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. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helen Hayes

   Windrush Day

   I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. I received many messages from others who would have loved dearly to contribute but were unable to come—for reasons to do either with fleeing the weather in London or with the by-elections taking place here—so the relatively small number of speeches should not in any way be interpreted as a lack of interest in Windrush Day. The speeches that we have heard have been excellent. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for sharing her family story and experience, and for raising so clearly the problems with the compensation scheme and the need for urgent further reforms, including independent legal representation and more experienced caseworkers. We must not forget that this work is urgent; the Windrush generation is ageing. It is particularly egregious that people have died while waiting for compensation from the scheme. I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for her recognition of the Windrush generation and for sharing her memories. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for mentioning Andrea Levy and for her tribute to Baroness Benjamin. Sadly, I am old enough to be regarded by Baroness Benjamin as one of her “Play School” babies. She deserves all our respect for her incredible work to secure the national Windrush monument at Waterloo—although I think a few different people would lay claim to being the first person to raise the need for a national Windrush Day. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for responding to the debate, for her heartfelt tribute to the Windrush generation and for agreeing to take our concerns back to colleagues in Government. In my experience, many members of the Windrush generation recognised 18 months ago the reasons for not making the compensation scheme independent. They recognised that reform, if possible, would speed things up, and that people would not be left waiting for so long. However, the Government must take seriously the fact that experiences have not improved to the required extent over the past 18 months, and that there are still calls for independence. We have not seen change at the scale required to address all those concerns. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister took that back and seriously considered the call for independence from Rev. Clive Foster, the Windrush commissioner. Finally, I wish everybody well in their celebrations and commemorations of Windrush Day over the coming days and at the weekend. We must remember that this particular Windrush Day takes place at a very serious time in our history. We must do everything possible to ensure that the cancer of racism cannot take hold in our society. Our task is to support all the wonderful, rich and diverse communities across the country to live well together. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Windrush Day 2026.

   Hansard source
2. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Harpreet Uppal

   Public Procurement: SMEs

   7. What steps he is taking to help support small and medium-sized businesses through reforms to public procurement.

   Hansard source
3. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Harpreet Uppal

   Public Procurement: SMEs

   This week I welcomed Antich & Sons to Parliament. It is a family-owned textiles company that, for the past decade, has been innovating by using traditional local skills and methods to develop 3D weaving techniques and provide cutting-edge advanced material solutions. Given how that aligns with the industrial strategy and the northern growth strategy, what are this Government doing to help companies like Antich & Sons access procurement processes?

   Hansard source
4. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gurinder Singh Josan

   Steel Trade Measure

   I welcome the Minister’s statement and the ministerial team’s engagement with Members to understand the concerns of our businesses. I have previously raised the challenges faced by downstream producers in my Black Country constituency. Pargat Housewares, which uses steel suitable for kitchenware, was facing a 60% hike in raw materials costs, and Hadley Industries is already looking to reduce headcount, which means knock-on effects in its supply chain. I welcome the increase in quotas and the removal of the majority of categories from the scope of the measure, but will the Minister explain how the Department has been and will be working with individual businesses to understand their concerns and support them going forward?

   Hansard source
5. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

   Civil Service Pension Scheme: Insourcing

   6. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of insourcing the civil service pension scheme.

   Hansard source
6. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

   Civil Service Pension Scheme: Insourcing

   Capita has been fined millions for a multitude of past failures and has now failed to handle civil service pensions on a contract that the Tories signed off in November 2023, replacing MyCSP, which faced similar challenges. That has been to the significant detriment of many of my constituents, who are still waiting for payment—one is retired after receiving lifesaving surgery last year, and another is still waiting for payment 11 months on from being bereaved after the death of his wife. Will the Minister—I hope that the Government can answer this closer to the end of June—directly address Capita’s failure, end the contract and insource the civil service pension scheme?

   Hansard source
7. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

   Topical Questions

   Following the Government’s welcome designation of four sectors as critical to national security, we have continued to see an exponential rise in under-investigation Chinese buses on our streets. In my constituency, 125 jobs were put at risk back in March following an SNP grant scheme that sent the lion’s share of the public money to Chinese manufacturers. I will repeat the question I asked the Prime Minister a few weeks ago: will the Minister designate bus manufacturing as a sector critical to national security?

   Hansard source
8. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

   Business of the House

   I welcome the Government’s announcement of a review into the zero emission vehicle mandate, with the objective of slowing the phase-in of ZEV targets. However, I do not believe that this changes the direction of travel for bus manufacturing, which supports 50,000 jobs across the United Kingdom, and is similarly struggling with the rise in imported Chinese electric buses. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from Department for Business and Trade and/or Department for Transport Ministers to update the House on the scope of this reported review?

