James Frith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Can I add my voice to those around the country who have said how proud they are of our British Prime Minister, and how proud they are to be British? He has led from the front, and I hope very much that in the weeks and months to come, he will hold that in mind and strengthen his resolve as we move forward. He has already made reference to one of the priorities that Stefan Harhaj, the chair of Bury’s Ukrainian association, raised with me, which is the release of the 20,000 children who have been kidnapped and forcibly removed to Russia. Will my right hon. and learned Friend commit to securing their release and updating the House on a frequent basis on our achievements to this end?

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She speaks to the heart of the issue. It is often only people with the means, resources and time who can become experts in the service they are trying to access, a right that is enshrined in the Children and Families Act 2014. Will she join me in encouraging the Government’s instinct that, in moving to a more inclusive mainstream education system, we cannot simply say, “Everyone in,” without protecting the necessary resources centrally when we issue those instructions?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Social Media Use: Minimum Age · Hansard source

  More

  My wife and I regret ever getting a smartphone for our two eldest children. We have four, and we are wondering what to do when the third expects access to the same rights. Smartphone management is something we continually get wrong. My hon. Friend has talked about screen time. It cannot be beyond the wit of our smartphone creators to give parental controls better intuitive use, so that they cannot be undermined so easily by the smart children using the smartphones. Does she agree that while we need to strengthen the role of Ofcom in rooting out the toxic content that our children are pushed towards, the smartphone manufacturers also have a job to empower parents? It is a real concern, because children’s use of smartphones and their access to social media is a daily battle for their parents.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Social Media Use: Minimum Age · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister; as ever, he has been very generous and is making excellent remarks. Away from the emergency—the toxicity and the worst aspects of this—the mundane sapping of hour after hour after hour is just as dangerous when we consider social media use and our ineffective guardrails for smartphone use. Yes, we all agree that the content the Minister has described should be done away with and prevented, but what is his reflection on the mundane drip and sapping away of the energy and attention of our young people and the doomscrolling ethos that has developed in their expectation of their everyday lives?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Social Media Use: Minimum Age · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, and I suspect he is a better musician than I am.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am a great admirer of the Secretary of State, and I admire his belief in his cause today. The creative sector will have heard his commitment to listen, and I thank him for ensuring the openness and engagement of his Ministers on this issue. In the spirit of listening, will he agree from the Dispatch Box today to meet those creatives who are keen to have an audience with him on this significant issue?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, as ever, and I agree with much of what he is saying. Does he agree with me that we should be ready to point out where those who contribute to this debate are proxies or funded by tech companies not appearing in public to make the case, but instead making arguments through smaller organisations that can be a little bit more assertive and nimble-footed, and not quite as accountable?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister got the memo. AI is giving the creative sector indigestion, frankly, and this is the problem we are facing, so aiming for a smoother future through collaboration is absolutely right. As with previous technological shifts, such as the introduction of the internet or indeed the printing press, laws should be based on use, not on the technology itself. The principle of tech neutrality should be reaffirmed as a guiding principle for our laws and culture. In the absence of a clear solution, we must return to first principles and stand for transparency, fairness and the fundamental right to be paid for one’s work. Or will we entertain the risks of an opaque system, built on unnecessary secrecy, freely extracting value from copyrighted works without payment? We are in a defining moment. Innovation should uplift, not exploit. The future of AI must be built on trust, so I urge this House and this Government to ensure that AI innovation does not come at the cost of our world-leading creative industries.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I know the hon. Member fancies himself as a bit of a tech bro, but he should recognise that much of the anxiety in the creative industries sector is caused by the dither and delay of the Conservatives’ time in Government and their failure to grasp the issue. As ever, we on the Government Benches are doing the hard work.