Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

   Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

   This really is a catalogue of disaster, and it raises a range of issues, some of which the Committee will consider when we kick off our inquiry into major events tomorrow. In the previous Parliament, the Committee looked at the safety of sporting events and concluded that safety advisory groups have, at best, a fairly dubious record on seeking out and considering the necessary perspectives to inform better decision making. May I invite the Minister to look at our recommendations from a couple of years ago on amending the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 so that police and safety advisory groups have no choice but to engage properly from the outset on such cases? When considering the competence of the West Midlands chief constable, might the Minister start by asking him to respond to his correspondence? The Select Committee wrote to him about the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, but we still have not received a response.

   Hansard source
2. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

   Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

   Is the Minister aware of any representations made by UEFA in advance of this fixture?

   Hansard source
3. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Ajax Armoured Vehicle

   I thank the Minister for his responses.

   Hansard source
4. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Child Poverty Strategy

   I call the shadow Secretary of State.

   Hansard source
5. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Child Poverty Strategy

   Order. The shadow Secretary of State has taken even longer than the Secretary of State and is well over her time limit. I call the Secretary of State.

   Hansard source
6. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Child Poverty Strategy

   I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

   Hansard source
7. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Child Poverty Strategy

   I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

   Hansard source
8. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Employment Rights Bill

   I thank the hon. Member for having corrected the record and for putting his interests on the record.

   Hansard source
9. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill

   I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege. Clause 51 Delegation of planning decisions in England

   Hansard source
10. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
11. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege. Schedule 2 Nominated persons

    Hansard source
12. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is ample opportunity for him to contribute to the debate. That was a very long intervention.

    Hansard source
13. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
14. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Digital ID

    Mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jury—neither is in the Labour manifesto. There is a whiff of authoritarianism about this Government, is there not?

    Hansard source
15. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    NEET Young People

    3. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training.

    Hansard source
16. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    NEET Young People

    About 1,200 people in my constituency are not in education, employment or training. With two job-destroying Budgets and the Employment Rights Bill on the horizon, does the Minister really understand the concerns of my constituents, who feel that this Government are simply making it so much harder for young people to find work and get on the career ladder?

    Hansard source
17. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Ajax Armoured Vehicle

    The Minister knows that, as a former armoured infanteer, I have a keen interest in this topic, but I want to touch on the wider issue of Ajax as it relates to 3rd (UK) Division. If Ajax cannot be fixed, then potentially we will not have a formation recce capability. As it stands, we do not have one, because the vehicle is not deployable. If it cannot be fixed later on, that will be a longer-term issue, particularly as Scimitar is now out of service. Warrior goes out of service in 2027, and Bulldog goes out of service in 2030, with no replacement identified. The Ares platform is fundamentally not an infantry fighting vehicle, and although the Minister has assured us before that he is restoring the armoured infantry capability to 3rd (UK) Division, it is not a like-for-like replacement. Will the Minister look at the current ORBAT—order of battle—for an armoured infantry battalion and how the Ares cannot replace Warrior? A non-stabilised .50 calibre machine gun does not replace a 30 mm cannon. This urgently needs to be looked at, because the Army seems to be chopping and changing its mind and not to know what it wants from its armoured capability.

    Hansard source
18. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Digital ID

