Karen Bradley MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is a very difficult day. No one could fail to be moved by the grief of campaigners and by the deeply personal stories, whether born of their own experience or of those they have lost. Those voices deserve to be heard, and it is important in this place that we respect all views, whether we agree or disagree; but as we deliberate today, I go back to the words of the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) in a past debate, asking us to remember “the quiet ones, those who may be less organised or not as powerful but who are none the less equally, if not more, important—the voiceless”. —[ Official Report , 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 11.] Those words resonated particularly strongly with me, because I had the privilege of serving 10 years ago as the Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime—the first time that safeguarding brief had been brought under one Minister. It was so often the quiet voices that needed to be heard. It was the time I spent with victims that persuaded me that modern slavery was something we needed to legislate for. It was the time I spent with the victims of domestic violence, some of whom did not even want to admit that they were victims, that persuaded me we needed to do more and that we needed to legislate in this area. When I took the coercive control offence through Parliament, it was incredibly important. That is a very difficult offence; coercive control is not easy to prove or to find the evidence for, but it was so important that we did that. I remember speaking at an event not long after the legislation had gone through, where I explained that coercive control offence and what we were trying to do in Parliament. Afterwards, a woman came up to me privately, in tears, and told me that what I described had been her life some 30 years earlier. She had recognised eventually that she was a victim; so often victims do not recognise that they are victims, but she did recognise it. She had gone to the police, but because the offences were not violent or physical, they said that there was nothing they could do. They even said, “Lock the door and hope that he beats the door down, because then we could arrest him on criminal violence.” That was all they had. There was nothing they could do to help this woman. That encounter stayed with me, and it reminds me time and again that abuse is not always a single act. It can be the gradual erosion of somebody’s confidence, independence and sense of what choices are really theirs. Coercion to end one’s life may not come as an explicit threat. It may be the repeated suggestion that someone is becoming a burden.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not be giving way much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will give way to the hon. Lady.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes the case so powerfully. I am going to disappoint Members now, because I will not take any further interventions for some time. Like the hon. Lady, my fear is not principally for those who are confident, articulate and able to insist on what they want; it is for the person who does not want to make a fuss—the person accustomed to putting everybody else’s needs before their own, who internalises that coercion and feels guilty about the care they require, or has simply been deprived of it. Recognising abuse is really difficult. Those who have the misfortune of watching daytime TV may notice that there are currently adverts for “no frills” cremation services. I am particularly struck by one, which features a woman of late middle age, who is slightly small and says in a quivering voice that she does not want to be a burden or cause any fuss and does not want her family to have an awful time at the point of her death. Therefore, she is investing in a “no frills” cremation to make things better for her family. That person exists. The advertising agency would not bother making that advertisement if that person did not exist. We have to think about the most vulnerable. These are the people who Parliament—this House—has a particular duty to remember when we legislate and, today, when we decide whether this Bill, without further changes, is safe to become law. The question before us is, what decision will this House make. I recognise that the sponsor, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), is keen to focus on the other place. There is an appealing simplicity in saying, “Send it back there and let them do their work”, but this is not really about the other place anymore. That House has made itself irrelevant. It is about this House and this House alone. If we seek to engage the Parliament Act, we are, in effect, taking a unicameral decision, and we should understand what that means. We would be declaring that the Bill before us is in a fit state to become law whether or not the other place completes its work. There is no separate process by which this House later authorises the Parliament Act. Our approval of the Bill is the decision.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Coercion is something that we absolutely need to tackle and understand as a society, but I do not think that this Bill has the safeguards that are needed.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I accept what the hon. Lady says, and I know she speaks with great sincerity, but it is still the case that under this Bill, somebody could be seen remotely—without a face-to-face appointment—where they are not alone and the coercive perpetrator may be forcing them.