Olivia Blake MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I have to say, I was a tiny bit anxious about speaking on this issue today, because of the risk of being painted a hypocrite or a traitor to my scientific comrades. I am a biomedical scientist and have worked in premises licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I have worked in labs where animal models have been used—primarily fish embryos under five days. None the less, I will speak on this instrument because I am very concerned about a number of issues, and well-versed in the arguments about the necessity of animal models and testing versus investment in alternatives. I am disappointed that, instead of further regulation in this area, we are seeking to punish protesters. I am probably right in saying that I am one of the few MPs who has ever grown human cells in a flask or replicated DNA in a lab, but it is important that we can bring some of these arguments in, because there is a desire within the science community to move away from animal models. I do not think that anyone wants to use animal models where they are not necessary. It is undoubtedly true—undeniable—that advances have been made using animal models, but the fact remains that accuracy has always been a concern when using animal models, because to get closer to our biology, one would have to use animals that are no longer used in research, such as rhesus monkeys and other primates. That is why we need alternatives, and investment in alternatives. I did most of my research through in vitro models in Petri dishes, and it was incredibly frustrating that we were not yet at a point where we could have full confidence in those models. That is why we will always need some form of human testing at the end of the process when it comes to pharmacology. With the advent of AI and the tools that are now available to scientists, we should be at the forefront of finding alternatives if we want to remain at the forefront of biological and life-sciences research in the UK. If we do not, I fear we will be left behind by other countries, which are also trying to speed up research. Animal models are slow; it takes a long time to get to the answer. They are also a messy environment: a scientist does not know whether the thing they are changing is ultimately what is making the difference; there is always the chance that something else is going on. So animal models are not the silver bullet that some people might think they are. I have a real problem with the definition of “key national infrastructure”, because I think this measure makes a mockery of it. We are not talking about a source of water or electricity, or a main road or transport hub; we are talking about the ability of scientists to go about their daily business. I know of the abuse that scientists have suffered, but we have to balance that against the democratic right of people in our country to say, “Actually, no, this isn’t good, and we should be looking to alternatives.” Calling these premises “national infrastructure” is, quite honestly, hilarious, because a protest at a local site is not going to disrupt the whole country, or even a region. Yes, it might slow things down in the long run, but the reality is that the UK got the vaccine off the ground incredibly quickly in response to the last pandemic. I therefore find it a little distasteful that the main reason given in the briefing notes for this legislation is the protection of vaccine production and research. I do not think that is an accurate portrayal of how we managed during the pandemic. With the definition being stretched so far, will it cover every single premises with an Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act licence? That would mean a huge number of laboratories and institutions being protected, which would become almost unpoliceable. At a time when our criminal justice system is on its knees, further criminalising protests will only add additional pressure on those stretched services, whether that is the police, the law courts or the prison places that will be taken up as a result of these criminal sanctions. I know that this is a difficult and controversial topic, but this is too significant a change to make through a statutory instrument or delegated legislation and to debate in this room today. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and consider bringing something to the House, or at least allowing us to have a vote on this. I believe that this measure runs counter to what we want from a democratic society. It is fair enough that we have developed a policy on phasing out animal testing, but that is being completely undermined by the draft regulations. If people no longer feel able to stand up and protest for what they believe in, where will the pressure come from for companies in the pharmaceutical industry to change their models?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Given that many of these institutions are universities with licences, and hundreds of scientists and labs work under the 135 licences that the Minister has described, many of which have nothing to do with vaccines, is this not a knee-jerk reaction to a concern that is yet to be fulfilled, given the extra emergency legislation that was brought in when we needed the vaccine?

• 16 Dec 2025 · No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder if the Minister wants to make particular comment about violence against women and girls and the impact of the NRPF condition.

