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·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

   Education and Engagement Outreach Team

   I have to say, I am dismayed by the fact that there will not be humans in contact with young people. From my experience, I know that young people are really engaged when somebody turns up in their place, particularly in their school. At a time when we are trying to reduce the screen time of young people, I want to speak up in support of having people going into schools, especially when they are slightly more distant from London—it is something so very different. I shall certainly reply to the consultation when it comes along, if I have not missed the boat, and I will speak up for this particular scheme; it is fantastic.

   Hansard source
2. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

   Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

   I echo the comments about how disgusting these particular crimes are. Lady Casey has identified how, in quashing convictions, the Government have failed to take account of the whole picture. Quashing convictions for under-age prostitution is laudable, but there are other convictions such as for possessing the drugs given to those who are abused by their abusers or carrying them under coercion. The Minister referred to professional curiosity. Could she encourage people around her to engage in exactly that, and to look further than just the very first or main conviction to sort this out?

   Hansard source
3. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

   Business of the House

   May I raise the matter of repayments of overpaid corporation tax identified by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs after a company has been dissolved? Businesses in my part of Somerset have had repayments, but they are not able to cash them; it is their money, but the business no longer exists, so effectively the cheque cannot be paid in, and the account has quite rightly been closed. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Chancellor to assess the current processes, including the transfer of such funds to the bona vacantia division, so that former shareholders of solvent but dissolved companies can recover funds in a way that is successful? That is particularly the case for small businesses.

   Hansard source
4. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   I too voted for the minority report, mainly because I am particularly concerned that the Government are going much further than the Leveson report. On judge-only trials, if magistrates’ sentencing powers are increased to 24 months, it is not impossible that cases with sentences of up to two and a half years could be retained by the magistrates court, which might mean that there is little work for the Crown court bench division; it will only have a narrow tranche of cases. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is merit in looking at other jurisdictions, and seeing whether there are other mechanisms for allocating cases that might be fairer and more efficient?

   Hansard source
5. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Green

   Support for Creative Industries

   The Secretary of State will know that nearly a third of those who work in the creative industries are self-employed. I have been contacted by creative freelancers in my area who feel that their voice is not always heard. One of them is a licensed chaperone, responsible for safeguarding those under 16 working on productions away from their parents. She told me that some chaperones are waiting for up to eight months to be paid, caught between agencies and production companies, which blame each other, before everyone moves on to the next production. That is just one example of many. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss ways we can better support freelancers in our creatives industries to help them and the sector thrive?

