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. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

   Human Rights: Supply Chains

   I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of safeguarding human rights in supply chains. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, particularly as you had such short notice. Globalisation and technological advances over the last few years have given us the ability to better connect across the world and improved our ability to trade globally. With increased connectivity comes increased awareness of issues and events around the world, and one issue that that increased awareness has brought into sharp focus is human rights in our country’s supply chains. From the Boohoo scandal, involving the exploitation of workers paid £3.50 an hour in a factory in Leicester, to the Bangladesh sweatshops making our clothes, to state-imposed forced labour for the Uyghur community in China, we have never been more aware of the need to ensure that our supply chains do not involve human rights violations and the exploitation of workers at home and abroad. Supply chains run our daily lives, but the uncertainty over where many of our daily products originate and whether they have been produced through forced labour and in inhumane conditions has wide-ranging ethical and national security implications. Here is an example to illustrate the point. This morning, a nurse in the UK woke up to prepare for her NHS shift. She wears a cotton uniform, the fibres of which were produced with Uyghur forced labour. For breakfast, she eats a banana grown by workers facing union-busting in Costa Rica. She checks her smartphone, built with cobalt mined by children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She makes her journey to work in a car fuelled by petrol from companies linked to threats against environmental defenders and indigenous communities in Nigeria. At hospital, she puts on gloves made in a union-busting factory in Sri Lanka, under lights powered by solar panels made with Uyghur forced labour in China, and uses surgical tools linked to child labour in Pakistan. On her break, she gets a cup of tea with a biscuit containing palm oil from Indonesia, where communities and forests have been swept away to be replaced with palm oil plantations.

   Hansard source
2. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

   Human Rights: Supply Chains

   The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I am sure many colleagues in the Chamber will focus on the Uyghurs in their contributions, but he is right to highlight the abuse in China and the need to address it. That is the reality in UK supply chains: these products, which we use every day, are integrated into our lives. We need legislation to fix that, to prevent the abuse of human rights and the degradation of the environment.

   Hansard source
3. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

   Human Rights: Supply Chains

   My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The lack of trade union rights globally is seriously worrying. I am a proud trade unionist, and we need to ensure that trade union rights are respected in our UK supply chains. I will come on to that shortly in my speech. Our country is the birthplace of the trade union movement. We pride ourselves on championing workers’ rights, human rights and our democratic values. Our Labour Government recently passed the Employment Rights Act 2025, the biggest reform of workers’ rights in a generation, bringing more security to millions of workers and making work pay. Our freedoms of association and collective bargaining—some of the most important rights we have—allow workers to have representation in the face of unfair treatment and to advocate for fair pay and protections against dismissal, discrimination and other unfair and inhumane conditions. The same cannot be said for workers around the world. Workers in 75% of countries are denied the right to freedom of association. In many countries, it is illegal to be a trade unionist. Coupled with attacks on freedom of speech, we have countless reports of human rights activists and environmental defenders being threatened, or even killed, when challenging or opposing abuses by large corporations. With 50 million people trapped in modern slavery globally—a number that is growing every year—and labour rights under threat almost everywhere, it has never been more critical to tackle this issue head on. Without those freedoms, workers have no power to challenge inhumane conditions that exacerbate inequality and poverty, particularly for women and children. The UK was once a leader on safeguarding human rights and supply chains, but we are now falling behind. Currently, we have a patchwork of narrow legislation and guidelines on businesses and human rights that are not enforcing our moral duty to ensure that our supply chains are free from human rights abuses.

   Hansard source
4. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

   Human Rights: Supply Chains

   My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will come to in just a moment. I strongly support the strengthening of section 54 and its application. With the UK importing £20 billion-worth of high-risk goods every year, our current framework is not effective enough in preventing goods made with forced labour from entering the UK market, despite the Government’s stated position that no company operating in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chains. The Modern Slavery Act was considered world-leading legislation, as the UK was the first country in the world to introduce such legislation. However, the current transparency and supply chain reporting, as set out in section 54 of the Act, is wholly inadequate, applying only to organisations with a turnover of more than £36 million, and excluding public bodies, meaning many businesses and organisations fall through the cracks. The exclusion of public bodies from the duty to report on transparency in their supply chains can leave our country’s most important agencies vulnerable to being complicit in horrific human rights abuses, which affect not only the welfare of workers globally, but the stability and growth of our economy. In addition, the transparency reporting duty can be met by an organisation simply declaring that it has taken no steps to address forced labour in its supply chains; that is simply not good enough. Corporate giants with big money are given a free pass to escape their moral responsibilities by not even looking for any abuses present in their supply chains. At present, businesses are able to voluntarily identify, mitigate or prevent any forced labour risks found in their supply chains. Many responsible businesses in the UK want to do the right thing, but are being undercut by corporate giants and less responsible companies. Clear and enforceable rules are needed in order to provide the right guidance for businesses and level the playing field for all. We can address that by introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation to hold all businesses, across all sectors, including financial institutions and the public sector, legally accountable for preventing human rights abuses and environmental harm in their supply chains. Mandatory due diligence would compel corporations to undertake proactive processes to minimise and manage the risk of violations within their operations by, for example, conducting risk assessments, requiring their suppliers to fulfil certain conditions or carrying out unannounced audits. Internationally, we are far behind our allies and partners. All other G7 nations have introduced or plan to introduce mandatory due diligence laws or import bans on goods made by forced labour. The EU is doing both. With the UK seeking a closer relationship and alignment with the EU, we must catch up. Businesses themselves have also spoken up. In the last few years, more than 150 businesses and investors, representing more than £4.5 trillion in UK assets, have publicly demanded mandatory standards. The Trades Union Congress, the Ethical Trading Initiative, the British Retail Consortium and the Corporate Justice Coalition, which collectively represent more than 350 high street brands with £800 billion in turnover, have called on the Government to introduce mandatory due diligence laws. Public support shows that people value companies that responsibly source and produce products we use every day, with four in five adults supporting new laws. By failing to update the current patchwork of legislation and guidelines, and delaying the introduction of human rights and environmental due diligence laws, we are failing workers, communities and environments integrated into our supply chains, failing UK businesses that want to do the right thing and ultimately risking the complicity of the UK economy, as well as our national security. The Government have already made it clear that supply chain resilience is critical to the UK’s economic security. In June last year, the trade strategy committed to a new supply chain centre within the Department for Business and Trade, which will play a role in supporting businesses to address the risks of forced labour in supply chains. The strategy also launched the responsible business conduct review—the UK’s implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. A year later, Parliament is still waiting for the review to be published and scrutinised, although I very much welcome yesterday’s publication of the action plan for the supply chain centre. The trade strategy rightly recognised that strengthening responsible business conduct “is not only a moral imperative”, but “a positive part of the Government’s mission to grow the economy.” Supply chains and the need to ensure that they are free of abuses and harm are embedded in our growth mission. With modern slavery costing the UK economy £60 billion every year, we urgently need to ensure that we do not lose out on more growth, and we can do that by simply introducing new legislation. The resilience of our economy goes hand in hand with our energy security. The conflict in the middle east and the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war, which have significantly contributed to the cost of living crisis for our constituents, have shown more clearly than ever that the UK must become energy independent and continue focusing on renewable sources of energy. However, the security of home-grown energy is exposed when we look further into its supply chain. An estimated 98% of solar panels in the UK are produced in China, predominantly in the Xinjiang region, with forced labour from the Uyghur community. Therefore, the UK is at risk of being a dumping ground for slave labour-produced solar panels. We must ensure that, with new legislation on Great British Energy, home-grown energy is produced through ethical means, so that in producing energy to heat our homes, we do not contribute to the inhumane treatment of workers and communities around the world. In addressing those challenges, we cannot overlook the unbreakable link between safeguarding human rights and protecting the environment in supply chains; when there is a failure to protect one, the other suffers. UK imports of beef, soya, cocoa, rubber and palm oil—also known as forest risk commodities—have wiped out forests the size of our major cities. The UK’s deforestation footprint linked to those imports has increased to 39,000 hectares in the last few years and is likely to be higher. The biggest culprit is corned beef from Brazilian companies such as JBS, which have been linked to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of the earth. When communities lose vital access to clean water because of corporate contamination, when indigenous communities lose access to ancestral lands or when environmental defenders are threatened or killed for speaking out against mega-projects that destroy our environment, it becomes a human rights issue. New legislation must address all human rights and environmental harms in a way that provides clarity to businesses in ensuring that they are conducting themselves responsibly. The legislation needed to address those issues would protect the workers, communities and vital environments involved in producing our everyday goods. Consumers in the UK could be sure that they were shopping responsibly and not contributing to abuses around the world, and businesses could have the clarity they need in order to do the right thing. I have a few asks of the Government. Parliament continues to await the publication of two reviews set out in the trade strategy last year. Can the Minister confirm when the responsible business conduct review and the national baseline assessment will be published, the key outcomes that should be expected from those reviews, and a timeline for moving from review to action on the recommendations of each report? Given the interconnectedness of human rights, labour rights and environmental harm, can she confirm that the Government will engage in meaningful action to address this issue by adopting a thorough and holistic, rather than narrow, approach to responsible business conduct? Do the Government agree that we need cross-cutting and holistic legislation to provide clarity and certainty to UK businesses, rather than a patchwork approach that burdens businesses that act responsibly while enabling irresponsible businesses to undercut them? Failure to act on human rights abuses and environmental harm will damage the resilience of our supply chains and our economy. Introducing the human rights and environmental safeguards to UK supply chains set out in my speech is not just the right thing to do economically; it is our ethical and moral duty to ensure that the protections that we enjoy in the UK are shared across the world.