• 16 Dec 2025 · No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very timely intervention, as we consider our aims to reduce violence against women and girls. As we know, many women are trafficked and suffer sexual abuse and sexual violence as a result. I absolutely agree: the least we could do is make sure they have a safe roof over their heads when they come forward for help and assistance. The hon. Member highlights an important point. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has repeatedly highlighted the urgent need for robust data on migrant homelessness and no recourse to public funds. Will the Home Office commit to collecting better data on the number of people subject to no recourse to public funds who are at risk of, or are currently experiencing, homelessness? Even in the absence of comprehensive figures, every available indicator points to a growing crisis. Around 4.5 million migrants in the UK are subject to no recourse to public funds, which means no access to universal credit, child benefit, personal independence payments if they are disabled, or social housing. The latest rough sleeping figures underline the scale of the problem. On a single autumn night this year, 27% of those sleeping rough in the UK were non-British citizens. That is the highest proportion recorded since 2017. This is clearly a growing problem. Migrants face the same pressures that could push anyone into homelessness, which is something we are all at risk of, including low wages, a shortage of affordable housing, the lack of support for mental health needs or substance abuse, but these challenges are compounded by the additional barriers imposed by the immigration system. These include prolonged settlement routes, high visa fees, the immigration health surcharge, lack of rights to homelessness assistance, the local housing allowance and discrimination from private landlords due to the right to rent. As a result of being routinely locked out of social housing and housing-related benefits, people with no recourse to public funds are often forced to rely on overcrowded, unstable and often unsafe accommodation. When those arrangements break down, as they often do, people may be unable to access the last resort safety nets that exist to prevent homelessness. People with no recourse to public funds are therefore far more likely to fall into rough sleeping, not because services do not exist, but because their immigration status prevents them from being able to use them. Once someone with no recourse to public funds becomes homeless, the reality they face is bleak. I have many examples, but most homelessness accommodation services have little or no provision for people excluded from the social security system. With services under immense pressure, more and more people are being forced to compete for fewer and fewer bed spaces. Too often, that leaves people relying on short-term emergency help from charities and faith groups that are already stretched beyond their limits. Nowhere are the consequences of no recourse to public funds more stark than for survivors of domestic abuse. Many migrant survivors have their documents, finances and movements tightly controlled by a perpetrator through coercion and abuse. Those survivors are among the most vulnerable, yet they may be barred from welfare and housing support because of no recourse to public funds, leaving them unable to access safe accommodation, including refuges. Women’s Aid has found that over a quarter of women refused refuge spaces in the UK had no recourse to public funds, with many being forced to sleep rough, sofa surf or even return into the hands of their abuser. I know that some people can submit a change of conditions application to have the no recourse to public funds condition lifted, but the application process is complex and often requires legal advice to navigate and complete successfully. That advice is also in desperately short supply. In South Yorkshire alone, two out of the five legal aid firms have stopped delivering legal aid and immigration services entirely, and there was a gap between provision and need of nearly 9,000 cases in 2023 and 2024 across Yorkshire. Research has found that 90% of people surveyed who attempted to have their no recourse to public funds status changed unassisted were unsuccessful. Yet when professional advice was sought and provided, 95% were subsequently successful. Successive Governments have justified no recourse to public funds as a way to save money for the taxpayer and to ensure that migrants earn their settlement. The reality is very different for local authorities. Their statutory duties to support families with a child in need or adults with care needs means that councils end up supporting thousands of migrant households experiencing destitution and homelessness each year. Research from COMPAS, the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, estimates that if all local authorities recorded data consistently, the annual cost of supporting no recourse to public funds households would be around £102 million each year. In 2023 to 2024, Sheffield city council spent at least £1.2 million supporting people with no recourse to public funds.