   Hansard source
9. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

   Houses in Multiple Occupation

   Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me this debate. South Shields is a beautiful constituency, with our gorgeous coastline matched only by our friendly, lovely locals. Houses in multiple occupation are buildings or flats in which two or more households share a bathroom, toilet or cooking facilities. It is important to make the distinction, when discussing HMOs today, that I am not discussing supported accommodation, which provides much-needed care, supervision and support for those in need, nor am I discussing student accommodation or blocks of self-contained flats. This debate is also not about well-managed HMOs, because in South Shields they are not the majority of our HMOs, nor is this about stigmatising residents of HMOs, who, without a room in an HMO, would be homeless and literally have nowhere else to go. It is also not about asylum seekers in temporary accommodation. We have a welcoming community in South Shields, and have never turned away anyone in genuine need or seeking protection from conflict, war or persecution. The fact that HMOs are used as a substitute for good social housing or supported living environments is a result of the failure of successive Governments to build enough affordable homes. It is a false economy, though, to saturate an area with HMOs instead of focusing on building good-quality social housing. I know the Government are taking steps to address this, but progress is painfully slow. I have been to visit some of our HMOs in South Shields, and they are absolutely shocking. People living in HMOs deserve better, and my constituents putting up with the badly run HMOs blighting our community deserve better, too. In South Tyneside, we have approximately 60 HMOs, 51 of which are in my constituency. That accounts for 85% of the total across our small local authority. However, since a licence for an HMO is needed only if there are five or more people living in it, we really do not know how many they are. Smaller HMOs are not accounted for in the figures. Answers to written questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have also said that the Government have no idea how many HMOs there are, nor do they know how many have been closed due to licences not being properly adhered to. But I live in my constituency. It is my home, and as all MPs do, I speak with my constituents regularly. We know and we see that the number we have in South Shields is unmanageable. In one street, there are properties housing nearly 100 HMO residents. In some streets, nearly every other property is an HMO. This is heavily concentrated in two parts of my constituency, Beacon and Bents, and West Park. We are all completely fed up of the crime, antisocial behaviour, violence, theft, damage to property and drug paraphernalia on our streets. We are fed up of drug addicts and alcoholics wandering around, exposing themselves and leaving excrement on our streets. We are fed up of the noise and the violence, the general rubbish and the rats, and the decline of our overall environment that is common to some of these HMOs. I remember talking to one lady who said that she and her neighbours no longer let their children play out in the front garden or street. The last time they did, a drunk with his head split open tried to approach their little girls. This is not the South Shields that I grew up in. Streets that were once lined with grand houses leading down to our beautiful coast and into the town centre now feel unsafe to walk down for me and those of us who are proud to call South Shields our home.

   Hansard source
10. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    Houses in Multiple Occupation

    The hon. Member pre-empts what I am going to talk about later in my speech. I am also going to explain what we actually did in South Shields: residents and I forced our council to do exactly what he suggests. The character and history of our housing is being demolished before our eyes. Housing is being chopped up by greedy developers who want to make money off the back of vulnerable people. These are streets I have known my whole life, and it is heartbreaking that this has been allowed to happen. It is impacting the quality of people’s daily life, house prices and community cohesion. Residents and I are totally fed up of it. We spent years working together to try to get the council to stop new applications and increase inspections. Every single time, we were tied in knots when it came to the legislation, and were told, “Nothing can be done. It’s just the way it is.” Last year, on 3 November, I presented a parliamentary petition on behalf of the people of South Shields demanding action, and that the council use the powers that it had to stop the proliferation of HMOs. I also asked in that petition for the Government to strengthen legislation in relation to the monitoring of HMOs, so that the badly run ones could be closed down quicker. Two days later, the council decided to implement what we were asking for: a borough-wide article 4 direction. That meant that regardless of the size of a property, planning approval would be needed.