   Hansard source
5. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

   Human Rights: Supply Chains

   We have had a great debate. There has been lots of agreement in the room, and I am sure the Minister heard the strength of feeling about what needs to be done. We would very much welcome the responsible business conduct review happening as quickly as possible. I know that it is not in the Minister’s direct brief and I know that she is a champion of international labour rights, but we need it to happen as quickly as possible. We also need to ensure that section 54 is strengthened. That has cross-party support and I am sure that we will get there eventually, but it needs to happen quickly. I look forward to having a more detailed response from the Department in due course. Mr Dowd, thank you again for stepping into the breach at the last minute and allowing this debate to proceed. We could not have done it without you. I hope you have a very happy birthday as well. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of safeguarding human rights in supply chains.

   Hansard source
6. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Apsana Begum

   Human Rights: Supply Chains

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this important debate, which has implications for human rights everywhere—whether here at home or in Malaysia, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo or elsewhere. I will focus my remarks first on Bangladesh. In May, the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh, which I chair, held a meeting on workers’ rights and labour conditions in Bangladesh following the 13th anniversary of the Rana Plaza collapse; we were joined by the Rana Plaza Solidarity Collective, the International Centre for Trade Union Rights and human rights lawyers. On 24 April 2013, 1,134 garment workers lost their lives in what trade unions at the time described as a “mass industrial homicide”. The incident exposed the brutality of the global production system, in which labour rights are constantly under attack. I want to be clear: those Bangladeshi lives would not have been taken if workers’ rights, which are human rights, were respected in global supply chains. Before the Rana Plaza collapse, workers’ safety concerns were unheard by managers and their attempts to organise unions to address their unsafe working conditions were suppressed. A global outrage followed the collapse of Rana Plaza, and it is true that there have been welcome advances in workers’ rights in Bangladesh since then, but the truth is that the gains have been slow and partial, and unevenly distributed across industries. That is in part due to a failure to implement universal mandatory responsibilities for human rights and labour rights. Instead, we have seen the spread of voluntary mechanisms for safeguarding rights. Brands in the global north that want to avoid reputational risk are the ones that implement safeguards themselves. Many garment industry workers supplying the likes of Zara or Walmart do benefit from some of the measures introduced on labour rights, but that is not universal. For those in sectors less exposed to reputational damage, it is a different story. For example, in Chittagong’s deadly shipbreaking industry, workers, including child labourers, still face highly dangerous conditions without safety equipment or compensation on death. Shipping being what it is, that affects nearly every supply chain in the world. We cannot pretend that Bangladesh’s garment or exporting factories are now all safe. As Labour Behind the Label has pointed out, fires at two separate factories last autumn, in which 17 people were killed, have shown the glaring gaps in protections between firms that have adopted the international accord and those that have not. In the years since Rana Plaza, Bangladesh has seen another 7,160 deaths in the workplace—a figure that is likely a gross undercount. That figure alone should tell us that we have long moved past the point where voluntary corporate responsibilities alone can be considered sufficient. As we explored in the APPG on Bangladesh, in response to the Rana Plaza collapse France introduced its duty of vigilance law, requiring companies to establish, publish and effectively implement measures to prevent severe abuses of human rights in their supply chains. We have also seen the EU move to bring in a due diligence directive; Members have already pointed out how that has been watered down. None the less, I think its existence has created a legal pathway, absent in the UK, to provide victims of corporate abuse with a path to actually seek justice. As I have mentioned, in the UK we still rely mostly on voluntary measures that offer little protection to billions of workers globally who work for unscrupulous employers or sectors. In that context, market forces will continue to drive down labour rights in a race to the bottom that rewards bad business practices and exploits or even kills workers. As civil society organisations, including those here today, have pointed out, mandatory due diligence laws are already in force in many European nations and are being advanced in Asia. If the UK fails to keep pace, we risk becoming a dumping ground for tainted goods, with our market enabling abhorrent rights violations. In the same vein, it cannot be said that it is anywhere near sufficient for the Government to offer new business risk guidance to firms undertaking business with settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That does not meet the demands of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the occupation, and offers tacit permission, dressed in strong wording, for firms to continue to do business with illegal settlements. That settlement trade serves to entrench the settlements’ unlawful presence, while the importing of goods and produce justifies their continued expansion. I want to be clear that that expansion is a violent process of ethnic cleansing undertaken by means of horrific settler attacks, hand in hand with a military occupation that stifles Palestinian people’s livelihoods and demolishes their homes. UK trade policy enables those rights abuses. I note the words of ActionAid, which states that the business guidance “is effectively outsourcing the UK’s compliance with international law to private actors.” All this shows how all-encompassing the issue of human rights in supply chains is. There is no doubt that if the UK Government are serious about protecting people’s human rights, including labour rights, in supply chains, strong legislation must be brought in. I note that at present a model is being advanced in the other place. I hope that all Members will support the calls from trade unions, lawyers and civil society organisations in the Corporate Justice Coalition to bring forward a new business, human rights and environmental Bill. To be meaningful, protections for human rights, including workers’ rights, must be enshrined in law. We can say that we take human rights seriously only when we take seriously accountability for the abuses committed to bring goods to our markets. That is important because every worker deserves dignity and equality, and upholding those rights is a collective responsibility. We fail in those duties if the rights that we enjoy are denied to those in other parts of the world.