• 16 Dec 2025 · No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, it is more challenging to provide support in rural areas, but there is also huge pressure on cities as well. As I mentioned earlier, the financial burden that falls on councils as a result of the policy is huge. Wherever they are in the UK, I think local authorities would say it is a challenge. That is why this needs to be taken in the round and why we need to look at how we tackle individual support. I would also like to ask the Minister, in relation to the White Paper, on what basis the Government will be applying rules retrospectively. Will holders of indefinite leave to remain be subject to no recourse to public funds? How will local authorities be supported to manage the resulting poverty and homelessness? Will there be new burdens funding, for example, for local authorities, as they have to pick up the pieces? Does the Minister generally think that the Home Office’s earned settlement model is compatible with the Government’s ambition to halve rough sleeping and get back on track to end homelessness? In my debate in June, I urged the Government to ensure that immigration policies do not deliberately plunge people into destitution and homelessness. I find myself stood here today repeating that call. Instead, we should be reviewing restrictions on access to public funds. We need clearer guidance on the legal powers and responsibilities of local authorities so that councils know when and how they are expected to accommodate and support migrants with limited eligibility for public funds. Crucially, we need proper funding from the Government so that local authorities can provide minimum standards of safe, suitable accommodation regardless of immigration status. That should move beyond trials and pilots so that every local authority can benefit from it. We urgently need to create a system that no longer traps people in poverty or pushes them into homelessness. Without that, we fail some of the most marginalised people in our society, increase pressures on public services and deepen the social divisions and instability in our communities that so many of us are so concerned about.

• 16 Dec 2025 · No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I think that that is a very valuable solution. It is one that we discussed in the last debate we had on children. This is an issue that affects children profoundly; therefore, councils have to pick up that cost, so the Work and Pensions Committee makes a very valid point. I am glad that the commitments in the homelessness strategy provide £3.5 billion to homelessness services and welcome the renewed emphasis on prevention. However, despite those positive steps, the strategy falls short in its response to homelessness driven by the immigration system. It fails to grapple with the impact of restrictions on access to public funds and ignores the damaging consequences of the 28-day move-on period for refugees, which is another pinch point where people find themselves falling into homelessness. I am glad that the Home Office is included as one of the key Departments responsible for delivering on the cross-Government strategy. However, it is disappointing that the Home Office is not held to the same standards as other Departments, which have been given clear measurable targets to end the discharge of people from institutions into homelessness. The strategy mentions a pilot in four council areas for people with restricted or unknown eligibility to public funds. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on that initiative and how local authorities are expected to use funding to support such migrants. However, it is not clear how local authorities should use funding allocations to prevent and reduce homelessness among migrants at the moment. Existing successful schemes such as immigration advice services for people who are rough sleeping, including the Sub-regional Immigration Advice Service in London, the Restricted Eligibility Support Service in Manchester and the Home Office homelessness team and escalation team should be maintained, extended and replicated if we are to meet the challenge we face. In the immigration White Paper the Government claim they want to halve long-term rough sleeping and tackle homelessness, but the policy outlined in the paper will inevitably prolong the risk for migrant communities for decades, extending qualifying periods to settlement to 10, 15 and 20 years. Prolonging the time without access to public funds will inevitably inflict penalties for those who do not receive benefits, which will exacerbate homelessness among migrants and create longer periods for which homelessness will become a concern and an issue for individuals. Examples highlighted by Praxis are a stark reminder of the profound consequences of the policy. A child brought here at 14 on a visitor visa could face waiting until middle age for settlement. A mother who lawfully accessed universal credit after losing her job could be forced on to a 20-year path, and someone who lost their immigration status following a mental health crisis, already street homeless for two decades, could now confront an additional 30 years of uncertainty. Applying the proposals retrospectively would be a profound injustice for the hundreds of thousands of migrants and their British families who have already invested years of their lives, built communities and contributed financially to this country. I remind the Minister that anyone can fall victim to homelessness. We are each of us in a precarious state in the UK. We can pretend that some of us are isolated from it, but certain communities are exceedingly vulnerable to it, including migrant communities.