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute further on this important Bill. I thank Ministers, particularly the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, for their ongoing attention and for being in listening mode, particularly on the copyright matters that have been so dominant so far. The Bill rightly modernises data regulations, which will spur growth and improve public services, making everyday life better. When put to good use and used fairly and effectively, data can enhance efficiency across sectors, from food supply chains and commercial forecasting to healthcare. It is a powerful prospect with enormous benefits. The challenge is in ensuring that those benefits reach everyone. Given the demands placed on the Bill by the amendments tabled in the other place, I hope that it proceeds into Committee. As it does so, we will gain insight from the Government’s ongoing and related consultation on copyright and AI. Today’s debate is concerned with the use of data to drive progress; it speaks to how we can live better, and how we can live best, with AI. We do not need to accept the false choice of innovate versus regulate. In considering the countries either side of us, it can feel as though there are only two options—one or the other; zeroes or ones—but the UK must act now. This is a national cause with international consequences. Faced with demands for innovation while others call for regulation, we should bid for harmonisation. Harmony is the language not of compromise, but of complement—a value greater than the sum of its parts. We must understand the strength of all contributions to that harmony. No country has got this right yet, and this is our chance to learn from a blend of approaches. International examples should be observed. AI should be harnessed to be an honest broker, which is why transparency is key. In silicon valley, exceptions have been made to the US’s general approach, and the creative and tech industries are balanced accordingly. The UK should embrace transparency and maintain the strengths of both sectors. Europe understands the role of transparency, though there is little evidence that this has led to more licensing for copyright holders. We must not assume that one will automatically lead to the other, or that this will alleviate the concerns of our creative sector. Singapore has a broad AI training exception, but it has a minimal creative sector. The UK, with its proud creative industry, should not make flawed comparisons with a country without the same creative strengths, outputs and exports. Just as transparency is demanded in our supply chains, so too must it apply to our code chains. Arguments suggesting that transparency would be too burdensome feel disingenuous. In Select Committee hearings, the argument for transparency, which represents a giant step forward in resolving the tension between AI and creators, seems to have been deliberately opposed by those seeking to excuse themselves, as well as those they represent by proxy, from paying for the work of others. The Government’s commitment to an industrial strategy includes our brilliant creative industries, but discussions with those industries should focus on how we advance and enhance them. We risk making this about how we can protect their very existence if we do not take seriously the deep alarm voiced by creators over the threat posed by AI. We also risk losing the very things that make life richer. I urge the Government to introduce a requirement for transparency. If an AI system is trained on the works of thousands of musicians, authors and film makers, they have a right to know and a right to be paid. This could include a register. We do not tell manufacturers, energy providers or tech firms that their products should be freely used to build billion-dollar businesses without compensation. The same principle must apply to creative work. Copyright is not a barrier to innovation; it is the foundation that allows creativity to thrive. This threat to creators’ livelihoods is particularly acute for smaller rights holders who lack the means to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. These independent creators are the backbone of our creative ecosystem. More than 70% of them are based in our towns and regions, away from the cities, where for them, levelling up means making up. Without them, the UK’s creative engine will begin to fray and diminish. Creativity thrives not just through the marquee names but through the countless independent voices, expressions and creations that enrich our experiences. The argument that restricting AI’s access to copyrighted works will stifle progress and leave us trailing behind other territories is incorrect. I ask again: what progress are we pursuing if it undermines the position of strength that we start from? I have seen no economic impact assessment that states that exempting music and other creative content from licensing, or introducing AI training exceptions, will boost the economy. Yes, jobs in data centres will be welcome, but they are minimal in comparison to those sustained by our creative industries. At its heart, AI is about capability