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this statement. The Courts and Tribunals Bill was introduced in February as a response to the Crown court crisis. There were over 80,000 outstanding cases as of December 2025, with some trials being listed into 2030. That harms victims, defendants and witnesses alike. We recognise the urgency of that crisis and acknowledge that continuing with the status quo is not an option. In response to the crisis, the Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his independent review of criminal courts, which has been published in two extensive parts and makes 180 recommendations to address the crisis and reduce the backlog. The Government’s Bill has been informed by Sir Brian’s review, although it deviates from his recommendations in some key areas. Last Wednesday, the Justice Committee published a report setting out our critique of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, based upon three oral evidence sessions and over 130 written submissions. I take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed to the report, in particular Committee members of all parties, many of whom are here today, and of course our secretariat. Our report makes recommendations to improve the Bill and draws attention to some of its unintended consequences, and it aims to inform further scrutiny of the Bill in both Houses. I note that we do not yet have a confirmed date for the Bill’s return to this House on Report. I hope we will have that soon. The Government introduced the Bill without publishing a formal response to part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review. The Government also declined to allow the Justice Committee to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. We instead launched our inquiry a matter of days after the Bill’s publication, as we felt this landmark piece of legislation required proper, in-depth parliamentary scrutiny. We know it is hard for the Government to change course once a Bill is introduced, but this is an area where the Government should have enabled more parliamentary input before pushing forward, particularly given that the Bill’s provisions will not come into force until March 2028 at the earliest. Our report is analytical, but crucially it is constructive and aims to improve rather than dismiss what the Government have proposed. It covers all clauses of the Bill dealing with reform of the criminal courts, but I will focus my remarks on a few key areas. First, let me address the impact on magistrates courts, which will significantly increase owing to the removal of the right for defendants to elect for Crown court trial and by increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers. Our principal finding on this point is that we are not convinced that the magistrates courts will be able to cope. It seems unrealistic to propose that 7,000 magistrates can be recruited in three years so that there will be 21,000 magistrates by 2029. Previous recruitment campaigns have fallen far short of their targets. Retention also remains a persistent challenge and there is a chronic shortage of suitably qualified legal advisers. The Government must demonstrate, in more detail than they have done so far, that expanding capacity in the magistrates court is deliverable. As part of that, we recommend that the Government should significantly increase the number of salaried district judges. They must also ensure that the pay of legal advisers matches comparable legal roles in the public sector. The Government seek the authority to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 months or even 24 months—double what they are now. Until recently the maximum was six months, and then from October 2024, 12 months. Sir Brian said that this should be set permanently at 12 months and that the Government should not be able to vary it at will. We say at the least that any change should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and debated in Parliament. Otherwise, every time there is a peak in prisoner numbers, the Government will shift magistrates’ sentencing powers down to six or 12 months and then back up to 18 or 24 when they stabilise again. On appeals from the magistrates court, we recognise the Government’s concern that, as more cases are retained, unmanaged growth in appeal volumes could place additional pressure on the Crown court. We also accept that the current automatic right to a full rehearing can, in some cases, place a stressful burden on victims and witnesses. However, appeals currently represent a small and declining proportion of overall Crown court receipts, with only 0.4% of magistrates court decisions appealed in 2025. They are resolved quickly and with a high success rate, suggesting that the right to a full rehearing plays an important role in correcting wrongful outcomes. The Bill provides for the introduction of audio recording in magistrates courts for trial and sentencing. This would allow for an accurate record of proceedings to be transcribed in support of an appeal. Several submissions we received raised concerns about the scale of such an undertaking and the practicalities of equipping magistrates courts with the necessary facilities. It would benefit no one if changes were introduced before recording systems were properly functioning or if they subsequently failed. We recommend that any changes to magistrates appeals should be introduced only once recording of all magistrates court proceedings has been introduced and is proven to be operating effectively. The main public and professional criticisms of the Bill have been around judge-only trials, and the creation of a Crown court bench division. Our report focuses more on the question of whether that will work in practice rather than the principles of the reform. We decided the proposal to introduce judge-only trials hangs on allocation to a jury trial or the bench division. That will be done by an assessment, at the first hearing in the Crown court, as to whether the defendant would receive a sentence of three years or more. While many cases will be straightforward, the allocation process could consume a significant amount of court time and judicial resource overall. We think the three-year threshold for deciding which sort of trial a defendant gets will need some more consideration. At present, when magistrates decide whether a case should be allocated to the Crown court, they consider the length of the potential sentence, but they also can consider the circumstances of the case. Should the Crown court not also be able to say that a case is likely to have a sentence of less than three years, but should still have a jury trial? We conclude that the allocation process as currently designed is likely to be complex, time consuming and will lead to unintended consequences. Reliance on likely sentence length as the sole criteria will mean that defendants with previous convictions are more likely to face a jury trial than those without, and that children are less likely to face a jury than adults accused of the same offence. We recommend that children should be exempt from being tried at the bench division. We also raise concerns that the predicted 20% time saving of judge-only trials, so heavily relied on in both the Bill and Sir Brian’s review, lacks sufficient evidential basis. Finally, on equality, we share the concerns of many in the justice sector around the potential equality impacts of the Bill, particularly in relation to race. An unreformed justice system already perpetuates a range of inequalities, and we do not feel that the Government have tackled those head on through the Bill. The Bill proposes to expand the role of both the magistrates court and judge-only Crown court proceedings, while reducing the role of juries. The Lammy review, in 2017, concluded that juries are one of the few areas of the criminal justice system where black and ethnic minority defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes. It is shocking that only 1% of Crown court judges are black, a figure that has not changed since 2015. This has serious implications for the trust that black defendants may have in the bench division, where judges will sit alone. We recommend that the Government take action to improve progression routes to the senior judiciary, and that they set a clear national target to achieve a representative judiciary and magistracy by 2035. We recognise the need to reform our criminal justice system and commend the Government for commissioning the Leveson review and proposing comprehensive reforms. We hope, however, that they will take note of our recommendations, which we believe would improve the Bill while maintaining the core values of justice and fairness in our criminal justice system.

