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

12,942 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

   Puberty Blockers

   I welcome that fantastic point. Until I was unexpectedly elected, I was an academic, and what I learned was never to focus on a single study when doing research, because a single study is basically an anecdote. We have to look at the breadth of the research. If I may say so, we see exactly the same in the climate change debate—the broad spectrum of science supports the argument for climate change, but there are always one or two contrary views. Those views are welcome, but we do not base our view on just one study; we look at the breadth of the research.

   Hansard source
2. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

   Puberty Blockers

   I am part of the liberal working class. This debate is not about the Tavistock clinic. The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted Baroness Cass, but one thing he has not said is that she recommended that the clinical trial go ahead. She said recently that she supports the trial because she thinks there will be real benefits to it. Rather than talking about Tavistock, will he address what Baroness Cass, who he quotes extensively, thinks about this trial that we are debating?

   Hansard source
3. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

   Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert— “1C Health improvement and health inequalities duty (1) In exercising any functions relating to the health service, Secretary of State must have regard to the need to— (a) improve the health of persons in England, (b) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to their ability to access health services, and (c) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to the outcomes achieved for them by the provision of health services. (2) Health inequalities ‘between the people of England’ means health inequalities between persons, or persons of different descriptions, living in, or in different parts of England. (3) ‘Health inequalities’ means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants. (4) Under subsection (3) ‘general health determinants’ are— (a) standards of housing, transport services or public safety; (b) environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water; (c) employment prospects, earning capacity, and any other matters that affect economic security; (d) access to public services; (e) the use, or level of use, of tobacco, alcohol or other substances, and any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle, that are or may be harmful to health; (f) any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors.” This amendment would amend clause 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006 to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health improvement and health inequalities.

   Hansard source
4. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

   Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I apologise for being a little delayed, Sir Jeremy. I am moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). It would place a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health improvement and health inequalities when exercising functions. Between 2011 and 2021, the UK was one of only five high-income countries where healthy life expectancy fell. Over the same decade, we faced a cost of living crisis, the covid-19 pandemic and economic decline across the post-industrial regions. We cannot shy away from the fact that ill health is rising. Economic inactivity due to sickness is at its highest level since 2012, and we witness a widening disparity in health outcomes. People living in the most deprived areas of the UK, on average, live just 52 years of healthy life. There is now a 16-year gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest parts of the UK. Even within individual constituencies, the life expectancy gap can be as wide as seven years between local postcodes. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that decisions taken at the highest level of the health system consistently reflect the reality that health outcomes differ sharply depending on where someone lives, the conditions that they live in and their opportunities to achieve good health. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to improve the health of persons in England. The intention is that this duty would include the need to reduce inequalities in health. That is in addition to the duties that are already in the clause, relating to inequalities in access to and outcomes of healthcare. At present, the Bill brings together old duties on the Secretary of State and NHS England to reduce inequality in access to and outcomes from NHS services. Those are too narrow and do not reflect the wider determinants of health that the Government have pledged to tackle through their 10-year plan. The amendment would strengthen the duty to reflect the wider cross-Government goals for health improvement and health inequalities. That would make an important statement of the Government’s commitment to improving health and tackling health inequalities, and would set in train an important step towards achieving them. The amendment also provides a clear definition of “health inequalities” and “general health determinants”. Health inequalities means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health, which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants, including housing standards, environmental factors, public transport, economic factors and other wider determinants of life expectancy. The amendment has been drafted to mirror the wording of the newly enacted section 45 duty on combined authorities in relation to health improvement and health inequalities under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. Accepting the amendment would ensure consistent focus on the mission of creating a fairer country where everyone lives for longer, from the top of Government to regions and neighbourhoods. By setting this out explicitly, the amendment would ensure that future Secretaries of State cannot overlook the wider conditions that shape health outcomes. In sum, the amendment would require that when decisions are made, the Secretary of State must consider their impact on health improvement and on distribution of health across the population. The amendment is supported by the Health Equals coalition, including 27 organisations that wrote an open letter to the Minister on 15 June. Those organisations range from the Health Foundation to the King’s Fund, Ramblers UK and the Wildlife Trusts, showing the breadth of support from across the sector. The cross-party Health and Social Care Committee also recommended that the clause be amended in this way. Embedding this duty in legislation would strengthen accountability and ensure that the reduction of health inequalities is treated not as a secondary consideration, but as an integral part of how the health system is led and managed. If accepted, the new duty would ensure clear alignment at national and local levels about the importance of prevention.

