Paul Davies MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. Kirklees college provides the training and qualifications needed to kick-start a wide range of careers for many young people in my constituency. However, all too often many from deprived backgrounds struggle to access such education. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Department is taking to improve accessibility to further education for people from more deprived backgrounds?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I was not aware of that, but clearly it is unacceptable and makes no sense whatever. We really need to use our experience right across this nation. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a fact that in the UK brain tumours remain the biggest cancer killer of children and of adults under the age of 40. Approximately 13,000 people are diagnosed each year. For those who are diagnosed with a high-grade brain tumour, the five-year survival rate remains just 12.9%.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. This work cannot be done by just one centre, either in this country or elsewhere in Europe or the world. It certainly makes sense to connect expertise more, both within our nation and with our partners, particularly in Europe but also across the US. As of May this year, only 15 active trials were available to brain tumour patients, compared with 54 for pancreatic cancer, which is another disease of unmet need.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. That is a key element of the work that needs to be done to help patients with this issue. I will refer to that later, but it is fundamental. We know that, without that research, nothing will improve and we will continue to see the terrible conditions and quality of life that people have to face.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  The simple answer is yes, I totally agree. The hon. Lady has summed it up perfectly. In 2023-24, charities provided 74% of all investment, which of course left just 26% coming from Government. There is a clear link between funding and survival. Investment enables more clinical trials, better patient recruitment and improved access to innovation. I therefore call on the Government to set out how much funding will be ringfenced, and to raise their contribution to between £45 million and £50 million by 2029 in line with the recommendations from Brain Tumour Research. At the same time, we must recognise that funding alone will not deliver the progress we urgently need. The wider research and innovation environment must be reformed so that discoveries progress more efficiently into clinical development and patient access. Discovery research is essential, yet many innovations still fail to cross the translational valley of death, where fragmented, high-risk and unsupported pathways cause breakthroughs to stall. Stronger collaboration between institutions is needed to accelerate early-stage research, and the Government should also clarify the role of UK Research and Innovation within the national cancer plan, given its central contribution to discovery science. In addition, health technology assessment reform is required so that appraisal bodies adopt fairer and more flexible cost-effectiveness thresholds for rare and less survivable cancers, including brain tumours. Patient awareness is essential. As Professor Kathreena Kurian highlighted, many patients are left unaware that they must give consent for their tumour tissue to be used in advanced diagnostics and research. Every eligible patient must have proactive conversations with their clinical team about research opportunities. Greater participation is essential to attract investment, and when trials are easier to set up and recruit for, commercial and academic partners are more likely to set up further studies in the UK. Alongside that, we must address an issue repeatedly raised by patients and families: the right to pursue innovative treatment when standard options have been exhausted. Too many families find themselves travelling abroad, seeking repurposed drugs or raising money online to access treatments. No family should be forced to remortgage their home, empty savings or appeal to strangers online simply to pursue the possibility of more time. These improvements depend on one further requirement: strong national leadership. Currently, no single body within the Government, NHS England or the wider health system holds clear ownership of brain cancer outcomes. Where responsibility is spread everywhere, accountability exists nowhere. Patients deserve to know who is responsible for delivering change. Before I close, I will return to the reason the petition exists. In October 2022, Sarah Bainbridge’s daughter Jess was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer that, until then, her family had never heard of. Jess underwent treatment, including two operations, but her family soon realised that once the standard options were exhausted, very few alternatives remained. Like many other families, they found themselves searching beyond established pathways. Jess died in November 2023. She was just 35 years old, and had three children: Alfred, who was five, and one-year-old twins Billy and Alba. In Sarah’s words: “If I am honest, we have needed Jess every single day since she died, and we still do.” This is not just Jess’s story; it is the story of thousands of families across the UK. Following Jess’s death, Sarah met Georgie Maynard, a young mother living with glioblastoma. Although their circumstances were different, they shared the same frustration: that patients and families were still facing many of the same barriers identified decades earlier. Together, they founded Brain Cancer Justice, not for sympathy or recognition, but to call for urgent change. It was my privilege to meet with Brain Cancer Justice in the lead-up to this debate, and I encourage Ministers to do the same. This should not only be about recognition or reassurance but about ending broken promises, raising ambition and protecting delivery. Patients and families have waited long enough: we must turn “terminal” into “treatable”.