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I want to begin by thanking the 4,337 constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury who have expressed their opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID cards. The British public, including my constituents, are concerned not only by the principle of mandatory digital IDs, but by the manner in which the Government have attempted to introduce them: without a timeline, without a clear financial cost, without a plan and without a mandate. When the Government first briefed their intention to pursue mandatory digital ID, my inbox was inundated with concerns. Because of the clear salience of the issue, I launched a survey asking my constituents for their views. I am grateful for the hundreds of responses, more than three quarters of which were opposed to a mandatory ID scheme. The truth is that this petition should never have been necessary. A policy of this magnitude, with profound implications for civil liberties and for the relationship between citizen and state, ought to have appeared in a party’s manifesto. I am also deeply concerned by the Government’s so-called justification that this will solve the small boats crisis. Before the election, Labour promised it had a plan to smash the gangs, stop the boats and tackle illegal migration. We can all see how that plan is going, so how would this policy make any difference? Is it not just another cynical attempt to distract from the failure of this Government to address illegal migration? If the Minister has confidence in the proposal, can they clearly set out how much the Government expect illegal crossings to fall as a result and what cost they expect the taxpayer, our constituents, to bear? Time is short, but I want to raise one further concern: rural communities that remain digitally isolated would face significant challenges under these plans. I have spoken many times about the digital exclusion facing so many in Chester South and Eddisbury. Progress was being made under the previous Conservative Government, but I am concerned that Ministers are now pushing ahead with a digital ID scheme without first ensuring digital connectivity, which risks leaving rural communities even further behind.

    Hansard source
19. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Digital ID

    My hon. Friend makes such an important point. The money that will be spent on mandatory ID needs to be spent on ensuring that all our constituents are connected. The £9.5 million strategy to tackle digital exclusion is inadequate. To conclude, this policy is an attempt to distract from the Government’s failures and has absolutely no mandate. I therefore stand with the many thousands across Chester South and Eddisbury in opposing any plans to introduce mandatory digital ID.

    Hansard source
20. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    Two weeks ago, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and delivered a Budget that contained not a single measure to support growth. Today, in moving the motion to disagree, the Minister has signed the warrant for a war on jobs. She is at the Dispatch Box representing the Government, but everyone knows that it is the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is calling the shots. We discovered this morning that Labour Together is already auditioning for the Prime Minister’s replacement. Perhaps the Minister has an outside chance at the job, but my money is probably more on the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Perhaps the Labour party could have its first female Prime Minister just before the Conservatives have our fourth. Given all that job insecurity, it is no wonder that Labour Members seem so keen on employment rights. This is not a Bill for employment rights; it is a charter for a jobless generation. Thanks to measures in the Bill, thousands of young people will struggle for opportunities because the rungs of the ladder have been sawn off. Since Labour entered office, 144,000 payrolled jobs have been wiped out. Manufacturing, the oil and gas sector, construction and hospitality are all unable to make ends meet due to high energy and employment costs. The unemployment rate has been higher every month of this Government. Half the jobs lost belong to the under-25s.

    Hansard source
21. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    I will happily give way if the hon. Member wants to talk about the jobs lost in his own constituency.

    Hansard source
22. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    Under the Conservative Government, we improved the number of people in work and unemployment fell to a record level. Since the current Government have taken office, unemployment has been higher every single month. Half the jobs lost belong to the under-25s. Does anyone want to talk about the youth unemployment rate under this Government? It is now 15%, and the number of young people not in education, employment or training has gone up by 25,000 on their watch—before the impact of this disastrous Bill. The Government claim to support workers, but their first legislative achievement will be to make more young people unemployed. How could any Member of the House possibly support that? So, who is the Bill really for? As I have said before, the clue is in the text: it mentions maternity rights just three times, but it mentions the word “union”—no Labour Members have declared their interests—478 times. It includes: the union right to roam; scrapping the turnout threshold on union strike ballots; more paid time off for union reps; and automatic deductions of union political funds. It also orders businesses to hand out Government-written pro-union propaganda. Strikes will become far more common. But don’t take do not take my word for it—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering from a sedentary position, but perhaps he would like to listen to his colleague the Health Secretary, who just last week said that he had “had it” with the unions and that “the last thing patients need this winter is strike action”. Back in July, the Health Secretary was citing the silent majority of doctors who did not vote for strike action. My colleagues in the other place merely request that a strike ballot requires a turnout of 50% of the workforce. By rejecting Lords amendment 62, the Minister is allowing minorities to shut down hospitals, educational establishments and public transport while the silent majority of members are ignored. We should take a moment to welcome the fact that the Government have U-turned on day one rights. After months of relentless campaigning, and a complete clear-out of departmental Ministers, the Government finally listened. There is no shame in that—I told them it was unworkable, and business told them it was unworkable—it is just a shame that it took so long. Just hours before the U-turn, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman was telling journalists that the Government would overturn all attempts to water down day one rights. A Prime Minister without a backbone who does not know his own mind has caused a year of uncertainty for employers and workers alike.

