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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we do need a timescale. I will cover that later. There are concerns that elements of the compensation system still require change, and that some of the decision making is arbitrary and not consistent with what had been promised. I will attempt to go through those concerns. Unethical testing is the most disturbing and distressing aspect of this horrible affair. People—most of them children at the time—were used as human lab rats. Former Treloar’s pupils have described themselves as “cheaper than chimps” for experimenting on. The Government have increased the payment for those who attended Treloar’s school from £25,000 to £60,000, which is a welcome step in the right direction, and for those who were experimented on as children elsewhere from £25,000 to £45,000. But we should stop to consider for a moment what this compensation is for. These children, without their knowledge, were given contaminated products so that the effects could be studied by the state—the state that should have been there to protect them. Imagine being one of the victims and reflecting on what the state has done to you, knowing that your life has been altered and shortened, and that you have lost friends. I spoke to one parent who described looking at her three children and knowing that she would never see them grow up to be adults or get married, and never see her grandchildren. The top price for that is £60,000. The message was, “If you are a pharmaceutical company, come to Britain. We have set the price low enough that you can carry out experiments on anyone, and then pay the fine and still make money.” What these people have lost is priceless, and £60,000 is nowhere near enough. The issue is not just the size of the compensation, but the gravity of what took place and its immorality. That has to be addressed, and these payments go nowhere near doing so. They should be withdrawn to allow a proper dialogue to take place with the infected and affected, so that an appropriate solution can be reached. We must recognise the losses that these people have endured since childhood. Some recognition has to be given in the new regulations to the impact of interferon treatment for those infected with hepatitis. The changes are time-limited to two years for financial loss, and one year for the care award. The compensation scheme cannot continue to ignore the real-life effect on victims of long-term interferon treatment, and the associated costs, which are far higher than the time-limited uplifts that the Government propose introducing. Treatment for interferon is not recognised when it comes to additional injury awards. Those awards must be paid to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other harms they may have suffered. Then there is the situation with hepatitis B. Why are people infected with hepatitis B not given equal treatment in the compensation packages with those infected with hepatitis C?

   Hansard source
2. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I have not had conversations with the Government about an approach like that, but I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I will address that later. The Government need to learn lessons, and to set up a system, so that we do not have to learn all over again all the lessons of paying compensation and implementing inquiries’ recommendations every time this happens.

   Hansard source
3. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I will touch on that and I will make that very point. There are areas of evidence required that are unreasonable. I thought we had agreed that that sort of evidence would not be asked for. In his statement on 14 April, the Paymaster General announced, for all those claimants who can demonstrate to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority that they meet the criteria, that all care and financial loss claims can be backdated to 2017, when the special category mechanism was first established. The community of people I have spoken to feels strongly that compensation must cover actual costs, whenever they occurred, and that there should not be an arbitrary cut-off date of 2017. On the issue of evidence, which the hon. Lady just referred to, the Government did not accept the inquiry’s recommendation for IBCA to be less stringent on overall evidence for the psychological harm award, and instead advised that people apply to the special category mechanism award. There is concern that the evidence threshold will be too high, and the Government should allow IBCA to be more flexible and compassionate in considering claims of psychological harm through the special category mechanism. The communities consistently pointed out that the current scheme penalises those who died before the compensation scheme came into force. The Paymaster General did not address that issue in his statement earlier this year. The compensation scheme must pay the estates of those who died young for the harm and losses suffered, and end such a clear injustice. The current scheme has not enabled family members who gave up work to be compensated for the sacrifices they made in their lives and the opportunities that they lost as a result. The supplementary compensation scheme should enable carers to claim the actual financial and personal losses that they have suffered as a result of providing care. My constituent Mary Grindley wrote to me on that issue: “I understand that the Cabinet Office is considering a supplementary route to further compensation for the affected on top of the lump sum at present offered. While considering this, please bear in mind many of us gave up our jobs and careers to look after our beloved ones often with little support. Also many had difficulty returning to work later or were too traumatised to do so. (I personally gave up work to look after my husband, giving up my teaching career. I tried to return after he died as my son was a minor and after two terms had a breakdown in the classroom in front of the children. I never worked again.) Loss of earnings should be taken into account.” She continued: “Other considerations that should be taken into account—being unable to have a child or more children, loss of a proper marriage (we were told that if my husband infected me he could be put in prison), harassment at home and work (we had to move twice, once with the help of the police) to living in poor housing due to not being able to get insurance for a mortgage. Regards, Mary Grindley”. When we read testimonies such as Mary’s they bring home the multitude of wrongs that must be recognised. There is a growing concern among the community about the pace of payments. After an upturn towards the end of last year, things have slowed down. There seems to be an upturn in IBCA’s demand for documentation, despite it being agreed previously that that would not be required from claimants. After so many years, some documents are impossible to find and such requests will slow down the system. In some cases, people have been asked to provide proof that they were living with their parents as children at the time of their claim. Will the Government instruct IBCA to alter its current stance on that requirement? The people infected and affected have been campaigning for decades, and many are very elderly. Does the Minister agree that it is time that we set timelines to end the limbo that they have been left in?