   Hansard source
8. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   The hon. Member is right to mention that there was a dissenting report, which was not approved by the Committee. Other members may wish to raise that issue. From my point of view, it was reassuring that the analysis in both reports was very similar. I hope that I correctly reflected some of those concerns in my statement. What the outcome of those concerns should be may have been a matter of difference between different parties, but that all adds to the spice of life on Select Committees. I agree with the hon. Member on magistrates. There has been so much attention on the issue of judge-only trials, which is crucial, but the Bill will succeed or fail on recruitment and the type and nature of magistrates court proceedings. They are being asked to do a huge amount of heavy lifting, and it is only fair that the Government keep us up to date on progress.

   Hansard source
9. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   My hon. Friend is an assiduous member of the Committee. In the same week that the Committee published this report, we published our report on the pre-appointment hearing for the new Judicial Appointments Commission chair. We feel strongly that the Government need to look at judicial appointments and progression, because it is clearly not working at the moment. It undermines the credibility of a judiciary that we all take huge pride in if they are not reflective of the population at large. That was true before the Bill; it is even more true after it.

   Hansard source
10. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    The hon. Lady is also an assiduous member of the Committee, and I appreciate what she said about important respects in which the Government, without evidencing the reasons, have departed from Leveson—for example, on whether magistrates should sit with judges in the bench division. She makes a good point: because the Government have deviated from what Leveson recommended, there is a narrow window between what can happen in the magistrates court and what is left for the Crown court bench division to do. The Government will have to look at that again. Some Members may think that that is a good thing, because they are not supportive of the Crown court bench division, but we have to have a system that has credibility and works seamlessly.

    Hansard source
11. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I rely on the hon. Gentleman to attend these statements, so that he can make that point, as he has done during every Justice Committee statement on the Floor of the House. He is right that, even though the Bill will apply in England and Wales, the lessons can be learned elsewhere. I will undertake to go back to my officials and ensure that that work is done.

    Hansard source
12. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I thank my hon. Friend for all his work as Chair of the APPG and with the contaminated blood community. On the issue he has just raised, there is growing support for a national oversight mechanism to monitor and intervene when recommendations from public inquiries are being ignored or misapplied. Does he agree that it is particularly important in the case of contaminated blood, where there have been so many false starts and delays? Although the Minister has announced a new mechanism to raise concerns about how compensation schemes function, does he agree that such monitoring must be statutory and self-resourced to ensure fair and timely compensation for victims and their families?

    Hansard source
13. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andrew Lewin

    Topical Questions

    T2. There are not one but two England teams that currently have a 100% record of success in world cups: not only did the men’s football team have a cracking result against Croatia last night, but the England women’s cricket team have won two from two in their world T20 tournament games so far. Will the Minister say a little more about how we will capitalise on the success of the women’s world T20 and ensure that cricket is a sport that grows and is available to all?

    Hansard source
14. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Hack

    Access to Music and Dance Training

    Musical theatre and dance are important parts of the creative industries. Kristian Thomas Company in my constituency provides extensive training for young people aged four upwards, up to formal qualifications at BTEC and foundation degree level. What financial support is given to organisations such as KTC so that they can continue offering valuable education in the arts for all young people in North West Leicestershire?

    Hansard source
15. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Mayer

    Cruelty-free Cleaning Products

    2. What steps the Commission is taking to reduce the number of cleaning products used on the parliamentary estate that are not certified as cruelty-free.

    Hansard source
16. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Mayer

    Cruelty-free Cleaning Products

    I very much welcome the progress that is being made; we are going in the right direction, from the figure of nine when I originally asked to three today. Would my hon. Friend be willing to meet with the body that runs the international approval programme for cruelty-free products, to see whether we can speed this up and make Parliament fully cruelty-free?

    Hansard source
17. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Mayer

    Business of the House

    During the recent heatwave, bus drivers reported soaring temperatures in their cabs and steering wheels that in some cases were literally too hot to handle. Will the Leader of the House consider bringing forward a debate in Government time on maximum working temperatures? As the climate changes, this issue will be of increasing importance to workers across the country.

    Hansard source
18. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

    Ticket Tout Ban

    7. What steps her Department is taking to publish the draft ticket tout ban Bill.

    Hansard source
19. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

    Ticket Tout Ban

    It would be churlish not to acknowledge the result last night. The whole House can rowdily congratulate Ghana on their fantastic victory last night. I do not think the Minister fully understands the real sense of disappointment and frustration that those in the live sector feel because there is no full Bill, as has been promised by everybody, from the Prime Minister down. While this Government dither, fans continue to be ripped off by the touts, the profiteers and the spivs, as they suck the lifeblood out of our live music sector. Can the Minister clearly set out how the Bill will progress and when the sector is likely to see an outcome? Can he possibly explain why the outlawed company Viagogo was recently in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, weeks before the announcement was made?

    Hansard source
20. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

    Topical Questions

    T3. We are now over a year out from the Government’s debacle over their consultation on AI and the creative industries. There seems to be a welcome commitment towards the copyright framework, but website owners still cannot see who is taking their content, and rights holders, publishers and journalists are watching their work being scraped in real time. There was a commitment to transparency, so when will we see the Government’s plans?