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I feel sorry for my hon. Friend from the Home Affairs Committee, but I really must make progress, because Madam Deputy Speaker has been clear to me that I must. I say to colleagues who supported the Bill before and have wrestled sincerely with the issue since: you do not have to repudiate the vote you cast last time to vote differently today. You do not have to decide that assisted dying can never be right. You do not have to abandon the compassion that led you to support the principle. You need only ask whether this Bill, in this form, on the evidence before us today, is safe enough for Parliament to force it into law. That is today’s test. There is no shame whatsoever in concluding that the answer to a different question is different. Indeed, there would be something profoundly wrong with a Parliament in which Members felt bound by an earlier vote, regardless of everything they had learned since. Success is rare for private Members’ Bills. It is an amazing route when legislation is simple and consensus is easily achieved, and the whole House came together last Friday to do something quite remarkable for babies, but it is a terrible route when the risks of getting it wrong are great and there is great complexity and such emotion. Before a Government Bill is introduced, Departments will normally spend months or years developing the policy—sometimes that is too slow, but that is what they do. They consult experts and those affected, test the legal and practical implications, produce impact assessments, secure cross-Government agreement and have the legislation professionally drafted and scrutinised by parliamentary counsel. Finally, the legislation goes through the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, where Ministers have to prove to the rest of Government that the Bill is fit for purpose. That is what we needed here, when dealing with one of the most profound changes that Parliament could make to the relationship between the citizen, medicine and the state. Some say they want to amend the Bill. Have there been any reassurances that those amendments will be supported? The promoter controls the make-up of the Public Bill Committee and will have a majority. On Report, if we are fortunate Members may have the opportunity to vote on only a handful of issues, and those who support the Bill will be asked to reject each one. We are being asked to support the Bill as it stands, alongside a commitment to force it into law regardless of what safeguards are forgone or what gaps, through which vulnerable people may fall, remain. There is no one else to whom we can pass responsibility. We cannot say that the other place will sort it out, or that we will fix it later. If the Bill becomes law, Parliament may not get another opportunity to reopen it and put right what we discover we got wrong. The consequences will instead be worked out in practice—in hospitals, homes and, ultimately, the courts, where judges will make decisions based on the law before us today. For the people affected by a mistake, “We will sort it out later,” is no safeguard at all. My appeal today, particularly to those who voted for the Bill before, is this. Look at what we know now. Look at the people who will depend on our having got every safeguard right. Remember the quiet ones. Are you prepared today to say that this Bill, in this form, is safe to be forced into law?

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I really cannot; I am so sorry to my hon. Friend. We could have dealt with this over the summer; we had time to work on it. We could have included, for example, a clause that would have given an equal right to palliative care or a simple assessment of unmet need—something, anything, to allow there to be a genuine choice. But that opportunity is now gone. Let me be absolutely clear about what today’s vote is and what it is not. It is not another vote on the principle of assisted dying as on an ordinary Second Reading debate, and the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood said that herself. It is not a vote to allow this House to improve the Bill. It is not even a vote to allow the other place to improve it, because that is not in this House’s hands. If this Bill is sent to the other place and falls for whatever reason—even if that is because Parliament prorogues early and it receives not a single further hour of debate—it could be forced into law as it is. The Hansard Society put it plainly in saying “bills proceeding under the Parliament Act have been subject to only minimal amendment.” The House needs to understand that the proposed approach requires “preserving an unchanged bill with…defects”. That is a very different decision. I know that there will be Members in the House saying to themselves, “Nothing has changed since I voted for this before—why should I change my vote now?” My answer is simple. A great deal has changed, though not, unfortunately, in the Bill itself. We know more now than we did then, and changing one’s conclusion when the evidence changes is what Parliament is supposed to do. We now have revised estimates from the Government showing that many more people may seek an assisted death than Members previously understood: up to 4,610 may apply in the first year, and up to 10,428 in year 10. That is more than 1,000 times the number going to Dignitas each year. That is not a slow run-up during which we can watch the system develop, identify mistakes and quietly correct them.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and then to the previous sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and then I will make progress.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not; I really need to make progress. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and co-sponsors of the Bill have been clear, including in the debate now, that there will not be amendments made in this place. A deliberate decision has been taken to introduce a near-identical Bill and not to incorporate the 77 amendments from the Lords sponsor, including changes that addressed issues that he himself accepted required attention.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have enormous respect for the previous Minister, who I have worked closely with, but the point she is making about suicide of women who were victims of domestic abuse is a separate matter. For women to feel that they have nowhere else to go other than to commit suicide, is the most outrageous and horrendous situation, and we absolutely have to tackle and work on that. But this Bill is not the solution to that problem.