   Hansard source
6. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

   River Otter: Sewage Pollution

   I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of sewage pollution in the River Otter, a river that flows through many of the Devon communities that I represent. I should say at the outset that, this morning, I declined an offer of hospitality from the new chief executive of South West Water and its parent company Pennon Group. They offered breakfast in Parliament, but I did not accept as I was here, in the Chamber, trying to catch Mr Speaker’s eye to talk about the Jurassic coast UNESCO world heritage site, and it is helpful that I will get to talk a little bit about that now. My office has written back to South West Water to request a separate meeting with the chief executive to talk through some of the issues that I will raise in the debate. In fairness, the debate is also about issues that apply across the water industry, not just with Pennon Group. I pay tribute to the more than 75 water testers, campaigners and citizen scientists of the Otter River Catchment Action group—ORCA. The ORCA group developed out of the Otter Valley Association, and it has devoted almost as many hours to understanding and protecting the cherished River Otter as there have been hours of sewage spills into that river, which is saying something. The work of ORCA has provided much of the evidence in my contribution. The dedication of the ORCA volunteers represents the very best of self-organised civic community action and public service. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Bruce McGlashan, who passed away suddenly in April this year, just days after ORCA hosted a public meeting at The Institute in Ottery St Mary. Bruce brought to ORCA his experience of having been a manager at the Environment Agency for 30 years. He was also secretary of the River Otter Fisheries Association. Bruce was central to ORCA, and helped us to correspond with South West Water and the Environment Agency. It is hard to believe that he, Peter Williams and I stood on the shingle outside the Otter Inn at Honiton, after a meeting with the Environment Agency, just days before Bruce died. He should have lived to see the River Otter returned to full ecological health. The Otter should be one of England’s ecological success stories. It runs through a beautiful valley in Devon that supports agriculture, tourism and recreation, and ought to be a rich and diverse habitat. Yet today, most sections of the Otter and its key tributary, the Wolf, are classified by the Environment Agency as having poor ecological status. That places the rivers within the 20% of water bodies with the poorest ecological status in the country. This issue does not just concern the local environment: it also concerns public health and infrastructure, and it is increasingly a question of public trust in the Government’s ability to regulate companies that provide utilities properly. The facts on the ground are damning. Data obtained from South West Water through freedom of information and environmental information regulation requests reveal an alarming picture of bacterial contamination in the River Otter. Between November 2024 and May 2025, average daily levels of E. coli measured in the river were five times higher than the acceptable level for safe swimming. After periods of rainfall, those levels spiked up to 100 times the safe limit, remaining at increased levels for days or weeks at a time. During the period analysed, E. coli levels exceeded the safe swimming limit on more than 90% of days. Budleigh Salterton, where the river meets the sea, lost its blue flag status this year because of a deterioration in water quality. Following the loss of that blue flag status, South West Water stated publicly that the E. coli levels at Budleigh’s beach “could be caused by birdlife in the new Otter Nature Reserve”. However, ORCA samples from the mouth of the River Otter show E. coli surges correlate with surges upstream of the nature reserve. We should be honest about the scale of the sewage problem. This challenge is made more difficult by the fact that regular monitoring has been limited. Until recently, nobody was routinely measuring E. coli levels along the River Otter. ORCA volunteers are collecting samples every two weeks. They do so at three locations along the river, building a much-needed evidence base to understand pollution levels, rainfall impacts and likely sources of contamination. In 2024, South West Water released untreated sewage into the River Otter for more than 9,500 hours. In terms of duration, that is three times more untreated sewage hours spilled into the River Otter than into Exmouth bay. In 2025, more than 8,000 hours of untreated sewage were discharged into the river and its tributaries, following hundreds of monitored sewage overflow events. Untreated sewage is entering the river on a routine basis, and at a scale that cannot be dismissed as a consequence of exceptional weather. Phosphate pollution further damages the river’s ecology. High concentrations of phosphate cause algal bloom and eutrophication and reduce oxygen levels in the water, causing significant harm to aquatic plants, fish and wildlife. The evidence gathered by ORCA is striking; its monitoring suggests that the presence of a single sewage treatment works on the river can increase harmful phosphate concentrations in the river by around 80% during the summer months. Its testing indicates that around 70% of phosphate found in the middle and lower River Otter can be attributed not to agricultural pollution, but to treated sewage effluent. One of the most frustrating aspects of this situation is the gap between the pledges we have received from South West Water and the delivery we have seen on them. In August and October 2025, South West Water’s then CEO, Susan Davy, publicly committed to three critical objectives for the River Otter by the end of 2029, which I will quote. The first objective is that “any storm overflow that is persistently releasing more than 20 times a year will be tackled following investigation of the cause”. The second objective is that “where our assets are not performing as they should, or where they are causing environmental harm, we will act”. The third objective states: “As part of our 2025–2030 investment programme, we’re targeting improvements across the Otter catchment—including at Ottery St Mary—to reduce storm overflow use, and lower phosphate in our treated discharges”. At the time, those commitments were welcome, but residents are entitled to ask what progress has been made in the last year. First, at the 11 worst discharge points along the river, there was still an average of 67 untreated discharges in 2025. That is not fewer than the 20 that we were pledged. Secondly, South West Water has published only a limited programme of what it describes as “tactical improvements”. That is hardly action. Thirdly, despite repeated engagement from local campaigners and community groups, South West Water currently has no scheme to remove phosphate from treated effluent by 2030 and no published plan to meet the commitments made by the former chief exec. There was a time when South West Water talked about a phosphate reduction scheme for Honiton sewage treatment works, which would have removed 35% of all South West Water-sourced phosphate before 2030. According to South West Water more recently, the scheme “had been removed from the 2025-2030 plan.” Another consequence of sewage pollution is its impact on housing developments. East Devon district council commissioned a water cycle study as part of its local plan. Honiton sewage treatment works—the largest treatment works on the river—is already operating at 40% above capacity. That is projected to rise to 73% above capacity when future building plans are taken into account. The council’s report identified many serious failings in South West Water’s sewage infrastructure in the River Otter catchment. That includes failings at three major sewage works that are already operating in excess of their capacity. Their excess untreated sewage is being discharged regularly into the River Otter. Effectively, South West Water has been using the River Otter as a conveyor—a free, open, half-pipe sewer—resulting in significant environmental harm. The council’s report was plain that new housing approvals will require that South West Water delivers suitable additional treatment capacity. The costs of inaction are mounting: we have environmental degradation, risks to public health, constraints on housing, additional pressure being added by new housing, and growing public frustration. Residents ask a simple question: why must local communities accept continuing environmental damage, rising bills, and insufficient investment in the infrastructure required to clean up this mess? According to Ofwat’s most recent water company performance report from 2024-25, South West Water had 108 pollution incidents per 10,000 km of sewer, based on self-reported data—more than double the average for the sector. In fact, South West Water failed to meet its own performance targets for pollution incidents for each of the five years of the 2020-25 period. ORCA’s trained citizen scientists have logged over 2,800 individual tests and observations, whereas the Environment Agency carried out 24 location tests on the River Otter over that period. The public should not have to rely on volunteers to provide the evidence base for environmental protection. The volunteer action we have seen is invaluable, but safeguarding rivers must be the responsibility of water companies, regulators and, ultimately, the Government. Are we going to have to wait years for the Otter to be coaxed back to health? What specific measures to address these local issues might we see in the Government’s upcoming clean water Bill? Residents of towns and villages across this corner of Devon would love to know. Over 50,000 people have signed a petition that was initiated in February by Marc Astley. Marc lives in Ottery St Mary, and he and his family put together a petition stating that “if environmental standards aren’t being met, executives shouldn’t be receiving bonuses. The government has introduced new powers intended to block payouts when environmental performance fails…But loopholes remain—rewards can still be restructured as retention payments or routed through parent companies. To the public, that looks like bonuses by another name…The end goal is clear: close the loopholes and link executive rewards directly to measurable environmental outcomes—cleaner rivers, healthier seas and fewer sewage discharges.” I know that the Minister also wants to see cleaner rivers and seas, and that she is committed to her brief. Can she confirm to the more than 50,000 people who signed that petition that those loopholes will be closed by new legislation? The River Otter is not a cost-free extension of the sewerage infrastructure network that enables bill hikes and increased shareholder returns. It is supposed to offer a living ecosystem, a valued recreational resource, and an integral part of the lives of the people who live in east Devon. The people who live along the banks of the Otter are not asking for miracles; they are asking for honest monitoring, adequate infrastructure and accountability, with pledged commitments being met. The River Otter can recover—we have seen elsewhere that targeted investment in treatment infrastructure and phosphate removal can make a real difference—but recovery will require urgency, transparency, and a willingness to move beyond promises and towards delivery. Bruce McGlashan’s legacy will live on if the polluters, the regulators and we Members listen to, and act on, the citizen science carried out by the volunteers I represent today.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

   Business of the House

   My constituent Marika built Fortitude gym in Williton from scratch at just 27 years old after selling her own house mid-covid. It has grown into a community wellbeing hub with classes and events, offering support to members coming back from injury, illness and addiction, one of whom went from being on crutches to running a half marathon. Outfits like Marika’s are doing preventive health work that takes pressure off the NHS, but business rates and overheads continue to push them towards closure. Will the Leader of the House make the case to his Treasury colleagues for fairer business rate treatment for small, independent health and fitness-focused providers, so they can keep doing the vital preventive work that the NHS relies on?