    Hansard source
21. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I whole- heartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on the customarily forthright and direct way in which he opened the debate. I agree with all the points he made; he would expect that of me, as his loyal deputy on the all-party parliamentary group. It is great that we have heard so many solid and significant contributions today. Once we are a couple of hours into a debate, we start to get a feeling for how it is going, the emerging themes and the sense of direction. We all acknowledge and appreciate the huge progress that has been made. When I started out on this campaign more than 20 years ago, I would never have believed that we could get to this point, at which payments are being made to those impacted and those affected. The Minister is starting to hear that the same issues are emerging. Constituents are experiencing the same complications and difficulties, and the same representations are being made. I will not touch on those, because so many have been raised, but I might just reinforce some of the points made. The Minister is beginning to hear a chorus of things that need to be addressed—and addressed they must be. We are on the cusp of having something of which we can be proud—of this House having addressed one of the biggest scandals that we have ever experienced in parliamentary life. We took control of it; we handled it; we got a report and an inquiry; and we got billions of pounds of compensation. We have the opportunity to pay that compensation right now, and I hope that the Government grab it. I pay tribute to IBCA for the work that it has done. It is amazing that we have put together the infrastructure and a support scheme as quickly as we have. IBCA has done remarkable work in such a short time. It is starting to deliver, and I think we are all immensely pleased and proud that this House has collectively been able to construct it, and to make sure that it is functional and works. I have visited IBCA on a couple of occasions, and I have met the staff and discussed many of these issues with them. I recognise their sheer dedication to the work that they are pursuing, in the best interests of everybody whom they serve; and their commitment, as an arm’s length body. It is amazing that we have got here, but it was not always like this. I remember what happened back in the early 2000s. I am looking at the chair of the APPG, my friend the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, and he will remember this, too. We were fobbed off, disregarded and lied to when we took up the cases of our constituents. They presented to us at our various surgeries with these unexplained difficulties and complications. They would say, “How did I get HIV?”, or “I’ve got hepatitis. I do not know how on earth this happened.” We would write to successive Ministers in the Department of Health, making representations, and asking for assistance or acknowledgement, only to be told that they were not interested, and that there was nothing to see here. They would say, “Move along. We are not prepared to take this up. Believe me, we are doing everything in our power, and there’s really nothing to acknowledge.” For years, we were fobbed off and disregarded, and for years, we fought on. Over the years, I have got to know the campaigners. They came together with a common purpose, determined to get to the heart of the issue and to support each other. We call them the community, and we could not find a better community than the campaigners who have led this, been at the forefront, and refused to accept “No”. They are people with different lives from different backgrounds, but they all carry the burden of what happened to them. All of them are still here, fighting the good fight, determined to get justice for the whole community, and that whole community is the key thing today. I was the APPG chair for all those years, and the community has some of the finest people I have ever encountered. I have seen lots of campaigns in this House, and I have seen how people approach these issues, how they take them forward, how they engage and how they access their Members of Parliament to make sure that things are done. It is the most fantastic campaign we have ever had. Unfortunately, I could not make the ceremony at St Paul’s, as I was recovering from an illness, but I know from friends, colleagues and campaigners who were there the importance to them of that ceremony, where they were recognised as a community for their work. There have been high points, and we should acknowledge that. Few of us would have expected Theresa May to have made the announcement back in 2017 that there was to be a full inquiry. A lot of us were surprised that she chose Sir Brian Langstaff to lead it, and lead it he did. Like many people in this debate, I listened to lots of the evidence in the inquiry sessions, and I cheered along with the community when the report was produced. I was in this House when the report was launched, and the Government took full responsibility and said that there would be a full repayment scheme and that people would get what they should. Those were great days, met with real enthusiasm and euphoria by those who have campaigned. There have been good days, but we have to address the biggest issue. It has been mentioned on several occasions, so I will not labour the point, but people have been waiting decades. Even at this point, the majority of these people are still waiting just to start their claim. That is not to receive compensation—we might think that we would be at that stage now—but just to get into the system. Even at this stage, only a relatively small number have been paid. People have mentioned that these are real people—people who are unwell and who know that time is not on their side. I do not know which Member mentioned it, but people are dying weekly because they are not having their situation attended to and their payments made. Families still have no clarity about when their case will move forward. That is made worse by what is being asked of them. I have been surprised—I have listened carefully to colleagues who have raised this—that we see people being asked for evidence that in many cases simply does not exist. They have been asked for records from decades ago, such as proof of cohabitation between parents and children in the 1980s. Those things were probably never properly recorded in the first place, and if they had been, it may have been lost over time. That means that so many people are being delayed or sometimes shut out completely because they cannot meet requirements that are not realistic. In some cases, people run into a purely arbitrary administrative date, rather than when harm was actually suffered. Members have mentioned the bereaved families in whose cases support can stop at the point of death rather than reflecting the full impact of what has been lost. Another theme that has developed—I think it was the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) who raised this in particular—is the growing concern about those with hepatitis C who were treated with interferon. That has to be addressed. Of all the issues that have started to emerge, that is the one that the community in general wants us to press as strongly and as directly as we can with the Minister. I hope that we get some satisfaction.

    Hansard source
22. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    Interferon was introduced as almost like a chemotherapy drug back in the day, and some of its impacts and consequences have been similar to the side effects and impacts of chemotherapy. Physically and mentally, the effects are often severe and long-lasting. When the Minister is on his feet, perhaps he can explain a little more about what he intends to do with this group and this community. The Government have introduced a new level 2B to recognise some of these harms, and my understanding is that it provides a temporary uplift, but it seems to apply only in certain circumstances. What it does not seem to do—I have read about it carefully—is reflect the long-term reality for many. The argument appears to be that the higher category covers just about everything else when it comes to interferon treatment for hepatitis C, and that levels 3 and 4 already take interferon into account. My colleagues in Haemophilia Scotland asked for the evidence showing how that was factored in, and none was provided, so can the Minister tell us a more about that evidence in relation to levels 3 and 4? A similar set of concerns relate to unethical research, as we have heard. The Government have expanded eligibility and increased awards. That is welcome in principle, because it means that people are recognised without having to jump over additional evidential hurdles, but there is still a lack of clarity as to whether the level of award properly reflects what actually happened to people. The issue seems to be the arbitrary 1985 cut-off date. Perhaps the Minister can provide clarity. Officials say that there is no evidence of unethical research beyond that point, but the inquiry itself referred to evidence beyond that date, and even up to the 1990s, of children being recruited without proper information or consent. Why did the Government arrive at 1985 as a cut-off date for eligibility for unethical research awards, given that there is evidence that unethical trials and research continued well into the 1990s? There are also ongoing concerns about estate claims, because the structure of the payments could disadvantage those who died earlier, and about unpaid care over the years. That, again, has been reflected by several hon. Members. A few people referred to some of the different schemes around the devolved nations. I am particularly proud of what we did in the Scottish Parliament, and the Minister will be aware of the bespoke schemes across the whole United Kingdom, not just in Scotland. The one that particularly worked in Scotland—I want the Minister’s response regarding what has happened to it—is the special category mechanism known as the severely affected category. This was open to people who had significant problems and issues; they could apply, and were given an increased payout and support. That has since been subsumed under the general supplementary scheme; that scheme is welcome, but this is disadvantageous compared with the superior scheme in Scotland. Those who were initially on that superior scheme have been kept on it, but those who wished to apply for it have to go through bigger hoops and hurdles to get there. We need to know that scheme will still be available and that it will be easier for people to apply to it, because we were particularly pleased about the way it operated in Scotland. Let me turn finally to accountability. Throughout the decades, the Government repeatedly dismissed those asking questions and trying to achieve justice. The final report acknowledged that the infected and the affected were fed lies and lines, and that serious concerns were dismissed outright. We have to address this. We cannot leave it. We have to look at how we get round some of the things that were encountered. I remember the letters I got from various Government Ministers: “The Government do not accept that any wrongful practices were employed and do not consider that a public inquiry is justified.” I got that for years, every time I raised these issues on behalf of a constituent. I listened carefully to the infected blood inquiry. The evidence I found most compelling was from a certain Andy Burnham, who was Health Minister at one point during that period—I believe he is in the news today for some other reason, not particularly related to this. I remember Andy Burnham candidly telling the inquiry that he now knew that the lines he had been given by senior officials in the civil service were wrong, and that he had sent lies to me and other Members who raised these issues in Parliament. That is what he said, in effect, in evidence to the inquiry. That is simply unacceptable. The current Ministers are probably much better than their predecessors, and will look carefully at what comes across their desks, but this must not be allowed to happen again. That is why we need a statutory duty of candour on all public officials, including civil servants and senior civil servants. More than that, we need an independent compensation body to oversee all Government compensation schemes. Such a body would retain expertise and experience, would save time and money when schemes are set up, and would be capable of ramping up and down according to need. The Hillsborough law must be enacted without delay, introducing a duty of candour for everybody involved in public life. A national oversight mechanism should be established to monitor and scrutinise the implementation of recommendations from all public inquiries and hold the Government to account. After all this, it is hard to believe that the first meeting I had about the issue was back in about 2004, with a lovely lady from Blairgowrie, in my old constituency. She came to see me in what could only be described as a hell of a state; she could not account for why she had HIV following a blood transfusion after a medical emergency. It was because of her that I started to get involved in all this, tried to find answers and tried to ensure that campaigners got justice. The name of that lady was Tricia Titheridge. After contracting HIV, she died in 2013, without seeing the huge progress that we have made. It is because of people like Tricia that we are all still here—still fighting to ensure that everybody is included and that there is a scheme that works for all our constituents. Looking at the Minister and knowing the qualities that he will bring to this job, I am pretty certain that he is going to be the man who delivers this for everybody, meets our concerns and looks at the difficulties we have presented today.

