What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Wow—can I not associate myself with those remarks? [Laughter.] I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of radio and regional news. Recently, the outgoing director general of the BBC told me that regional news now has greater reach than national news. That includes local radio as well, and we will of course ensure that it becomes a priority through the charter review.
I thank my hon. Friend for being such an outstanding champion for her constituency. She and I have discussed the great, vibrant, diverse cultural offer and contribution that her community has to make, including the fact that it is the home of Concorde. Through the town of culture, we hope that many towns across the country can up their cultural offer, shout loudly about their achievements, take wings and soar.
We have been very careful not to get drawn into speculation about the future funding arrangements for the BBC, except to say that we have ruled out a levy on streamers, and we have also ruled out direct taxation going to fund the BBC because of the need for the BBC to retain its independence. But I look forward to debating this issue with the hon. Member and for the whole House to come together to ensure that we get this right through the charter process.
I was delighted to be able to congratulate Auchinleck Talbot football club from my constituency on their recent remarkable achievement in winning the Scottish junior cup for a record 15th time. They came from behind to defeat their Ayrshire rivals Largs Thistle, demonstrating the resilience, determination and community spirit that has made the club one of the most successful and respected names across Scottish junior football. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the team once again, as well as the volunteers, the supporters and all at the club, on this outstanding success and acknowledge the important role that local football clubs play for local communities in bringing together and inspiring our young people?
I was delighted this week by the Government’s announcement that, among other measures, we will be banning social media for under-16s. Throughout the consultation, I met hundreds of people in Beckenham and Penge, including parents, teachers and students, but one family I met have really stuck with me. Chris and Jo Barber from Beckenham tragically lost their wonderful son Leo, who took his own life in November 2023 aged just 16. The inquest into Leo’s death found that exposure to harmful content online significantly contributed to his mental health struggles. I have been working with Chris and Jo to advocate for this change, and on Saturday I am also joining them for the launch of Leo’s Safe Haven, a charity they have set up to provide mental health support for other autistic children and young people. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the ban on social media as a major step forward in protecting the welfare of children and young people, and in paying tribute to the courage of bereaved parents, like Chris and Jo, who turn personal tragedy into positive change for others?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate and speaking with such clarity, and so powerfully, in his opening address. I was contacted by my constituent Susan and her two daughters, including Louise, who I welcome to the Gallery today; they asked me to take part in this debate. I pay tribute to them for their fight and for bravely sharing their story with me. I will come to that story in a moment. As has been said, the infected blood scandal is widely recognised as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. More than 25,000 people were infected with hepatitis C and, particularly tragically, more than 380 children were infected with HIV. I vividly remember meeting some of those impacted at an event with the phenomenal and unrelenting Hillsborough law coalition. A Hillsborough law is an important part of this debate, because this situation went from a tragedy to a scandal because of the way that patients and families were treated. As I have said previously, all the campaigners and campaigns supporting the Hillsborough law are distinct. I got involved in the campaign for the Hillsborough law because I am a relative of Hugh Mullan, who was one of the victims of the Ballymurphy massacre, which was one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. He was shot in the abdomen and again in the back as he lay on the ground, giving the last rites to someone. I have watched my dad’s family fight for 50 years for truth and justice to be put on the record, and to be told that he was entirely innocent. I have got to know many of the other campaigns involved: Margaret Aspinall and the Hillsborough families, the Grenfell families, those related to the Post Office Horizon campaign, and many others who are part of this coalition. Although they are distinct and come from different contexts, places and times, there are often many similarities in what happens to them. First, victims are dismissed, information is withheld from them and they are sometimes smeared. Secondly, the authorities close ranks, shutting off routes to justice—we have heard many of those stories from Members across the House. Thirdly, victims face a legal system in which the scales of justice are stacked in favour of the state. Justice for one of those campaigns requires justice for all. The Hillsborough law must be passed in full if we are to deliver that. I echo the comments made by hon. Members across the House about learning from these injustices—we need to stop trying to recreate the wheel. We must learn from the processes around these scandals and the inquiries that take place; bringing that together with the Hillsborough law is a really important step. I turn to my constituent Susan and her husband George. Let me tell the House what happened to George. George suffered from severe haemophilia A and type 1 diabetes, and died suddenly on 26 April 1978 at the age of just 33. It was only 41 years later, when the family were able to obtain his medical records in 2019 on hearing about the infected blood inquiry being set up, that they discovered he had been given factor VIII products for various operations at St Thomas’ hospital from 1976 onwards, including a product called Hemofil in January 1978. The records also show that he was regularly tested for hepatitis B antigens and that the test results were negative until October 1976—just six months after he was first treated with factor VIII. George died in 1978 before hepatitis C had even been identified—no tests were available. The inquiry concluded, though, that essentially any