    Hansard source
11. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    Houses in Multiple Occupation

    I completely agree. In South Shields, developers are doing exactly the same; they are getting around the article 4 restriction. Some of them have started to create “Airbnbs”; they are HMOs, but developers refer to them as Airbnbs in law, and are getting away with it once again. We had an article 4 direction in force in parts of my constituency, just as my hon. Friend does in his, but that was after we were already saturated with HMOs in other parts. Prior to the article 4 direction, a property housing up to five residents in most areas of the local authority did not need planning permission, but that does not necessarily mean that new applications will now go to a planning committee; a request has to be made for it to do so, via me, as the MP, or an elected councillor. It should not have taken years of meetings, letters, parliamentary questions and a petition to get the council to act. It worries me how many other areas are not using the article 4 direction. Even when applications have been refused, developers are appealing them. It cannot be right that hundreds of residents’ voices are being ignored in favour of developers who do not live in our area. Much to my dismay, South Shields is actually advertised on developer websites as the place to go to set up an HMO. My message to those developers is that it is not the place to come to set up their HMOs. We will not be treated in that way, nor will we allow vulnerable people to be. I have been made aware that there is a statutory instrument before this House that will mean that local councillors and MPs will no longer be able to call in planning applications for HMOs. That means that local people will literally have zero say in what happens in their neighbourhoods or streets—or to the house next door. Instead, officers in the local authority will make the decisions. That is outrageously undemocratic. I cannot believe that the Government think it is acceptable to discount the voices of entire communities in favour of developers who do not live in the area, and who then delegate important decisions to officers, who often do not live in the area either. It is a really crude way to address the housing crisis, and it will completely fracture communities. It also places council planning officers in a difficult position with the communities they serve. As for those HMOs already in existence that are badly run, the licensing regime is supposed to ensure that certain standards are adhered to. However, since the inspection that goes with the licence can happen only every five years—at the renewal of that licence—the system is not very robust. We can all agree that if something is not inspected for five years, a lot can go on. Licences must meet mandatory conditions around fire safety, minimum room size and provision of amenities. Crucially, landlords are supposed to pass the fit and proper person test, a principle that is open to wide and broad interpretation. In South Shields, we have seen that test simply not work in practice. One of our former guest houses was being used illegally as an HMO. Residents were quite clear with me, the police and anyone who would listen that it was being used for prostitution and drug drops. That was after the landlord had already received a significant fine for poor management of a previous HMO. Another HMO was opened by landlords who had previous convictions for letting properties with cannabis farms in them. It would appear that it is almost impossible to fail the fit and proper person test. The Minister is knowledgeable, and is known for being thoroughly across his brief, but the Government’s response to my petition and questions has been a little lacklustre. They stated that “Local authorities already have planning powers to limit the proliferation of small HMOs”, and that the Government keep the powers to regulate them under constant review. Will the Minister explain to me when the Department last thoroughly reviewed this dire situation that is damaging our communities? Is he willing to conduct a full review, and to take steps to collate the relevant data that the Department was unable to provide me with? If we do not know the size of the problem, it is difficult to take steps to solve it. Will the Minister ensure that licensing is strengthened, and that powers for revoking licences are much stronger? I also ask that he revokes the SI that is currently before this House. It will strip our constituents of their ability to exercise their democratic right to object to planning proposals that directly affect their neighbourhood. My constituents and their views matter. We in South Shields love where we live. We get on well with most of our neighbours. We are proud of our history, our heritage and our buildings. The people of South Shields will always have me, their MP, by their side when they say, “We do not want any more HMOs in South Shields.” We want the existing HMOs that are causing problems to be closed down, through the introduction of robust and enforceable licensing requirements. After years of trying to get someone to act, we are pleading with the Government to take some action, once and for all.

    Hansard source
12. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    Houses in Multiple Occupation

    The Minister is right: regulations are in place and there is a fit-and-proper test—but they are not working. That is why I secured the debate and why my colleagues and I are asking for stronger regulation. Everything that is in place is simply not working.

    Hansard source
13. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    Houses in Multiple Occupation

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
14. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    Houses in Multiple Occupation

    Can the Minister say how many licences have been revoked?

    Hansard source
15. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    Houses in Multiple Occupation

    I thank the Minister for being incredibly generous and giving way again. Regarding the statutory instrument before the House, of course constituents and residents will still be able to voice their concerns, but will those concerns go to a committee to make a decision, or will all decisions on HMOs go directly to council officers for decision once the SI is in force?

    Hansard source
16. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Sudan

    I thank the Minister for his statement and the level of reassurance he has given us. I also thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), who yesterday introduced me to three men with a connection to Sudan. They were all absolutely distraught by what is happening, and I really felt for them. They asked why we were not discussing the situation more; all of us, not just the Minister, have to ask why that is. The men had two questions. First, can the Minister confirm that we are not exporting weapons to the United Arab Emirates for use in Sudan? Secondly, the Minister has told us that the cut to aid has not affected the women and girls who are fleeing the region into Chad, but are those women and girls getting all the support they need?

    Hansard source
17. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I have received representations from rural dispensing practices in my constituency about the provision of vaccination services. I understand that dispensing general practitioners are having difficulty securing the funding to provide vaccinations, particularly the new meningitis vaccination for young people. Does the Minister envisage that the change being proposed will have any effect on that arrangement?