    Hansard source
23. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ben Lake

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    For the inquiry to secure justice for victims and survivors in Wales, it is essential that it fully understands the devolved context in Wales and the various lines of accountability that arise from it. One way to achieve that would be for Wales to receive a specific investigation as one of the inquiry’s designated local areas. Will the Minister consider that?

    Hansard source
24. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ben Lake

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I am grateful that my hon. Friend has reiterated that point, and I will do likewise. Many of my constituents who have been affected and infected by this scandal have asked me to emphasise the point that even the updated scheme does not properly recognise the long-term consequences of interferon treatment.

    Hansard source
25. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. It is great to follow the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who did better than I did in my maiden speech, when I managed to mention Shitterton and Happy Bottom—and I have now done so in Hansard for a second time. By the way, they are both places in my constituency. When I first stood for Parliament in 2015, the closure of public toilets was one of the key issues raised with me by local people. In fact, we pretty much had a whole hustings on it at Canford school. Since arriving in this place I have repeatedly sought opportunities to improve provision, whether through debates or legislation. I am therefore delighted to speak today in a debate focused on people living with stomas, although many of the issues we are discussing apply equally to people with other conditions or disabilities or, indeed, other sections of our community. For many people, the worry about whether a public toilet exists, is open, clean and has the facilities they need is lifechanging. It is the difference between participating in public life or staying at home. This issue is close to home for me, as one of my close family members needed a stoma last year. It stopped them travelling into London to watch me speak in Parliament and it will even stop them travelling to see their grandchild perform in the west end in a few weeks’ time. I know they desperately want to enjoy those experiences, along with the rest of the family, but they feel trapped close to home and close to the facilities they know they can rely on. Following the hon. Member for Fylde, I will have to ask my family member what they call their stoma. Given the prevalence of bad jokes that emanate from their home on a daily basis, I am sure they will come up with something. I may need to catch the hon. Member in the Tea Room and let you know what they come up with. Simple changes, such as shelves, mirrors, disposal bins, hooks and space to manage the stoma with dignity, can cost such a small amount but make such an enormous difference. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to support further research into the adjustments that could promote the dignity, comfort and independence of people living with stomas. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views about potential changes to part M building regulations, as suggested by the hon. Member for Strangford. Too often, these small facilities are absent or even removed for fear that they might be misused for other purposes. It is shocking that more than a third of stoma users report being challenged or criticised for using accessible toilets because their condition is invisible. Two thirds of all disabled toilet users have experienced disapproving looks and almost half have been verbally challenged. Imagine how distressing it must be, particularly for someone recently diagnosed with a life-changing condition who might already be worried about getting to a toilet on time, to face the judgment of strangers. For people with stomas, older people, those managing disabilities or continence conditions, pregnant women and parents caring for young children, access to an appropriate toilet is not just a convenience; it is essential. With the new EHRC guidance, those who are transgender, non-binary or do not conform to gender stereotypes—for whom the disabled loo is not their preferred choice, and nor should it be—now find that the disabled toilets may be the only way to protect their dignity and stay safe. Public toilets are becoming even more of an issue for more people. There is also a widespread assumption that men’s toilets do not need sanitary bins, but they are essential for many men living with stomas. I was also delighted to join Matt Forde in Parliament last year as part of the prostate cancer “Boys Need Bins” campaign. For people with continence issues, the absence of bins can have a completely unnecessary effect on their confidence, dignity and independence. This includes people with stomas or bladder, bowel or digestive conditions. Liberal Democrats are therefore calling on the Government to ensure that all public toilets are equipped with sanitary bins and to update workplace guidance to reflect the needs of men as well as women. There has been progress thanks to organisations such as Colostomy UK, as well as retailers such as Morrisons and B&Q, both of which made their toilets stoma-friendly, possibly after the experience the hon. Member for Fylde shared earlier. We want the Government to work with national retailers to ensure that accessible toilets are routinely made stoma-friendly. As some businesses have shown that it can be done, the challenge should be to make good practice the norm. On access to toilets more widely, the British Toilet Association estimates that the number of public toilets has fallen by around 40% since the turn of the century. Its estimates suggest that only 4,000 public toilets remain in England—one public loo for every 14,000 people. We call them public conveniences, but they are in fact a public necessity. Their decline is happening as our population is ageing and more people need the confidence that facilities are available when they go out. If we want thriving high streets, vibrant parks and successful tourist destinations, we need decent public toilets. The needs of other groups, including homeless people, refuse collectors, postal workers, delivery drivers, community nurses, social care staff, taxi drivers and highway maintenance crews, are also forgotten. I know that from personal experience, because about 10 years ago, I worked a full eight-hour shift alongside refuse collectors, starting at 5 am. When I climbed into the cab with my bottle of water and my can of Coke, they said, “You can’t drink; you can’t eat. There’s nowhere we can go.” I thought it was ridiculous that those people, who worked for us, had absolutely nowhere on their route where they could go. There was no way that we could go into a supermarket or a petrol station; we absolutely stank. It would not have been reasonable for us to go into a private business and expect to use its toilets. Thankfully, the local council addressed the issue with changes to its workplace facilities, but that sort of thing should concern us all. The Government rightly speak about healthy ageing, thriving town centres and reducing inequalities, yet all those things become harder to achieve if people are not confident about finding a toilet. If the problem is so obvious, why has it continued to get worse? Part of the answer lies in the law. Currently, councils have a power to provide public toilets, but not a duty to do so. When budgets are stretched, discretionary services are often among the first things to disappear. I do not blame councils; I used to lead one, and I know that the system is so stretched and that few options are available when budgets are getting smaller and smaller. I propose a change in approach, and I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will give it serious consideration. Councils should have a statutory duty to ensure sufficient public toilet provision within their area. That does not mean that every council must directly own or operate those facilities—community toilet schemes and partnerships with businesses, libraries, leisure centres, churches and town councils can all play an important role—but there should be a duty to assess local need, identify gaps in provision, and ensure that facilities are available when people need them and reflect a local population’s health profile. I am sure that the Minister will refer to the Pride in Place scheme, which is great for the areas that have it, but thousands of communities around the country will not have access to that capital. There needs to be a way for those areas to ensure that their residents are also protected. The Liberal Democrats also believe that Governments must support local authorities to reverse the decline in public toilet provision. Councils cannot be expected to deliver improved services if they are being continually asked to do more with less. Alongside the duty should come expectations for accessibility, maintenance and cleanliness. A toilet that does not lock, or is filthy or unusable, is not really a toilet. Where facilities are built or refurbished, they should be genuinely inclusive, including by being stoma-friendly. We should also think carefully about signage. Not every disability is visible, and the current image of a wheelchair may itself drive the perception that someone is “not disabled enough.” The adjustments required are small, simple things: shelves, mirrors, hooks, disposal bins and signage. This is a public health issue because people who choose not to go out will become more isolated, and that will affect their mental health. Those who restrict fluids to reduce the risk of getting caught short can develop other conditions. Those who are forced to change their stomas on filthy floors, or change their disabled child behind a bush, will not only face distress but risk serious infection.