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry; I really must make progress. We could have thousands of people entering the system immediately. If the safeguards are not right on day one, vulnerable people will be exposed on day one. We also have the updated equality impact assessment, to which the hon. Member for Bradford West referred, and its conclusions should give every Member pause. It recognises that “disabled people may feel subtle pressure due to attitudinal barriers or a lack of alternative appropriate services and support…This could also include structural pressures such as neglect, poverty and difficult living conditions”. It also recognises that we may see “disproportionate numbers of ethnic minority people choosing to have an assisted death to avoid financial hardship or escape abuse.” I believe that the Bill is not finished, but we are effectively voting today for a completed and finished Bill. That worries me enormously. Much has been said previously in the debate—I will not repeat the point—but we are giving powers to a future Government to implement this Bill. We are not giving those powers to the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today, and we are not necessarily giving them to those on the Opposition Front Bench; we are giving them to a future Government of any political persuasion. When I was a Government Minister, I remember always asking myself, “Would I be happy if another Government took this forward—if they had the power to do this?” I ask Members to apply a test that we too rarely apply when legislating: do not ask whether you trust the people who will administer these powers today; ask whether you would be content with the political party you trust least possessing them tomorrow. There is simply not enough detail in the Bill to constrain how many of these decisions would be made. The National Down Syndrome Policy Group put it best: this Bill hopes for the best rather than prepares for the worst.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House knows that I have enormous respect for him, and I am sure that this is quite a difficult statement for him to make, particularly as the right hon. Member for Makerfield will face unfavourable comparisons with Boris Johnson, who did come to this House and make a statement before the summer recess. However, can I change the subject? We are expecting a statement on local government reorganisation on Thursday. Now that tomorrow is not an Opposition day, could the Leader of the House find a way for that statement to be made tomorrow, rather than on Thursday?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  Like many on this side of the House, I have very fond memories of Ann. She made the effort to travel to Staffordshire Moorlands—not many people do; we are quite isolated— [ Interruption. ] Yes, they come to Alton Towers—the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) is quite right. But Ann came to Consall Hall Gardens, as it was then, to do a fundraising dinner for me, and she delivered a tour de force, which I suspect the then Prime Minister, now the noble Lord Cameron, might not have entirely approved of. My association was totally enraptured, however, and thought it was the most wonderful event. It is still fondly remembered in the association, not least because Ann told me I had to take off my heels because it would not be appropriate to stand too tall next to her in the photographs. May I also thank Staffordshire police for contacting me this weekend and making a visit to my home to review my security arrangements? I know that police forces across the country will be doing that and I am grateful to them for taking that time. May I ask the Home Secretary to comment on what might happen in the longer term around the Prevent duty? She will know that the Home Affairs Committee produced a report on new forms of radicalisation and extremism, with some recommendations that, we hope, might help law enforcement and others to find those who have a tendency towards violence. Will the Home Secretary consider that in the longer term?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  In four days’ time, we will mark exactly two years since I first explained to Ministers how much the people of Staffordshire Moorlands do not want to be part of a greater Stoke local authority, do not want devolution forced on them, and want their say on who makes decisions about what happens there. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), may I implore the Minister for a referendum? We do not want this imposed on us in north Staffordshire; we want to have our say.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon). He was absolutely right about the tone we need to employ. I recognise the comments he made about his constituents. I suspect that his constituents have a very similar view to my constituents—we are not too far apart. I refer him to the Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation, which talked about the point he made about the disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers in lower-cost accommodation areas. We did ask the Home Office to look at that. I also suggest that he avoids X and Facebook in the morning. It will probably make his life a lot better. I rise to speak briefly on the Bill, which I broadly welcome. These are matters on which our constituents expect action to be taken. It may not go as far as some would like in some areas and it may go too far for others, but on Second Reading we look at the principle of a Bill, and I agree that it should have a Second Reading and then be considered in Committee and on Report. There are a couple of points I want to make before I move on to my main comments. On article 8 of the ECHR, the Chişinău declaration was very encouraging. It is a good step forward to