• 16 Dec 2025 · No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered No Recourse to Public Funds and homelessness. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I point hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the help I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project for the work I do in this area. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. This is the second debate I have secured this year on no recourse to public funds. It is also the second time I do so with a profound concern that our stated ambitions of prosperity over poverty, and reducing homelessness and child poverty, are being actively undermined by immigration policies that are designed to do the very opposite. This debate could not be more timely. Just days ago, the Government published their homelessness strategy. While I welcome the strategy—there are a number of measures contained within it—it is disappointing that it stops short of introducing meaningful action to tackle homelessness among one of the most vulnerable groups, which is migrants affected by the no recourse to public funds condition. As was highlighted in my previous debate, that group includes many children. Our understanding of homelessness remains partial and fragmented. Official data routinely fails to capture hidden homelessness, which is especially prevalent in migrant communities.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. I am very pleased, as I know my constituents will be, to hear about the swift bricks. Ours is a city of nature lovers, and I know that people have been very concerned about BNG, which has been mentioned. I would like to understand a little more about how it has been determined that 0.2 hectares is the right area, particularly in relation to natural capital.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Secretary of State on her statement. Following my debate in June, I welcome the recognition of children with no recourse to public funds as part of the strategy, and its commitment to ensuring that vulnerable migrant children receive the support that they require, regardless of their immigration status. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what assessments have been undertaken to assess the impact of the recent proposals to extend pathways to settlement to 15 years, 20 years or even 30 years? That will inevitably impact children, so will she meet me to discuss those issues?

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and actions. If we achieve peace, as we all hope, the efforts to rebuild Ukraine cannot be only about infrastructure. They also have to focus on rebuilding people’s lives, from those who have been devastatingly injured or have lost loved ones, to civil society, which has been really tested. What will the UK Government do to ensure that funding and support is in place to allow not only the rebuilding of buildings, but the rebuilding of civil society?

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his clear leadership, which is in stark contrast to the shadow Secretary of State. I was dismayed to hear her comments, which offered a complete dereliction of duty to future generations and followed others’ failures of leadership rather than showing leadership. I warmly welcome the role that the UK played under the Secretary of State’s leadership in championing the road map for fossil fuel phase out, but there is an elephant in the room. Will the Government continue that leadership by ruling out extraction at Rosebank?

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State and Ministers for the constructive, open and thoughtful way in which they have engaged with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), as well as local leaders from the council in Sheffield, throughout the passage of the Bill, to solve an issue of great importance to my constituents. More broadly, the Bill and the amendment before us today mark a significant step forward for local democracy in Sheffield and beyond. The Bill strengthens community voice, empowers local leaders and brings decisions closer to the people that they affect. We can all celebrate its commitment to clearer, more responsive pathways for devolution. It also tackles big issues, such as the national standards that we need in taxi licensing. I declare an interest as a member of the GMB, which has been campaigning on the issue for many years. I am glad that the Minister has grasped the nettle on the tricky issues relating to local government audit, which those of us who have served on the Public Accounts Committee know has been an issue for many years. I am especially pleased that the Government have tabled amendments 152 and 153, which will allow Sheffield to retain its committee system, and not just for a protected period but beyond that. The amendments reflect a core principle of effective devolution: to enable local areas to shape the governance structures that best suit their needs and democratic traditions, especially when there has been a referendum, as in Sheffield. I pay tribute to the residents who tirelessly advocated for that and worked alongside us to find the best possible outcome. For Sheffield, the committee system, agreed to by referendum, is rooted in transparency, co-operation and collective decision making, and embodies the values that our residents strongly support. This is a particularly important moment as it highlights the positive partnership that can be built between central Government and local people. It shows what meaningful devolution can achieve, focusing on shared goals and delivering the best outcomes for communities, and that the Government have listened and Sheffield’s voice has been heard. The Bill is transformational and I am confident that it will help local leaders to deliver our values and priorities, and the aspirations of the people that they serve. I thank all the campaigners, including those involved in It’s Our City, for campaigning on the issue for many years, including in response to the Bill.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, we have a broken system, but does the Home Secretary really believe that people having to flee violence, war and persecution means they have won a golden ticket if they are lucky enough to get refugee status here? Does she understand that such rhetoric is deeply offensive and feeds division? Does she accept that shutting down routes for settlement will damage integration in our communities, and will only strengthen Reform, not beat it? Would not a better way of measuring contribution be to allow people to work and pay taxes?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Committee itself for the report, which I thought was very helpful and insightful. I share the concern that the Chair outlines about the gathering of evidence. I want to ask about media access into the Gaza strip. Is that an area that the Committee could look at in future, and does the Chair have a view on how it might help or hinder evidence gathering?