    Hansard source
23. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    I will happily talk about the Prime Minister’s lack of backbone.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    I say respectfully to the hon. Member that if acting is to raise unemployment, to cost young people their jobs, to ensure that employers are not hiring and to have the worst graduate market for a generation, then bring that on. If that is what he came here to do, I would be surprised at that.

    Hansard source
25. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Digital ID

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for granting this debate, which could not be more timely. People in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have been talking to me about digital ID for months, and more than 5,300 have signed the petition. I want to put their concerns and mine plainly on the record today. A mandatory digital ID tied to a smartphone is the wrong way to go. It answers none of the real problems that we face and risks creating a whole set of new ones. Let us be clear: Labour never mentioned this in its manifesto—not once.

    Hansard source
26. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Digital ID

    There is certainly no mandate for either. If a Government wish to change something as fundamental as how we prove who we are, they need to be up front about it; they need to win consent for it. Attacks on our privacy and personal freedom must be debated in depth, not sneaked in through the back door. Over two thirds of the respondents to my local survey told me they opposed digital ID entirely. Many have little confidence that their personal data will be kept safe. They worry about who will hold their information, what else it could end up being used for and what will happen to those who do not have a smartphone at all. There is also the basic fairness test. Ofcom believes that about 4.5 million people in the UK do not own a smartphone, and many more struggle with digital access or confidence. We should not be building barriers for people, especially not those who already find public services hard to navigate. Ministers have said that digital ID will help tackle illegal working and benefit fraud, but we have never been told in clear terms what the new scheme would do that our existing tools cannot already manage. If there are gaps in the system, they should spell them out. I want illegal working to be dealt with, and I want public services that work smoothly, but not at the expense of civil liberties, not by weakening data security, and not by shutting out the very people who need support. I cannot support a mandatory digital ID scheme. If it comes to a vote, which it should, I will vote against it.

    Hansard source
27. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Digital ID

    Will the Minister give way on that point?

    Hansard source
28. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Dawn Sturgess Inquiry

    Have the Government formed a view as to why President Putin—the killer in the Kremlin—chose to target Sergei Skripal after he had been pardoned and exchanged? Nothing that I am saying now derives from my time chairing the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I recall speculation in the press that it was because Mr Skripal had been actively involved with either the British state or the military, or had in some way been, shall we say, active in opposing the Government of the country from which he had been exchanged. If that is the case, surely the conclusion in paragraph 8.18—that the only measures that could have prevented the attack “would have been such as to hide him completely with an entirely new identity”— should have been considered. It is rather surprising that it was not. Was Skripal engaged in anything that made him a target?

    Hansard source
29. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past

    I agree entirely with the Chairman of the Committee that reconciliation depends upon uncovering the truth. Does her Committee’s report go into the incompatibility of that aim with the reinstatement of trials that the previous legacy Act would have prevented, given that when people face the prospect of being put on trial, they are less likely, rather than more likely, to say what actually happened?