   Hansard source
5. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

   Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Patient involvement and choice

   Hansard source
6. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

   Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Does the hon. Member recognise that there are circumstances in which independent provision within a district has the effect of disabling the NHS service? A pertinent example is the ophthalmology world. Services have become difficult to deliver in NHS hospitals because large numbers of NHS staff have chosen to work in the independent sector. That makes the comprehensive provision of a service in an eye department difficult, as the staff are all off operating on cataracts.

   Hansard source
7. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

   Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Does the shadow Minister accept that, in order to encourage innovation within the health service, we need to do whatever we can to support clinical academics? It is within the academic departments of universities, where people are working in hospitals and teaching in medical schools, that we see the most fruitful innovations.

   Hansard source
8. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

   Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 7, page 4, line 31, at end insert— “(2) Training under subsection (1)(a) includes training in general health determinants as defined by section 107ZB of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.” This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the health and care workforce is adequately trained in the wider determinants of health such as housing standards, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk, and use of harmful substances like tobacco.

   Hansard source
9. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

   Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

   As the Committee knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) is one of the five medical doctors in the parliamentary Labour party. It is a great pleasure to move the amendment, which she tabled. The amendment is about education and training. My hon. Friend would like us to consider whether there should be an additional subsection after proposed new subsection (1)(a), which is about ensuring that “there are sufficient people with appropriate education and training to meet the workforce needs of the health service”. My hon. Friend would like to include within that specific training about wider health determinants, which, as we discussed earlier this morning, consist of things like housing, air quality, occupation, and substance abuse—tobacco, alcohol and so on. Her opinion is that that needs to be specifically incorporated into the legislation.

   Hansard source
10. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Does the shadow Minister agree that if we doubled the number of medical students, we would simply not be able to accommodate those people as young doctors unless we also doubled the number of training places? After five or six years, those medical students become young doctors. If we are to correct any problem with the medical workforce, it is insufficient to simply state that we will double the number of medical students.

    Hansard source
11. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I am happy with those assurances, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 33. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 50, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert— “(4) After subsection (2) insert— ‘(2A) The Secretary of State must publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s workforce needs every five years.’”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.) This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s staffing needs every five years. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
12. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    It is true that the situation in ophthalmology is now quite serious, but is the hon. Lady aware of the problems in radiology and pathology? Some hospitals are unable to recruit histopathologists or significant numbers of radiologists, who provide key services, because the personnel necessary to run those services have been attracted into a private system, although they are contracted to the NHS. That jeopardises the ongoing services for urgent and emergency care.

    Hansard source
13. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Forest City: West Suffolk

    I am grateful to the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for allowing an intervention. I regard this as quite a bold idea, like the NHS; that was a bold idea just after the war. Let us try and use our imaginations: perhaps we will create a shining city—a city not on a hill but in the flatlands of Suffolk—and, just perhaps, a solution to the housing crisis we have in our land.

    Hansard source
14. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Forest City: West Suffolk

    I do not wish to declare my support for Forest City, but I wish to declare that there has to be some imagination here. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, has not grasped the imagination behind this project. We are not talking about simply expanding a number of existing towns; this is a completely new idea. What does he think about that?

    Hansard source
15. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Williams

    Topical Questions

    Sometimes we do not say thank you enough, so I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to the Chancellor for listening. She listened to me, my fellow MPs, our pottery workers, our GMB union and especially Sharon Yates by offering a £120 million support and growth package for our ceramics sector. Can the Chancellor now outline how she will ensure that smaller manufacturers benefit from this fantastic new scheme?