   Hansard source
8. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I am going to try to make my intervention without crying. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his impassioned speech. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and this subject came before us a couple of weeks ago when we examined the impact of the infected blood scandal as part of a much wider report on Government compensation schemes. These cases are always marked by a profound injustice, but nowhere is that clearer than in relation to the infected blood scandal. Each week people die before receiving the compensation they are promised, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a moral stain upon our country.

   Hansard source
9. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

   BBC Funding

   6. What steps she is taking to help ensure the sustainability of the BBC’s long-term funding.

   Hansard source
10. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    BBC Funding

    Yesterday, as part of £500 million cuts, the BBC announced the scrapping of BBC Radio 4’s “The World Tonight” programme after 56 years, among others. It is very welcome to hear the Secretary of State’s support for the BBC, but can she say a little more about what she is going to do to protect the future of the BBC, following the end of the BBC charter consultation in March?

    Hansard source
11. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Alistair Carmichael

    Business of the House

    May we have a debate in Government time on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s proposed changes to the way it compensates those who give their time as coastguard volunteers? The agency’s current proposals are causing massive concern among volunteer coastguards in my constituency and right around the coastline. We risk seeing those volunteers being forced to walk away, leaving communities without the necessary protection as a result. Surely the Leader of the House can agree that not to take on board those concerns before making the changes demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for those who volunteer their services in this way.

    Hansard source
12. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Marie Goldman

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    It is deeply disheartening that, a year on from Baroness Casey’s audit, the Government have not made greater progress. The victims have already been failed once; they must not be failed again. Previous inquiries have produced more than 800 recommendations, most of which have not been implemented. We see this over and over again across Departments: inquiry launched, recommendations produced and accepted by the Government, and then nothing—while victims continue to suffer. I wholeheartedly support the independent inquiry into grooming gangs, but it must not become an excuse to delay implementing the changes that we already know are needed. Will the Minister set out a clear timeline for implementing all Baroness Casey’s recommendations in full, and make clear to every organisation with a duty to safeguard children that the hundreds of recommendations from previous inquiries are not “nice to haves” but must be implemented at pace and without further delay?

    Hansard source
13. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Business of the House

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be here for business questions once again, subbing for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). Last week the NHS published the first ever official figures on corridor care, which ripped off the plaster and revealed a scandal that many of us have seen at first hand. In one month, patients across the country were treated in corridors at least 69,000 times, and that is with major trusts such as Birmingham failing to share their figures. The practice has become dangerously normalised across our NHS. We on the Lib Dem Benches believe that amounts to serious and continual negligence, and Ministers should be held to account before a corridor care tribunal of patients, bereaved families and frontline NHS staff. Behind every one of those numbers is an NHS trust or a hospital starved of resources and capital funds, and a social care system in crisis that leaves hospitals full of people who cannot leave, despite being desperate to do so, because the care package they need is not available. Meanwhile, A&E waiting rooms are heaving with patients waiting to be seen. Nowhere is the crumbling estate behind this crisis clearer than at Stepping Hill hospital in my patch, with its growing £134 million repair backlog. There have been collapsing ceilings, leaking roofs that forced the temporary closure of the intensive care unit, and times when just four of the 14 lifts were working, meaning that anyone using a wheelchair was unable to visit a higher-floor ward and that patients were carried up and down stairs in scoops. Will the Government therefore make time for an urgent debate on the corridor care crisis and the state of the NHS estate to ensure that patients, including those in my Hazel Grove constituency, are no longer treated in corridors, or left waiting in them for hours for the treatment they deserve?

    Hansard source
14. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    The infected blood scandal, and the 30,000 or so people who were infected with HIV, hepatitis or both, have been discussed in this House many times, but the numbers—the sheer scale of the scandal—are still hard to comprehend. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) laid out the background compellingly at the start of this debate, and I congratulate him on securing it. Other Members have spoken of perhaps the most horrifying element of the scandal: children were subjected to unsafe and unethical clinical testing in the 1970s and ’80s. This testing—this experimentation—continued for more than 15 years. It involved hundreds of people and infected most with hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV. The trials involved children with blood clotting disorders, when families had often not consented to their taking part, and the majority of the children who were experimented on are now dead. It is not just about those who were infected, of course; the number of those affected by the scandal is far higher. Although we welcome the steps that the Government have taken in progressing the compensation scheme, it is clear that the job is not yet done. The changes that the Government have brought in will mean more compensation for those who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal. Payments will be sent out to victims as part of the wider £11 billion-plus allocated by the Government in the 2024 Budget to compensate victims, but in the last two months to June, just 217 people have received compensation payments. At that rate, far too many victims will not receive their compensation by the 2029 deadline. The pace must increase—a point that has been well made in this debate by the hon. Members for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), as well as others. The Liberal Democrats welcome the improvements to the scheme that the Government set out earlier this year. These changes will hopefully deliver some of the justice that victims have been calling for, but there is clearly a strength of feeling that the scheme still does not go far enough, and the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst laid out some of the well-founded concerns in opening the debate. The failure to deliver the Hillsborough law has been raised by many Members from across the House, and they are right to do so. It would extend the duty of candour to all public officials, and it was a manifesto commitment from this Government. It is also a promise that has been repeated by the Prime Minister and several other Ministers since. Despite repeated talk of an “unwavering commitment”, this vital reform has still not been delivered, and we do not know when it will be. I would welcome any update that the Paymaster General could give on the progress that we might expect and when we might expect it. With this scandal, as with too many others, the inability to deliver both timely compensation and complementary legislation extends people’s fears of a culture of cover-up. In so many instances we see the breakdown of trust between the people we represent and our politics, so delivering compensation at pace, and delivering the Hillsborough law, would be a statement of intent to change our political culture. It is one of the vital building blocks that can start to repair this House’s fractured relationship with the public—an essential step to recover trust. That is more vital today than at any other point in my lifetime. Many Members have spoken of their constituents who have been impacted by this scandal. My constituent Catherine from Marple Bridge is one of so many who provided testimony to the compensation authority. She is a daughter handling the estate of her father, who was infected, and she is affected. Catherine’s thorough, detailed testimony was calm, thoughtful and delivered with remarkable clarity. It was testament to her strength of character. Last year’s damning report on compensation showed that not enough lessons had been learned, and survivors such as Catherine continue to be left out in the cold. The impact of course extends to those who have lost family members to contaminated blood, such as Angus Lacey-Stewart, who contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Angus’s dad and granddad both died due to health conditions caused by infected blood. Angus lost his dad prematurely, but he also told my hon. Friend how his dad’s infection at the age of 14 changed his dad’s life and robbed Angus of the relationship he might have wanted with his father, who suffered from poor mental and physical health. Angus understands that there are many claims and supports the prioritisation of infected claimants, but he cannot understand why he has been told not to expect payment until 2030. Angus told my hon. Friend that he “feels let down and ignored by the Government”, and he will not be alone. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in urging the Government to end the record of failure of successive Governments, and finally answer the needs of victims. We committed, along with others, in our 2019 manifesto to act on the inquiry’s recommendations, “ensuring a just settlement for victims and their families”, and we have voted in favour of legislation when it has been brought to this House. We encourage the Government to be as effective and visible as possible in the way they deliver the promised compensation scheme for the all-too-many victims. After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government must deliver on the start they have made to ensure full transparency on the progress of the scheme and open, ongoing and effective communication with all those affected. I close my remarks by paying tribute to the victims and their families, and particularly the doughty campaigners who have worked for decades for the compensation and justice they deserve.