    Hansard source
30. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    War in Ukraine

    One of the advantages of being called at a late stage of the debate is that I can put my hand on my heart and truthfully say that every single speech in this debate so far has been outstandingly good. I have agreed with virtually every word of every one of them, and looking at the calibre of the remaining people, including all three Front-Bench representatives, I have every confidence that the standard will be maintained till the end. A former occupant of your chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, used to give courses in good public speaking technique. He always said, “If you wish your speech to have any useful impact after the event, it should not contain more than one, or at most two—and that is stretching it—key points.” So here is my one key point, which, I am delighted to say, has been touched on very effectively by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), among others: any settlement that does not have a military presence on the ground of unoccupied Ukraine from the country or countries offering a security guarantee will be a disaster. I ask the House to consider Europe at the end of the second world war, when the tripartite alliance had largely broken down, and Stalin was in occupation of eastern Europe and, of course, the eastern half of Germany, which his troops had conquered. The west was in occupation of the remainder of the European continent—literally, in the case of West Germany. What would have happened—knowing what we know now about the nature of Soviet communism—if, instead of the victorious western allies maintaining a very large military presence in occupied western Germany, they had said, “Right, we’ll demilitarise this and clear out, but we’re going to give the West German politicians who follow a security guarantee that if any trouble happens, we will stand by them”? The only thing that stopped a conflict breaking out between the Soviet occupying forces and the western world was the fact that, right up against the dividing line between Soviet-dominated East Germany and the rest of Germany, there were western allied troops, and it would have been impossible for the Soviet forces to move against West Germany without immediately triggering a major military counter-action. I have often said—and I make no apology for saying it again—that it is worth looking at the two halves of the 20th century. In the first half, we had two global conflicts—two world wars. In the second half, despite the intense ideological and military rivalry between the communist world and the democratic western world, we had no global conflicts—no third world war. I put that down to two factors. One was unprecedented: the nuclear balance of terror. But it was not enough to stop all forms of conflict, because it is possible for conventional conflicts to go ahead under the threshold of the nuclear balance without necessarily triggering Armageddon. That is why we have to have strong conventional deterrent forces, too. So, what was the other factor preventing the cold war from becoming the third world war? It is quite clear that it was the most successful alliance in history: the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It grieves me to say that because of some of the occupants of high office in the capital of our ally the United States, the future of the NATO alliance—and therefore the future of world peace, frankly—is hanging by a thread. It was the chief staff officer and representative on the war time chiefs of staff committee of Winston Churchill, General Sir Hastings Ismay, who became the first Secretary-General of NATO. He is credited with having made the rather pithy but nevertheless very accurate observation that the purpose of the alliance at the time it was founded was threefold: to keep the Americans in, to keep the Russians out, and to keep the Germans down. That third element fortunately became redundant as West Germany developed into a democracy—so quickly, in fact, that in May 1955, 10 years virtually to the day from the surrender on Lüneburg heath of the Nazis to General Montgomery, Germany itself was admitted to the NATO alliance. I ask people to take another counterfactual look at history. If the Kaiser had known in 1914 that if he invaded neutral Belgium, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? I think the answer is no. If Hitler had known in 1939 that if he invaded Poland, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? I think the answer very probably is no to that as well. Therefore, the secret to keeping the peace in the world is to keep America engaged with the security of Europe. America is going through a phase at the moment—which seems to hinge on a number of personalities who hold power in that great democracy, apparently with the approval of a majority of the electorate—in which its commitment to European and thus world security is in doubt. This is the chance for Europeans, whether inside the EU or, like us, outside it, to show that we can do our bit. We have to keep the show on the road until America once again stands up for the policy of the second half of the 20th century, which stopped the third world war, rather than it reverting to its policy of isolationism from the first half of the 20th century, and standing by, which caused two global conflicts that could have been prevented.

    Hansard source
31. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    War in Ukraine

    Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that point 26 of the 28-point Witkoff plan is a general amnesty for everyone? That would mean that whoever committed the most atrocious war crimes would never be held accountable at all.

    Hansard source
32. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    War in Ukraine

    One way in which we could continue to lead would be by giving a very firm commitment that if the frontlines are indeed frozen, a coalition of the willing would have military assets on the ground, at the invitation of unoccupied Ukraine, so that there could be no question but that a future attack would trigger a response from that coalition. Otherwise, any security guarantee is not worth the paper on which it is printed.