    Hansard source
16. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·David Burton-Sampson

    Topical Questions

    T10. The Tory Government squandered billions of pounds of public money on covid fraud, waste and corruption. Will the Chancellor tell the House what measures she is taking to address this issue on behalf of taxpayers?

    Hansard source
17. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I think this is the first time we have had a Robertson on Robertson intervention. It is a pleasure to break that duck. The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about the need to change culture to embed innovation across the NHS. There is an example that we always come back to: fax machines. Fax machines were used in the NHS for far too long. It was mandated in 2018 that the use of all fax machines had to be stopped by the end of March 2020, yet in 2023, the NHS still owned 600. That mandation came up against a cultural barrier and it did not work, because 600 of them survived for three years after that. In amendment 58, I see more mandation and nothing on culture. The problem with the amendment is that, by trying to mandate innovation too closely, we would miss the cultural point. We could undermine the Secretary of State’s power to say that all parts of the system are fair game for them. Would the hon. Gentleman like to respond to that point?

    Hansard source
18. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Puberty Blockers

    My hon. Friend is making a powerful and moving speech. Further to her point, does she not agree that the Opposition’s motion to prevent a clinical trial would not give people information, options and choices? It would cut down information, options and choices. She mentioned a constituent in her 80s who clearly did not grow out of her gender dysphoria, and this motion would close off lifesaving and life-changing treatment for the 7% of people who do not grow out of gender dysphoria.

    Hansard source
19. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

    Puberty Blockers

    I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for giving way on that point. There is a lot of “what about” in her remarks; will she reflect on Dr Hilary Cass’s comments that the trial will lead to less harm than would otherwise be the case? Why does she believe that Dr Cass is saying that? Does she doubt her expertise in this instance?

    Hansard source
20. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Zeichner

    Forest City: West Suffolk

    On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge? The recent sale of Cambridge City airport to Homes England is an exciting initiative that will genuinely provide the homes and businesses we need.

    Hansard source
21. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Draft Climate Change Agreements (Administration, Energy-intensive Installations and Eligible Facilities) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Climate Change Agreements (Administration, Energy-intensive Installations and Eligible Facilities) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. The draft regulations expand the eligibility for the climate change agreements scheme to include three new processes—the mechanical recycling of plastic, the packaging of spirits and the production of automotive-grade battery cells—as well as clarifying the existing eligibility and administrative requirements for the scheme and updating the carbon emissions factor figure used in the buy-out fee for the scheme. The climate change levy was introduced in 2001 for the purpose of encouraging energy efficiency across our economy by taxing energy supplies such as electricity or gas. From the outset, the tax has included the CCA scheme, a voluntary scheme that provides eligible energy-intensive businesses access to significant discounts on their CCL bill in exchange for meeting negotiated energy-efficiency or carbon-reduction targets. As a tax designed to drive efficiency, the CCL should accommodate the changing energy landscape. We therefore propose to extend the eligible processes within the CCA scheme to include the three I have already mentioned. Those processes meet the scheme’s established eligibility tests, thereby demonstrating that they are sufficiently energy intensive and, where applicable, subject to competition from imports. Their inclusion is consistent with existing policy and continues to support the Government’s objectives of delivering affordable and secure energy and decarbonisation, while also helping to drive growth. In summary, the regulations give effect to the Government’s decision to extend the eligible processes within the CCA scheme to include the production of automotive-grade battery cells, the packaging of spirits and the mechanical recycling of plastics. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

    Hansard source
22. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Draft Climate Change Agreements (Administration, Energy-intensive Installations and Eligible Facilities) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