    Hansard source
15. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jamie Stone

    Business of the House

    I want to raise the case of Hughie Stirling from Ullapool. He was on board a flotilla proceeding to Gaza with aid when the Israelis intercepted them in international waters and took them into custody. His partner tells me that he and others were shockingly mistreated—we are talking about physical abuse and even being beaten up. When his partner made appeals to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for information or assistance, the silence was utterly deafening. Hughie is a British citizen and has his rights, surely. Could we have a debate in this House on consular support and protection of UK nationals delivering aid abroad?

    Hansard source
16. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Third sitting)

    The Liberal Democrats broadly support the abolition of NHS England. As constituency MPs and users of the NHS, we see a huge amount of duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy as our local health organisations try to navigate the processes of securing capital investment, for example. Reducing duplication between the Department and NHS England is clearly welcome if done well, but we have concerns about the way in which that is being undertaken. We think that this centralising process, under which the Secretary of State takes on more powers, risks political capture. That may not seem like a huge risk considering who the current Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State are, but given the febrile political atmosphere that we are working in, it seems a poor time to give a Secretary of State sweeping operational powers over the detailed functioning of the NHS, with few checks and balances. I will speak about the most concerning elements and make the argument in greater detail when we debate cause 11. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, said that top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do, and yet that is where we find ourselves today. It feels as if the plan has been pulled together very quickly, and that it has been complex to turn into a piece of workable legislation. It has taken a long time even for the Treasury to agree on the funding of the redundancy bill. We have found out that redundancy costs of £800 million will be taken out of the future operating costs of the NHS. I hope that the Minister will describe how that will be delivered to ensure that the costs do not detract from patient care on the frontline. There is still some uncertainty about the new structures within the DHSC and NHSE reorganisation. We have heard that the previously announced plan for three top-level roles—a permanent secretary, a chief medical officer and an NHS chief executive officer—might be changed, and that there is a proposal to merge the permanent secretary and NHS CEO roles. At this stage, as we start to consider the legislation, it would be helpful to have clarity on who will be in charge of the NHS and how the layers below will be organised. We have also heard that hours of staff time, leadership focus and money have been directed away from frontline services. In the oral evidence session, Sarah Woolnough of the King’s Fund and Jon Restell of the Managers in Partnership union suggested that that has been distracting and that, in any body, a significant reorganisation has an opportunity cost. In my previous life, I was an accountant at Centrica plc—one of those back-office checkers everybody wants to get rid of, but who turns out to be quite important in providing the information that enables the business to run smoothly. We found reorganisation hugely distracting; it took away from our ability to do our day jobs well. Then, within a couple of years, a lot of the equivalent roles were re-hired and we were back to square one. It is critical that the Government avoid that scenario in this big reorganisation of the NHS. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that it has been well thought through and that we will not find ourselves, two or three years down the line, with similar numbers of people replicating the roles that exist currently, following a huge distraction that resulted in no improvement in patient outcome or experience. My questions are fairly limited. Does the Minister know, at this point, what the impact the reorganisation has had on the system and how much it has cost in secondary impacts? We have had eight Health Secretaries in the past 10 years. After all that swapping and changing, how can the Minister ensure a degree of continuity when the new Secretary of State takes over? One benefit of quangos is continuity over a long time, divorced from the political turmoil of Westminster. We must be clear about how distractions will be avoided in the new structure. Finally, we heard in evidence on Tuesday that the new structure feels like a centralisation of power in Whitehall, when what is needed is more power devolved down to local level so that local services can be shaped to reflect the demographics that they serve and to address the important point of health inequality. Will the Minister explain why she is confident that measures to ensure local accountability and local shaping of services will be able to go ahead? Tackling health inequalities is the priority of everybody in this Room, and we need to ensure that we have an efficient structure in place to ensure that it happens.

    Hansard source
17. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

    Business of the House

    In Taunton and Wellington, people recognise the need for new homes, and indeed have supported thousands of new homes. Taunton is the town that has grown most in the south-west—its population growth is 2% ahead of the national average. However, we do not accept the blinkered idea that that cannot go hand in hand with protecting our most precious green spaces, although the proposed new national planning policy framework will make that so much harder. The longest established environmental development charity in the world, the Town and Country Planning Association, has called the framework an unprecedented change. The public are debating it, and the Government are consulting on it. Can this House have a debate on the proposed new national planning policy framework, which is more far-reaching than the recent Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025?