• 14 Oct 2025 · COP30: Food System Transformation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for securing this debate. I prepared a much longer speech, but I will keep it brief. We know the destabilising forces that scarcity of food can unleash, and what that can mean to communities around the globe, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). We are living in the Anthropocene, which means that humans are the dominant force in shaping the Earth’s environment. That could make us all terrified, thinking that there is nothing we can do, but actually it tells the opposite story. It shows us that we can influence the environment, whether that is by signing up to the declaration on food systems at the next COP, or through the great work of local groups that improve access to waste food, such as Food Works Sheffield or Regather, which produces food locally in Sheffield. There are great examples of people taking control of sustainable food issues, and that should be celebrated in this place. However, if we cannot get away from the elephant in the room—the fact that we do not do enough at COP, not just on food and sustainability, but around nature and climate change, and especially around oil, gas and coal—we are going to be in trouble. I make a heartfelt plea that the Government continue to stand firm with our manifesto commitments not to renew or grant any more licences. We must make it clear that no new oil and gas licences will take a single penny off bills or make us more energy secure; they will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis. I therefore call on the Government to reject the Rosebank proposals, because we cannot have a planet, food or community without adequate resources in our communities for people to survive and thrive. We will see massive global upheaval if people cannot access their basic needs. Food is fundamental to that, which is why I have also supported colleagues’ calls for a right to food. That is something we should talk about globally, not just in the UK.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condemnations of the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack on the Heaton Park synagogue and the arson attack in Peacehaven. The Prime Minister emphasised the UK’s commitment to humanitarian support. While we all welcome the ceasefire, we know that the humanitarian crisis is still very much ongoing. Will the Prime Minister confirm what extra monitoring, new mechanisms and assurances he is seeking to ensure that parties on the ground are able to get essential aid to every single person who needs it within Gaza?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in the debate, and I thank the co-sponsors and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to happen on the Floor of the House today. I also thank everyone who has spoken so far and so bravely, whether that is sharing their own experience or that of their constituents. These debates have a true impact. This issue is of profound personal significance to me, as it is to so many families up and down the country. Alongside Tommy’s, many Members of this House, Myleene Klass MBE, Sands and the Miscarriage Association, I have been campaigning for five years for simple changes. First, I want to recognise those for whom this is not an abstract discussion but a reflection of one of the hardest chapters of their lives. To every parent who has experienced the heartbreak of losing a baby, I want to say, “Your loss matters, and your voice matters.” Time and again, investigations into maternity and neonatal care have revealed the same issues: poor communication, missed warning signs and families left to fight for answers. National standards of care are not being followed, and too often bereaved parents are left wondering whether lessons will ever truly be learned. That is why the forthcoming national investigation into maternity and neonatal services is so important. It must drive lasting change, and I urge the Secretary of State, who I am so pleased to see in his place, to ensure that there is clear national oversight of how any recommendations are implemented. The investigation must also take ambitious approaches to improving maternal heath and reducing baby loss. We need a focused national strategy that sets new maternity safety ambitions, tackles inequalities and ensures consistency across all services, and I want to briefly mention infertility services. I have decided that locally commissioned services are simply not good enough—they are not fit for purpose. In some places, you get nothing; in other places, you get three cycles of in vitro fertilisation, as NICE suggests. In other places, you have to pay thousands of pounds if you are LGBT. As shown by “Joy”, the Netflix story that was told so well, the same backward thoughts about infertility treatment still exist in local commissioning boards. That is no more so than in South Yorkshire, where the NHS trust is currently consulting on—I am quoting from the website—views on “how many cycles of IVF should be provided to people in South Yorkshire” and on “how much gluten-free…produce should be prescribed”. I have coeliacs in my family and understand the struggle, but to compare that to the loss of babies, which many couples who go through IVF will have suffered, is simply not good enough. The trust’s own numbers show that the saving from reducing two cycles to one would be only £280,000 a year. That would be less than 2p per person in the whole ICB area. Let us take that money centrally, so that no matter where you live in the UK, you have access to three chances to start a family. You might have suffered five miscarriages, three miscarriages, baby loss or stillbirth. You might be being told by your doctor not to try for a baby given the risk to your life, and only to get support through IVF. It is simply not good enough, and fertility services are also diagnostic. I know people who have had endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, blocked tubes, endometrial cancers, polyps or fibroids discovered not through going to a gynaecologist, but through going to a fertility doctor. We should value that and not just see it as an excess cost. I think fertility services should be taken back centrally and provided on that basis.