   Hansard source
4. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   Yes, where we can improve the system by working together, I think we should do it. That is absolutely right. We welcome the introduction of an ongoing dialogue between the infected and affected community and the Government. That was lacking throughout the process, from when the Government started to set the tariffs and set up IBCA, and that led to a lot of mistrust. A two- way dialogue is needed if good relationships and trust are to be maintained and if we are to restore trust in the process. We must learn the lessons of all inquiries and compensation bodies that the Government have had to set up. We must not keep reinventing the wheel every time an inquiry reports and makes recommendations.

   Hansard source
5. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I agree. We need to put this on a statutory footing—if nothing else, to give rights to the people who have been wronged in the process.

   Hansard source
6. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   Yes, I agree. We keep repeating the experience with inquiry after inquiry. The time has come for us to set up a body that retains that experience so that it can represent the people who have been wronged and ensure that the issues that have been raised by them, through whatever inquiry has taken place, can be addressed.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   It would be an improvement if we were to set up a system that reviewed what action is taken in response to inquiries. For instance, if we had acted on the recommendations of the inquiry into the Lakanal House fire, we might not have had the Grenfell fire. Those things are just left to gather dust on a shelf, and we need to address that. We must set up a body for compensation payments so that skills and experience are not lost and do not have to be learned time and again. We must also have a duty of candour; the Hillsborough law must be introduced in its entirety. One person whom I know the campaigners, the infected and the affected would like to thank, overall, is Sir Brian Langstaff. I will finish with his address at the remembrance service at St Paul’s. He said that the catastrophe was no accident, and quoted the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who said on the publication of the final report in 2024: “We must fundamentally rebalance the system so that we finally address the pattern of injustice, so familiar from other inquiries, such as Hillsborough, where innocent victims have to fight for decades just to be believed.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 666.] In response, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, said that “we must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 750, c. 668.] In the conclusion to his oration, Sir Brian said: “Putting into practice these principles—prioritising patients’ safety, embracing candour, transparency and involvement, recognising and remedying injustice, truly valuing people—is a challenge for the here and now. These principles need to be not just matters of words, but together provide a practical route map to follow.” Had we been following Sir Brian’s advice, we would have got to the truth much earlier, saved lives and perhaps avoided other catastrophes. As we go forward, we must heed his words, involve people, value them, listen to them and act.

   Hansard source
8. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend to move things forward. When he receives representations from the infected and affected community, how does he intend to put those into effect and change the compensation process? That is what they approach us about and we are all raising a number of those representations, asking for changes in the regulations he is about to lay before the House.

   Hansard source
9. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I will not detain the House for long. I just want to thank everyone who contributed to the debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his thoughtful consideration of all the points raised. I just have one request: could I meet with him before he lays the regulations, so that we can discuss some of the issues raised today? I thank again everyone who contributed to the debate. I hope we have done justice to the people who are concerned about this issue, and to the infected and the affected who are watching the proceedings today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme.

   Hansard source
10. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Claire Hazelgrove

    Topical Questions

    I am so proud to back Filton’s bid to become the UK town of culture 2028. From our vibrant community to our vast heritage, including as the British home of Concorde, we have so much to offer the whole country. Will the Minister agree to meet me to hear more about this bid and what makes Filton so special?

    Hansard source
11. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Access to Music and Dance Training

    Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Sam Ashford and the Livewire theatre in Harlow on 25 years of supporting young people into music, dance and the theatre with its hard-hitting shows? I pay particular tribute to the work it did to support young people remotely during covid.

    Hansard source
12. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Cost of Living: Support for Families

    4. What steps the Church of England is taking to help support families with the cost of living.

    Hansard source
13. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Cost of Living: Support for Families

    I want to pay tribute to three fantastic women in Harlow: Caroline Hatton, Alison Taylor and, in particular, the Rev. Jokey Poyntz at my local church, St Mary’s in Little Parndon, who for many years has run a church furniture fund—she has got me to move the odd sofa—providing furniture to those in need across our town. What work are the Church Commissioners doing to recognise the work of local churches, like St Mary’s in Little Parndon, and to learn from that good practice?

    Hansard source
14. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Cost of Living: Support for Families

    indicated assent.

    Hansard source
15. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Business of the House

    The Leader of the House will be aware of the long-term funding challenges facing our palliative care sector due to real-terms funding cuts over many years. As a result, St Clare hospice in my constituency of Harlow is consulting on streamlining services. I welcome the fact that the Government will publish the modern services framework in the autumn, and I met the Minister for Care to discuss this yesterday, but can the Leader of the House find time for us to discuss this important issue in Government time?

    Hansard source
16. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bloore

    Topical Questions

    T6. Redditch local history museum tells the story of our new town, our proud industrial heritage and much more. However, the museum was recently evicted from its premises and is now searching for a new home. Can the Secretary of State advise me on how her Department might be able to assist me in helping provide the museum with a new place?