    Hansard source
18. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Third sitting)

    I too think the hon. Member for Lichfield gave an excellent speech on the need for clarity, but there is another factor to consider. Not only is NHS England being abolished, and ICBs are having their budgets halved, but in Hampshire and other areas we also have local government reorganisation. We are going from having district councils and county councils to unitary authorities, and a mayor will be coming in next year. This is another level of reorganisation in the delivery of healthcare and social care, so there is a huge amount of change. However, there seems to be no clarity, at any level, on how this will affect services on the ground, because there are so many moving parts coming in at once.

    Hansard source
19. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Clive Jones

    Topical Questions

    Grassroots sports clubs such as Wokingham Town football club are at the heart of our communities, but many clubs struggle to find and maintain facilities and equipment. Would the Secretary of State consider convening twice-yearly meetings with grassroots sports governing bodies to strengthen collaboration and advocacy for community sport?

    Hansard source
20. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Clive Jones

    Business of the House

    Eight months after changes to FP69 flagging were made, GPs in Wokingham remain concerned that many patients marked for removal from lists are from ethnic minority backgrounds or other vulnerable groups. Will the Leader of the House make time so that Department of Health and Social Care Ministers can update the House on whether an equality impact assessment has been undertaken or whether one is planned?

    Hansard source
21. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

    Business of the House

    Nearly seven years ago, National Highways spent £40 million building a ghost junction on the M49 that was left entirely unconnected to the local road network. South Gloucestershire council stepped in and is on track to complete the slip road this year, but National Highways now tells me that the junction is unsafe and cannot open, with no timeline for remedy, meaning my constituents will continue to have lorries thundering through their villages, shredding the roads. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the accountability of National Highways for this farcical situation?

    Hansard source
22. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could assist the House. The Department for Transport has this afternoon published the Heathrow expansion national policy statement, the HENPS, alongside supporting documents in a major consultation. Given the significance of this decision, with implications for communities across a wide area, for the Government’s own climate commitments and for connectivity across the whole of the United Kingdom, could you confirm whether the Secretary of State for Transport has given any indication to Mr Speaker that she intends to come to this House to make an oral statement? If not, do you agree that this House ought to expect the Government to come here first, rather than learning of major consultations through a written ministerial statement?

    Hansard source
23. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Claire Young

    Warehouse development in Pilning

    The lives of people in and around Pilning are blighted by giant warehouses being built under outdated 1950s planning consents, which lack modern safeguards. The Severnside Warehouse Action group has already presented a petition with over 2,500 signatures to South Gloucestershire council, and it now has over 3,500 signatures online. However, primary legislation is needed to resolve the problem. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the planning authorities to revoke the 1957 planning consent for warehouse developments in Pilning, or to amend it as soon as possible to include appropriate conditions and restrictions to protect local communities. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that the ongoing warehouse development in Pilning is having a major and lasting detrimental impact on local communities, including through loss of countryside, increasing noise levels, light pollution, a real risk of flooding, a big increase in traffic, and the devaluation of property prices; further declares that the development is taking place without any meaningful conditions or restrictions and without consultation with residents, as developers are relying on a planning consent dating from 1957; and further declares that this is a unique situation with a planning consent that was given nearly seventy years ago no longer fit for purpose in 2026. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage the planning authorities to revoke the 1957 planning consent for warehouse developments in Pilning or to amend it as soon as possible to include appropriate conditions and restrictions to protect local communities. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003210]

    Hansard source
24. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Anna Sabine

    Ticket Tout Ban

    I would also like to start by congratulating the England football team on their win yesterday. While fans are rightly excited to finally see England bring it home this summer, some world cup tickets this year have surged to over £24,000. Fans should not be forced to choose between remortgaging their homes or missing out on supporting their country. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ call for an international fans charter to safeguard supporters against unfair ticket pricing?

    Hansard source
25. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Exchange of Cultural Artefacts: Greece

    1. What recent discussions she has had with her Greek counterpart on mutual exchanges of cultural artefacts. [R]

    Hansard source
26. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

    Exchange of Cultural Artefacts: Greece

    There is an opportunity for another victory for the United Kingdom if we can find a way of co-operating. Clinging on to half of the Parthenon sculptures while assuring ourselves that we own them, when they were obtained in, at best, highly dubious circumstances two centuries ago, is not a great look for this country. Does the Minister agree that the imminent restoration of the British Museum provides the museum and the Government with a golden opportunity to engage in what would be a better look for this country—a gracious act, reflecting a partnership and a shared love of classical history, but also natural justice—and to see all the sculptures displayed in Athens, where they belong?

    Hansard source
27. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Green·Hannah Spencer

    Topical Questions

    Grassroots music venues in the constituency I represent, such as the Talleyrand, face increasing costs from business rates despite the emergency relief that has been provided. Can the Minister tell me how the music plan will help tackle the structural issues facing grassroots venues, such as the Talleyrand, and how it will secure the venue’s long-term future in our community and cultural landscapes?