    Hansard source
26. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I worked for Diverse Abilities, which looks after disabled children and adults in Dorset. The number of times that we could not ensure that the children in our care had suitable facilities was really frightening. I spoke at the Backbench Business Committee earlier this week, where the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), put in a pitch for a debate on a new strategy for Changing Places toilets. That is hugely important, and I would absolutely support it.

    Hansard source
27. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention on behalf of the Chair, and I pay tribute to Jessica—what a fantastic young lady! Her story, having gone through her childhood and teenage years with this condition, is incredibly heartwarming. Wales already has the statutory requirement for a local toilet strategy. Surely England can do the same—it is not a flashy proposal. As we said earlier, it is about very basic needs. It does not require a new quango or a major reorganisation; it is simply about recognising that public toilets are part of the essential infrastructure of a modern and civilised society. Whether someone is living with a stoma, raising a young family, managing a disability, working outdoors all day or simply getting older, access to a toilet should not determine whether they can take part in public life. The British Toilet Association’s “Legalise Loos” campaign talks about the “loo leash”, and states that “14 million people have incontinence issues; 15 million people menstruate, and 16 million people have a disability.” We are failing all those people if we do not have decent toilets. My message is simple: support research into stoma-friendly facilities, work with retailers to make accessible toilets fit for purpose, ensure sanitary bins are available wherever they are needed, support councils to reverse the decades of decline in public toilet provision and make it a statutory responsibility to have a strategy. Alongside those measures, move from powers to duties by requiring councils to assess need, ensure sufficient provision and provide clean, accessible and dignified facilities. Public toilets are not an optional extra or a convenience; they are part of essential infrastructure. Until we recognise that fact, too many people will remain excluded from public life simply because they cannot be sure where they will go when nature calls.

    Hansard source
28. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I take the Minister’s point. As a former council leader, I know that the last thing that councils need is a whole load of additional things that they have to do, but the point is that there is fear and inconsistency. If there is a postcode lottery when it comes to whether a council is sufficiently interested in ensuring provision or making information available to people, people will end up staying at home because they do not know what the rules are in the place they are travelling to. I gently urge the Minister to think carefully about placing a duty on local authorities to make provision in their area. If we want everybody to have the opportunity to engage in public life, that is the bare minimum.

    Hansard source
29. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I cannot resist the opportunity to plug the fact that, prior to being the council leader, I had a business on Broadstone high street, and we were part of the community loo scheme. There are currently five or six businesses in my ward that have open access to their toilets. Previously, there was one public toilet, which was often closed, vandalised or subject to crime. I want to take the opportunity to tell the public that “use your loo” schemes are there for people; they do not need to buy anything. It is really important that we remind our residents of that, because people are often reluctant to go into a café if they are not going to spend money.

    Hansard source
30. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    The abuse of children is the most disgusting of crimes, and anyone who is involved in it, or who protects someone involved in it, must face justice. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who I note is not in his place, published his report this week, and my constituents are eager to understand why the statutory inquiry will take three years—[Interruption.] Another two years—several years. Why is the Government-backed inquiry going to take so long?

    Hansard source
31. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Business of the House

    Those who care for our loved ones at home are unsung heroes and reduce the financial burden on the NHS. It is therefore tragic when they are subjected to harm or crime from those they bring into their homes. Yet without a carers’ register, families are left open to abuse by those who do not have Disclosure and Barring Service checks or, worse, do not have verified training in first aid, dementia and safeguarding. It is reasonable to expect that the people who provide the most personal care are safe, competent and trained. We undervalue those who work in care, so will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on professional standards in social care?

    Hansard source
32. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I put it on the record that I voted for an alternative report that I felt better reflected my concerns, but I accept that the report is a fair reflection of the Committee’s view. Given that the last recruitment drive for magistrates failed to deliver the much-needed uplift at that point, and with the expansion of magistrate-led trials adding further pressure, does the hon. Member agree that the Government should publish regular statistics on magistrate recruitment to ensure that they are on track to achieve the 21,000 by 2029?