haemophiliac given blood products in the 1970s would have been infected with hepatitis C. Susan, his wife, gave evidence to the infected blood inquiry in March 2020 with assistance and contributions from her daughters. They expressed their belief that infected blood products may have contributed to George’s death, in particular through his ability to respond to insulin for his diabetes. Susan has just been informed by IBCA that it is ready to begin her claim. That is really positive, welcome news, especially as she is 80 and not in the best of health. Many hon. Members have mentioned that time is not on the side of victims and families and that an expedient process is really important. Susan has been told that she will be one of the first people to make a deceased infected person claim, and that her experience will help to improve the service for people who claim in the future. However, Susan’s daughters and doubtless thousands of others affected by the scandal would like more information on when the further claims will be processed. They fully understand that those who are elderly or ill take priority and that IBCA can bring only small numbers of affected people into the scheme for now, but they would hugely value a more detailed timeline for when affected people’s claims will be addressed, even if that means distinguishing between months and years. I have also heard from other victims and victims’ families about the waiting. As Sir Brian Langstaff, the inquiry’s chair, stated in his address at the recent infected blood memorial service, people need greater transparency. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that. Susan’s husband George was given products that the Government knew were not safe. His family were never made aware at any time that that was happening, nor that he was being tested for hepatitis. Reading about George’s experience and that of his family, and listening to the contributions made by hon. Members across the House, brings genuine anger. The state must ensure now that it does not fail victims and families again and that we make quick progress on this. Susan had to wait over 40 years to find out the truth about her husband’s death, but she and thousands of others have still not been given closure. As the Haemophilia Society has laid out, first, psychological harm must be fairly and compassionately recognised. Secondly, the scheme must ensure that compensation to estates reflects the harm and loss suffered and removes the clear injustice of penalising those who died earlier. Thirdly, compensation must begin to be paid faster. Beyond that, as George’s daughter Louise, who is sat in the Gallery, said: “A compensation payment is hugely significant not just for its monetary value, but as an acknowledgement that an injustice has been done, too”. We talk about compensation, which is one component of redress. I have just spent the past year on Philomena’s law—I am proud to have brought it in—which has delivered justice for victims and survivors of Ireland’s cruel mother and baby homes, 13,000 of whom live in Britain today. I have met countless survivors, and what they say is that nothing can undo the wrongs done to them, but compensation is one important component of redress. The House will not deliver closure for those families until it is paid. A swift resolution to the compensation issue would help many like Susan to find some kind of ending to a very difficult process. The importance of acknowledgement of injustice and wrongdoing is a sentiment I hear echoed across much of the Hillsborough law coalition. Time and again, we have seen the state engaged in David versus Goliath battles in which the state, flanked by an army of lawyers, takes on families who have scraped together enough for a single barrister. The state closes ranks and opportunities for justice are snuffed out. Even when there are admissions of guilt and wrongdoing, such as with the infected blood scandal, too often we see hesitation to implement the recommendations of public inquiries. As the Haemophilia Society also says, the Hillsborough law must be enacted in full, introducing a duty of candour for public officials to ensure that such scandals can never happen again. The Hillsborough law will also introduce a national oversight mechanism so that Governments are held to account in implementing the recommendations of public inquiries like that into infected blood. We must deliver justice for those impacted by the infected blood scandal—we know that, for many, we do not have long to do so. We must also do all that we can to ensure that no scandal like what happened to George and his family can happen again. I have faith that the Government want to do that. I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst for securing the debate. While I urge the Government as a whole to go faster, I thank the Minister personally for all the tireless work he does on this issue.
Next week Stafford’s Gatehouse theatre will launch its annual Shakespeare festival with Richard III. Last year we had over 180,000 visitors. I know that the Government are committed to cultural venues. They have put £1.5 billion into supporting them, but please can the Minister tell me what more the Government are doing to support local theatres, and would they like to attend the gala night with me next week to get away from all the drama?
Morrisons has proposed closing its shop in Highfields, which hosts the local post office. Closing it would remove a vital service from our community, which people rely on every day for banking and bill payments. For many residents—particularly older people and those without access to a car—the nearest alternative in Rising Brook is not a realistic option; it is also open for much shorter hours, which would not serve the needs of many of my constituents. I have already met Morrisons and the Post Office to raise these points. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the role of post offices in local communities—something that impacts not just my community, but communities across the country—recognising that accessibility is key? This would allow Members to discuss the impact of the loss of those services on residents who depend on them for day-to-day activities.
I thank my hon. Friend for her report; I found it fascinating. A statistic I cannot get out of my head is that cities around the UK have seen growth accelerate at a rate of 10.7% in the past 10 years, but it has been 5.4% in our towns—almost half. Our towns were the hubs of innovation in the industrial revolution. Does my hon. Friend agree that any Government plan must have towns at its heart to support innovation and the good jobs that come with it?
