Rebecca Long Bailey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  The whole House is appalled by the neglect, contempt, and sheer trauma that these families have faced. I commend their strength and the strength of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), but these themes are chillingly all too familiar. The Secretary of State will be aware that NHS England has taken enforcement action against the Northern Care Alliance in recent weeks over multiple safety concerns. Indeed, staff and I raised serious safety concerns relating to the gynaecology department directly with the trust as far back as last year, demanding urgent action, but little happened. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss these issues, and will he outline what action he will now take to ensure that patient safety, adequate resourcing and safe staffing levels are urgently addressed at the trust?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State’s dedication to trusted news and promoting public service media is really welcome, but I am sure she shares my concerns that this will be dramatically undermined by the recent announcements of brutal cuts at STV and the BBC, as thousands of jobs and programmes are at risk of being lost. Will she urgently intervene to project jobs and the future of public service media?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as always, a pleasure, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall and for his excellent speech. I agreed with all the speeches made by colleagues today, and I do not get to say that very often. We have had some fantastic contributions. For too long, the UK has been seen not only as a victim of illicit finance, but a destination for it. Dirty money has flowed through property markets, financial institutions and networks of shell companies. We have seen widespread tax avoidance while ordinary working people continue to do the right thing and pay their taxes every month. People look at that imbalance and ask an important question: why is it that those who play by the rules are expected to shoulder the burden while others are able to hide wealth behind secrecy and weak enforcement? Every pound lost is a pound that cannot be invested in our NHS, schools, social care system and local communities. It is money that cannot be used to recruit nurses, support teachers, improve public transport or rebuild the local services that people rely on every day. Illicit finance does not simply deprive us of important public revenue; it actively reshapes our economy in very damaging ways. Nowhere is that more visible than in the housing market. Vast quantities of suspect wealth have flowed into UK property. We have already heard about million-pound mansions in Kensington, but it extends as far as entire new apartment blocks being bought by foreign investors in shell companies, with no notion of who they are and why they are investing here in the UK. It is a vehicle within which wealth can be stored and concealed rather than places for people to live. The result is higher prices, reduced affordability and a market that too often rewards speculation over social need. That is why transparency—an important word that has come up today—must be at the heart of our response as a Government and this upcoming summit. No individual should be able to own property in the United Kingdom without their ultimate beneficial ownership being disclosed, verified and recorded on a public register. If ownership cannot be established transparently, that asset should not be capable of being bought, sold or transferred within the UK market. I agree with colleagues’ comments on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I do not want to reiterate their arguments, but our Government must establish a fully public and independently verified register of beneficial ownership covering all UK land and property, including assets held through trusts and nominee arrangements. Companies House must be transformed from a passive registrar into an active gatekeeper with the powers and resources necessary to verify company directors, beneficial owners and corporate filings before companies can operate within our economy. The Land Registry, Companies House and the National Crime Agency should be given stronger powers to investigate opaque ownership structures and pursue wrongdoing wherever it occurs. We know, however, that rules are not enough; enforcement matters too. Agencies tasked with tackling economic crime remain significantly outmatched by and under-resourced for the scale of the challenge they face. Long-term investment is desperately needed in specialist law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Such investment could be funded in part, perhaps, through stronger economic crime levies on major financial institutions, asset recovery and financial penalties. We should also expand the use of unexplained wealth orders and remove the legal cost barriers that have too often discouraged their use. We must also confront those who enable financial wrongdoing. The vast majority of lawyers—I was one—accountants and financial professionals act responsibly but, if individuals facilitate illicit activity, there must be meaningful consequences. Equally, we need stronger legislation against SLAPP—strategic lawsuits against public participation—to protect journalists, researchers and campaigners who, in the public interest, expose corruption and financial misconduct. Illicit finance does not respect national borders, so the UK must lead international efforts to improve transparency, tackle offshore secrecy and strengthen co-operation between Governments, regulators and law enforcement agencies. This issue is ultimately about the kind of country that we want to be. Do we accept an economy where secrecy, wealth and influence can buy special treatment, or do we believe that everyone should contribute fairly to the society from which they benefit? I know that everybody in this room sees society in the same way that I do, because most people understand that very simple principle. When everyone pays their fair share, we can properly fund the public services that bind us together and invest in the future of our communities.