    Hansard source
18. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I am not entirely clear why there is a problem with the financial incentive. People coming off lists that they have been on for a long, long time may well have a clinical condition that is changing. In my practice, I deal with the management of children with glue ear, who need to have grommets. From time to time, the condition fluctuates and the glue ear goes away. Equally, the reason that we do a tonsillectomy is that people get recurrent acute tonsilitis, but it is actually quite a good idea for people to wait some time because often the recurrent acute tonsilitis simply settles down and they do not need their operation. Sometimes, when a patient comes into hospital for an operation on their tonsils and I ask them, “When did you last have an attack of tonsilitis?” they say, “I can’t remember.” We have to take account of the fact that the condition of the patient may fluctuate.

    Hansard source
19. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but does she agree that this is yet another reason why we must go full speed ahead to get the single patient record sorted out?

    Hansard source
20. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Member has to say. I wonder whether he could present us with a concrete example of where precisely elected local government involvement in the commissioning of services in ICBs has been essential, because it seems to me that what an ICB needs is expertise in commissioning. We need people who know how to commission services. Although I understand the importance of representation, I think that what we really need is expertise in commissioning.

    Hansard source
21. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Debbie Abrahams

    Connect to Work Programme

    I am pleased to present the Work and Pensions Committee’s second report in our employment support for disabled people inquiry series. Our first report, “Disability at Work”, examined workplace issues impacting on disabled people and those with long-term health conditions, who I will now refer to as disabled people. These include challenges finding employment and then staying in work. Today’s report looks at the Government’s Connect to Work programme, an employment support programme that aims to reduce health and disability-related economic inactivity. One of our labour market’s most persistent and challenging issues is the disability employment gap. With nearly one in four of the working-age population being disabled, equivalent to 10.4 million disabled people, it is quite staggering that only 5.5 million disabled people are employed when we know millions more want a job. It is a disability employment rate of 52.8%, compared with 82.5% for non-disabled people—a disability employment gap of nearly 30%. After historical falls, the gap has remained around 30% since 2012, and it remains above the OECD average. Disabled people and people living in disabled households are far more likely to live in poverty than any other group. The extra costs that disabled people face and the lack of employment opportunities are key factors. As most disabilities are acquired, many disabled people have been employed before becoming inactive or unemployed. Their skills and experience are being wasted—a lost opportunity for the individuals, their families, and indeed the country. Last year, the Committee commissioned an economic analysis of the potential savings in Department for Work and Pensions spending and returns to the Exchequer from programmes like Connect to Work, and how such programmes could make that difference. That analysis was modelled on previous successful employment support programmes, and the economists estimated that if 5% of currently unemployed or inactive people—including disabled people—moved into employment, that would generate £20 billion over the life of the Parliament. The Committee’s inquiry on employment support for disabled people showed that there are multiple barriers to work, including features of the workplace itself, issues preventing people from finding and getting into work, and things making it difficult to remain in work. Rather than attempting to cover all those issues in a single report, we felt it would be much more helpful to produce a report on each aspect. We also hope to report on Access to Work once the Government have published their proposals for reforming that scheme, which we hope will be very soon. Our “Disability at Work” report highlighted the structural and cultural factors in workplaces that continue to limit opportunity. We found that barriers facing disabled people in workplaces are present across all stages and aspects of employment, from recruitment to workplace adjustments, employer attitudes and opportunities for progression. The report I present today complements that report by focusing on the support people need before entering work, or when they need help to get there. Our message is clear: closing the disability employment gap requires a joined-up system, not isolated programmes. Let me recognise the significance of Connect to Work, a major, evidence-based programme with real potential. Launched in October 2024, it is intended to support up to 300,000 people—principally disabled people—into sustained paid employment over five years. It is part of the Government’s broader welfare reform strategy to reduce health-related economic inactivity, a strategy that is both economically important and, more importantly, central to improving lives. The Committee is clear that we welcome Connect to Work. The programme is voluntary, grounded in well-established supported employment models, and combines national scale with local flexibility, offering scope for more tailored and responsive support. Models such as individual placement and support, and the supported employment quality framework, demonstrate strong outcomes in sustained employment, as well as in confidence, skills and wellbeing. These approaches are personalised, integrated with