    As ever, I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their contributions and questions. I agree with the shadow Exchequer Secretary that lengthy consultations can be a frustration—they are the bane of my life too. Of course, we need to make sure that we engage and listen, but it is always good to be as quick as we possibly can be. There is a gap between now and when the changes will come into effect because the Environment Agency requires numerous administrative processes to be completed before facilities from newly eligible sectors can join a scheme. We of course always look to make sure that we can speed up such administrative processes. I will follow up in writing with details as to why the non-successful processes were not successful; I do not have that information at my fingertips today, but I look forward to reading the letter and sending it to the shadow Exchequer Secretary. I can confirm that the four processes that applied but were not successful were two relating to tire retreading, one relating to the roll turning of plastics and one relating to water. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points in due course. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right that there is a very minor change in a complicated formula from 0.0497 to 0.0498. I am assured that that is about helping to make sure the Government do these things properly, and that the resultant changes will not be significant. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right to point out that we have high energy costs in this country. We need to bring them down. We are not going to take the approach of the previous Government of saying no to new nuclear power stations over and over again, and we are not going to take the approach of the previous Government of not investing in our energy security. Instead, we are going to get a range of different energy sources into our energy mix so that we can get prices down. The Chancellor proactively made the decision at the last Budget to take £150 off energy bills for families across the country, which was very welcome indeed. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned how she would like to see the carbon price support removed. I have good news for her: just a few short weeks ago we announced that we are removing it. I am disappointed that she did not hear that exciting news. It is a very niche tax, but it is important that we are removing a tax that had become outdated and was not fit for purpose given the current structure of our energy market. I do like to make sure that we get rid of taxes. I agree with the hon. Lady that we need action and ambition on decarbonising our electricity network. We must take the steps we need to take to get clean power and to make sure that we meet our net zero obligations, not just for ourselves but for future generations and for the world. We owe it to all of humanity to make sure that, in a reasonable and careful way, we make progress towards decarbonising our economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
23. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Loan Charge

    The Government introduced legislation in the Finance Act 2026 to provide for a new settlement offer for those affected by the loan charge. The Government will write off the first £5,000 of liabilities, and that is in addition to the proposals put forward by the independent reviewer, Ray McCann.

    Hansard source
24. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Loan Charge

    I do agree that those who have been affected by the loan charge need to be able to move on with their lives. That is why the Government put forward a generous settlement offer at the last Budget that went further than the proposals set out by the independent reviewer. I would just note that it was a Government that the hon. Gentleman supported for 14 years who introduced the loan charge and did not do enough to reform it for those who were affected by it.

    Hansard source
25. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Temporary VAT Reduction for Hospitality: Northern Ireland

    I thank the hon. Member for giving me another chance to talk about the great British summer savings scheme, which the Chancellor has just talked us through. It is fantastic that it is coming into place in just a couple of days’ time and will run until the end of the summer holidays. It extends across all four nations of the United Kingdon, benefiting businesses in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain.

    Hansard source
26. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Temporary VAT Reduction for Hospitality: Northern Ireland

    I understand that the VAT rate in Northern Ireland is different from the rate in Ireland—there are different rates of VAT across Europe. It is important to remember that VAT is a national tax in the UK, at 20% across the country. It is important to have consistency for businesses operating across the UK. Significant cuts to VAT come with significant fiscal costs. For example, halving the rate of VAT on hospitality would cost the Exchequer about £11 billion.

    Hansard source
27. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Business Rates

    I am very busy today, Mr Speaker, as ever. I thank the hon. Member for asking about business rates. She will know that we have already started the work of reforming the business rates system so that we can put in permanently lower multipliers for high street businesses. As part of tax update day, we will be consulting on ways to collect more of the VAT that online sellers dodge by making online marketplaces liable for VAT on both UK and overseas business sales of goods. We will put every penny of the additional revenue raised into improving the business rates system for high street businesses.

    Hansard source
28. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Business Rates

    We have a tax on profits in the UK, which is corporation tax. In our corporate tax road map, we have committed to keeping that stable in this Parliament, rather than having it jump around as it did in the last one. It is important to have a broad tax base, so it is reasonable for business rates to continue to be—as they have been since the late 1980s—set in accordance with an estimate of the rents of properties. I do not think it would be right to change that.