    Hansard source
33. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan. Dickens wrote, “Reflect upon your present blessings—of which every man has many—not on your past misfortunes, of which all men have some.” There are few greater misfortunes than an acquired disability. Among those, a brain injury can challenge every aspect of life, whether people can walk, talk or think—or at least think straight. The effects are various: they can be mild or severe, and recovery will often take not just weeks or months, although the initial trauma can be treated in that timeframe, but many years. However, an improvement can be made over the long term. Most of us think, “This will never happen to me.” I guess that is true of most misfortunes, including ones of this severity. Brain injury is the leading cause of disability and death among people under 40 in the UK. It can happen at any time, in any place. The causes, again, are various. One thinks of sporting injuries, or perhaps an attack—a violent incident. Of course, the principal causes are things like road traffic accidents, motorcycle and car accidents. Acquired brain injury, for the reasons I have given, has long warranted more attention than it has received, both publicly and among policymakers. While the Department of Health and Social Care plays a central role in dealing with the immediate trauma caused by the sorts of accidents I have described, many other Government Departments have a relationship with the effects of brain injury. That is well illustrated by the work done by the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, which I am now proud to chair, and published in a report to which I will refer later in my speech. We made the case that a cross-departmental approach to brain injury is required, for exactly the reasons I have set out. Of course, it affects the Department of Health, but it also affects the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—I spoke about sporting injuries a moment or two ago. It affects the Ministry of Justice, because such a high proportion of the incarcerated have brain injuries. It affects almost all aspects of Government, on which I know other contributors to this debate will focus, so a lateral approach to the way that public policymakers consider brain injury and its effects is critical. As you will know, Dame Siobhain, as an extremely experienced and very wise Member of this House, might I say—

    Hansard source
34. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan

    I was hoping it might. Lateral policymaking is not easy in Government, because of the way Government works and ministerial responsibilities are exercised. It is a challenge, therefore, to get that sort of approach adopted by a Government of any colour or persuasion.