services, focused on real jobs and provide ongoing support. Connect to Work adopts these principles, which is one of its greatest strengths. The programme is well designed, but success depends on delivery. A key feature is its devolved delivery model. Local authorities have flexibility to design provision based on local needs, but with that flexibility comes risks—risks to do with, for example, consistency of delivery; workforce capacity; integration with health, skills and local services; funding certainty; and managing the transition between programmes. We heard that different commissioning approaches can lead to variation in service quality and uneven experiences for participants. The Government need to find a balance between flexibility and consistency. The Committee’s central conclusion is that Connect to Work’s strengths will matter only if that translates into consistent, integrated and properly resourced support on the ground. To date, delivery has not been without difficulty. We heard that early implementation has been more complex and more burdensome than expected. The Department for Work and Pensions acknowledged that aspects of the early process were “clunky and unsatisfactory”. Local authorities told us that delivery plan processes were lengthy and administratively demanding, and guidance was at times unclear or inconsistent. Finally, engagement by the Department seemed to vary across areas. Programmes of this scale depend not only on policy design, but on systems, processes and relationships. Early friction risks undermining confidence and delaying impact. In addition, more than £1 billion of employment support funding devolved to local authorities from Connect to Work for other employment support programmes this year needs to be clearly defined. There should be monitoring of outputs and outcomes. We welcome the steps that the Department has taken to address that, and the Committee will return to this issue to assess progress. Successful delivery needs skilled practitioners and specialist expertise. Some local authorities were confident that they had the necessary capacity, but we also heard of difficulties recruiting staff with the necessary skills, loss of expertise during delayed commissioning, and a wider shortage across the sector. Without the right people to deliver them, even the best designed programmes will not succeed. We therefore call on the Government to set out clearly how they will ensure sufficient capacity, co-ordinate workforce development and address gaps. Perhaps the most significant part is integration. Connect to Work sits alongside other national initiatives, such as Work Well. Its success depends on services delivered by numerous providers, such as those to do with health and skills. Integration, particularly with the NHS, is essential. Where systems are joined up, outcomes improve. Where they are fragmented, people fall through the gaps. Effective triage, clear pathways and strong local partnerships are therefore critical. This is not simply about programme delivery, but a coherent network of support. We recognise the significant investment that the Government are making, but we identified concerns about rigidities in financial management across financial years, and uncertainty beyond the current spending period. For a programme of this scale, long-term certainty is essential, so that local authorities can invest in staff and the infrastructure needed to support delivery. That confidence needs to extend beyond the end of the current spending period. We therefore call on the Government to provide a clear statement of intent about the programme’s future. We also heard concerns about gaps in provision during the transition from the work and health programme pioneer to Connect to Work. In some areas, that left individuals with limited support at a critical time. While the Government have acknowledged these gaps, we are not persuaded that their full impact has been adequately assessed. This points to a broader issue, which is the need for better system-wide planning when programmes change. As noted at the outset, this report is part of a wider programme of work. There is also our “Disability at Work” report. In addition, we have identified Access to Work as a crucial piece of the puzzle; it plays a vital role in supporting people once they enter employment, enabling necessary adjustments and support in the workplace. We therefore intend to examine it in more depth once the Government have set out their proposals for reform. Before I finish, I thank the Committee team, particularly Polina Eaton and Paul Owen, and everyone who provided written and oral evidence to us and attended engagement sessions with us. I believe that our report sets out a balanced assessment of Connect to Work. The programme should help disabled people to get genuine access to meaningful, sustainable employment on equal terms, but its success is not guaranteed. That depends on effective and consistent delivery, a skilled and supportive workforce delivering the programme, integration across services and sustained Government commitment. The policy is sound; the test now is whether the strong foundations that the Government have established translate into consistent, high-quality support in practice. That requires programmes and systems that work together to close the disability employment gap. I commend this report to the House.

    Hansard source
22. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dawn Butler

    Business of the House

    In Brent, the support staff at Woodfield school face a cut in hours that equates to a cut of about £4,000 in their wages. The school is suggesting that it will fire and rehire them. The staff are on strike. The National Education Union is trying to negotiate, in order to save services, terms and conditions and jobs. Will the Leader of the House support me in ensuring that issues to do with special educational needs and disabilities funding do not jeopardise the care of children, or the terms and conditions of support staff?