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I use the word again: it is fundamental. Without it, there is no real way forward. We will continue to repeat the same treatments that we have seen for many years. Those treatments are not fully effective, as we know, so we need research to develop new and innovative approaches. I have referred to some statistics, but we have to remember that behind every statistic is a family. Each family are pursuing every available treatment, and all too often they are turning to crowdfunding to travel overseas in search of a cure, because significant barriers continue to block progress here at home. Workforce shortages also limit access to care. Only 40% of patients have a clinical nurse specialist, and there is a 30% shortfall in consultant radiologists. Early-career researchers lack funding and support, which pushes talent away from this field. That is especially damaging because scientists from diverse disciplines are essential for the development of new treatments. System failures also prevent the limited available funding from reaching patients in a meaningful way. Whole-genome sequencing is not routinely available at diagnosis, and access to a clinical trial remains severely restricted.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 738881 relating to brain cancer research and treatment. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank Sarah Bainbridge and the rest of Brain Cancer Justice for creating the petition that has led to this debate. Although it was established only last year, it has already built a remarkable campaign and secured support from more than 109,000 people for the petition—well done and thanks very much. The petition calls for increased funding to accelerate discoveries and clinical trials, improved access to whole-genome sequencing with personalised treatment and the protection of the right of patients to try innovative treatment options. It is not the first time that Parliament has debated this issue. Just over a decade ago, a petition calling for greater funding for brain tumour research received more than 120,000 signatures, which led to a Petitions Committee inquiry report.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I do. At the front end, we need to improve diagnosis. I have personal knowledge of that through my youngest daughter. Unfortunately, it took some time for one of her friends to be diagnosed with this awful disease, and he is now at a similar stage, where it is extremely difficult for him to receive the treatment he needs. Diagnosis is extremely important. Clinicians continue to raise concerns about the collection, storage and use of tumour tissue, despite the fact that it is vital to supporting research and innovation. Unfortunately, NHS trusts differ markedly in capacity and resources, creating a postcode lottery for diagnosis and advanced treatments. As we know, brain tumours are complex; there are more than 100 distinct types, nearly 40% of patients in England are diagnosed in emergency care, and the blood-brain barrier limits the effectiveness of medicines. Such challenges have led many to dismiss tackling brain cancer as “too difficult”. That is clearly still an obstacle. We have to break the view that brain cancer falls into that box. In my meetings with campaigners, patients and families, their frustration with that notion is unmistakable. They know, as we do, that with the right support these barriers can be overcome. The Government have recently announced welcome initiatives, including those in the Rare Cancers Act 2026, the national cancer plan and the brain tumour research consortium, supported by the £13.7 million to unite 48 hospitals, universities, cancer centres and charities in partnership with patients. However, that must be seen as just the first step. Much of this activity simply disburses the remainder of the existing funding pledged, and brain tumours still receive just 3.2% of national cancer research funding.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I have spoken to Peter, and it was remarkable what they did then. The inquiry—there have not been many petition inquiries—was a result of the work they did, and it has certainly made sure that the subject has not gone away. That petition recognised that brain tumour patients have been failed “at every stage” of the research and funding process. As a result of that and the inquiry, some progress followed: a task and finish working group was established, and in 2018 the Government pledged £40 million for brain tumour research. However, by 2024 only £15 million of it had been delivered. Many further petitions have been brought forward by campaigners, but meaningful progress continues to stall.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I met Chris Hudson, who has just completed three marathons to raise money for Forget Me Not, a children’s hospice that serves my constituents. It provides high-quality care for children with life-shortening conditions and vital services for families living with loss, including Chris and his family, who received compassionate and individualised support as they coped with the grief of losing their child. Hospices such as Forget Me Not face significant financial pressures, so please can we have a Government statement on further help for the sector?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Across the country young people build confidence and independence and learn the value of community engagement through participation in cadet groups. Thongsbridge Army cadets in my constituency demonstrate why cadets are such an important part of our community. I thank the young people and their leaders for their dedication and hard work. Will the Minister outline in more detail what measures the Government are taking to support groups such as Thongsbridge Army cadets?