7. What steps the Church of England is taking to support Christians in Palestine.
One of my constituents has written to me about Natalie Abu Dayyeh, a young Christian girl from Birzeit in the west bank who was seized at gunpoint by Israeli forces earlier this month. Her family do not know where she is being held—they do not even know whether she is alive and being treated well. This is a repeated pattern of behaviour: Layan Nasir, another Palestinian Christian, was treated in the same way last year. I have written to the relevant Minister at the Foreign Office, but can I also ask what representations the Church has made to advocate for Natalie’s release and for the protection of other Palestinian Christians facing detention?
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I join hon. Members in thanking you for chairing today’s debate at short notice. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing a debate on this deeply important subject. He made some excellent points, particularly about how fundamental supply chain resilience is to our economic security, and the importance of the public sector procurement regime to ensuring that public bodies do not inadvertently support international labour and humanitarian abuses. He and the other Members here today continue to be excellent and thoughtful advocates on these matters, and I thank all colleagues for their important contributions. Human rights are just that: they are fundamental, and they exist to protect us all. Infractions cannot be ignored or dismissed simply because they occurred far enough back in a supply chain for us to feel insulated and not responsible for supporting exploitative practices. Never has this issue been more important now that more than 70% of global trade runs through complex global supply chains. Although globalisation has driven productivity, innovation and technological advances that have lifted billions out of poverty and created the life that we depend on, it has also made supply chains more complex and opaque and has reduced the transparency and accountability that consumers, retailers and the Government need to protect workers and the natural world from exploitation. Members have rightly drawn attention to the egregious human rights abuses that come with forced labour. In 2026, more than 27 million people remain in the shackles of modern slavery across all six inhabited continents, often enduring imprisonment, abuse and coercion, and being exploited for profit. As we approach the 200th anniversary of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in much of the British empire, it is right that I reaffirm this Government’s commitment to tackling this vile practice, which continues to generate nearly £176 billion in illegal profits each year, in all its forms, including non-payment or underpayment of wages, excessive working hours and unsafe working conditions. There is also clear evidence of severe environmental harm in our global supply chains, as we lose the equivalent of 11 football pitches of tropical rainforest every minute, and threaten nearly 1 million animal and plant species with extinction. As we have heard, the UK has a proud record of pioneering global advances to support human and workers’ rights. We put this issue on the international stage with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) spoke about. That legislation was world leading and crucial in solidifying our place as a global leader on this issue. For the first time, businesses were made to report how they tackled the modern slavery that might be present in their supply chains. However, as Members have rightly said, although the Modern Slavery Act was world leading at the time, it is now more than a decade old and in need of review if we are to tackle the many violations that still occur globally. Although many UK businesses respect human rights and the environment throughout their supply chains, unethical international violations undercut the vast majority of UK businesses that support fair international supply chains. That will only increase as geopolitical, industrial and technological shocks continue to transform how and where goods are produced and extracted. That is why we must take a more strategic approach by working with our global allies and trading partners to secure forced labour provisions in our free trade agreements, and by using the developing countries trading scheme to suspend preferential trading arrangements on the ground of serious violation of labour rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green noted, I travelled last week to the 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva, where I met trade union delegations and labour and employment Ministers from across the world, alongside some of the most significant manufacturers, extractors and business hubs. This issue is close to my heart, and I worked closely on it before I was elected to this place. Last week, we talked a lot about the work we are proudly doing in Government on the Employment Rights Act and the domestic agenda, and I thank Members for raising that today. We are clear that a collaborative, holistic and cross-border approach is the only way to drive the change that exploited workers and environments need, alongside our recognition of other international transitions from voluntary to mandatory measures, such as human rights and environmental due diligence laws. In the trade strategy, the Government underlined how responsible business conduct is a positive part of our mission to grow the economy, and we launched a review of our approach to responsible business, focusing on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK. It is an evidence-based review of our policy framework and alternative measures to enhance it, including mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence measures and forced labour bans. It naturally also considers the approaches of our international trading partners and the best way to promote a co-ordinated approach that minimises costs, consistent with the Government’s commitment to reduce the administrative costs of complying with regulation by 25% over the course of this Parliament. So far, we have engaged with more than 200 organisations through the review, including businesses, investors, civil society, trade unions and academic institutions. We have learnt from international partners and met communities affected by supply chain harms. I heard many hon. Members stress the need for urgency today, and I reassure them that we will update Parliament on the review in due course. I thank Members for raising that pressing issue, and we will of course work closely with all those at the debate today.