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that it could seem counterintuitive to the public for new testing to be illegal and to require the Secretary of State’s intervention, and for testing in herds considered not to have TB to therefore not be possible, allowing undetected cows to be left in herds?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for outlining the argument so well. Badger culling has proved to be ineffective, unscientific and inhumane. Does she agree that we should not see an increase in culling or supplementary culls in no-risk areas, or the extension of any current licences?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that, as employers have told me, increasing the qualifying period will make the UK less attractive to international talent. That is particularly important for science and research in our universities.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Bill and commend the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), for her leadership in bringing it forward. For too long, decisions about our communities have been made far from the people they affect. This Bill signals a profound shift, putting trust back into local leaders, strengthening councils and ensuring that communities have a real say in shaping their future. It provides the foundation for a new settlement for England that values local knowledge and unlocks local energy. The return of the supplementary vote system for mayoral elections—a key feature of this important Bill—is welcome, and I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) on the wider issues of proportional representation. The Bill places particular emphasis on neighbourhood working by recognising the importance of neighbourhoods and the grassroots organisations that sustain them. Equally important are the measures to strengthen community right to buy, which empowers residents to take ownership of the places that matter to them most, ensuring they can be preserved and improved for future generations. I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for her clarity in purpose in driving these changes. She understands that local government is not an obstacle to progress, but the engine of it. Although the Bill is about empowerment, we must ensure that it does not undermine the principle of local choice, however inadvertently. Since the announcement of the Bill, I have had tens of emails and more than 100 letters on this subject. In May 2021, the people of Sheffield went to the polls in a city-wide referendum. They voted decisively—by 65%—to move to a modern committee system of government, replacing the old leader and cabinet model. That was a clear democratic decision. It was also guaranteed in law for at least 10 years, with the principle that any further change could be made only by referendum. The provisions currently in the Bill would overturn that choice, forcing Sheffield back into a governance model that its citizens have explicitly rejected. That cannot be right. It would break faith with local voters, undermine the spirit of empowerment that runs through the Bill and send the wrong message about how seriously we take democratic decisions. If this legislation is to achieve its full potential, councils that have already chosen to have a committee system via referendum should be allowed to retain that system, just as with mayoral models. I know that local leaders agree with me on this, and I appreciate that Ministers have been meeting local leaders. This is a bold Bill; it is one that we should be proud of and that I am proud to support. It rightly enshrines the central role of councils in shaping and delivering devolution. I just hope that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater on the issue of allowing local councils to maintain their chosen model.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her action. Steel remains a key part of the South Yorkshire industrial and economic strategies. Can she reassure the House that workers’ wages and livelihoods will continue to be prioritised throughout the whole process, and will she join me in thanking our hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for their work to champion not just the sites in Stocksbridge and Rotherham, but the South Yorkshire steel corridor?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Orgreave Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to be in the Chamber today to hear that we are finally getting the inquiry that has long been campaigned for by the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, the NUM and many in my community and across South Yorkshire. They are simply asking for the truth. The shadow Minister has just said that the inquiry should not be politicised, but does the Minister agree that Orgreave is political? It is one of the most political things that has ever happened to South Yorkshire, and it is incredibly important that the inquiry is put on a statutory footing so that it can compel people to give evidence and get to the truth of something that many in our communities still bear the scars of.