• 21 May 2026 · Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I strongly back this Government’s commitment to tackling online gender-based harms. I am pleased by the progress that has been made, which includes making intimate image abuse, cyber-flashing and choking priority offences under the Online Safety Act and fast-tracking legislation to ban the creation of non-consensual intimate deepfakes. Recognising the growing threat of technology-enabled abuse is vital for the Government’s targets to halve violence against women and girls during the next decade, but we must ensure that these efforts do not lead to unintended consequences that could undermine the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in other ways. The shadow-banning of medically accurate, evidence-based women’s health content can seriously restrict women’s ability to speak out and find information about their bodies online. I recently led a Westminster Hall debate considering the e-petition on statutory menstrual leave for people with endometriosis and adenomyosis, which affects 1.5 million women in Britain. In the lead-up to the debate, I spoke to campaigners including Michelle Dewar, who organised the petition. For her and many others, social media is a tool to spread awareness, educate and campaign. Indeed, it was on social media that Michelle was able to encourage signatures for the e-petition, which eventually led to the debate in Parliament. Like many other women’s health conditions, endometriosis and adenomyosis face serious social stigma. Social media can offer the space to help overcome that, establishing support networks where women can connect and feel understood. However, the unrefined and blanket approaches that many social media platforms take to address broader online harms often lead to the suppression of women’s health content. That can include restrictions on certain words associated with women’s health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) referred to, and the banning of paid-for ads, including for women’s health and sexual wellbeing products. This has real implications for women. It can seriously impact the reach of content online, reducing access to potentially lifesaving information or vital support networks. It also has economic implications; research by CensHERship indicates that 64% of women’s health businesses have experienced lost revenue as a result of these types of barrier. Once there is a shadow ban, it can be very difficult to resolve and can lead to loss of revenue and other long-term issues. Social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook have failed to properly engage with the issue. There remains a lack of transparency about how shadow-banning operates. That is particularly concerning because although content around women’s menstrual and sexual health often faces removal, the same cannot be said for men’s health content and the language used to describe male bodies. We must join the calls by Essity and other campaign groups for meaningful action to change this. Cross-Government working groups to examine how platform moderation practices affect women’s access to health information, and alignment between the women’s health strategy and wider digital and online safety frameworks, can ensure that women’s access to health information is treated as a priority. Women must be allowed to own the narrative around their own bodies. It is therefore time to ban the ban.

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

  More

  Recently, I was contacted by a leading manufacturer based in my constituency, Trojan Plastics, which highlighted the findings of the Made in Group’s industrial strategy survey report 2026. It found that one in four manufacturers described their energy costs over the past 12 months as “survival threatening”. While I congratulate the Government on their excellent work on delivering clean power, may we have a statement on their plans to improve energy costs for businesses?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 732342 relating to statutory menstrual leave. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Please let me thank Michelle, who is sitting in the Public Gallery with her daughter, for creating the petition that has brought us to the debate today. I am honoured to be leading on this issue. Some may ask why a man is leading a debate on women’s health. They may think that endometriosis and adenomyosis are somewhat awkward to speak about in public and that such women’s issues should be reserved for conversations behind closed doors, out of earshot of embarrassed male peers, but that is exactly why we are here today—because women’s health is not just a women’s issue. It is a workplace issue, an economic issue and, importantly, an equality issue. Endometriosis and adenomyosis are conditions that cause chronic pain as a result of the excess growth of tissue similar to the lining of the womb in areas outside the womb. That results in a range of symptoms, from inflammation to severe pain, fatigue and in some cases infertility. These can be cyclical conditions, with some women feeling disabled for one week a month. Conversely, others experience such pain almost constantly. In the UK, 1.5 million women suffer from endometriosis, and 40% of them suffer additionally with adenomyosis. Both conditions have significant impacts on educational engagement and workplace participation, productivity and progression. Combined, they cost the UK economy more than £8 billion a year. That includes health costs and, of course, loss of work. However, it is crucial to understand that the loss of time in the workplace has not just economic ramifications. Not being able to go to work can impact one’s self-esteem and