    Hansard source
29. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Business Rates

    I understand my hon. Friend’s point. There are many businesses in rural and coastal communities across the country that we want to see thrive and grow, which is why the Chancellor announced the great British summer savings scheme, which will run until 1 September. On the point about the online giants, we are looking at further ways to raise more revenue by going after those online giants dodging VAT. In the last Budget, the Chancellor changed the multipliers in the business rates system so that the tax rate paid by a small high street business would be 33% lower than that paid by large properties, such as those occupied by online giants.

    Hansard source
30. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Business Rates

    I have to correct the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—I do not think that this hon. Member has a near certainty of becoming Prime Minister any time soon. [Laughter.] It is good that my newly elected right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has taken inspiration from the decision that we made in January to cut business rates for pubs, bars and live music venues by 15% so that we can back the great British pub and other hospitality venues.

    Hansard source
31. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Topical Questions

    I thank my hon. Friend for his strong representation on behalf of his constituency and the important refining industry. I have seen the letter to the Chancellor that has been sent by colleagues and I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and other interested Members.

    Hansard source
32. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Topical Questions

    I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that that policy was implemented by his Government—[Interruption.] It was in 2023 that HMRC wrote to businesses that were not paying the VAT, unlike some others that were, and began the enforcement action—it started under his Government. However, I recognise the challenges that these rules are causing, so today I confirm that the Government will soon bring forward a new approach, consisting of either changes to the VAT rules or a reimbursement scheme. The changes will be effective for donations of medicines made on or after today.

    Hansard source
33. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Tomlinson

    Topical Questions

    I thank the hon. Member for the representations she makes on behalf of the businesses in her constituency. This Government are taking every step we can—within the tight fiscal constraints that we inherited from the previous Government—to reform, and invest in, our business rates system so that we can raise revenue in a fair and sustainable way. I am sure that the Chancellor and colleagues across Government will continue to listen to representations and consider what further changes we can make at the Budget to support businesses.

    Hansard source
34. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Defence Investment Plan

    My right hon. Friend is right to highlight those challenges. Throughout the 10-year equipment plan, there was always a £14 billion deficit that never seemed to go away. It is great that we are seeing more investment, but could the Chancellor update the House on what conversations she or her Ministers are having with Governments in Europe and with Canada about the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism for funding and procuring defence across NATO?

    Hansard source
35. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    I thank the Minister for giving way. She is giving a really passionate speech and talking about her personal experience of being in the armed forces. It is important that the Conservative party hear again the figures she quoted in respect of the number of armed forces personnel at the start of her time in the forces and the number at the time she left, and the difference in the amount of officers. Will she also talk about what the Labour Government are doing to support our armed forces personnel and to increase morale, which is hugely important?

    Hansard source
36. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine West

    Youth Unemployment

    What is the Minister’s assessment of the unemployment issues for graduates? Will he and the Treasury team pledge to consider carefully the evidence that the cross-party Treasury Committee took from thousands of graduates, and come up with a fairer system that equalises plans, so that the year in which graduates enrolled in university does not matter, and graduates pay more or less the same for their graduate loan?

    Hansard source
37. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Eccles

    Support for Industry

    12. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support industry.

    Hansard source
38. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Eccles

    Support for Industry

    I welcome the decisions taken by the Chancellor and Government colleagues to revise the electric vehicle targets for 2030, following representations from the industry, unions and MPs. Targets are really great, but they need to match capabilities and market realities. What assessment has she made of how the change will safeguard jobs in the automotive supply chain in my constituency of Stourbridge and across the UK?