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by saying how much I respect the sincerity of colleagues who believe that the Bill will help address some of the difficult challenges that our country faces. I know many in this House are motivated by a genuine desire to improve lives and ensure that our welfare system is fair, sustainable and fit for purpose, but I have to say, with the deepest respect and regret, that on this occasion, I think we have got this wrong. Yes, the Labour Government have inherited a broken system on multiple fronts and, yes, we need reform, but we must be clear that reform cannot mean pushing disabled people further into poverty. It cannot mean referring to cuts as modernisation. Poverty has a price tag, and the cost-shunting that will be involved in these cuts will be plain to see in years to come and must be taken into consideration. I support amendment 37 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which highlights the lack of value for money in the contracts for assessment. There are so many successful reassessments and appeals; it is clear that we are not getting value for money from these contracts, and that this is an expensive and ineffective model that Ministers should look at, if they are looking for savings. There are better ways forward, and that is reflected in many of the amendments that I am supporting. New clause 8, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would ensure that any changes to PIP must be brought forward in primary legislation. I strongly agree with that. Given the lack of time we have had to debate and give proper scrutiny to what is before us today, we should slow things down until the recommendations are brought back to us, so that we can have good-quality debate, and put better regulation and safeguards in place to prevent changes that would worsen eligibility for those who are already struggling or at risk of poverty. New clause 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) calls for any review of PIP to be grounded in the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In a sense, I am disappointed that such a clause might be needed, but it points to the fact that we need more transparency, independent oversight and, crucially, co-production with disabled people. There can be nothing about us without us, and I hope the Government are listening on that new clause. Amendment 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), acknowledges the fluctuating nature of some medical conditions that can be unpredictable and debilitating. The amendment would ensure that people with those conditions are not left vulnerable, and that the process is responsive and serves its purpose of being a safety blanket to those who need it most. Countless organisations have reached out to me and many others to raise concerns. People with conditions including multiple sclerosis, Huntingdon’s, cancer and schizophrenia are concerned about how the changes will impact on them. Their voices must be heard in this place. The amendments do not block reform; I think they strengthen it. They will ensure that the Bill is evidence-led and rooted in fairness. New clause 12 seeks to prevent people with indefinite leave to remain, refugees and victims of trafficking from accessing PIP and elements of universal credit. Although it is not a shock that the Opposition will use any debate as an excuse to have a game of migrant-bashing, I am disappointed that those ideas have made their way into this proposal. What they will not tell the public is that most migrants in the UK are already excluded from accessing PIP and universal credit because they have no recourse to public funds. That restriction acts as a blanket ban on access to the social security system for 3.6 million migrants. Is it really acceptable to deny access to PIP or other social security to those who have spent years living and working in the UK—paying taxes and astronomical visa fees, and finally securing indefinite leave to remain—based on their nationality rather than on their disability? The new clause threatens the fundamental principle of our immigration system—that those granted indefinite leave to remain should have access to many of the same rights as British citizens. There are better choices we can make, and better ways to find the money that we are told we need to find. We can scrap the outdated marriage tax allowance, a gimmick of the Cameron Government that still costs us £590 million a year. We can close unjustifiable tax loopholes, such as the carried interest loophole used by private equity bosses, which would raise half a billion pounds. We can apply national insurance to investment income, raising over £10 billion. A modest 2% adjustment to the £207 billion handed out in non-structural annual tax reliefs would raise £4 billion alone each and every year. Let us talk about those reliefs. There are roughly 1,180 tax reliefs in the UK. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has no idea what benefit 815 of them bring to the public. This is about choices—we hear all the time about “tough choices”—so why are we not choosing not to properly examine that £200 billion of public spending while we tighten support for disabled people, who are just trying to live? We can and should reform the system.