and capacity. It should not facilitate the casual but disastrous dismantling of copyright. The job gains must come from skilled input and employment that puts AI to work. The harnessing of AI must be human-tethered. We must remember that AI is a great enabler, and for our advantage. It is not a stand-alone sector; it is a transformative technology for all sectors. Our focus must therefore be on its use, not on sweeping legal exceptions that weaken copyright and risk hollowing out the very industries we are committed to growing. If there is a technological answer—a digital fingerprinting solution or a pay-as-you-go AI model—we should keep an open mind, but it is a leap to expect these solutions to come soon enough for the urgent issues at hand. The anxieties I have outlined cannot be left unresolved while we wait.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  And cassettes.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement and her even-handedness, both in stating the British Government’s position on increased aid to UNRWA and in confirming that there can be no role for Hamas in future governance. The UK has a strong track record of bringing people together across communities to build peace, no more so than in Northern Ireland. What lessons on support for civil society and peacebuilding in Israel and Palestine will the Government draw from the last Labour Government’s experience in Northern Ireland?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  It has been heartening to hear colleagues underscore the significance of the creative industries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer identified them as one of the eight drivers of economic growth, and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister here today have spoken passionately about their being our cultural and economic superpower. As representatives of the immense talent in Greater Manchester, the Secretary of State and I know well the enormous value brought by film, TV, gaming, publishing and, of course, music—a sector particularly close to my heart as a former musician, and singer of the only Manchester band nobody has heard of. Across the UK, our creative industries are an ecosystem. Mutually supportive and interdependent, they are among the fastest-growing industries and have extraordinary potential to drive our nation’s No. 1 mission: economic growth. But the ecosystem is fragile and needs to be nurtured and supported in order to flourish, so we must take seriously, and respond to, the creative sector’s reaction to the Government’s consultation on AI in the sector. Those in the sector are confused, alarmed and deeply concerned. Central to their fears is the framing of “rights reservations”—an opt-out system that threatens to rip the rug from under our prized sector, with sweeping changes proposed to copyright law. What is “rights reservations”? That which we call an opt-out system by any other name will still sound the alarm. Creators see it for what it is: an upheaval of the copyright protections they depend on, which threatens to do lasting damage to the sector. Copyright does not inspire hit songs, smash-hit movies or classical texts, but it is the lifeblood of our creative industries. It is what feeds investment, enabling musicians, writers, actors, designers, and businesses large and small, to earn a living from their work. Copyright is the foundation of what makes our creative industries what they are and could become. Creativity is not an easy, anodyne process, and we should not outsource it to a method that reduces it to such. It takes blood, sweat, tears and countless hours. It does not just carry the creator’s joys or perceptions, their struggles or vulnerabilities, but often speaks to our own. What connects us to our creative industries is the human emotion they embody. Yes, AI can, will and already does assist creators. Musicians and artists have embraced technological innovation throughout history, and AI holds exciting potential to help consumers discover and engage with creative works. But to forfeit the humanity it takes to create, and suggest that AI can replace it, insults and will ultimately cost those who pour their lives into their craft, as well as those of us who love to soak it all up. Proposals for new, broad exceptions to copyright, and the burden of opting out of having one’s life’s work taken without permission, undermine the very principles of copyright and, frankly, of trade and commerce. The proposals are a threat to the livelihoods of creators, especially smaller rights holders who lack the resources to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. Those smaller, independent creators form the bedrock of our creative ecosystem. Without them, the intricate web that sustains the sector will unravel. The richness of our cultural landscape depends not only on headline acts, but on the countless independent creators who bring diversity and depth to this sharing industry. Proponents of unfettered AI access to copyrighted works, who say that denying it will stifle progress, leaving us behind other territories, describe a false choice and present a regressive argument that suggests we should sacrifice creators’ rights for tech advances. What advance are we willing on, if it undermines the position