    Hansard source
17. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bloore

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    I thank the Minister for her response, and for her reassurance that this inquiry will have the powers to go wherever and to whomever it needs to get the answers for families in Redditch and other areas affected by these heinous crimes. When the initial set of inquiries are announced, if the area I represent is not included, but I still want to persist and ensure families get the justice they require, how am I best placed to do that via the Department and the Minister?

    Hansard source
18. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bloore

    Business of the House

    I seek the guidance of the Leader of the House. David, a constituent of mine, has raised serious concerns about the handling of a deeply distressing paternity case involving a child who was taken out of the country and was later confirmed to be his daughter. Key lines of inquiry were not pursued by West Midlands police, and evidence that was relied upon has been found to be false. Significant delays and errors have been experienced in the proceedings in Latvia, and concerns remain regarding the child’s welfare and contact with the father. How would the Leader of the House suggest I support my constituent and help to reunite this father and daughter as soon as possible?

    Hansard source
19. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bloore

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) has stolen my thunder by speaking about towns, for which I will never forgive her! [Laughter.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) for her report. I am going to bang on about towns, because the report’s title perfectly describes the frustrations and the situation in Redditch. We sit at the heart of a precision and research engineering supply chain that contributes millions to the economy, yet we receive a fraction of the research and development funding from Government or from private investment. To support the excellent firms in Redditch, does she agree that we need granular regional tracking to get the metrics in place to support the clusters that exist outside towns and metro areas, so we can grow our towns and get the regional and national growth that the Government so desperately want?

    Hansard source
20. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine West

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd; thank you for stepping in to chair the debate. I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate. He has a long-standing commitment to human rights. He is right to emphasise the international nature of trade and the risks of human rights abuses, for example, from China, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) has said, south-east Asia, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are areas where we do a lot of trade but we often do not know enough about what is going on. I want to add some brief remarks about the UK fashion and textiles industry and human rights here in the UK. I know that the Minister has a background in understanding the potential for human rights abuses. She also understands manufacturing and the scope within the UK to augment that particular sector and produce more jobs for local people. There is the potential for international trade, best practice and home-grown industries to sit side by side. I note that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) was reflecting on defence spending a couple of weeks ago, he said there should be more defence money spent locally, certainly when it comes to uniforms. When I led a previous debate in Westminster Hall, I detailed the potential that exists to enhance supply chain understanding here in the UK. In parts of the UK like Leicester, much more could be done to support the many women who want high-quality jobs in that area. Local authorities and universities are ready to work on that, and it seems a pity not to be enhancing that by being more organised when it comes to how our supply chains work. Very briefly, I welcome the supply chain centre’s announcement of the 14-point action plan yesterday. I have not yet had time to digest it, but I am sure the Minister will refer to it in her remarks. We know that onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry could unlock £3.1 billion in GDP, 64,000 new jobs and £1.2 billion in tax receipts. That is not throwing away the whole system of international trade; it is just saying that, with some political will, we could be making more with jobs here in the UK. We know that the 2025 Budget included new measures to stop overseas online firms undercutting UK bricks-and-mortar businesses by ensuring that customs duties apply to parcels of any value. I would be interested in the preparation for introducing those measures, which I believe are coming into force in 2028-29. Will the Minister briefly reflect on that in her remarks? There are costs to producing in the UK, but what about the benefits? It could mean more flexibility and agility from local suppliers, faster turnaround times that global competitors cannot match due to distance, and more transparency, as customers will know exactly where their clothes are made. “Made in the UK” is a point of pride, so why not have, “Made in the UK, under fair conditions”?

    Hansard source
21. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Places of Worship Renewal Fund

    8. What steps the Church of England is taking to ensure that rural churches are aware of the places of worship renewal fund.

    Hansard source
22. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Places of Worship Renewal Fund

    There are 124 round-tower churches in Norfolk. In South Norfolk, we have St Peter’s church in Forncett and St Mary & St Walstan church in Bawburgh, to name just two. I have written to all my local churches to make them aware of the fund, but will my hon. Friend help to ensure that all rural churches are encouraged to apply?

    Hansard source
23. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

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

    Hansard source
24. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

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

    Hansard source
25. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

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

    Hansard source
26. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

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

    Hansard source
27. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

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

    Hansard source
28. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Apsana Begum

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

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

    Hansard source
29. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

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

    Hansard source
30. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

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

    Hansard source
31. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

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

    Hansard source
32. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

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

    Hansard source
33. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

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

    Hansard source
34. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy Slaughter

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

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

    Hansard source
35. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andrew Lewin

    Topical Questions

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

    Hansard source
36. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Amanda Hack

    Access to Music and Dance Training

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

    Hansard source
37. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Mayer

    Cruelty-free Cleaning Products

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

    Hansard source
38. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Mayer

    Cruelty-free Cleaning Products

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

    Hansard source
39. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Mayer

    Business of the House

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

    Hansard source
40. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

    Ticket Tout Ban

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

    Hansard source