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows that for decades shareholder returns have been prioritised over consumers, the environment and infrastructure investment, and when the companies ultimately fail, it is taxpayers who have to underwrite them. Given that all the empirical research shows that public ownership would lower financing costs and bills, improve accountability and pay for itself within seven years, why on earth are the Government still prepared to socialise the risks rather than bring water back into public ownership?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Cuba: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  US secondary sanctions on Cuba arguably represent a clear breach of international law. What representations have the UK Government made to the US about that, in the same way they did with regard to Greenland?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s comments, but she will know that youth charities have described knife crime as a public health issue linked to cuts in youth services. Will she therefore outline how this strategy addresses those structural drivers in areas that will not receive one of the 50 Young Futures hubs, including access to youth provision, mental health support and family services? Will she meet me to discuss how the brilliant Salford Youth Zone can play its part in the Government’s strategy and receive the additional resources that it needs to deliver the Government’s plans?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Nuclear Test Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  I almost unable to be here today, because my mum, Una, has been critically ill in hospital. If you will indulge me for a few seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank from the bottom of my heart the paramedics and respiratory nurses who saved my mum’s life on Friday night, and the team at the Countess of Chester hospital, who have been working around the clock to make her stable and give us the gift of a bit more time with her. She is now doing really well and is stable. She is watching this debate on her laptop, which my husband has managed to set up for her, and she told me last night that I had better get down here and do this debate—or else. Like most of the public, she is deeply angry about this issue, and she is right to be angry. It is one of the biggest scandals of our generation, involving decades of suffering, unimaginable loss and, ultimately, injustice inflicted on our own servicemen, their families and the communities affected by Britain’s nuclear testing programme. I expressly thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—he has done far more than most—for his years of work and support on this issue, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest for his relentless work in the other place, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), and so many other supportive Members who are here today. I also thank the nuclear test veterans campaign team: Alan Owen and LABRATS, John Morris and his lovely family, Steve Purse and his mum, and, most of all, journalist Susie Boniface, who has been relentless in her search for truth and justice. She has never wavered and never given up, and it is because of her groundbreaking search for the truth that I am standing here today to tell the House about the pivotal information that she has recently uncovered. I thank the Minister and the Defence Secretary for their work and support on this issue so far, and I hope that Susie’s recent work will now act as the catalyst for urgent Government action. I also thank Mr Speaker for granting this important debate; I know that he has long supported the nuclear test veterans. Given the gravity of the recent developments that I am about to outline, I hope that he will look favourably on the request of my friend, the right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings, for a longer debate on this issue. So many Members have contacted us both in the past few days to say that they want to represent their constituents on this very important issue.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Nuclear Test Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of her own party on this issue and I thank her for her work in this House. She is right. The veterans are not asking for special treatment; they are just asking for the truth and for justice. Many of these men, if they are lucky enough to still be alive, are in their 80s. Time is running out for them and they need justice now. That is why it is so important to have the urgent one-year inquiry. I will return to that point later. I want us to look at the lived reality for those servicemen at Christmas Island. The men fished daily—that is known. They ate that fish, sometimes every day. They drank desalinated water drawn from a marine environment now known to have been contaminated. They worked in extreme heat, increasing their intake of water and food—as we do, when we get