see agreement across the Council of Europe area on the way article 8 and other parts of the ECHR are being abused. I suggest that the Minister look at section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states that the UK courts “must” refer to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Perhaps the wording could be changed to “may” to make it easier for courts to disregard clearly ridiculous decisions that should not have any bearing on the decisions being taken in our courts. I also refer him to the work done in the coalition Government on the European arrest warrant, when we were still a member of it. We changed the rules in the UK so that only somebody who was guilty of a crime that would be a crime in the UK could have an arrest warrant applied to them. Previously, we had all sorts of spurious claims such as not paying tips to Greek waiters and so on. The Minister may want to look at that. On small boats, the Select Committee visited northern France. The hon. Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Bassetlaw (Jo White) were all there to see the work being done. It is very impressive to see the work being done jointly with the UK. We heard a lot from UK law enforcement and others who were working closely with their French counterparts. I encourage more of that. However, I cannot stress enough how important ministerial oversight is. I pay tribute to our former colleague James Brokenshire, who as Immigration Minister insisted that he receive an update every single day on the number of people entering the country, the number who were in claims and the number of visas being issued. He kept on having a daily update. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a delight that you are in the Chair, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was also an Immigration Minister and she employed a similar approach. It would be fair to say that the evidence we have heard on the Select Committee indicates that that level of ministerial oversight has not happened at all times, and perhaps that is why we saw some big spikes.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member—my friend from the Select Committee—for an enjoyable visit. We learned a lot, but it was a challenging visit, as there was an awful lot to take in. This is a problem that affects countries across the world; it is not an issue that can be solved by one country alone. We have to work together. We also came away agreeing that if everybody who arrived from France was immediately taken back to France, it would kill the trade of the people smugglers. That is something that we should start trying to negotiate with our friends in France. In the short amount of time that I have left, I will focus on part 5. I declare that, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery, I have some concerns. Apart from anything else, human trafficking and modern slavery is not an immigration crime. Someone’s immigration status may make them more vulnerable, but it is a financial crime—it is the exploitation of one human being by another for financial gain. Although I understand the reasons and we are grateful that there are some good points in the Bill, it is concerning that it keeps being put into the migration bucket, rather than being seen as the financial crime that it is. I am in contact with a number of organisations, and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, has been in touch with me. There is general agreement that there are some good things in the Bill—the strengthening of civil orders and the support for children are welcome. However, the abuse of the modern slavery protections needs to be looked at, because nobody can self-declare as a victim of modern slavery. A first responder has to say that this person is likely to be a victim of modern slavery, so what is going wrong with the first responders? Why is it that first responders are being dragged into, as the Government say, declaring people to be victims of modern slavery to avoid deportation? That is something that should be looked at without removing protections for victims. One has to have a victim-centred approach to this crime in order to solve it; it cannot be solved only by pursuing the bad guys. The victims have to be at the centre, because it is an extraordinary crime in which the commodity that money is being made from is the human being. It is not a drug, a firearm or any other product; it is a human being. That human being needs to be prepared and able to give evidence, to speak out and to recognise the crime that has been committed against them. Victim support is essential to solve this crime. If one wants to see the issue in a hard-nosed way, the only way we are going to kill the trade is by looking after the victims so that we can stop the bad guys. That is the basic point. I do not have time to go through the specifics, but I urge the Minister to engage with the many authorities—in particular, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner—to see where the measures that the Government have introduced may have unintended consequences that make it harder to tackle this crime. With that, I will sit down and let other Members speak, as there are many others who wish to do so.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, and those of the Home Secretary about Ann Widdecombe? She was a formidable human being, and someone about whom we are all thinking very much at this time. This week, in the light of that news, the safety of politicians is something that we should all consider. The Home Secretary may be aware of the situation of a district councillor in Staffordshire Moorlands, Councillor Jill Salt, who has been the victim of sexualised artificial intelligence images. I do not agree with Councillor Salt on many matters, but on this I stand with her in total solidarity. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning the comments of a Reform councillor, Dave Poole, who said that Councillor Salt needed to grow bigger balls in order to do the job?