    Hansard source
23. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dawn Butler

    Windrush Day

    It is an absolute and wonderful pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and her beautiful tribute to the Windrush generation and her constituents. I know how much they appreciate the fact that she calls for this debate in Parliament every single year, and I concur with her on the beautiful exhibition in Portcullis House. However, I slightly disagree on raising the Windrush’s anchor. I have had this conversation with Sir Patrick Vernon, and I would prefer the money to be spent on a learning centre and an educational trust. I feel that would be a more worthwhile spend of money. My mum and dad came here on British passports. They would be considered part of the Windrush generation, and they are extremely proud of coming on their British passports. The way they were taught English in school was way better than how we were taught English in school, and we often got into trouble for how we spoke, because we were not speaking the Queen’s English. I remember being in the garden with my father one day and asking him to sing the national anthem. He started singing “God Save the Queen”, but I wanted him to sing the Jamaican national anthem, because I wanted to learn it. There is a deep history there. As my hon. Friend said in her moving speech, some politicians are trying to divide us, but there is so much that unites us. The Windrush scandal has been such a painful time. The first time I heard of it was when Winston, as I will call him, came to see me in my surgery. He had been working for the council for 40 years and was looking forward to his retirement, but when it was time for retirement, he was told that because he was not legally here, he would not have access to his pension. I was absolutely stunned by that. Sometimes constituents do not tell us the full story, and I thought that maybe there was more to it, but on further investigation I found that it was just a complete injustice. Winston was embarrassed and ashamed. I would say to him that it was not his embarrassment or shame to carry, because this was something done to him by the British Government. However, there is a lack of understanding of the pride that this generation brings with them, as seen in how they carry themselves, how they speak and how they dress. People carrying things in a plastic bag is a no-no in the Jamaican community. If it is see-through, it is called a scandal bag, and is embarrassing because nobody should see what someone has in their bag. There is a lot of pride, which is why this has caused such embarrassment and shame. I asked Jacqui McKenzie, who is the head of immigration, asylum and Windrush cases at Leigh Day, about the cases she is currently dealing with. The first issue, she said, is the excessive delay, with some people waiting four years. Many of them are very elderly, and the stress of the wait has caused illnesses such as dementia. We should hold our heads in shame. There are problems with claims for loss of earnings and the impact on people of a life lived in limbo, waiting for a decision, or in shame, waiting for the Government to acknowledge they belong in the country. That has a profound effect, and the fact that it is not considered is unacceptable. People were sacked from their jobs and they did not get their promotions. Some people could not find places to live or to rent, and as I have mentioned, they did not get their pensions. All of this is unacceptable. Caseworkers are currently not sufficiently trained. Constituents have told me that caseworkers have said to them, “Whereabouts is that?” or, “Are you sure?” when they present information. Teachers have contacted me saying that they can vouch for the West Indian children they taught in their schools if we need evidence, and that is how the community is coming together to try to right these wrongs. Jacqui also mentioned the misinterpretation of demonstrating lawful status, which has led to cases being refused incorrectly. For example, two brothers, now in their 30s, applied for indefinite leave to remain in 2008 as children of settled Windrush parents. The Home Office wrongly refused their application, but years later the Home Office admitted it had made a mistake. However, it has not corrected the knock-on effects that the error caused, and those brothers are still waiting for justice five years later. I have constituents who went to Jamaica to visit family or bury a relative, and when they went to the airport, they were told they could not come back and they were stuck in Jamaica. We have cases of people stuck in Jamaica for 10 years—10 years! One resident who is stuck in Jamaica has plenty of evidence, but he has been refused compensation based on having no lawful status, which is wrong. He was offered £10,000, but then was told that giving him that amount of money was a mistake, which has retraumatised him, and he is now showing signs of dementia. There are problems with requests for updates, and there is a lack of transparency and a lack of care. All of this is unacceptable. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is also a discrepancy between claimants in decision making. In exactly the same cases, sometimes in the same family, when people have presented their information, they have been given different awards. Some get no award, some get £10,000 and some get £40,000. All this shows that the system is not fit for purpose. The scheme should be moved from the Home Office, which should never have been the administrator of a scheme when it was responsible for the injustice it has inflicted on others. We also need a truly independent appeal mechanism, as well as more experienced staff. At the moment, constituents have to go to the ombudsman, which means they have to go to their MP, who has to sign the application, so we need a straightforward appeal system. The current system is built to retraumatise people who have been wronged. Lastly, we need a Windrush inquiry. We really need to know and understand the cause of the scandal, but also why it is still ongoing. We should be providing redress instead of causing trauma. Next year is the 10th anniversary of this scandal, and the consequences and injustices are still ongoing. It is our job to do this, and when the Minister gets to her feet, I hope she will commit to our putting these injustices right.

    Hansard source
24. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dawn Butler

    Windrush Day

    My hon. Friend and I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. There are many times when we agree on things, believe it or not—people think we do not agree across the House sometimes. Does she agree that not only was the racism real then but it is really disappointing that that generation is now saying that what is happening on our streets and the abuse that they are getting today is very reminiscent of what happened when they first came to the country? We must set a better example and ensure that parliamentarians stop stoking division and hate in our country.