hot—and therefore increasing the pathways through which radioactive material could enter their bodies. This is the critical point: ingested radiation is not the same as background exposure. It does not simply pass by. It lodges deep within the body. It decays slowly. It damages tissue. It alters DNA. Governments over the years have long relied on averages and on comparisons to natural background radiation, sunlight or medical imaging, but those comparisons are fundamentally flawed. You can step out of sunlight if it is too hot. You can leave a room that has radon gas in it. You can decline a medical scan if you are worried about it. But you cannot remove radioactive particles that have been ingested and embedded deep within your body. That distinction matters, but it has been completely ignored over the years. What is equally troubling is not just the existence of this data, which has been around for decades, but the pattern of its concealment. This information could have been disclosed at multiple points: in the 1950s, during the inquests into early deaths; in the 1980s, when public concern first intensified; in the 1990 and 1993 reports; in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights; in High Court cases; in pension appeals; and as recently as 2024, when veterans sought access to their medical records. At every stage, the same narrative was maintained. At every stage, the data was absent. The 2014 report itself warned that the information could “challenge the validity of statements” made by the Government and could potentially overturn previous judicial decisions. And yet instead of coming clean and that information being published, it was buried. We have got to ask ourselves, why? Why was a report that raised “reasonable doubt” not disclosed to the very people whose lives depended on its findings? Why were veterans denied access to information that could have supported their claims for justice and compensation? Why were the courts allowed to rely on evidence that we now know to be fundamentally flawed? These are not abstract questions—they go right to the heart of trust between the state and those who serve it. The men and women in uniform sent to carry out dangerous duties do so on the understanding that their Government will act with honesty, transparency and integrity. That trust has been broken, and we now have a duty—not just a moral duty, but a political and legal duty—to put this right. Let me be clear about what the Government must do next. First, there must be a full, independent public inquiry into the handling of radiation data from the nuclear testing programme—not a limited review or an internal investigation, but a full inquiry with the power to compel evidence and testimony. Secondly, all relevant documents must be declassified and placed in the public domain—no more partial disclosures and work in progress justifications; the public interest in transparency far outweighs any institutional discomfort. Thirdly, there must be a comprehensive review of all past legal cases and pension decisions that relied on the 1990 and 1993 reports. Where decisions were made on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate evidence, they must be revisited. Fourthly, and most importantly, there must be a fair and just compensation scheme for nuclear testing veterans and their families.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Nuclear Test Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is spot-on. I often refer to him as my partner in crime on this issue and a number of other issues in this House. It definitely demonstrates Parliament working at its very best when we come together on these injustices and fight for those who have been affected by them. He is spot-on that we need a longer debate in this House on this important issue. The information I will talk about is a turning point—it is pivotal—and it should spur the Government into taking the necessary action to compensate the victims of this scandal and give them the inquiry they so much deserve. At best, there has been a systemic failure over the years, and at worst, there has been a cover-up, but now is the time to implement a full inquiry and uncover the real truth. For 70 years, Governments of all colours and successive Administrations, through the Ministry of Defence and the Atomic Weapons Establishment, have maintained the single consistent line that radiation exposure at Christmas Island was negligible; any contamination was minimal, contained and harmless; and those who served there were not placed at any meaningful risk.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Nuclear Test Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises another very important issue that goes to the heart of today’s debate. The point is that the Government need to be in a good place on this; they need to acknowledge that mistakes were made historically, and to restore faith to all servicemen and women who put their lives at risk on a daily basis to keep us safe that, where it is found that their lives have been put at risk by the actions of the Government themselves, that will be made right, and they will get the support and care that they deserve. Hopefully that will be at the heart of the Minister’s response. Finally, I have a number of brief questions for the Minister in relation to the 2014 report. First, on what date did the Atomic Weapons Establishment tell the Ministry of Defence of the report’s existence? Was the document ever produced to any judge? What steps are the Government now taking to inform the judges and courts concerned, and to inform