I thank the right hon. Member for that and his contributions today. I reassure him that we are working closely with the US on the review, updating the Americans on all the work we are doing and understanding their practices too. I will turn soon to the other important points he raised throughout the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted our work with the Treasury as part of this review, and I thank him for that. We are doing the review economy-wide, and as well as working with the Treasury, we have engaged with investors. We will of course keep him updated, as I know he is interested in—indeed, passionate about—this subject. We took another key step in the trade strategy by launching the Office for Responsible Business Conduct to provide UK businesses, trade unions and charities with a simpler route to compliance, supporting the integration of responsible business practices and helping victims of corporate malpractice by providing a non-judicial grievance mechanism. Alongside the broader RBC review, we are considering how to strengthen the section 54 transparency regime, which lots of Members mentioned today—I thank them for it—including mandatory reporting requirements that extend to the public sector and penalties for non-compliance. We published updated statutory guidance on transparency in supply chains in March 2025, calling on businesses to go further and faster. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), for his contribution today, his work in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and his engagement in and focus on this vital issue. I mentioned our work and relationship with the US. I hope that he is reassured by those comments and by our continued and regular engagement with the US Administration as part of our negotiations. As a proudly internationalist and pro-worker Government, we have a responsibility to remain a world leader in tackling modern slavery, clearances and human rights abuses wherever they rear their ugly head. The Government stand firm on human rights, including in Xinjiang, where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities. Lots of Members raised that, and I thank them for it. I hope they know that we raise these concerns with China at the highest levels. That was done recently by the Prime Minister himself and the former Foreign Secretary. We continue to co-ordinate efforts with our international partners to hold China to account—for example, by joining a UN statement in October 2024 and co-signing a joint statement with the US and others in November 2025. I respect the work done by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and thank him for his consistency in raising this issue today and outside the House. He also spoke about GB Energy, as did the shadow Minister. As a publicly owned energy company, GB Energy is of course expected to demonstrate leading practice in complying with the UK modern slavery legislation and aligning with the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. We have established an ethical supply chain advisory group to review and inform GBE’s approach to ethical supply chains in its investments and operations; its chair is Baroness O’Grady. Representatives of my Department will serve on that group, and it meets for the first time next week, which I am sure the right hon. Member will welcome. We must continue working with our international counterparts, and key stakeholders across the international trade union movement and business community to take action against those who illegally destroy families, communities and our natural world for profit. As Members have outlined, this action cannot be singular or a patchwork of separate policy decisions. Only co-ordinated, root-and-branch decisions will enable our constituents to know that they can trust that the T-shirt they are wearing, the bag they are carrying and the food they are eating did not arrive in our country at the expense of exploited people and areas thousands of miles away. Delivering that confidence for British people is good for business and good for growth, and re-cements our position as a world leader on these matters. I again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We look forward to working closely with them on the review and more widely to ensure that we continue to focus on this issue, which is a priority for our Government. I will end, Mr Dowd, by wishing you a very happy birthday for Saturday and thanking you again for chairing the debate.
Clause 1 formally abolishes NHS England as a statutory body, which is one of the key aims of the Bill. The current structure, with its two centres, has led to layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, duplication and unclear lines of accountability, and has come with significant cost, with the centre growing significantly in size since 2013. Through the Bill, we are simplifying the organisational landscape of the NHS and removing unnecessary complexity and overlapping roles among NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. The reform will enable leaders and staff to focus on delivering care, rather than on navigating bureaucratic hurdles. Importantly, it will also restore Ministers’ central role in national oversight and setting strategy, which the public rightly expect as part of a democratic system. The creation of an arm’s length body of this size was a mistake, and we seek to rectify it. Clause 2 is integral to the orderly abolition of NHS England. It empowers the Secretary of State to establish transfer schemes, which will provide a structured and transparent means of moving property, rights and liabilities from NHS England to the Department of Health and Social Care, the integrated care boards and other relevant bodies. This robust legal mechanism is required to ensure a responsible transfer of NHS England’s assets and staff. It ensures that all necessary legal powers and permissions for the transfer are in place, preventing uncertainty or loose ends for staff, patients, service users and partner organisations as NHS England is abolished. The clause allows provisions to be made similar to those under TUPE to ensure the protection of employment rights for staff who are transferred from NHS England. In addition, the clause allows for the shared ownership or use of property, ensuring that assets can be distributed and used in a way that supports service continuity for patients and the broader health system. Clause 3, at its core, provides a power for His Majesty’s Treasury to ensure through regulations that transfers from NHSE to the DHSC, ICBs and other bodies are delivered smoothly and on a tax-neutral basis. In particular, it allows HM Treasury to make adjustments to how existing tax legislation applies to transfers of NHS England’s property, staff and liabilities in a scheme made under clause 2. That will ensure that no tax charges arise, and that neither NHS England nor the transferee