    Hansard source
39. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Role of Big Tech in Society

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Apatura has submitted a planning application to Falkirk council for a 300-MW AI data centre just 500 metres from Forth Valley Royal hospital, 20 metres from a care home and next to a densely populated residential area. From the outset, it is worth noting that the council has received nearly 1,800 objections from local people. It is no wonder that the strength of feeling against this big tech project is so strong: the proposed site, which covers about 55 acres of land, is being labelled as “sustainable”, which is frankly insulting to my constituents. An environmental impact assessment shows that the proposed data centre would emit pollution that would rank it among the worst 10 polluters in Scotland. The data centre requires its own electricity substation and 200 diesel generators as back-up. Even if they are never run for operational purposes, the generators will have to come online as part of a regular maintenance programme. As we are here in Westminster Hall today in sweltering temperatures in the middle of a heatwave, let us also ponder the scale of the low-grade waste heat that the AI data centre would produce. The direct thermal exhaust creates hot air, which needs to be dispersed into the atmosphere. AI chips created by the big tech company Nvidia get so hot that they need liquid cooling, creating a warm liquid that must then be piped out. That intense thermal exhaust can raise temperatures by up to 9°. Surface warming can impact areas up to six miles away. As I said, the proposed site is just 20 metres from a care home, 500 metres from a hospital that serves approximately 300,000 people and is in a residential area full of families with children. The proposal is outrageous. The noise being produced by the data centre will be constant. It will include infrasonic noise, the long wavelengths of which travel vast distances and can penetrate walls and glass, even defeating ear protectors. That pollution can cause serious physical and psychological harm and distress. Surely there will be consensus in this Chamber when I say that technology should not come with a health warning to people, families and communities. I would like to think that legislators at every level of government consider that to be the baseline for any of their decisions. Of course, technology will play an increasing role in our society, but proposed developments like the one in Larbert rightly have people worried. Its proximity to the hospital, care home and many houses shows that people are right to be concerned. It is shameful that tech companies do not seem to be bothered about that. Technology cannot and must not be an industry that exploits people, communities and our environment for profit.

    Hansard source
40. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    I give my thanks and gratitude, alongside those of hon. and right hon. Members, to those who serve and have served. In opening the debate, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) talked about putting politics to one side, but everything is a political choice. Decisions are based on ideology, priorities and one’s belief of what is the right course of action. I accept that my contribution to the debate will be an isolated one, but it is based on my personal ideology, priorities and beliefs. The bare minimum in any debate should be honesty. It is therefore important that, straight away, we address with honesty that any movement from the self-imposed strait jacket of the fiscal rules through an increase in defence spending will have to mean a cut to other areas. The Opposition has framed this debate specifically with welfare as the target. With that in mind, I will talk a little about welfare. Just under a fortnight ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), I organised an evidence-gathering session in Grangemouth for the Right to Food UK Commission, which has toured the country investigating the state of food insecurity and poverty. In Grangemouth, we heard from fantastic local organisations that provide food to individuals and families who are living in such a dire, precarious position that they are reliant on the generosity of others. Those organisations laid out the stark reality: the reason that people are in that situation is low wages that have not kept pace with inflation all the way through the Conservative Governments from 2010 onwards. And let us not forget the Liberal Democrats’ part in the early days of the austerity coalition that created a new strata of society—that of the in-work poor. In 2010, 30,000 people used food banks. More than 3 million people use food banks today. It was not as if the Conservative Government of the day were investing in defence—quite the opposite. During those austerity years, the state gradually withdrew itself every year, cut by cut, until we were left with a social security system that is no longer a genuine safety net. People are falling through it; they will never escape poverty. Does no one here in this Chamber question why we have a national minimum wage, a living wage and a real living wage? Is it not absolutely absurd that we have three different figures that are deemed acceptable but are all, in all honesty, so low that they are nowhere near enough for people to live on? For heaven’s sake, we are one of the biggest economies in the world, yet we have 14% of our children going hungry, workers needing food banks to survive, low wages, decimated public services, poverty, inequality, and communities that have been asset-stripped for decades. If we want to talk about national security, let us acknowledge that all those things are killing our people right now. What kind of country do we live in when we allow that kind of poverty? What are we actually supposed to be defending here? National security is about more than defence spending. It is about creating a healthy, well-educated nation and about people having good, well-paid, secure jobs and adequate housing. As I say, it is always about political choices and about priorities, and I make no apology for those being mine.

    Hansard source