war pensions in the future? In the past six months, what impact assessments have been produced by the AWE or Ministry of Defence about costs, compensation and the number of people affected? What efforts have the AWE or the Ministry of Defence made to bring in the authors of the report, both of whom have since left the AWE, to discuss their findings? Who at the Ministry of Defence knew of the report at the time it was drafted, and did any Ministers know of the report? What steps are the Government taking to look at the Athena database at Porton Down, which has confirmed it holds information relevant to nuclear veterans’ service and which has provided heavily redacted disclosures to freedom of information requests? What steps are under way in locating the research on radiation effects on UK service personnel, which the Ministry of Defence has confirmed is held by Technical Co-operation Programme, in an “allied country”? When will the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister sit down with nuclear veterans and discuss their offer of a one-year special inquiry with capped costs to limit both the time and expense of ending this cover-up once and for all? Finally, on the Hillsborough law, can the Minister confirm that no information relating to nuclear testing veterans will be hidden behind national security concerns? For too long, nuclear testing veterans have been forced to fight for recognition. For too long, they have been told there is no evidence to support their claims. For too long, they have had to carry the burden of proof themselves, when it is the state that held the evidence all along. That injustice cannot continue. We are the only nuclear power in the world not to compensate our nuclear testing veterans for their suffering. This is not about rewriting history; it is about acknowledging it. It is about recognising that mistakes were made—serious mistakes—and those mistakes were compounded by decades of denial; it is about ensuring that those who serve this country are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve; and it is about restoring faith in our institutions by demonstrating that, when confronted with the truth, we are willing to act on it. The veterans and their families are not asking for special treatment. All they are asking for is fairness, honesty and justice. After 70 years, that is the very least we owe them.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Nuclear Test Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  I express my full respect for my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I can only imagine what he suffered. Even the tales of people serving on Christmas Island seeing the bones in their hands would have a considerable psychological effect on them for the rest of their life, but it is what these men and their families suffered when they came home that was so brutal and so disturbing. The men knew that they were exposed to radiation. Studies have shown that they were subjected to the same level of radiation as the clean-up workers at Chernobyl. They suffered cancer after cancer, and many of them died young. Those who were lucky enough to live longer faced miscarriages and a raft of medical problems. Worse, many of their children were born with defects or health issues due to the altered DNA. Today we know that the claim that these men suffered no risk is wrong. That has been fundamentally undermined, thanks, as I have said, to Susie Boniface’s groundbreaking work. A previously undisclosed 2014 Atomic Weapons Establishment report, which was released only in February this year after months of resistance, reveals that radiation was in fact present across inhabited areas of Christmas Island. It was not just in isolated, uninhabited zones and not just in trace amounts, but in the sea, the fish, the lagoons, near water sources and, crucially, in the main camp where British personnel lived and worked. Let me be clear about what this means: for decades, the veterans were told that no fallout had been recorded. Families grieving the loss of loved ones—young men such as Sapper Billy Morris, who died from leukaemia at just 18—were told that there was no link. The courts were told the same, Parliament was told the same and the public were told the same, but this data reveals a very different story. It shows elevated radiation levels in fish of up to seven times the background levels by some measures. It shows contamination in the very food that servicemen were eating regularly. It shows that drinking water sources were potentially exposed. It shows that monitoring systems were incomplete, inconsistent and, in some cases, entirely absent. Most damning of all, it shows that many of those living and working in these areas were not even issued with film badges to measure their exposure. When Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box over the years and reassured the House that doses were indistinguishable from background radiation, what exactly were those reassurances based on, because the data was there? The authors of the 2014 report are unequivocal: the earlier reports from 1990 and 1993—the very documents relied on in court cases and for pension claims—were incomplete and inaccurate. They were incomplete and inaccurate, yet they were used as the very foundation for denying these men and their families justice. This is not just a technical discrepancy or a minor administrative oversight; at best, it is a systemic failure, but at worst, it is a cover-up.