organisations end up with a different tax position due to the organisational changes. Importantly, the scope of the power is tightly constrained: it applies only to specified existing taxes and only for the purpose of ensuring tax neutrality in relation to transfers made under clause 2. Without the power, there would be a risk that transfers could trigger unintended tax liabilities that would divert public money away from frontline services and undermine the policy intent of the legislation. Clause 3 therefore protects value for money and ensures that organisational change does not come with avoidable fiscal costs. Without the changes made by clauses 1 to 3 we will not be able to meet the ambitions set out in the 10-year health plan. The abolition of NHS England, delivered in an orderly, proportionate and considered way that safeguards the interests of staff and taxpayers, is a necessary precondition for an NHS that is more effective for patients, delivers better outcomes across the country and achieves the ambitions that the public expect of us. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
This is an interesting point, and it is always helpful to have one’s comments put back to one. I am happy to come back to this again. I ask my question again: do the Opposition oppose the abolition of NHS England? I do not think the Opposition oppose the abolition; they think it is the right thing to do. I appreciate that that was confirmed on Second Reading. As I have said before, the previous Government had the opportunity to do this in 2022 and chose not to. The fact that it has not been opposed suggests that it is the right thing to do. As for what we found on coming into Government, we thought that delivering on our manifesto through the existing powers, flow of funds and priorities would be possible. We were clear that we did not seek this as an initial outcome, but having got into that position, we immediately found, even while developing the 10-year plan and bringing together one team, that it was not possible. I am afraid that the line through which ministerial intentions could be delivered was convoluted, and obstructed by various measures throughout the system. That independence—
Sorry, I know that was not an intervention.
I am happy to come back to it.
T4. The National Centre for Arts and Music Education is due to be up and running this September. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether it will be ready in time and who will run it, and can she give us an overview of its remit?
The Labour Government’s summer of savings programme—cutting VAT on visitor attractions and children’s meals and providing free bus travel for under-16s this August—is welcome news for families in Derbyshire and those visiting the county, which is a much-loved holiday destination. It is also an important shot in the arm for a sector that is struggling. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that, once we have assessed how successful that scheme has been, we have a debate in Government time in the autumn to bring insights from constituencies across the country on what more we can do for the sector?
3. What steps her Department is taking to increase funding for UNESCO world heritage sites.
Cromford Mills in Derbyshire Dales was the world’s first water-powered cotton spinning mill and the birthplace of mass production. In recent decades the Arkwright Society has transformed this UNESCO world heritage site into the much-loved tourist attraction it is today. However, the renewal of the site is not yet complete, with another £1.2 million in match funding needed to help secure its financial viability. Will the Minister therefore agree to officials meeting the Arkwright Society to see what support the Department can give to help Cromford Mill secure this much-needed financial support?
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) mentioned reports that BBC Radio 4’s “The World Tonight” programme may be cut. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that in the age of fast news, disinformation and misinformation, we need more programmes such as “The World Tonight”, not fewer, and that we need more contemplative journalism so that our voters can understand politics and the world around them more effectively? Does she agree with me that the BBC perhaps ought to look at the vast salaries they pay their stars, both in entertainment and in news, in order to retain programmes such as “The World Tonight”, which will be much missed if it goes?
My thoughts are with the victims of the despicable grooming gangs. Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the numerous actions that this Government have taken to protect women and girls, hon. Members sometimes use language, both inside and outside the House, that allows the spread online of tropes about my party and hon. Members on this side that—I speak from personal experience here—have real-world implications? Those online tropes affect the behaviour of people in the real world. Does she agree that it is incumbent on right hon. and hon. Members, both inside and outside the House, to use temperate language? Opposition is needed and expected, but politicising such an important issue can create real risks for hon. Members and others in the real world.
I am sure that I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members when I say that it is a privilege to serve our constituents in this place. We have a multifaceted role. There are many things that Back- Bench MPs can do in this place—some are welcome, and some are perhaps not so welcome. Sometimes Back Benchers even get above their station, such is the allure of high office. Can the Leader of the House find Government time for us to debate the role of Members of Parliament? As we know, there is no job description, no employer—save for our constituents—and perhaps not even a Government Department that could answer. But I think it is important that we debate and suggest ideas—in addition to those that we can send to the Modernisation Committee, as I have done repeatedly—about how we can improve the role of MPs. It is much misunderstood, and some might say under-resourced, and we can probably do better.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, which is very interesting and important. I briefly draw her attention to the agreement between Rugby borough council and Frasers Group, which is setting up its global HQ in my constituency. Under the agreement, Frasers Group is providing £10 million for a much-needed training and innovation hub in Rugby town centre. Does she agree that encouraging businesses, such as Frasers Group and many others, to invest in towns and not just cities is vital? We need to remind our Government that cities are wonderful and attract lots of investment, but they have a lot going for them already, and we need to do more for our towns. What she said in her statement gives me some hope in that regard.