    Hansard source
25. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Williams

    Business of the House

    There are plenty of great pubs across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove that I could invite the Leader of the House to, but today I want to talk about Wendy, Val and residents at Bradeley village in my constituency. Time and again, they fundraise and hold community events to raise money for good causes; most recently, they raised £1,000 for a local sight loss charity. Will the Leader of the House please join me in saying thank you to Wendy, Val and everyone in Bradeley village, and can we make time for a debate on the role of community champions so that we can recognise all they do for our local communities?

    Hansard source
26. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Burton-Sampson

    Draft Conversion Practices Bill

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the draft Bill and on all her work on it. Having grown up as a gay person in the early ’90s, I know what it is like to feel as if you are not normal and do not belong. There are some parties, particularly Reform UK, whose Members are not in their places, and seemingly, from the words of the shadow Minister, the Tories, who would take us back to the days of section 28. Does the Minister agree with me that alongside this draft Bill that prevents the evil practice of conversion therapy, we must also protect the freedoms of the LGBTQ+ community to be their authentic selves in our society?

    Hansard source
27. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    We have heard a few times about Conservative fears about redundancy payments and so on. Why did they not add NHS England to the list of organisations covered by the modification order when they had the opportunity to do so? Is the hon. Lady aware of a reason why that did not happen when the Conservatives were in government?

    Hansard source
28. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    The modification order is a piece of legislation that is often used in the public sector. It means that when people from a lot of public sector organisations are made redundant and find alternative employment at another state-funded organisation, they are not entitled to a redundancy payment. During their 14 years in power, it would have been entirely possible for the Conservatives to add NHS England to the list of organisations covered by the modification order. That would have prevented the costs that the hon. Lady has mentioned several times. It just seems like they did not take the opportunity to do that, and now they are saying that they should have done that when they were in government.

    Hansard source
29. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Paffey

    Ports and Port Connectivity

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing a debate on this important issue. Ports handle 95% of Britain’s physical trade; sea freight accounts for the majority of the UK’s international freight but, as we have heard, the grid and road and rail infrastructure outside the port gates are too often treated as an afterthought. If the Government are serious about economic growth, decarbonisation and national resilience—as I believe they are—we need to see changes in how we approach this. The port of Southampton, in my constituency, demonstrates why. It is Europe’s leading cruise turnaround port and the UK’s second-largest container terminal. Three million passengers come through each year, and it is an important gateway for vehicles, manufactured goods and international trade, dealing with more than £71 billion of value every year. It supports 45,000 jobs nationwide, and anchors a wider Solent maritime cluster, worth £10.6 billion. I know this debate is not a competition for the best port in the country, but Southampton would make a very strong case. In spite of all the strengths and benefits I have just listed, Southampton is not just a stereotypical rich south-eastern seat. Too many communities around the port experience severe deprivation and limited opportunity. Some recent More in Common research found that 58% of 18 to 34-year-olds coming into the workforce in coastal communities are considering moving away, most of them citing a lack of jobs. The investment we are asking for is not just about expanding ports for the sake of it; it is about redistributing that value back into the communities that generate it. That investment locally can be a catalyst for national growth. Southampton has been leading on this: we delivered the UK’s first commercial-scale cruise ship-to-shore power facility. That cut 5,000 tonnes of carbon and has generated £150 million in gross value added benefits in 2024 alone. Private investment in and around the port is moving ahead, but the constraint is often the public infrastructure outside its gates. I struggle with the fact that we have two ship-to-shore plug-in points, but we can use only one of them. If we plug the second one in, the lights in Southampton go out. If the one UK port that is already leading on shore power cannot fully utilise that potential for another decade—we have been told that the grid expansion will not come until 2036—how much later will the rest of Britain be? In the meantime, our European competitors will spend years investing in their infrastructure, getting greener shipping services and stealing a march on their competitors. There is an urgency to this. The case for road and rail investment is just as strong. DP World’s modal shift programme has increased proportion of containers leaving Southampton by rail from 21% to more than 30% in just three years. That is 200,000 lorry journeys off the roads, saving 45,000 tonnes of carbon. Again, we just need the scale to continue. I will close with three specific asks for the Minister. I am grateful for his engagement with me and the sector recently. First, can we bring forward the grid supply point upgrade at Southampton? A 2036 timeline is not compatible with our 2030 shore power obligations or our sector’s decarbonisation ambitions. Secondly, can we commit to ringfencing the maritime emissions trading scheme revenues for port and maritime decarbonisation infrastructure? Finally, can we get Great British Railways and National Highways to treat freight pass and port connectivity as first-order planning priorities? Let us match our ambition with urgency and a plan.