of strength we start from? We already have divergence between territories on copyright, and the UK leads with strength here. Innovation should uplift us, not exploit. We do not need to weaken our cultural integrity and creative capital for a technological right of way. All of us can find a space to love produced by our creative industries. In affirming this view, I wish also to distinguish between consumers and creators. Consumers engage with creations at the finish line; they need not understand the hours of labour behind their creation or the securities on which they are created. That is absolutely fine, but legislators, policymakers and industry leaders must heed the creator’s voice and recognise the existential threat that AI poses to their livelihoods if we forfeit copyright as we know it. We must protect, cherish and celebrate the human spirit behind every brushstroke, investigation, edition, publication, note, verse and chorus, for they carry the joy, the struggle, the love and the loss, the hit and the miss. They express and emote. They relate and reflect to us our human condition: this human creativity—authentic, irreplaceable, deeply connected, often nebulous—defying the precise definition of AI. Artificial cannot replace authentic. Learned behaviour cannot replicate the human condition. I hope this debate will amplify the voices of AI leaders who are advocating for the transparency and copyright frameworks that favour creators. The Government’s consultation is absolutely right to highlight the need for transparency. AI firms should have to disclose what they are using in their training datasets. This will enable fair licensing arrangements, with the burden on the purchaser of creativity and not on the producers of it. This is a pivotal moment for our creative sector. It comes down to this: will we protect copyright and creators’ rights, or will we defer entirely to AI? We must not let proposals such as opt-out systems dismantle the protections that allow creativity to flourish. Let AI revolutionise our public services, productivity, precision and efficiency, but let the creative sector remain the authentic space that we all enjoy, as one of human expression. Creativity is not just a process; it profoundly connects us to one another and provides us with a shared humanity—not of just moments and movements but of memories that we live with forever. It falls to us to protect the muse, the struggle and the joys that define these marvellous creative industries. Let us ensure that creators, not algorithms, remain the first and last word in determining our cultural, economic and human advances.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents Mandy and Bernie, along with many other homeowners in Bury North, are facing serious issues with Residential Management Group. Despite dutifully paying their service charges, residents of Wharfside Apartments and Broad Oak have been hit with additional fees and alarming practices that equate to neglect and exploitation: overpricing, sudden price changes, premature bailiff actions and non-compliance with fire safety and accessibility standards, to name just a few. This is not an isolated case; some 70 Members of this House have constituents across the country facing the same level of activity by rogue management companies. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that under Labour, these unscrupulous practices will be tackled, and will she provide time in the House for a debate on this urgent matter?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Auditory Verbal Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  It is pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate and on her contribution to ensuring that this profound therapy is better heard, better known and more available to choose for a great many in our society. When there is so much to resolve, so much to fix and sort out, it feels like smaller causes struggle to be heard or seen. Our politics seems too busy to care about even more causes; it is all just too much. Alternatively, it can be said that the last Parliament did good things for the deaf community, so to expect new money for new causes is a stretch too far, naive even. We must believe in better. Each Parliament has the opportunity to help the underserved, and there are always issues that, with the right political heat and weight, can be transformed. Such issues have long been on the roll of Government successes, whatever the political weather. Think of the long-standing injustices, new medicines on the NHS, or social equalities we have addressed. The missions of this Government delivered their enormous parliamentary majority and a mandate to renew, reform and transform. Auditory verbal therapy takes the Government’s vital missions for health, for children, for the smashing of barriers to opportunity, and for growth, and it brings them to life. This cause gives the missions cause to blossom. There may not be a better example of a cause that, for such a fraction of an investment, can be transformational. I know what we are asking for will not be green-lit today, but I know what we need. Former Health Secretaries I have met have spoken of the “whiteboard moment”, when we get the issue on to the whiteboard. That is the goal. It is the