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for his moving and powerful speech and for all the work he does with the APPG. I also want to put on the record my respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister and thank him for his and the Government’s efforts, which I think have been acknowledged across the House. I have been contacted by a constituent of mine whose identity I am going to keep anonymous, and Members will therefore hear me using the pronoun “they” quite a lot. The crux of the issue is that after an operation in 1977, my constituent contracted hepatitis C. They are struggling to locate medical records, which is making it difficult to engage with the Skipton Fund or the English infected blood support scheme. The point about evidence has been made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss). The concern here is that the records have been lost or destroyed, and there have been significant consequences for my constituent. They registered with the infected blood compensation scheme last October, but have not had any correspondence from the scheme. My constituent believes that they received contaminated blood during an operation at the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby in 1977 and was infected with hepatitis C. The hospital appears to have lost its notes of the operation, and both the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby and University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire have stated that any records of this operation have been destroyed. I want to put it on the record that I am not casting any aspersions whatsoever on the current staff of either hospital or the trust. My constituent tried to claim from the Skipton Fund in the early 2000s, but was turned down for lack of evidence because of the need for hospital records. They then applied to the England infected blood support scheme, but this request for compensation was also declined due to lack of evidence. They have since tried to appeal this decision, but this appeal was, of course, rejected because of the requirement to present new evidence. My constituent is concerned that they may not be registered with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to receive compensation through the authority. I have written to the Department of Health and Social Care about this case, and I would like to know the status of any intervention. I think it is worth the Department checking whether there is evidence that any other people who were treated by the Hospital of St Cross in my constituency in or around October 1977 were infected in the way that my constituent appears to have been. I am also keen to know what happened to my constituent’s records—how and why they were lost or destroyed. Given that my constituent registered with the infected blood compensation scheme last October, I want to ensure that they receive the compensation they are owed. Could the Minister assure me that this case will be investigated and that my constituent will be updated on its progress, and that they will receive any compensation that they are owed? I will of course provide the Minister with details of this specific case. Finally, I want to make a broader point that has been made by many other hon. Members across the House today. The duty of candour, which I am glad our Government are committed to bringing in through the Hillsborough law, cannot come into effect soon enough. Hopefully it will deter future examples of such egregious state failure as well as deterring such behaviour in the private sector, which the duty of candour will have some relevance to in certain circumstances.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate, which is much needed. Also, it is not often that I thank an Everton supporter for anything, but thank you very much, Mr Dowd, for stepping into the breach. A number of organisations have been working incredibly hard with me and other Members on a number of fronts relating to this issue for some time. I thank the Corporate Justice Coalition, which is a large coalition of organisations. I thank the TUC and my own union, Unison, for circulating briefings. I also thank Anti-Slavery International; ActionAid; Sarah Benn Gordon, who put together a range of information for me; and the wonderful House of Commons Library. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is an excellent piece of work, not surprisingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) has gone, but he is a specialist in Aristotle, and we can see the logic in the report. I have read the Government’s response and want to make sure that I have it clear; the Minister can clarify later in the debate. First, the response says that the Government share the Committee’s concerns and accept that there are real worries about global supply chains and that we have to ensure that, as a country, we are not complicit. Secondly, it states that “the Government is actively exploring options to strengthen protections.” Thirdly, it states—as hon. Members have noted—that their response will be based on the trade strategy review that was launched some time ago, which aims to ensure that we have responsible business conduct in supply chains and companies operating in the UK. I found it interesting that the Government’s response listed exactly the same concerns, about “human rights, labour rights, the environment, and anti-corruption” and said that there has to be due regard to the costs of implementation. It then listed the Departments engaged in the review as “the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Cabinet Office”. There was no reference to the Treasury whatsoever—nor, seemingly, to the Financial Conduct Authority or the Bank of England. The small point I want to make is that the finance sector seems to have been excluded from the whole debate. It is certainly not covered in any of the reports so far. We need to be concerned. It is not just about goods in; our concern is about finance out and the scale of investment by the City and by our finance sector, unfortunately, in abusive business practices around the globe. That investment is sometimes funded by money that has been laundered into the City and then laundered out. I remind people that only a few years ago the City of London was described as the “Russian laundromat” due to the Russian oligarchs’ money that was coming in and then invested in a whole range of schemes that abused human rights and brought about environmental degradation. That is why I want to know whether the finance sector will be included in the overall review. At the moment, we largely rely on