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Nuclear Test Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work and for his support of the Hillsborough law campaign over the years. He has done an inordinate amount of work to try to make justice for the victims a reality, and I know he continues that work on a daily basis. He is right: injustice is injustice. For that injustice to be rectified, we need full transparency. There cannot be any carve-outs of sensitive information or otherwise as part of the Hillsborough law, because that denies justice to those who need it most.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Nuclear Test Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  My mum will be very excited that my right hon. Friend has sent her his love—there will be pandemonium on ward 47 at the moment, I can tell you. My right hon. Friend is right: there are certainly urgent issues that the Government must consider today, but beyond today, and beyond issuing an urgent and fast compensation scheme, a one-year inquiry and the other points I have referenced, there must also be a wider research project into the impact of the radiation on the descendants and the support they have needed from Governments over the years, because they have been completely neglected so far. We know from our constituency surgeries about the effects that have been felt right within families; it is quite upsetting and harrowing sometimes to hear those stories and to hear that they have received very little Government recognition for what they have suffered.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  The situation at Royal Mail is a systemic failure, from imposed revisions to delivery offices, to a toxic managerial culture and a recruitment model built on low pay and insecure conditions. The optimised delivery model has failed but Royal Mail is pressing ahead with it regardless, despite the workforce’s suggestions that offer a more viable way forward. There is the underlying resource crisis; since 2022, new entrants have been offered wages barely above the legal minimum, with fewer hours and diminished terms and conditions. The results are stark: thousands are leaving the job. There is regulatory imbalance in the sector, as we have heard, and it cannot be right that companies like Amazon can benefit from national delivery infrastructure without paying a single penny towards it. The proposal for a USO network fund, requiring all operators to contribute, needs to be taken forward. That is not only fair but essential. Finally, I must address the conduct of the new owner, EP Group. Commitments made to workers have not been honoured. That breach of trust undermines confidence and raises serious questions about the company’s long-term intentions.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Minister’s comments today, but he will understand the huge level of concern regarding the prospect of profiteering in not just the heating sector, but the wider energy sector, and its impact on the grocery sector at large. Indeed, the National Farmers Union has reported in recent days that it is concerned about potential profiteering in the fuel sector and the fertiliser sector. Will the Minister outline what action the Government are taking beyond instigating reviews at the level of the CMA to ensure that our constituents are protected from any profiteering?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is abominable, but it is clear that the initial joint strikes on Iran were neither defensive nor lawful. As the situation dangerously escalates, hundreds of innocent civilians are now dead across the middle east and UK personnel and citizens are at risk. The Prime Minister has outlined that his aim is a negotiated settlement. Will he outline the tangible action that he and his international counterparts are taking now to secure a ceasefire so that negotiations can resume?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate. One Salford graduate who borrowed just over £41,000 graduated in 2018 owing more than £47,000 because interest had accrued while they were still studying. After eight years of repayments and nearly £20,000 paid back, their balance is now significantly higher than it was when they graduated. Another graduate told me they owed £59,000 in 2020; that has now increased to more than £75,000, despite steady monthly repayments. That is not how people understand a loan to function and many borrowers were never properly warned that Governments could retrospectively alter key repayment terms. The requests from campaigners are reasonable: reverse the repayment threshold freeze, tackle the unfair interest rate metrics and protect against retrospective changes. Those are not radical requests; they restore trust. We must understand that the marketisation of higher education has failed. We must reform the loans system, but we must ensure that our ultimate goal is more ambitious. We should abolish tuition fees and replace them with a sustainable, publicly funded model for higher education and university research, providing long-term stability for institutions and genuine opportunities for students, regardless of background.