 10% to 12% of the NHS budget.

    Hansard source
36. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Layla Moran

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I believe that by the end of my speech, the hon. Gentleman and I will be in violent agreement, if we are not already. There is one more aspect of this, incidentally: the supply chains deal, which I understand is being crafted. We do not have time to go into that.

    Hansard source
37. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Layla Moran

    Department of Health and Social Care

    That is a really good point. I will come back to generics, which make up nine in 10 of the medicines that the NHS uses. There is also an issue of devolution here, which I am sure other Members will cover. At the moment it is very complex, and it is not at all clear how the deal will apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular. We cannot divorce this deal from the geopolitics. It is only happening because Trump decided that he wanted to slap tariffs on every country in the world and on a number of different sectors. The reason why the US came after the NHS is that historically, we get an incredibly good deal, but we have to admit—this is why this debate is so important—that we are using the NHS and NICE in geopolitical negotiations to appease the current President of the United States. Although Trump probably wants to be President for much longer than he will be, his term will come to an end, but the effects of this deal will last much longer than the period of time he might be in office, and the amounts of money involved are eye-watering. I wish we had more information in the estimates, but everyone knows the pressure the NHS is under.

    Hansard source
38. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Layla Moran

    Department of Health and Social Care

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that lack of transparency is the nub of my speech today. There are some potential positives in the deal. At the 10 February sitting of the Business and Trade Committee, a representative of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said that zero tariffs and commitments to the pharmaceutical market in the UK were “welcome” and had been “sought for some time”. The Government’s press release points out that patients will get access to innovative new medicines—who does not want that? Of course we all want that, especially those who have incurable cancers and so on, but there is a trade-off. We all want to bolster innovation in the UK. I have an interest—I am the MP for Oxford West and Abingdon. We are the other side of the Oxford-Cambridge growth arc. Biomedical sciences are going to drive my local economy, so I absolutely want that to happen, but there are also some important criticisms of this deal. First, Medicines UK, which represents a large number of pharmaceutical companies based here in the UK, has real concerns. The life sciences sector plan has stalled, and Medicines UK points out that even though the companies it represents supply nine out of 10 medicines to the NHS, those companies are basically not recipients of what is good in this deal. Mark Samuels, its chief executive officer, has also pointed out that while there may be new investment in this country, particularly in R&D, if we want to create jobs and strengthen the economy, we must also address the inadequate support for the production of goods in the UK. That is where long-term value is created, and it is where the UK misses out compared with other countries. I point colleagues to Denmark, for example, which has had extraordinary success in its economy because it not only invests in R&D, but ensures that a proportion of the manufacturing happens in Denmark. That is what drives economic growth. I now turn to the key point, which is the money. We do not know how much this deal is going to cost. There are two suggested amounts: the Institute for Fiscal Studies puts the cost at £9 billion, but the House of Commons Library briefing points out that the 0.6% of GDP in the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast actually amounts to £14 billion. As has been mentioned, that is an eye-watering amount of money, in the same period that we need to be spending money on dentists, GPs, capital investment, attendance at A&E, prevention, the shift to community and the 10-year plan. When we should be seeing money delivered to the frontline, instead we are seeing money diverted to a small number of very large American-based pharmaceutical companies with no transparency, little debate and absolutely no vote in this House. It is the lack of scrutiny that I take issue with, and there are economists who point out that we could have an extra 330,000 excess deaths by 2036. The Minister is looking quizzically at me, but she has information that I do not. It could be that those economists are being alarmist, but maybe they are not. We simply do not know, because the Government refuse to publish the impact assessment owing to commercial sensitivities. Normally at this stage, I have a series of questions, but today—and this not just in the interests of time—I have only one: where is the impact assessment, and if the Government will not release it, what are they hiding?

    Hansard source
39. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Layla Moran

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his speech, because he is showing how important this debate is. A lot of this has not been flushed out. Medicines UK, which is responsible for a lot of the generics that he talks about, disagrees with him, but that is a conversation for another time. My question is specific: does he agree that the lack of transparency behind this deal, and the lack of an impact assessment, is a material issue and that we should ask the Government to release such information?

    Hansard source
40. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Layla Moran

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I am frustrated, because everything the Minister is saying is in the press release. Can she please answer the question? Will the Government release the impact assessment? If they will not, will they at least allow a Select Committee to see it confidentially?

    Hansard source