    Hansard source
35. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan

    I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. He makes a valuable point and an interesting suggestion that I will reflect on. He is certainly right that more can be done to affect brain injury in the first place. I have spoken a bit about its effects, but he is right to speak at greater length than I did about its causes. In the area of sport, of course, he is right that we now know that heading a football does all kinds of damage that no one imagined a generation or two ago. His suggestion is well made and worthy of further consideration. Around 350,000 people a year are admitted to hospital with acquired brain injury—that is one every 90 seconds. About 125,000 of those are admitted following a traumatic brain injury, around 43,000 with brain tumours and others following strokes. I pay tribute to Lincolnshire brain tumour support group, of which I am president, and to Headway, which I will say more about in due course. The end result of those admissions is that about 1.3 million people are living with the consequences of acquired brain injury every day. They and their families, loved ones and friends, and the communities of which they are part, are dealing with the effects. According to our all-party group’s latest report, the cost to the UK economy through healthcare, social care, lost productivity and wider public services is £43 billion annually, which equates to 1.3% of GDP. Of that, £20 billion is accounted for within the NHS and social care budget for acute long-term care, £21.5 billion is attributed to lost productivity, £1.5 billion is spent in the criminal justice system and the Department for Education—yet another Government Department that needs to be involved in the consideration of this issue in the lateral way I mentioned—and about £1.9 billion is spent on benefits. Leaving aside the human cost and the visceral effects brain injury can have on affected individuals and those who care for them, this has a considerable effect on Government, the Exchequer and the public purse. Those ramifications only scratch the surface of the wider social cost. The real cost is in lives disrupted, plans abandoned and ambitions jettisoned as a result of brain injury; in parents seeing a child’s personality change overnight and carers stretched to their limits, with little or no respite, because symptoms are dismissed as being mild or imperceptible or attributed to some other cause entirely. Although less obvious, those effects are just as devastating. When those costs are added to the ones I have described, the all-party group estimates that the real cost of acquired brain injury is £91.5 billion. That is about half of what the NHS spends every year. It is extraordinary that this issue is not given greater consideration. I am delighted that this debate gives us a chance to do so, at least for this short time. I thank all colleagues across the House who have been part of these efforts. We have argued for what we call a right to rehab. Putting aside the substantial financial cost, the physical and emotional costs are still higher. The estimates do not include many of the costs associated with homelessness, addiction, mental health services and psychiatric stays. The cost to the NHS and welfare of lengthy treatment and recovery is huge and rises quickly during spells in hospital before one even receives community support and longer-term social care provision. Much of this could be prevented, and many of the costs could be reduced, if we had the right to rehab. Much work has been done on this subject, including by Headway, which I mentioned earlier, and the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum. A report from earlier this year, commissioned by the APPG, urged the Government to invest in specialist neuro-rehabilitation to save long-term societal costs. The report called for brain injury to be treated on a par with cancer and dementia. A statutory right to rehab in every region means that specialist neuro-rehabilitation services after an acquired brain injury would be put in place. None of the failures that we see today in response to brain injuries is inevitable. The Ministry of Defence already guarantees the right to rehabilitation for military personnel, so we have a precedent. We want to build on that precedent, across Government, for those affected by brain injury. We know from the MOD the results of having that right for rehabilitation—shorter recovery times, better outcomes, restored lives and improved prospects. The same approach is being piloted by the National Rehabilitation Centre, where every £43,000 invested in rehab yields savings of up to £680,000. That is a remarkable 16:1 return on investment. Now is the time to extend the entitlement adopted by the MOD much more widely. We must establish a national neuro-rehabilitation framework that guarantees that access to specialist care is not a lottery, but a certain path to recovery. In doing so, money would certainly be saved, but life chances would be improved immeasurably, too. High-quality rehabilitation reduces the risk of homelessness, addiction and a drift into lawlessness. It allows people to contribute, return to work and rebuild lives and relationships—to begin to stand tall again. Now is the time for the Government to act. I have every confidence that the Minister will rise to her feet at the summation of this debate and tell us that she has not only thoroughly studied the all-party group’s report—daily, perhaps—but that she is ready to respond in the way that we invite. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who chaired the APPG before I did—I was his vice-chairman for many years. He drove the original version of the report, which was republished more recently. It is an outstanding piece of work. We all know that APPGs vary, but this one is focused on the subject for which it is responsible and is determined to make its voice heard, because of the all-party support it attracts and because of the salience and significance of this subject. Given the number of people affected by brain injury, the comparatively low cost of effective interventions, such as rehabilitation and community support, and the ongoing lack of support services, there continues to be a strong need for a proper strategy to be put in place. I spoke earlier about a lateral approach. We are calling for a national strategy on brain injury. Around 60% of prisoners report having an acquired brain injury. We discussed that at a recent APPG meeting, where we heard from experts in the field. I have served as a Minister in multiple Departments—I will not list them all—and I know that cross-departmental working is tough, and the Minister will know that too, but it can be done. It requires structures to be created that facilitate Ministers to come together. The Cabinet Office might be able to play a part. I served in the Cabinet Office and its purpose, in a sense, is to deal with those issues that could otherwise fall between the cracks and departmental silos. However it is done, we need a national strategy. As far back as 2001, the Health Committee published a report on head injury, issuing 28 recommendations that included, as a matter of urgency, finding ways of improving methods of data collection on incidence, prevalence and severity. In 2005, the national service framework for long-term neurological conditions was launched; it contained many good ideas, but had no mandate and no funding. In 2010, the National Audit Office published a report, “Major Trauma Care in England”, which highlighted the need for improvement in major trauma care. That led to the establishment—you may remember it, Dame Siobhain—of trauma networks, with a centralised and specialised approach to trauma care and service across the country. The excellent work of the APPG for acquired brain injury, which was reformed in 2017, showed that there was a strong case for a cross-party commitment to action. I have already spoken about the 2018 report, which called for a national reconsideration of rehabilitation and the collation of reliable statistics, given the problems with data collection and analysis that prevail. To be fair to the previous Government, our report was well received by Ministers. Indeed, they responded to what we had called for by committing to publish a strategy on acquired head injury in 2021. The following year, there was a call for evidence to inform the development of such a strategy. The previous Government said that they were going to do it, committed to the principle and welcomed the work that we were doing. However, we then, of course, had the inconvenience of an election—one of the aspects of democracy that sometimes gets in the way of these sorts of things. Therefore, the work was not brought to a conclusion. Earlier this year, the current Government announced their intention to develop an “action-oriented, and accountable” ABI action plan “with input from NHS England and other Government departments”. It was due to be published “this year”—well, the year is running out, Minister. However, there are still a couple of sitting weeks left: a statement could be brought to the House and perhaps a document could be published that responds to the calls that we have made. We have the work that the previous Government and this Government have done. There has been no party politics; over time, Ministers have recognised the challenge—the scale of the problem—and the reasons for addressing it, which I have set out. We can hope that this Minister, who I know is dutiful and diligent, will rise to exactly that challenge. I do not know whether I am flattering her, Dame Siobhain—I am doing my best.