moment when the Minister asks their civil service teams to make something possible—to draft a plan to take us from where we are to where we need to be. It is a pilot, a tester, a starter for 10, where the Government do not just take our word for it, but see for themselves. Should there be concern among our deaf community, let me say that this is not about undermining the celebrated protected status of British Sign Language. We celebrate BSL as a language—a unique cultural identity—and the last Parliament’s recognition of BSL in law was a landmark achievement. The argument for auditory verbal therapy is an argument for choice—choice for the child, their family and their future—and ensuring that families have the knowledge and support to choose the best path for them. It is not about competing choices, but having access to all of them. The demand is that these families’ cause is heard, and the majority of the country agrees. In a recent YouGov poll, 85% of UK adults believed that auditory verbal therapy should be available to all children via publicly funded services such as the NHS. The first years of a child’s life are critical. It is when their brains are most receptive to language and communication. For deaf children, early intervention is essential. Auditory verbal therapy enables deaf children to develop listening and spoken language skills and equips them to thrive alongside their hearing peers. With AVT, 97% of deaf children without additional needs achieve age-appropriate spoken language within two years. That is the transformation we seek. It is not a big ask, but it has giant implications for the impact that AVT can have if we can reach that whiteboard moment and have civil service teams working with experts to bring this therapy into NHS early years programmes. It is preventive healthcare at its best: cost-effective, compassionate and life-changing. For someone who learns that their child is deaf, navigating this new world is disorientating and complex, and they will feel unsure. It is also the moment where we should ensure that parents learn that there is a therapy that could help their child to communicate on a par with their hearing peers. The option of AVT should be as freely considered as learning to sign, and traditional or developing means. Withholding this therapy after people have learned of its existence cannot remain the position, yet learning of AVT only to be told that it is unavailable, unaffordable or simply not an option where someone lives is the reality for far too many families. With only 33 certified auditory verbal therapists across the UK, access to AVT is exclusive and rare. Most families will never hear of it. By removing the barriers, we can give parents and their children the opportunity to decide for themselves. That means training more therapists—supported by Government bursaries—to meet growing demand, building regional hubs, expanding telepractice services so that no family is left behind, and raising public awareness to ensure that families know that AVT is an option. If the heart of the argument does not move us, the head can. This therapy means economic growth and a sound investment in families’ futures and ours. This cause is transformational for not just them but the economy. For £2 million annually—a fraction, or a rounding error, when it comes to the NHS budget—we could ensure that thousands of deaf children access AVT. According to independent economic analysis, this investment would unlock £11.7 billion in benefits over 50 years, and here is how. We would reduce education costs, as early intervention means less reliance on one-to-one support, saving £3.4 billion. We would increase employment, with confident, independent deaf adults contributing £1 billion to economy. And we would improve quality of life, with thriving, independent individuals generate £4 billion in societal benefits. Without early intervention, the costs are far greater. Delayed support leads to unfulfilled promise or potential, higher unemployment, mental health challenges and long-term reliance on public services. The new Government have wasted no time identifying waste to be cut from their spending. The Cabinet Office has pledged to reduce the £7 billion per year spent on consultants. Official analysis found that total spending on consultancy in 2022-23 was £1.2 billion, with the Department of Health and Social Care among the highest spenders, at £281 million. I share this Government’s instincts: the money saved must now transform the lives of those accessing AVT. Does the Minister agree? For just £2 million a year, we can train more specialists in order to remove the barriers to opportunity, expand access through the NHS and ensure that every family makes informed decisions. We are not asking for those decisions today, but for a commitment to start this journey and to draft a plan that takes us from this underserved system to one that provides choice and opportunity for every deaf child and their family. With parents given every option to choose for them, their children are given the best chance to thrive. When all deaf children thrive, our society is stronger, more inclusive and more prosperous. This underserved issue can benefit from the Government’s mission to transform. As the campaign says, “Hear Us Now.”