• 8 Jul 2026 · European Entry and Exit System · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister must think he is having déjà vu after our exchange at the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. I implore him once again to make every endeavour and to use his best offices with the EU Commission and the French to try to get them to understand that we cannot wait for there to be delays; we have to anticipate switching off the system. The Port of Dover, Eurotunnel and others have extraordinarily intelligent and complex ways of forecasting flow. Will they look at those flow forecasts and use them to decide when to put measures in place, not wait for the delays to start?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation in Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition that represents not just the names on the petition but the many thousands who have signed the petition, complaining and protesting against the proposal by the Government to force Staffordshire Moorlands into local government reorganisation. The people of Staffordshire Moorlands say no to Stoke, which they have said in their many thousands on the internet in online petitions. The petitioners request “that the House of Commons urges the Government not to proceed with any plan to include Staffordshire Moorlands in a new combined or unitary authority or regional devolution deal without the clear consent of local people in Staffordshire Moorlands.” Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands, Declares that the Government has consulted on a proposal to create a new unitary council across north Staffordshire, encompassing Staffordshire Moorlands, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme; further declares that this is despite continued fears of bankruptcy in Stoke-on-Trent, with the Government having to intervene in February 2024 with a £42.2 million bailout package; and further declares that a merger could leave Moorlands residents on the hook for future costs, and that it would place the unique identity and heritage of Moorlands towns and villages at risk. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to proceed with any plan to include Staffordshire Moorlands in a new combined or unitary authority or regional devolution deal without the clear consent of local people in Staffordshire Moorlands. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003215]

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to make some brief comments about this legislation. I agree fully with what the Government are trying to achieve; I just do not agree with the way they are doing it. I will not repeat the arguments for why we need the legislation, as we have heard them from both sides of the House and I agree fully with what has been said. I benefited from the national security measures when I was in government, as I am sure will the new Minister for Security—I welcome her to her place. When we need to pass this kind of legislation, there is a consensus across the House, but we need time to properly scrutinise it. I say gently to the Minister for Security that the business managers could have set aside more time for Second Reading and perhaps a general debate to follow, with then some time in Committee to scrutinise the Bill properly, looking at amendments and deciding what might improve the Bill. It would be better for everybody if they knew that the Bill had been properly stress-tested. I say to the Security Minister and to the Home Secretary, who is no longer in her place, that I genuinely want them to succeed. I am not somebody who wants to see Ministers fail because we are from different parties. I benefited from that when I sat on the Treasury Bench and had similar support from the Opposition, but I never expected the Opposition just to accept that what I was saying was correct and accurate; I always expected there to be scrutiny, and I welcomed it. The report by Jonathan Hall was published over 12 months ago, so there is no need to pass the Bill in one day. It could have been introduced and considered at many times over the past 14 months. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I frequently had to take legislation through in one day, because devolved matters could not be considered in Stormont while there was no Executive. When we took legislation through in one day, we spent a lot of time working with the Opposition and interested stakeholders to ensure that they understood why we were taking it through and what it meant, and to listen to them about where improvements could be made. I regret enormously that the Home Affairs Committee, which I chair, has been offered only a briefing on the legislation after today, so our Committee members will not be briefed by officials until after the Bill has passed all stages in this House. That is very disappointing. It is a shame that the Home Secretary is so far refusing to appear before the Committee before the summer recess for her regular session. I deeply regret that and I warn the Security Minister that the Committee will look at this in detail, because we need to make sure that scrutiny has happened. The Security Minister will recall that during the covid pandemic we did not always have time to scrutinise