the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive to cover the finance sector. The problem is that the omnibus proposed in 2025 watered down the role that would play and the requirements within it. There is also a finance exemption. A large section of the finance sector is completely exempt, so investment and lending are largely exempt in terms of the requirements on due diligence. It also excludes down- stream partners—the companies they invest in. Additionally, there is no reference to shadow banking at all. Shadow banking is going on at the moment virtually unregulated. There is other legislation, such as the EU sustainable finance disclosure regulation, but there are various interpretations of how asset managers could comply with that. In addition, we have a situation where compliance is virtually voluntary. Certainly, it is unclear and unmonitored. We then rely on treaties and memoranda of understanding, but the standards that relate to human rights abuse and labour rights abuse are not consistently applied in treaties. A report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I served on at the time, found that treaties and memoranda of understanding are virtually devoid of parliamentary scrutiny. We never debate treaties on the Floor of the House. There is no central register of memoranda of understanding from which we could get some comprehension of what they cover and so on. As a result of that, there are numerous examples of the implications of the unregulated nature of our finance sector with regard to human rights abuse and environmental degradation. My questions are: will any new supply chain regulation cover the finance sector; if it does, what consultations will take place to ensure the sector is included; who will be involved in those consultations; and as my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked, what will the timescale be? We are waiting—the “soon” we heard is becoming a long soon. I do not want to take up too much of the debate so I will shut up at this point, but there is always this argument that finance regulation somehow restrains the animal spirits and as a result undermines growth. Actually, in the finance sector, my word is my bond, and nothing is more important that trust and confidence. As a result, proper regulation is required to maintain that trust.
Victims and survivors absolutely must be at the heart of this inquiry. How are they being put at the centre of this work in practice, are they being provided with access to support, and what meaningful opportunities do they have to shape the outcomes of the inquiry?
Health and social care partnerships across Scotland face a funding gap of half a billion pounds in their budgets this year alone. That is the result of years of under-investment by the Scottish National party. That has real-life consequences, because tomorrow in Renfrewshire we face the prospect of our local disability resource centre in Paisley being closed, our Autism Connections programme being cut, and our day centres for adults with learning disabilities being merged. Does the Leader of the House agree that rather than cutting vital services that my constituents rely on, the SNP Government in Holyrood should invest in our communities using the record funding they have had from this Labour Government, and put the constituents of Paisley and Renfrewshire South first?
I thank my hon. Friend and the Select Committee for their report. Can she say a little more about the role of the Scottish Government in this area, and whether the Select Committee had any observations about the relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government in that regard? She has referred to the role of devolution in this space, so is that relationship securing the gathering and sharing of data that she might expect and that she raised in her statement, and if not, what more can be done?
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the Government need to work with colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to drive forward the final compensation scheme and address the concerns about timelines that he rightly talks about?
We all know how important our NHS is to the people we represent. I know how frustrated patients and staff have become after years of rising waiting lists, cancelled appointments and growing bureaucracy. Since coming into office, this Labour Government have already started to turn things around by delivering more than 3 million extra appointments ahead of schedule, cutting waiting lists and agreeing a new GP contract that begins the work of restoring the family doctor. However, the challenge remains enormous. We inherited an NHS facing the worst crisis in its history, and public finances under severe pressure. That means that every pound must work as hard as possible for patients. That is why I welcome the decision to abolish NHS England and bring its functions back into the Department of Health and Social Care. The complex structure created by the 2012 reorganisation has left us with duplication, inefficiency and too many layers of management, separating decision makers from the frontline. Far too many NHS leaders and clinicians tell us that they spend their time filling in reports and navigating bureaucracy, when they should be focused on delivering care. We owe it to taxpayers and patients to change that. These reforms are not about criticism of the dedicated public servants working in NHS England; they are about creating a simpler, more accountable system that supports staff rather than holding them back. By reducing duplication and cutting unnecessary bureaucracy, we can redirect hundreds of millions of pounds to frontline services. That will cut waiting times, improve access to care and give local NHS leaders more freedom to innovate. This is about one simple principle: fewer checkers and more doers; less bureaucracy and more patient care. It will create a stronger NHS that delivers for communities such as Bassetlaw and for people across the country. The NHS is facing huge challenges. With the right reforms and leadership, we can build an NHS fit for the future and there for every patient when they need it most.
Grassroots venues in Newport such as The Cab and Le Pub, where the fan-led review was launched recently, are a vital part of our city’s creative industry, drawing thousands of people into our city centre each month. The ticket levy announced by the Government could help such venues to manage rising costs and develop talent. Larger events were encouraged to participate voluntarily in the scheme, so could we have a bit of a progress report and an idea of next steps?