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I speak in support of new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), me and others, and I will try to be as brief as I can. Scrapping the two-child limit in full remains the single most impactful step we can take to reduce child poverty, and will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030. When combined with other measures in the child poverty strategy, more than 550,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the decade. Some Members of this House have said, “How can the country justify this multibillion-pound spend?” It is around £3 billion a year, but child poverty costs the UK economy £39 billion annually—more than 10 times as much. That £39 billion reflects poorer health, lower educational attainment, increased pressure on public services and lost economic potential. Investing £3 billion to reduce a £39 billion problem is not reckless spending; it is a highly targeted, cost-effective investment with long-term returns. It is preventive policy at its very best. Other Members have asked why taxpayers should support larger families. Well, the honest truth is that only a very small number of families have more than four children, and almost all are working hard to provide for them. The two-child limit has had no measurable impact on family planning and has not influenced fertility rates; it simply punishes children who are already here. Every child, regardless of birth order, deserves enough food, a safe home and a fair start in life. When children are supported to thrive, they do better in school, stay healthier and contribute more fully as adults, and that benefits all of us. Those who argue that support should not go to families out of work should remember that six in 10 children affected by the two-child limit live in households where at least one parent works, and those families are taxpayers too. As my mum says, there but for the grace of God go I. A crisis can happen in an instant at any moment, and bereavement, illness, redundancy or family breakdown can push any household into temporary reliance on universal credit. A humane and flexible social security system exists to provide stability in those moments of crisis. I urge all Members to support the passage of the Bill today, but it must be just the start and we must go further. Alongside scrapping the two-child limit, we have to address the wider benefit cap, which was introduced in 2013. It has bored down on the backs of many families like a rucksack full of lead. Organisations including the Child Poverty Action Group, the End Child Poverty Coalition, Save the Children UK, the Children’s Society, Barnardo’s, Action for Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have all highlighted the damaging impact of the overall cap. It places arbitrary ceilings on support, regardless of rent levels, local costs or family size. It disproportionately affects single parents—overwhelmingly women—and families in high-cost areas. It drives rent arrears, temporary accommodation and homelessness, and the evidence is clear that it does not meaningfully increase employment; it increases hardship. If we are serious about tackling structural poverty, we cannot remove one barrier while leaving another firmly in place. Lifting the overall benefit cap would complement the removal of the two-child limit, ensuring that the gains we make today are not clawed back through arbitrary ceilings that fail to reflect real living costs. I applaud the Government for scrapping the two-child cap, which is the right thing to do, but I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances that his next step will be to look at lifting the benefit cap.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  I am the chair of the NUJ parliamentary group, which has long campaigned for press freedom, usually in relation to authoritarian regimes, but it seems that the surveillance and political intimidation of journalists is a threat much closer to home. As we have heard, that threat is not being adequately investigated, so will the Minister agree with the NUJ, me and other colleagues that we need an urgent, independent and transparent inquiry into the activities of Labour Together and APCO, and that we need stronger legislation to prevent the corporate surveillance of journalists?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but I want everybody to have time to speak. Worse still, the changes would apply retrospectively. Nurses, social care staff and council workers who came here under one set of rules would suddenly find the goalposts moved or, worse, find they could be deported due to harsher income thresholds, with their public sector employers unable to meet the increased salary requirements and their colleagues left behind, stressed and overworked. Even after gaining indefinite leave to remain, people would have no recourse to public funds—settled in name, but excluded in reality. For women fleeing domestic abuse, disabled people, and the LGBT communities, the impact will be cruel and profound. The problems reach beyond skilled worker routes. Charities and clinicians in the asylum system warn that prolonged insecurity deepens trauma and drives people into destitution. Earlier access to work, settlement and citizenship improves outcomes for individuals and the communities they join. A humane asylum system, with safe routes and timely decisions, is not an act of charity, but an investment in social cohesion. Another community unfairly affected is the British national overseas visa holders from Hong Kong. For them, the five-year path to settlement must be protected and made permanent. Retrospective rule changes or excessive salary thresholds and language barriers would simply betray the commitment that this country made to people seeking safety and freedom. Children born here should have automatic and secure status, not years of uncertainty. I urge the Minister to stand for dignity, fairness and humanity. Retain the five-year route to settlement, end retrospective changes, protect refugees and BNO families, reform skilled worker visas so that they prevent exploitation rather than enable it, and above all, recognise the simple truth that those who care for Britain are part of Britain.