• 21 Jan 2025 · Auditory Verbal Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that, for all the good intentions of ICBs, our healthcare system is atomised, but that if they were to take instruction from guidance provided nationally, the pillar-to-post experience of a lot of families seeking auditory verbal therapy would end? Will he commit to updating the nine-year-old guidance to ICBs, or at least acknowledge that it needs updating, with a national pilot that proves the efficacy of AVT for families seeking that intervention?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. It is a poverty that has crept up on us faster and faster in recent years, where one mile’s difference between postcodes can mean as much as a seven-year gap in life expectancy. It shows itself in poor, squalid housing, too few teachers in schools, a lack of accessible public or social services, an absence in quality public transport, the scourge of antisocial behaviour, victims of unpunished criminality, and even worse streets than the better-off wards are rightly animated by. Worse still is the poverty of opportunity, with children unaccounted for or not attending school at all. I strongly support the Bill’s first moves to ease the burdens faced by so many families, by cutting the cost of children going to school. Common sense on school uniforms will save parents more than £50 a child on the back-to-school shop. Free breakfast clubs for all primary school children will save hard-pressed parents up to £450 a year per child. Critically, that can help working parents to make their hours. The ambitions of the Government go well beyond what the Bill starts. Eyes and expectations will turn to the child poverty taskforce and its recommendations, as well as the future work of this Parliament. We need to tackle the roots of these experiences, not just the symptoms. The Government are determined to transform the lives of children, with structural, strategic changes to life in Bury and Britain. It has been done before: Sure Start, the Building Schools for the Future programme, the maintenance allowance, the power of progressive social policies, the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child’s life, foundation learning, and, yes, phonics and choice. We will not let the inheritance from the Conservative party stop us. This will be a period of renewal and hope. Bury North’s poorest are failed by living down the road from those doing just all right; another town overlooked and underserved by funding formulas that have only ever glanced at the place and its problems, and by the failures to level up, let alone even out. Let us be clear: the Bill is only the beginning—a good start. We must keep going, because every child matters.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill and wish to speak to the cost of living impact it begins to address. Every child matters: not just political guidance, but an ideal to live by and to come into politics for. I therefore welcome the first steps that the Bill represents: steps towards a change in the security and fortunes of all young people in Bury and Britain. Ensuring the wellbeing of a child and the whereabouts of a child in Bury North has been one of my main priorities as an MP. It is also why I have long championed, both in this Parliament and in my previous time in this place, improvements to the appalling state of the special educational needs system. A child’s wellbeing, or their vulnerability, does not exist in a vacuum. It is tied to the conditions they grow up in. In Bury North we confront a grim reality: 42% of children in Bury North are living in absolute poverty. Poverty must no longer simply be glanced at by our politics. We must reach into it. It is a concentrated poverty—dense, multiple and compounded.

• 6 Jan 2025 · NHS Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  A happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the House will indulge me briefly, may I begin by wishing my grandmother well? She had a fall last night and broke two of her ribs. She is doing okay, but at 98 she may need a little longer in hospital that I, her eldest grandson, might have needed—although that is not a given. Tackling deep-rooted health inequalities in Bury North is my priority for this Parliament. The difference there of a mile between postcodes can mean a seven-year difference in life expectancy for men and a five-year difference for women. I wish to reach across the aisle and associate myself with the remarks of the good doctor, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer)—who spoke very well in the debate on assisted dying—on what I would call the democratic deficit for MPs in relation to ICBs and acting on health inequalities at a local level, well beyond what we might achieve through parliamentary questions or writing to and meeting Ministers. I am pleased that the Government will not allow the dire record and wasted years of Tory government to prevent Labour from doing what we do best in power: fixing and fast-forwarding the NHS. In Bury North, a constituent I will call Jackie has rheumatoid arthritis. After a severe, debilitating flare-up she waited two days for a GP to call back. She spent eight hours waiting in two different hospitals before being admitted overnight, only to be discharged the next day and told to go to a third hospital, where no rheumatologists were in place. Her emergency appointment was 11 days later. She was left in tears and unable to speak, so her husband had to advocate for her to get the appointment she desperately needed. NHS backlogs take a personal and punishing toll on people’s lives, including through lost income from lost jobs or, worse still, lost years with loved ones from late or missed cancer diagnoses. Today’s commitment from the Labour Government that 92% of NHS patients will wait no longer than 18 weeks for treatment by the end of this Parliament is an enormous, transformative ambition. If that figure, which is currently at 59%, improves to 65% by March next year, that will give comfort to those who rightly expect to feel the change that Labour will bring on their own doorsteps. I also welcome the aim of ensuring that community diagnostic centres can operate 12 hours a day, seven