    Hansard source
28. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am sure I speak for us all in extending warm thanks to you for stepping into the breach at the last minute to enable us to have this timely and important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing it. It is clear that UK business has global environmental and human rights impacts. UK business has impacts on climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, waste management, deforestation, and of course on human rights and labour rights, as we have already discussed. The Government have acknowledged those concerns. This debate comes at a particularly timely moment because, as the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green pointed out, we await with bated breath the Government release of announcements. I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) tabled a question to the Secretary of State in January asking when the responsible business conduct review would be published. The Minister for Trade responded with one word: “Soon.” It is now five months later, so perhaps today’s Minister could assure us in her wind-up that soon really will mean soon. We would very much appreciate seeing that review. Although we have some parts of an existing legal framework—for example, the Modern Slavery Act and the Environment Act 2021—they are too narrow to meet internationally accepted standards. Single-issue measures such as robust legislation to prevent and address modern slavery, including through import and export restrictions of goods and services that involve forced labour, are useful but not in themselves sufficient to address the full range of human rights and environmental risks and harms. In particular, if they require companies only to report, rather than to take action, they do not have the force that we need. The UK risks falling behind its international partners. The UK was once a frontrunner on environmental and human rights legislation, but progress has stalled. The EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive will apply, of course, to UK companies that generate significant turnover in EU markets, meaning that UK businesses will face mandatory due diligence obligations abroad without equivalent domestic standards at home. That does not make sense. The UK would be better able to produce and sell goods and services in the EU single market, as well as continue to position itself strongly as a global leader on human rights, if we had our own mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence legislation. It is not just campaigners who are calling for that; business is calling for a new law. A clear majority of businesses surveyed by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law believe that current UK laws do not provide clarity or sufficient legal certainty on human rights obligations. Nearly three quarters of UK businesses believe that additional regulation would provide benefits, including greater legal certainty and a level playing field. Indeed, I met with people from a large business in my own constituency just a couple of weeks ago who made exactly that point. A level playing field is needed. Business is calling for it. As has already been reflected, major businesses including the British Retail Consortium, John Lewis Partnership, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Twinings are all calling for new mandatory due diligence laws on human rights and the environment. As we have also heard, over 160 businesses and investors representing trillions of pounds of investment are calling for the failure to prevent liability model. That failure to prevent model is what underpins the Bribery Act 2010. We already have the legal model in UK legislation that we can adopt in the same way. We do not have to reinvent the wheel; it is simply about applying the wheel more consistently. Three parliamentary Committees have already recommended this. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has specifically recommended legislation modelled on the failure to prevent framework of the Bribery Act 2010. We have business calling for that legislation. We have parliamentary Committees and parliamentarians calling for it. The Good Business Matters pledge has secured cross-party support from over 80 MPs and peers from eight different political parties. We also have public support: 145,000 citizens have signed a petition calling for such legislation, and a YouGov survey indicates that three quarters of the British population support stronger legislation in this area. In summary, introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation is not only the right thing to do to protect the environment and human rights around the world and to be consistent; it is good for our economy. We miss out on opportunities by not adopting such legislation. It is called for urgently by major businesses that want the Government to support them in showing leadership in this area. It is strongly called for by British citizens, who care—people in this country really care about the standards under which our goods and services are produced. We see that in the strong outcry about the continued import of goods and services from stolen land in Israeli settlements in the west bank; in the outcry over the import of goods that are produced under slave labour conditions by Uyghurs in China; and in the outcry over the import of goods and services that result in deforestation, environmental devastation and climate damage. It is time for the Government to act, and I very much hope that the Minister will assure us that they will do so soon.

    Hansard source
29. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Roger Gale

    UNESCO World Heritage Sites

    The Roman forts of Reculver and Richborough, linked by the Wantsum channel and the River Stour in east Kent, are ambitious to secure UNESCO world heritage site status. Those ambitions will be killed stone dead if the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero supports the building of a 90-foot-high converter station on the Minster marshes. Would the Minister have a word with that Department to make sure that does not happen?

    Hansard source
30. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Roger Gale

    Business of the House

    Mr Speaker, you will recall that on 16 April I raised with the Leader of the House the failure of Capita to administer properly the civil service pension scheme. Ever courteous, he passed that information and my concerns to the Cabinet Office. The deputy director of the Government People Group responded on 30 April, saying: “The Second Permanent Secretary at HMRC…is personally leading a specialist Pensions Recovery Taskforce to restore service levels…we are now focused on a backlog of approximately 25,000 outstanding pension quotations.” In response to my concerns about Capita, she said: “Capita is a strategic supplier to the government” and it has “more than 80 contracts across the public sector.” She also said, “we are holding Capita to rigorous account through every available commercial lever.” May I gently ask the Leader of the House whether it is not now time for the Cabinet Secretary to come to the House to make a statement and face questions on this matter?

    Hansard source
31. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Roger Gale

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    The hon. Gentleman referred to “reinventing the wheel”. There is no possible way that anybody can be really compensated for the loss of a child, a husband or a wife. However, those of us who still bear the scars of the thalidomide scandal are seeing the wheel reinvented again and again. Surely there has to be a system that allows compensation and allows the Government to act as the insurer of last resort and then to make claims against those who are actually culpable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