individual identity. Twenty-three per cent of women have taken time off work because of period health issues, and one in six with endometriosis leaves the workplace entirely, because of their condition. Even following surgery, many women feel pressured to return to work before they have fully recovered. Despite all the impacts, only one in 10 women believes that her employer provides support for menstruation and menstrual health. Even receiving a diagnosis of endometriosis in the first place is frustratingly difficult, with the average waiting time being nine years and four months. In half of cases, patients report their symptoms to the GP 10 times or more, and 52% of patients end up visiting A&E at least once. My first awareness of endometriosis was through my wife, Leah, who lived with the condition from the age of 12 to her 30s. For Leah, obtaining a diagnosis was a long, exhausting and frustrating process. She was told numerous times to simply get on with it or to go and take a paracetamol. Like so many others, she found that her pain and struggle were constantly and continuously dismissed as heavy periods. But endometriosis meant that, as a young adult, Leah had to miss out on school. She lived 12 miles away and could not get home in time if she was having a heavy episode. For fear of embarrassment, she simply chose not to go to school, heavily impacting her education at the time. Throughout her teens, later in her 20s and even after having two children, Leah suffered the debilitating impact of endometriosis. She would often be close to fainting with the pain, but suffered in silence. Eventually we found a GP who was prepared to do something about it, and Leah was referred to a specialist. Following several procedures, her issues with endometriosis subsided. However, that is not to say that it was straightforward: unfortunately, following a partial hysterectomy, Leah suffered a significant haemorrhage at home, and it was only due to emergency surgery at our local hospital that she survived. Even after diagnosis, there are risks with treatment. Endometriosis has to be recognised as a significant and complex condition. My wife was failed by a system that lacked, and still lacks, a full understanding of the symptoms of endometriosis, and by a culture that overlooks how menstrual health can dominate and affect daily life. The Department for Work and Pensions “Keep Britain Working” initiative has been crucial in recognising the impact of health on people’s working lives. However, as many colleagues will agree, we have so much more to do. We must include menstrual health, including endometriosis and adenomyosis, in both existing and future agendas, reaffirming the importance of women’s health in the workplace. To do so, we must challenge the related stigma and reflect on policy. To challenge the stigma, we must strive to understand that endometriosis and adenomyosis are systemic, chronic health conditions that can derail somebody’s life. The lack of awareness of that fact, combined with a taboo surrounding menstrual health, accentuates the suffering of patients, making them feel as though they have nowhere to turn and no shoulder to lean on. With other conditions that affect a similar number of women, such as type 2 diabetes, no such taboo or silence exists. There is a positive acceptance and understanding of the difficulties faced by those with type 2 diabetes—and rightly so. We must replicate that acceptance and understanding in our attitude towards menstrual health. Following conversations with Endometriosis UK, I support the expansion of the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme and the national workplace endometriosis and adenomyosis pledge, which allow businesses to commit to employer action plans that promote open dialogue, training and understanding of these health issues. Incorporating seemingly little things—such as toilet access, break rotations or even the size ranges of uniforms —into a national framework of practical workplace adjustments can greatly improve the workplace experience of menstrual health, including endometriosis and adenomyosis. As Dr Jasmine Hearn and her colleagues at Manchester Metropolitan University highlight, improving awareness and tackling stigma in this way are key to ensuring justice for women with menstrual health concerns. However, as stated earlier, only one in 10 women believe that their organisation provides support for menstruation and menstrual health conditions. We must increase that number dramatically, and the promotion of the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme is a powerful means to do so. However, a change in culture alone is not enough; weusb need concrete policy to ensure that workplace accommodation is legally binding. This is where statutory menstrual leave could play a vital role. The Employment Rights Act 2025 ensures that large employers must publish gender equality action plans—a great step in the right direction—but it stops short of directly mentioning reproductive or menstrual health. The Act has made significant progress in supporting menopausal health in the workplace, but we must now expand this to menstrual health more broadly, including endometriosis and adenomyosis. An option would be to give those diagnosed a legal entitlement like that in Portugal, where up to three days of leave per month is permitted. Here, a diagnosis would allow women the flexibility and legal right to have time off work when they are suffering most. It is important, however, to recognise that endometriosis, adenomyosis and menstrual healthcare are vastly nuanced. A single catch-all policy to address the workplace experience could risk overlooking such complexity with menstrual and reproductive