    Hansard source
36. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan

    Following representations from myself and others, the Minister, who has responsibility for public health and prevention, kindly responded to say that the Government will publish an action plan in 2026. I hope that it will be published as early as possible—if not before Christmas, perhaps as an early new year’s resolution. After years of campaigning by charities and MPs, the excellent news is that there now seems to be momentum on this issue, which is what sufferers and their families deserve; it is what they warrant and certainly what they need. The plan needs to include a focus on better community rehabilitation and on how that will help to achieve real change for people with ABI. It could also include national training for local authority and integrated care board commissioners, and for social workers, on the complexities of ABI. I have talked about the subtlety of the effects that ABI can have, including the changed personality that many people experience as a result of a brain injury. Addressing such subtle changes requires a level of understanding and expertise, so national training could be really important and of immense value. I hope that the plan will also include funding for community-based specialist brain injury services. Staggeringly, the vital research by Dr Alyson Norman found that a third of serious case reviews in social services involved someone with a brain injury. Dr Norman lost her own brother to suicide after he suffered a lifetime of untreated brain injuries sustained in childhood. Given that brain injury is no less than a hidden epidemic, it is imperative that the Government take further action to collect statistics about it, so that we can accurately ascertain the numbers impacted. We need a UK-wide consensus on which conditions are classified and coded as brain injury, and to make that data freely available. Access to hospital admission data on brain injuries must be free; currently, charities face significant costs. The charity Headway, which has done so much in this field, is not an immensely wealthy organisation and so those costs are significant to it. I hope that we get some reassurance on that point. Research by Headway has shown that over three quarters of brain injury survivors encounter daily challenges due to the hidden nature of their injury, and that nine out of 10 people affected by a brain injury cite societal misunderstanding as a major obstacle in navigating life with a hidden disability. Collecting those facts and figures is important because of the nature of acquired brain injury. I will not say too much more about the costs to the sector, except that over the past three years several local Headway charities have permanently closed, including one in the last month. Three local volunteer branches have also shut down. That is because of rising costs of all kinds, which I do not need to list here. Closures really do risk brain injury survivors feeling lost. This is an area of work and a need that can go unrecognised and unseen. The feeling of isolation and loneliness—this is, as I described, a hidden epidemic—can place immense strain on families as survivors are no longer able to access, for example, the specialist daycare centres that they might otherwise enjoy. We need to find a way of granting exemptions for charities from things such as the employer national insurance charges. I hope that the Minister will look at that, or even speak about it in this debate. Some 57% of Headway charities say that they have experienced delays in receiving payments from local authorities and integrated care boards. Some charities have even had to employ additional staff members purely to chase the debts that they were owed. These are small organisations with limited budgets; they just need help. I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and can see their eagerness to do so, so I will draw my remarks to a close. For survivors, a head injury is just the beginning; the real challenge after survival lies in the days, months and years that follow. Individuals and their families struggle to navigate, with minimal support, a fragmented and underfunded system of rehabilitation. I know that because more than 40 years ago, like so many other young people, I suffered a serious head injury. But the key for me is that it did not stop me from doing what I wanted or being what I became. That is fundamental for anyone with an acquired disability. It is a matter of record that I decided to become a Conservative MP when I was seven—I was probably six, actually. That did not alter as a result of my head injury, but it might have done. I have seen those much more seriously affected by the traumatic injury they endured. As I looked at them I thought, “There but for the grace of God go I”, so I was determined thereafter to do all I could to fight for people with serious head injuries who struggle with their effects. I have been determined to champion their cause and to turn my hopes on their behalf, and their hopes too, into reality. I started with Dickens, one of our greatest writers, and I will end with Tolstoy, the great Russian writer. He wrote: “As long as there is life, there is happiness. There is a great deal, a great deal before us.” For everyone, regardless of what they suffer, to be able to glean that happiness, through the care and support that they receive, should be the ambition of every Government Minister and every Member of this House.