the legislation that the Government were taking through. As a member of the governing party, I was concerned about that, but as an Opposition Member, she was incredibly concerned about the lack of scrutiny, and it has to be said that the Government did not always get things right. Having made those points, I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the substance of the Bill. First, I am not clear about how the various regimes—sanctions designation, the FIRS regime and proscription, which does not apply in many cases—are going to work together, so it would be helpful to understand how she envisages these issues fitting together. I appreciate that she is new to her role and she may be asking her officials the same questions, but it is important that we test the new provisions against the reality of what has been going on in the world. We must check that they will actually work and that the Crown Prosecution Service will be prepared to take cases, because it is only worth having this legislation if law enforcement and others are prepared to use it and legal action comes from it. My final point is about future-proofing. We have talked about evolving threats. The fact that the Government are introducing the Bill three years after the National Security Act 2023, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) took through when he was Security Minister, shows how threats evolve. I know that he will have done as much as was possible at that time, but things have evolved. How confident is the Minister that the Bill is future-proof? How confident is she that the powers that I am sure this House will end up giving to the Secretary of State today will not be misused if, in the future, there is someone else sitting in the Home Office as Home Secretary? That person may have a different agenda and may not agree with the consensus that there is in this place today, and they may want to use these powers for ill. Is the Minister confident that these powers cannot be misused in the future?

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Select Committee recently looked at new forms of radicalisation and extremism, and we were very struck by how things can be looked at through an ideological lens or not, and that sometimes things fall through the cracks in the middle because they are not looked at as a whole. Does he agree that the Bill could present an opportunity to address that issue?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. My constituents are utterly shocked by ticket prices. If they wanted to travel between London and Stoke-on-Trent by train today, it would cost a minimum of £160. We need local democracy and decision making, because these prices are outrageous.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Belfast: Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  I join others in paying tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has once again acted without fear or favour and walked bravely into some of the most dangerous situations. To follow on from the previous question, I was struck by just how many young people were involved in the disorder yesterday, incited not only by what they have seen on social media but by gangmasters who have groomed them into committing violence day in, day out across Northern Ireland. Will the Home Office look into a review of the treatment of young people in Northern Ireland and how so many of them have been groomed? In effect, it is modern slavery.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Road Safety in Werrington · Hansard source

  More

  A few weeks ago, I met leaders from Moorside high school and Werrington primary school in the villages of Werrington and Cellarhead, which are both suffering with real road safety concerns. They are located on the A52, which is one of the main arterial roads into Stoke-on-Trent. Traffic moves quickly down those roads, yet there are simply no safety measures. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the local authority and relevant agencies to facilitate urgent action including the installation of safe pedestrian crossings, the introduction of stronger parking restrictions, the provision of a school crossing patrol officer, the review and reduction of speed limits, and increased enforcement and monitoring. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands, Declares that local people have urgent concerns about the safety of roads around Moorside High School, Werrington Primary School, and residential streets more widely in Werrington; and further declares that high traffic volume, excessive vehicle speeds, unsafe parking, a lack of safe crossing points, and insufficient enforcement and supervision pose a serious risk to the safety and wellbeing of the community, particularly for young people and those with additional needs. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the local authority and relevant agencies to facilitate urgent action including the installation of safe pedestrian crossings, the introduction of stronger parking restrictions, the provision of a school crossing patrol officer, the review and reduction of speed limits, and increased enforcement and monitoring. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003204]