    Hansard source
30. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    I see that the House has been waiting for me. I am starting to prepare myself for a quieter life, and it was nice to have the opportunity to start that this morning. On 11 March and 1 June, the Government published two tranches of documents. Since the motion has passed, we have been in the House to discuss this matter on 11 occasions, including most recently on 3 June. The Government therefore consider themselves to have discharged their duties to this House in relation to the motion. The exception is the material withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police; we will publish that, once we have been informed that doing so is no longer prejudicial to the Met’s criminal investigation.

    Hansard source
31. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    With permission, Mr Speaker, may I refer to my 11 previous statements that answered that question?

    Hansard source
32. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    It is not necessarily for me to give advice to the hon. Gentleman, but I would not always believe the reporting in the Daily Mail. On which documents the Metropolitan police have requested, as I have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box, I have been advised not to detail or itemise those requests, but instead to refer to the categories of documentation requested, and I have spoken to that point on a number of occasions at the Dispatch Box. The House has asked questions previously about whether we could list the documents, and we have been advised that that would make the work of the Metropolitan police harder as they bring together their case, in terms of criminal consequences. As the hon. Gentleman knows—and he probably agrees with this—the Government do not want to do anything to jeopardise the Metropolitan police’s criminal investigation, and we continue to hold that position.

    Hansard source
33. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    All the documentation that the Government hold has been published in the first two tranches, except for the documentation that the Metropolitan police have asked for, which we have given to them as part of their investigation. The only remaining documentation that will be published in future is therefore the documents that the Metropolitan police hold.

    Hansard source
34. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Topical Questions

    I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the dedicated work that he has undertaken since becoming leader of the Labour party. Following the crushing defeat that we experienced in 2019, he led our party to a landslide historic victory in 2024. Since coming into office, he has taken the right decisions to get our country back on track after 14 years of Conservative failure. NHS waiting lists have fallen by 400,000—the largest fall in 17 years. We have put an extra 3,000 neighbourhood police officers back on the beat, and we will lift 450,000 children out of poverty. I am proud to have served the Prime Minister as his Chief Secretary, and I know that my team and colleagues have been proud to serve him as well, and we wish his successor well.

    Hansard source
35. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Topical Questions

    I wonder where the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is? [Interruption.] Not in Clacton, I am told, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his question, and his continued support for the Government’s efforts to improve ethics and integrity in public life. The House knows that trust in politics is important, and that we have more work to do. That is why we have important rules about conflicts of interest, and why we must declare those conflicts of interest on the record, and then not lobby on behalf of donors or others who have sought to put money into our campaigns or other personal interests. The leader of Reform UK has said, “it’s literally none of your business” in answer to questions about the £5 million crypto-donation. I am afraid that it is in the interests of the public, and he needs to answer questions about it. If he is acting on behalf of donors and asking questions in return for money, there should be consequences.

    Hansard source
36. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Topical Questions

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. He says that this might be our last time together at the Dispatch Box; I do not know where he is planning on going, but I hope to be back here in due course. He asks a very pertinent question. I know that any Prime Minister takes their responsibilities to the House seriously, and I am sure that the next Prime Minister will be at the Dispatch Box at the earliest opportunity.

    Hansard source
37. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Topical Questions

    I understand the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I am sure the new Prime Minister will agree with the sentiment. We are waiting for confirmation of the timetable for the Labour party’s election of a new leader. The sitting dates of this House have already been confirmed, but I know the new Prime Minister will want to come to the Dispatch Box at the earliest opportunity.

    Hansard source
38. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Topical Questions

    I thank the hon. Lady for taking the opportunity to pursue further Liberal Democrat policies; she is quite right to do so. She will know of the constitutional principles that mean we cannot bind our successors. I am sure that whoever is in the relevant ministerial role will happily answer that question in due course.

    Hansard source
39. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Topical Questions

    My hon. Friend is right. The Barnett formula plays an important role in ensuring fairness in public spending across all the nations of the United Kingdom. She is right to point out that we have given a record-breaking level of money to the Scottish Government, but it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to spend that money effectively. People in her constituency and across Scotland have seen that the SNP has failed to spend that money wisely, and we should continue to hold it to account.

    Hansard source
40. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Jones

    Topical Questions

    I could probably refer to quite a list of appointments under the previous Administration that did not meet that test. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that public appointments are made in line with independent panels, with proper evidence and citations. We continue to make reforms to the system to ensure that the brightest and best across the country help us to lead in the public sphere without being related to political conflicts, as he suggests.

    Hansard source