    Hansard source
37. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan

    All the Minister has said so far is incredibly welcome. On ministerial engagement, given what she said about the cross-departmental working, which I called for earlier, is she engaged with the Ministers in those Departments in drawing up the plan and, if so, how?

    Hansard source
38. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan

    This has been an extremely good debate. Contributions from across the Chamber have illustrated how strongly Members feel about the need for exactly the kind of strategy that the Minister has confirmed the Government will introduce. It is welcome that the Minister has recommitted to that plan. I offer thanks and a warning. The thanks are because she clearly understands and takes this seriously. The warning is that if we do not see the plan, we will be back, and next time we will be altogether more fierce. While we have been debating these matters, tens of people, scores of people, have been admitted to hospital with an acquired brain injury—extraordinary. I can tell from all the contributions, including from my great friend on the Front Bench of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and from Members across the House that the plight of those with ABI is our cause and their needs are our mission. Let us do all we can to ease their plight and meet their needs. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan.

    Hansard source
39. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Business of the House

    As the Leader of the House will know, I have long championed a cause supported by other Members of this House, notably the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey): nuclear test veterans. These were the young men who were sent to the other side of the world to witness the tests of Britain’s first nuclear weapons. In welcoming the engagement we have had with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Veterans and People, may I press the Leader of the House for a meeting with the Prime Minister? It has been promised. They did meet Boris Johnson when he was Prime Minister. We have ongoing issues about access to their medical records. I understand that the meeting with the PM has been delayed. The PM has said he supports them. I simply want the Leader of the House to use his immense authority and power to make sure that meeting happens.

    Hansard source
40. 4 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past

    I apologise—I have only just seen this report. I was not aware that it was coming out in this statement, so forgive me if the hon. Lady has already covered this. Two questions have emerged. The first is that one of the biggest criticisms as the Bill went through the House of Commons and that still remains—I say this as somebody who served in Northern Ireland and is among the veterans—is what appears to be the treatment of veterans and of those who committed the atrocities in one and the same way. It is their real concern that they are getting mixed up now with the idea of those who started this process and committed the most awful atrocities. The second element is the role of Ireland. Its refusal to carry out parallel inquiries and to play a full part on topics like the Omagh bombing are big questions that have been asked. To what degree does the hon. Lady think the Government should address those questions seriously, because there was a distinct refusal on the Front Bench to deal with that last issue in any form?

    Hansard source