health. We must also recognise that getting a diagnosis in the first place is still a major issue with endometriosis and adenomyosis. Again, the average diagnosis takes nine years and four months, meaning that only 15% of those with endometriosis symptoms have the formal diagnosis that would allow them access to such statutory menstrual leave. For statutory menstrual leave to work as the petition intends, we must match it with significant improvements in early intervention, diagnosis and GP training on symptoms. This debate marks an opportunity to help ensure that the impact of these conditions on women’s health is no longer ignored. There is an argument for statutory menstrual leave, and for it to sit alongside wider measures that foster awareness and an understanding mindset. We must also challenge the stigma around women’s health by breaking taboos and championing justice for those who, all too often, suffer in silence. Michelle told me that the petition is not about her; it is about her daughter and all those who will have to battle endometriosis and adenomyosis in the future. By challenging the stigma and reflecting on policy, we can champion the employment rights of those with menstrual and reproductive health complications today and in the future, effecting transformative changes to many people’s lives. I thank everybody for attending this debate, and I look forward to hearing Members’ views.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I thank Michelle. She has been referred to a number of times; without her, the debate would not be happening. I thank her for driving the petition; it has facilitated an excellent debate. It has certainly been humbling to listen to hon. Members talk about their lived experiences. I was fortunate that Leah allowed me to tell her story, and it is her story. Many Members said quite difficult things, and it very clearly demonstrates the need for change. There is no question whatsoever: the status quo is not acceptable. It is not just something that is nice to have; it is absolutely key—it is essential—to ensure that we improve women’s lives—and young girls’ lives as well, because they are going through this. This is not just about somebody in their 20s, 30s or 40s: it impacts them, obviously, but this is about some of our young people as well. This is also very much about equality. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) referred to the difference in men’s health research—Viagra was a good example. That is not to diminish the needs around that but, when you compare that with the work in this area, it is about equality of treatment in our healthcare systems, in the views about what we should be doing and in the workplace. We have covered that in quite great depth. It amazes me that the taboo and stigma around menstrual health still exists; I find that beyond my comprehension. We have two daughters, and that was never the case in our house whatsoever. In fact, I was given the orders to go and get the tampons and the various products—I would be ringing from the supermarket and asking, “Which ones do you need now? Is it the blue or the black box?” We need to be having those open discussions. Men need to start talking openly about this. This is not some dirty secret; this is normal and natural, and we should celebrate it because, as hon. Members have said, none of us would be here otherwise, would we? Diagnosis is crucial, which has been raised time and again. That is the case with so many issues, but with this one it is even more stark. I have spoken, like many Members, about cancer diagnosis; this far outstrips that issue. An average wait of nine years and four months is absolutely incredible and unacceptable. We have to change that. Research into treatment needs to take place. Too many easy decisions are being made, saying it is about hysterectomies and so on. From what I understand, I do not believe that enough research has been taken around treatment. Sometimes, procedures that impact a woman’s life very intensely are followed when they may not be needed. I thank Michelle again—we will have to keep thanking her, over and over. I hope that, from her perspective, this debate has helped expose some of the issues. I know the debate will continue and, as the Minister says, the messages will go to the Government. I will finish with a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central that is so powerful: periods are not painful; it is not normal. We need to put that up in blazing lights. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 732342 relating to statutory menstrual leave.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. The recent real-life drama “Dirty Business” highlighted the scale of the issues within the water industry. In my constituency, Yorkshire Water has had serious issues with sewage outflows and poor standards of infrastructure. I welcome the Government’s water reforms, which will protect customers. However, does the Secretary of State agree that we now need to consider public ownership of the water industry in order to resolve the fundamental problems it faces?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. NHS waiting list numbers are down by 374,000 thanks to this Government. Reform UK would take us back to the day when decent healthcare was only for people who could afford it. Innovation needs to be at the heart of our health service as we strive for better patient care. Does the Prime Minister agree that the partnership between Huddersfield Royal infirmary and the Huddersfield University health innovation centre is a great example of that? How do the Government intend to expand the brilliant health innovation centre model nationally?