    Hansard source
32. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    Like others before me, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He is the driving force behind the all-party parliamentary group, which has done so much to highlight this terrible tragedy. I was struck by what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said about having been alerted to this as far back as 2010. In my case, it was not quite so far back; it was 2015, but that is still more than a decade ago. I spoke in this House about the case of my constituent Lesley, which illustrated how long it often took for victims of contaminated blood to discover that they indeed had been infected. I pointed out that in 1970, she and her future husband had been involved in a serious road traffic accident, and she had to receive no fewer than 44 pints of blood. For many years, she knew nothing about the fact that she had been infected, although over those years she had many visits to GPs and hospitals, with numerous symptoms of illness, and considerable pain and suffering. It was only in 2014 that she finally discovered that she had been infected with hepatitis C by NHS contaminated blood. Another example of a constituent who is in regular contact with me and my office is Stephen. He came to see me in August 2023. He was diagnosed as haemophiliac as an eight-year-old in the late 1960s. He thinks that he was infected with hepatitis C in 1974, which persisted for nearly 15 years before it eventually cleared from his system. He says that although it did not inhibit his professional life too badly, it had a deep impact on his personal life. He was married in 1986, and he was constantly having to have testing for fear every time that he had to have a transfusion that he might be being infected. He was told in quite firm terms not to have children, and he said that he was often too scared to have treatment. Once he had quite a bad leg injury, which led to complications, and his fear of treatment led to him being effectively disabled for a period of time. Stephen’s brother’s case was far worse, because he was one of about 400 chronic hepatitis C victims of this scandal. To this day, he can only effectively live on a day-to-day basis; he cannot plan because the complications of his infection mean that whether he will be able to do something will depend on how he is on the day in question. In Portcullis House on Tuesday, we benefited from briefings from a number of organisations that are concerned with this scandal. I will briefly touch on a couple. One was a campaign about a condition of which I was previously unaware, called thalassaemia. This rare blood disorder requires sufferers to have a transfusion every three to four weeks—a blood transfusion every month. These people are at a very high risk of having been infected, and many of them were. These regular blood transfusions deposit more iron into the major organs, which, coupled with the hepatitis C virus with which they had been infected, maximises the prospect of their developing cirrhosis and liver cancer. The drug interferon has been mentioned a couple of times already. I am old enough to remember when interferon was first regarded as a great breakthrough in the treatment of some cancers. Sadly, like so many medical interventions, it has side effects that can be harmful. Taken in combination with what these patients are also suffering from by way of infection and, in the case of thalassaemia sufferers, the build-up of iron, the interferon used in their cases also has complicating adverse effects. That was a point impressed on me at the briefing by the representative of the Terrence Higgins Trust, who pointed to the additional negative impact of treatment with interferon, which was for a significant time the only option available for HIV-positive patients. I am indebted to the Haemophilia Society for briefing material that I hope will simply add to the excellent statement and laying of the groundwork in the opening speech so ably delivered by the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. The Haemophilia Society draws attention to one or two specific points that I would like to put before the House. We all acknowledge that the infected blood community has fought valiantly for the truth for decades. We also accept that the Government are clearly committed to compensation following the inquiry. The debate now focuses on how to deliver that commitment and how to make sure that people are compensated without further delay and that the compensation is truly fair. In this connection, I would like to make reference to a detailed opportunity I had virtually to participate in exchanges with senior people—in fact, the most senior people—at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority back in June last year. Again, that was at the initiative of the chairman of the APPG, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. My participation was online, but I was able, as was he, to discuss all these matters with the interim chairman at the time, Sir Robert Francis; the chief executive, David Foley; and other key officials. In particular, we were able to talk directly with members of IBCA’s cases team. I must say that I, for one, found them to be both compassionate and empathetic. I was very impressed with the calibre of people who are involved in this agency, and I am hopeful that if they are given the direction they need and the resources they require, they can succeed. I got the feeling that this is an organisation that really does want to help the people it has been set up to support, not an organisation that wants to be in any way obstructive. I hope everything can be done to encourage it. I know that it is operating in uncharted waters with a tragedy of this magnitude, but I hope it can succeed in overcoming the obstacles that have been causing the delays. More than two years have passed since the Government accepted the need for compensation, but the majority of eligible people are still waiting to begin their claims. That includes infected people not previously on a support scheme and affected people—namely, the partners and family members of those who are sadly no longer with us. We have heard concern from the community that progress has slowed while IBCA works out how to grapple with these categories of claims in a process that it calls test and learn. Every month of delay matters, because many infected and affected people are elderly or seriously ill. We would like to know from the Minister his latest assessment of the timescale by which IBCA will compensate each of the categories of claimant. IBCA’s latest figures show that just 30 affected people have been paid compensation so far. Over 14,000 affected people are waiting to start their claim. At what point does the Minister expect IBCA to truly start making a dent in those very large numbers? In particular, we would like to know what specific steps are being taken to accelerate compensation payments over the next 12 months. Finally, there is an issue to do with claims that relate to the estates of those who died before the scheme commenced. Those who survived until the scheme commencement are rightly entitled to financial loss compensation from the date of their infection right up to the national age of healthy life expectancy that they should have had. In contrast, those who died before the scheme started have their financial loss calculated only from the date of their infection until the date of their death, which may have been a lot earlier than the normal expectation of a term of life that would have been their lot had this catastrophe not befallen them. There can be no doubt that this creates a stark and unjust two-tier system. Those who died earlier will often have suffered the same or worse than those who died later, and the financial loss to their estate is clear, yet the Government’s position seems to be that those killed by their infections the soonest deserve less compensation and recognition than those who survived for longer. In many cases, this amounts to a very substantial reduction in compensation—potentially decades of lost earnings. Bereaved families should not receive lesser justice because their loved one died before the scheme was established. The result is that timing, not harm, is determining value, meaning that compensation depends on whether someone survived long enough to see the scheme introduced. As I said, this is about avoiding a two-tier compensation system. In conclusion, I would like the Minister to explain how it can be in accordance with natural justice for those who died earlier due to their infection to receive less compensation than those who died later from a similar infection. Will the Government commit to reviewing their position on estate claims, to ensure families are not disadvantaged because their relative died earlier?

    Hansard source
33. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Polling Stations: Blind and Visually Impaired Voters

    All voters, including blind and visually impaired voters, should be able to vote independently and secretly. In its reports on elections in 2024 and 2025, the commission found that there have been improvements to the support available and that returning officers provided a range of accessibility equipment and support. The commission will publish a report on the May 2026 polls in the autumn, including consideration of accessibility. However, there is more to be done, and the commission has recommended improving awareness of the support available, including providing clear information on poll cards and in polling stations.

    Hansard source
34. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Polling Stations: Blind and Visually Impaired Voters

    As I have said, the commission will review what happened in the May 2026 polls and make any further recommendations it feels necessary as a result. The hon. Lady makes two important points. It is important that equipment is available, and she will know that tactile devices have been found by the commission to have been available in every polling station. Her other important point is that people who are blind or partially sighted need to know about that, and communicating that information is crucial—she is absolutely right.

    Hansard source
35. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Polling Stations: Blind and Visually Impaired Voters

    I will certainly make sure the commission hears what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will appreciate that judgments on these things are often for returning officers or for those managing individual polling stations, but he makes an important point about access. As I say, I will make sure the commission hears what he has said.