As a former history teacher, the Leader of the House will know that Newport was the site of the UK’s last armed insurrection. Every year in Newport, we honour and commemorate the Chartists’ sacrifice at the annual Newport Rising festival, and I am delighted to say that the torchlit march is being considered for the UNESCO inventory of living heritage in Wales. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should take every opportunity in this House to debate and recognise the sacrifice of people’s movements that helped to shape our democracy in this House, especially at a time when our democracy is under threat?
I too thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for his excellent and assiduous work on the APPG. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is right that it is a very different APPG, and my hon. Friend does a fantastic job with it. I also my hon. Friend for articulating so well the asks of the community; mine is a general plea, but it is keenly felt by my constituents, and I fully support all his asks and look forward to the Minister’s response. Over the last 15 years in this Chamber, I have raised the cases of the Newport East families impacted by the contaminated blood scandal over 20 times. I really hope that we are closer to the point where I do not have to raise them again, as we now have the compensation scheme and the money, and I thank the Minister for that. We appreciate that he is doing a very difficult job—I want him to know that. I also pay tribute to all those who have brought us to this stage, especially the victims and the families who have campaigned absolutely tirelessly and provided us with the vital evidence over the years. I pay particular tribute to Colin and Janet Smith and their family, who have lived with this nightmare since 1983 when their toddler son Colin was given infected blood sourced from a prison in Arkansas. I am going to remember Colin again in this Chamber now—he died aged just seven; it is really important that we remember today the people we are here for. The Smiths are some of the strongest and most dignified people I have ever met. It is an immense privilege to have them as my constituents—and I really mean that. For them, this fight has been about justice and has never been about the money, but the Smiths, like so many others—I understand that there are about 92 estates in Wales—have not been invited to apply for compensation yet, even though we have the scheme and the money to pay the claims. They registered their intent to claim and pre-qualified for interim payments, but are still waiting to be invited. All these families just need to know what the hold-up is. The authorities have done the checks and have the information—the system appears to be doubling up. It would be helpful to know why people cannot just apply and why they have to wait to be invited to. We need to move much faster than we are now. The current pace of delivery is just adding to the stress that these people have already endured for decades. On behalf of the families, the Hepatitis Trust and the Haemophilia Society, I urge the Minister to look at what we can do to increase the speed of the scheme’s delivery and about people waiting to be invited. These people have fought long enough. Crucially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst said, it is important that we continue to listen to the community, and prioritise the elderly and the terminally ill. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, the community are getting older, and it has now been more than two years since Sir Brian Langstaff delivered his recommendations and around 20 months since the Chancellor set out the £11.8 billion required to settle all the claims. Those affected want the chance to move on from this painful chapter, and the many bereaved parents want the chance to live their remaining years with a sense of closure after what, for them, has been more than 40 years of struggle. These families deserve the closure before it is too late, and we have it in our gift to make that happen. Please can we increase the pace and bring this long injustice to an end? I support all the asks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. My final plea to the Government is: please continue to listen to the community.
9. What steps her Department is taking to help support UK artists touring in Europe.
I thank the Minister for that answer; there is some good news there. One of the many negatives of Brexit is that it has placed barriers on UK artists being able to tour in Europe. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has just published its report, featuring a number of practical measures that the Government can take to remove those barriers. Will Ministers act on those recommendations? I point to one in particular. As well as leaving the EU, the UK decided not to participate in the Creative Europe scheme, which we were net beneficiaries of. Ahead of the upcoming EU-UK summit, a signal that we intend to participate in the successor scheme, AgoraEU, would be a positive message to our creative artists.
Cornwall has organisations like Young People Cornwall that deliver vital services in, frankly, substandard premises, and they are doing brilliant work with limited resources, but they need investment in buildings to expand their impact. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could ask the relevant Minister to outline the timeline for the next phase of the better youth spaces fund and how the criteria will be changed so that it also benefits rural and coastal areas. At the moment, the criteria are similar to the Pride in Place criteria, which excludes some of those areas.
The grooming gangs represent the most profound betrayal of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and the victims were failed by the very institutions that should have protected them. Justice was denied, while perpetrators escaped accountability. The vile individuals who systemically groomed, abused and violated these girls must face the full force of the law. Can the Minister provide an update on Operation Beaconport and explain how its work is helping to identify offenders, secure justice for victims, and strengthen the national response to tackling these heinous crimes?
To keep with the current theme of the beautiful game, the Buza youth football academy in Ilford South has been running for only six years, but, in that time, the youngsters—the under-nines—have won the Echo junior league, and the under-11s and under-13s have won cups and competed abroad. Two of its players now have contracts with West Ham United; they are aged only six and eight, but they are talented. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating this wonderful club on the quick strides it has made, its wonderful coaches and the work of the parents, in helping these children progress so quickly?