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. In my constituency, Co-operative Care Colne Valley is testament to the value and importance of co-operatives. It delivers ethical, not-for-profit home care services for the disabled and elderly. The group’s community ownership and local empowerment demonstrates the value of co-operatives. Will the Minister advise me what steps her Department is taking to drive the growth of co-operatives across our communities?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Smashed Live, an educational programme delivered by Collingwood Learning, which is based in Holmfirth, teaches young people to think critically about the dangers of under-age drinking. It was recently performed at Honley high school in my constituency. Given that, by the age of 15, 62% of pupils in England will have had an alcoholic drink, will the Leader of the House please consider dedicating time to a debate on the importance of early education about alcohol?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  Each year, around 13,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with a primary brain tumour, including 900 children and young people. Despite that scale, progress in survival rates has lagged behind other cancers. Just 13% of adults survive five years after a high grade diagnosis, and brain tumours remain the leading cancer killer for children and adults under 40. I recently spoke with one of my constituents in Colne Valley whose husband was diagnosed with two brain tumours earlier this year. He now faces a long period of recovery to relearn many of the day-to-day functions that most of us take for granted. His courage and their campaign highlight the urgent need for renewed investment in brain tumour research, treatment and care, so that everyone affected has the best chance at life. Brain tumour research currently receives just 1% of the total UK cancer research funding. I therefore welcome the Government’s national cancer plan as a vital step forward, particularly the £13.7 million investment in the NIHR Brain Tumour Research Consortium, which will accelerate much-needed innovation. I am also encouraged by the commitment to implement the provisions of the Rare Cancers Bill, which will expand the access to clinical trials. Brain tumour patients must fully benefit from these measures. They face the lowest clinical trial recruitment rates of any cancer type, with the Brain Tumour Charity reporting that just 12% of patients have taken part. Too often, it is the distance from specialist cancer centres that stands in the way. Investment in research must therefore stand hand in hand with improved access, because postcode should never determine the support patients receive. Palliative care, too, must be integral to our strategy. I have seen first-hand, through the remarkable work of the hospices serving my constituents, the difference it can make. By helping patients manage physical and emotional side-effects, supporting physical activity where possible, and caring for families and loved ones who are also affected, palliative care can offer life-extending support for those with brain tumours. I echo the calls for a renewed effort to tackle the devastatingly low survival rates for brain tumours. Through greater investment in research, better access to innovative treatments and stronger support for those living with the disease, we can give every person facing a brain tumour the best possible chance—the same chance I had when I was diagnosed with colon cancer, which was curable through the appropriate treatment I received by some amazing clinicians.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that Parliament is sovereign when it comes to the legislative framework of this country. With that in mind, I would appreciate his views on the actions of a small number of unelected Members of the Lords who are blocking the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill rather than seeking to improve it. Can we have a debate in Government time on how the reputation of our parliamentary democracy can be protected in the face of such actions?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  We face a serious skills gap in the construction sector. Colleges across the country are doing fantastic work to help solve this issue. In my constituency, Kirklees college is a testament to the value of such institutions. I welcome the Government’s commitment to train 60,000 more skilled workers by 2029, but can we have a statement from the Government on the steps that they are taking to support institutions such as Kirklees college to meet the high demand for places and close the skills gap?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps he is taking to support the roll-out of youth hubs.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met with James Boyle, who runs Longwood FC, a grassroots football club for young people in my constituency. Longwood FC has had a really positive impact on the mental health and physical wellbeing of the young people involved, and is a great example of community-led youth engagement. I commend the Government for their investment in such youth engagement through youth hubs across the country. Can the Minister confirm the timetable for the roll-out of youth hubs in my constituency?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met volunteers from the Yorkshire Air Ambulance charity, which provides a lifesaving emergency service to 5 million people across our region. Last year, it completed an average of five missions a day, which is an outstanding achievement. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the charity on its valiant work, and can we have a debate in Government time on how we can secure the future of such services?