    Hansard source
36. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

    It is always a blessing to have you chairing a meeting, Mr Dowd. It is particularly a blessing today, as we would not have this debate were you not here, so thank you. I have been active on this subject for some time. I have been sanctioned by China because of the issues that we raised over modern-day slavery. I remind Members that it was the Centre for Social Justice, which I set up, that first published the paper “It Happens Here”. We were then able to get the Government to initiate the Modern Slavery Act—the first legislation of its kind in the world. We were all very proud of that Act, but sadly it really has no enforcement. Government and suppliers have no obligation to check. They are supposed to make a declaration, but we know that many of those declarations are in fact deliberately false—they know they will not be checked, and therefore they do not have to worry about it—so while the Act is great, it is rather toothless. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate and making such a good opening speech. I will not repeat all he said, although I agree with so much of it. In the limited time I have, I want to focus on certain issues. First, the reality is that slave labour is not only a massive punishment and a human rights abuse on a scale, like genocide, wider than anything else; it is also commercial. Countries such as China use slave labour as a way to undercut markets, compete unfairly and drive businesses out of business—particularly here in the UK, as we have experienced. One of the big issues is the net zero determination and what we wish to do to clean up the environment because the biggest providers of solar arrays, wind farms and the technology are, in fact, based in China. The big problem is that the Government have two conflicting requirements. Quite rightly, they want to get on with cleaning up the environment; but they also know that if they cannot buy from China without a clear set of supply chains that are without slave labour, that will cost more money. That impacts the pace and the way in which they can provide a cleaner atmosphere. We have to say that one thing is more important than the other, and that is the human rights of those people being abused in places such as China. At the end of the day, we cannot go to bed at night with any grace if we say that we put up more solar arrays and wind farms but those were supplied by factories where people may have died, been abused, or had their lives and families destroyed. We know that China, in the case of Xinjiang, is committing a well-established genocide on such a scale that children are now in forced education camps. Millions of adult males are in forced labour, many producing the polysilicon that goes into arrays made in and around Xinjiang. The women, unbelievably, are being forcibly sterilised. The birth rate in Xinjiang has gone off the edge of a cliff. China is going to eradicate an ethnic group; it is very much the policy of the Chinese Communist party to have Han Chinese in charge of China, and nobody else. It also makes money from the fact that people in slave labour, as I said earlier, are producing goods much more cheaply than anyone else can. Look at what we are not doing: we are not checking supply chains. On this issue, I have been in opposition to whatever Government have been in power—neither the last Government nor this one have made a big effort to check those company declarations. I have had responses from this and the previous Government saying that they were doing their best and trying hard. It is not good enough to do one’s best or try hard; the question is: what is the best? Look at what is happening in other places. I point to the USA’s Act, which basically outlawed all use of slave labour anywhere in supply chains and put the means in place to check that. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States creates a rebuttable presumption that goods produced wholly or partly in Xinjiang, and other places using slave labour, are made with forced labour unless importers can prove otherwise. That is how it is done—we tell importers, “You must now prove to us that you have avoided any slave labour in your products. Failure to do that has you banned and fined.” It is immediate. They do not simply sit there saying, “Well, other bits of Government are helping us”, because to be honest, the Government do not have the ability to check themselves. They do not have what it takes, but there are companies out there that do this regularly. I have met the representatives of one such company. Forensic companies such as Oritain, based in New Zealand, specialise in using forensic science to check where goods were made. From that, it knows the footprint and the likelihood of slave labour. It will immediately investigate a company’s declaration and can challenge it. If it challenges it, the US Government will ban and fine the company. That has led to a whole rerouting of supply chains across China for the US market. Sadly, it has also meant efforts have been redoubled to put slave labour products into markets such as the UK, because it is known that the UK is a soft option. When we look around the countryside of the east of England and elsewhere, we see a load of arrays. I would bet that the vast majority were made with slave labour because no checks were carried out. The reality is that we have to do more. The Modern Slavery Act 2015, which I greatly supported, has now become toothless. Section 54 needs to be upgraded. There needs to be a punishment. Government need the ability to prosecute immediately, and supply-chain checks must take place. I end with this. The reality is that the legislation is a mess. With colleagues on both sides of the House, I successfully tabled an amendment to the Great British Energy Act 2025, to ban the use of products made with slave labour. It was a classic rebellion, and we got it done. Yet when I checked, I saw that next to nothing had resulted from it. There is that offence in the legislation, but the Government have done nothing to call out any of the companies still selling those products. We put a similar obligation into the Health and Care Act 2022, but next to nothing has been done on that—no declarations and no speeches to Parliament about what the Government have done. We cannot go on addressing this issue in a piecemeal way: it has to be done across the board. That is why I support the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green in his call for the Modern Slavery Act to have teeth and for section 54 to be implemented. Any business that, having been checked properly, is found to have misdeclared itself and its supply chain should be punished—it should be banished from importing to the UK and face financial and even criminal penalties. That way, we will stop this practice.

    Hansard source
37. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

    Could we get a commitment today that the Government will look carefully at what countries that are well in advance of us, such as the United States and some European countries, are doing, to make sure that we urgently get on to resolving this issue, rather than delaying with another review and more debates? We know what needs to be done, and surely we can get on with it pretty quickly.

    Hansard source
38. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Business of the House

    I think Members on both sides of the House are deeply appreciative of the work of civil servants right across the country. To pick up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), we have a real issue here. There are pensioners in my constituency who have dedicated their life to the civil service but are not in receipt of their pension from March. As a Member of Parliament who continuously writes to those administering the scheme to follow up these issues, I know that they do not have the courtesy to even respond and say what they are doing. Can the relevant Minister come to the House as a matter of urgency to make a statement on what is being done to support our civil servants who have retired?

    Hansard source
39. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    The Minister has referred to the grooming gangs inquiry carried out by our friend, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), and early-day motion 380 makes a number of recommendations. Will the Minister engage with the hon. Member to ensure that his ideas and recommendations can be taken forward, because we do not want to have to wait until Baroness Casey’s report in three years’ time?

    Hansard source
40. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Business of the House

    The landmark 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence by the United States takes place in the week commencing 29 June. I have applied for an Adjournment debate, but will the Leader of the House enable more Members to be able to participate in marking that historic event?

    Hansard source