days a week. Thanks to the Chancellor’s Budget, local doctors will be incentivised to consult specialists to explore alternatives to hospital treatment. In Bury, where Fairfield general hospital has the second highest average wait times for elective surgery in the country, the new national standards for elective care are welcome. Incentives for trusts that improve wait times are welcome, but does the Minister agree that the focus should be on average wait times—affecting the maximum number of patients—rather than rewarding trusts that reduce the longest possible wait time for fewer patients? I understand the capacity demands that will come with that, but it is a hugely important distinction. Although reducing the longest wait times is important, focusing on that metric alone, and rewarding trusts for it, risks leaving many patients with painful and debilitating conditions and trusts ducking their responsibilities. This Government have made it clear that we will address that on our watch.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Copyright and Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister clarify the difference between his term “rights reservation” and previous reports of the Government’s preference for an opt-out system? Those systems have already been called out and considered unjust by our creators. There are AI leaders who recognise the need for fair licensing. What assurances can the Government provide to support both human and AI innovation? Does the Minister, with his creative industries hat on, agree that respecting copyright would see the introduction of an opt-in system as essential?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. It is possible that we cannot imagine being the victim of coercion, or that as MPs our agency is so baked in to our experiences of living, that we cannot envisage a scenario where those who already claim to feel unseen are directed towards meeting their end sooner than it otherwise might have been. Our casework from constituents is already full of people struggling to access the rights that we have enshrined in law—access to justice, health, education support, the disaster in our special educational needs system—and of victims often of state neglect or state coercion, and the failure of safeguards that were once supported on paper and passed into law. Disability rights groups and advocates have raised their voices, wanting us to talk about the dangers of normalising assisted dying. For many the Bill represents not a choice but a principle shift that undermines the value we place on protecting the vulnerable. It falls to us as the strongest to stand up and vote against the Bill. Passing the Bill today will not improve palliative and hospice care. My belief is that it will forfeit it. The end of life is complicated; end of life care often is not complicated enough. On reflection, my mother-in-law deserved a frank, trusted conversation about the risk of secondary illnesses and amputation that would follow with the automatic cancer treatment that she was given in her final months of life. We should expect more agility from our NHS, and while dying is the ultimate binary experience, end of life care should be more sophisticated and more personalised. Shortening those expectations with a system that endorses assisted dying would forfeit that too. Finally, as legislators our responsibility is to protect the most vulnerable and consider all eventualities. We disagree on slippery slope arguments, but if the Bill proceeds it will be a moment of no return, and that is why I am not prepared to support it.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill asks us to make a profound and irreversible decision on the principles of our health service and end of life care. With end of life care funded too often on a shoestring for many, the Bill takes our focus to ending life, not improving living as life draws to a close with terminal illness. I believe it poses significant risks. Our wider societal and cultural norms will be changed forever. Those who refuse to acknowledge that prospect now do so with the benefit of things as they are now. My point is that this concept changes immediately today if this Bill is passed. The safeguards may sound rigorous on paper, but the strained state of our NHS means that many patients do not have a consistent relationship with a named doctor. We are attributed to health centres nowadays, not named doctors. Someone’s consideration of this decision could depend on which doctor they see—one who raises assisted dying as an option, versus one who refuses. That is a deeply troubling prospect. The ideation of assisted dying will become a ballot. We know our GPs have a range of views on assisted dying, so we cannot deny that who someone ends up seeing with their terminal illness might be how they end up. That could be at the doctor’s, possibly in the presence of a loved one who is under strain and in need of respite themselves, and the first suggestion is the beginning of a journey towards, yes, assisted dying. That is before we consider the forces of marketing and commercialisation, and the industry that will spring up if the Bill proceeds and is sewn into our NHS.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Thomas White was sentenced to three years for theft of a mobile phone in 2012. He remains in a category A prison 12 years later, having received an imprisonment for public protection sentence. Two medical reports this year have confirmed his deteriorating mental health. He recently attempted to set himself on fire and has since stopped taking his medication. Will the Secretary of State meet me and his sister, Clara White, to discuss his case?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Special Educational Needs and Disabilities · Hansard source

  More

  The 2014 reforms put SEN rights at the heart of the special educational needs system, but the then Government did only half the job, failing to honour the resources that they had promised. EHCPs take too long to access, and children are often sent out of borough to receive specialist education, which is more expensive. How will the Government provide more SEN provision in our mainstream schools in towns such as mine?