    Hansard source
33. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and thank you again for joining us to allow this important debate to take place. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on introducing this debate so emphatically and wonderfully—I could not have done it better myself. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and as we have already heard, last year the Committee published its report, “Forced Labour in the UK’s Supply Chains”. Our inquiry found that, despite Ministers’ repeated assurances that no company operating in the UK should have any forced labour whatsoever in its supply chain, that simply is not happening in practice. Goods made, or at least partly made, with forced labour are still reaching our shelves here in the UK. In fact, we report billions of pounds of goods a year from sectors where forced labour is rife, yet companies are still not required to map their supply chains or prove that their goods are clean. Nowhere was the gap between rhetoric and reality more clearly seen than in the Government’s China audit. That was a genuine opportunity to set out, transparently in public, exactly how Britain intends to tackle state-imposed forced labour against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang and other minority groups across China. Instead, the Foreign Secretary offered us “shining a spotlight” and described the audit as an “ongoing exercise”. When our Committee pressed for concrete measures behind that language, the answers amounted to export controls and sanctions that already existed. This is not a strategy; it is a missed opportunity. Over 95% of the world’s solar panels rely on polysilicon, and over half the world’s polysilicon comes from Xinjiang, so it was unsurprising that the Government’s own evidence to our Committee accepted that there is credible evidence that companies in solar supply chains may be linked to forced labour against people in China. Thanks to the great work of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Parliament in holding the Government to account, GB Energy’s sourcing rules were strengthened. However, well over a year later, we still will not see panels guaranteed to be free of forced labour, and the issue will only be tackled “as far as possible”. Our Committee found that the industry’s own solar stewardship initiative offers thin reassurance. Certification applies to individual sites, not whole companies, so a firm with mostly uncertified factories can still wear the badge of membership. If we do not get a proper grip on this, it will be the new Achilles heel of the green transition. This is not only about solar; our inquiry also heard evidence about North Korean workers on Chinese fishing vessels. Last year, I visited the Falkland Islands as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. When we met Members of the Legislative Assembly there, we heard about how the Chinese fishing fleet in the south Atlantic was causing problems, and some of the horrific instances where the regime of the Chinese Communist party was selling and buying labour from North Korea. We have also heard today about tomatoes being processed in China that now sit on British supermarket shelves, which have been documented by the BBC as recently as last year, as well as critical minerals like cobalt from the DRC. We know that the International Labour Organisation estimates that 27.6 million people are trapped in forced labour globally, two thirds of which is linked to commercial supply chains. This is a systemic, cross-sector and growing issue. What have the Government done with the JCHR report recommendations? In October, Ministers published their response and launched a responsible business conduct review. To be fair, that is a start, but they have deferred almost everything to the review. Will the UK introduce mandatory human rights due diligence? “We are waiting on the review.” Will the UK introduce an import ban on goods linked to forced labour? “We are waiting on the review.” Will there be a stronger use of the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which Border Force and the National Crime Agency are deploying far too rarely? Well, the Government told us that they “cannot direct how the POCA powers are used”. Although that may technically be correct, Governments can resource enforcement, set priorities and fund agencies to act. Choosing not to do so is a policy choice. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) talked about section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. It requires large companies to publish supply chain transparency statements, yet we know that a significant number of companies are not complying, and those that do can satisfy their legal obligations simply by reporting that they have taken no action whatever. That is not an obligation to ensure transparency in any meaningful sense of the word. Our Committee recommended strengthening section 54, and the Government’s response is under consideration as part of the review. Next week, I will be holding the inaugural general meeting of the APPG for coffee, tea and spices, if anyone is interested—I hope to see Members there. The APPG will look at how supply chains impact women and girls working in those sectors. We heard earlier in the debate from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) about the actions that other countries have taken on slavery in supply chains. He pointed particularly to the United States and its Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which established a rebuttable presumption that anything from Xinjiang was made with forced labour, unless a company can prove otherwise. We also heard about the European Union and its forced labour regulations; we simply have a review. Our Committee recommended that the Government introduce new legislation within one year of the publication of our report. That deadline is in July 2026, just next month. Will the Government meet that deadline? I ask the Minister to take three other things from that report. First, I ask that the Government introduce mandatory human rights due diligence for UK companies. Voluntary reporting is not creating a level playing field, and businesses told our Committee as much. Secondly, will the Minister follow the United States and the European Union and introduce a proper import ban on goods linked to forced labour, rather than relying on the occasional under-used application of Proceeds of Crime Act powers? Thirdly, will the Government use the China audit for what it should have been—a public account of exactly what the UK will do to keep state-imposed forced labour out of our supply chains, starting with solar power?

    Hansard source
34. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate and raising awareness of this issue. Anyone who was at Prime Minister’s questions last week will have seen me talk about living with ulcerative colitis. I am grateful that the Prime Minister has arranged for the Minister to meet me to talk about the issues that people with inflammatory bowel disease face. If the hon. Gentleman or anyone else is interested in trying to join that meeting, should the Minister allow it, I would be more than happy to include them in that conversation.

    Hansard source
35. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time. He listed restaurants, businesses and other places where one might find a toilet. In recent years, we have seen the hollowing out of local government and the loss of publicly accessible toilets provided by town councils, unitary authorities or whatever it might be. Does he agree that when local authorities look either to close or to charge for those facilities, they need to consider the impact on people with stomas and other IBD conditions?

    Hansard source
36. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I commend the hon. Gentleman on being one of the most generous Members I have encountered. On the provision of public toilets, the issue is not only the toilet closures, but the lack of maintenance and spending to make them a toilet that someone wants to use. Does he agree that we need to make sure that, where we have those facilities, they are up to the standard that anyone, let alone someone with one of these conditions, should expect?

    Hansard source
37. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Business of the House

    I put on record a tribute to former councillor Jeanette Sunderland; many by-elections are taking place today, but the one in Idle and Thackley, in Bradford, is taking place as a result of her tragic passing earlier this year. She had a record of more than 30 years serving the community, and she was a true Yorkshire Liberal. On the weekend just gone, I took part in the Great Knaresborough bed race, which is celebrating its 60th year. It was a fantastic event. The population of Knaresborough nearly doubled for the day, and that came with challenges for wi-fi and cellular network capacity, which meant that local businesses struggled to trade on the day. Can the Leader of the House arrange a meeting with the relevant Government Departments to ensure that, at next year’s event, people can get the trade into their businesses, pubs, shops and more?

    Hansard source
38. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    I welcome the report and thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her diligent work on it. In Yorkshire, we receive less funding per head across the board for transport, schools and, importantly, health research. We know that Yorkshire receives a quarter of the funding per head that London receives, despite worse cancer incidence and worse cancer outcomes, which are key health aspects. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that, given that regional imbalance, tackling health inequalities means making sure that research funding is better allocated across our regions?

    Hansard source
39. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

    Access to Music and Dance Training

    2. What steps she is taking to help ensure that children from less privileged backgrounds can access music and dance training.

    Hansard source
40. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

    Access to Music and Dance Training

    I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Wells Cathedral school is in my constituency, and it has 80 young people who are on the music and dance scheme. It is a fantastic scheme, and I pay tribute to the outgoing headteacher, Alastair Tighe, who has done his very best to ensure that the scheme reaches deep into the community and those from less advantaged backgrounds, including one of our local cleaners—she is able to pay just £200 a year for what is a £50,000 a year education. However, there has been a 10-year drift between inflation and the amount of the money that the scheme receives. Can the Secretary of State have another look at this issue and make it absolutely certain that pupils benefit from better funding—

    Hansard source