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  There are few people who are opposed to a robust and fair immigration system, but sadly these plans are not that. They would rip up the promise on which people built their lives. For workers who were asked to come here to fill skills gaps in our public services and industries, the route to settlement would double from five years to 10. Lower-paid public service workers could be forced to wait 15 years, longer than the new standard, while those earning six-figure salaries are offered a fast track of three years. It is contribution measured by wages, rather than care given, lives saved or children taught.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. Police officers in Greater Manchester are facing exceptional pressures as they work to keep our communities safe from horrific terror threats, hate crime, organised crime and regular mass protests. Despite that, Greater Manchester police received the second lowest percentage funding increase of any police force under the provisional settlement, leaving it £12 million worse off. I know that the Prime Minister will share my concerns, so will he urgently work with the Greater Manchester Mayor, the deputy mayor, myself and Greater Manchester MPs to ensure that GMP has the funding it truly needs to keep our communities safe?

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chair of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. Many colleagues have made the point about fair funding. It is critical. Ultimately, the BBC must remain universal and it must serve everyone. That means no subscription model, no two-tier system and no paywalls locking people out of so-called premium content. Public service broadcasting works only when it is genuinely public, and that universality must be protected through a funding model that is fair, sufficient and free from political interference. It is clear that sustained cuts and closed-door licence fee freezes have weakened that principle, and that has to end. The BBC has experienced 14 years of sustained real-term cuts—a 30% reduction in its funding—lost experienced journalists, hollowed out training and stretched its workforce to breaking point. It is no surprise that mistakes are more likely when journalists are overburdened and under-resourced; we cannot demand world-class journalism on a shrinking budget. Nowhere are the consequences of cuts clearer than in regional and local news. Cuts to BBC local radio have stripped many communities of genuinely local programming, and that has particularly affected older audiences, disabled people and ethnic minority communities, who rely most on trusted news. These damaging cuts should be reversed, with renewed investment in live local radio and digital journalism in news deserts where no other local provision exists. The same principle of proper funding applies globally. The World Service is one of the UK’s greatest assets, reaching hundreds of millions of people across more than 40 languages. It presents us to the world. In a world where journalists are threatened and independent media is silenced, the World Service provides trusted, impartial information, yet repeated rounds of cuts have reduced its reach and handed ground to state-backed outlets from authoritarian regimes. Long-term, secure funding for the World Service is firmly in the national interest and must be restored. Finally, the BBC is a powerhouse of creativity and economic growth, and nowhere demonstrates that better than Salford. The BBC’s presence there has transformed the city and the wider north-west economically and socially, creating skilled jobs, anchoring creative clusters and proving that world-class broadcasting does not have to be London-centric or the preserve of a wealthy elite. Media City shows what public investment can achieve, and weakening the BBC would weaken Salford and the wider creative and media investment we have seen in the north-west in recent years. That must not be allowed to happen.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Kashmir: Self-determination · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend speaks with great moral clarity. Does he agree that, given that the matter has been decided by the UN, lasting peace in the region cannot be achieved without dialogue that includes the voices and aspirations of the people of Kashmir themselves?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for all their hard work in getting us to this point. I recognise the thousands of rail staff who keep our network moving every single day. Their skill, dedication and professionalism were impossible to miss during the pandemic, and once again during the recent tragedy in Huntingdon, when workers ran towards danger to protect others. If we are serious about creating a world-class rail system, then those workers must be at the centre of it. A unified, publicly owned railway will be simpler, safer and more efficient. It will reverse the legacy of privatisation, which carved up the industry and prioritised share dividends over people and service quality. The Bill is great, but I have some fundamental issues that need to be ironed out as the Bill makes its way through the House. If Great British Railways is genuinely being built from dozens of separate organisations, then we need a clear description of its structure. We need clarity on who will actually employ all the people who keep our railways running. More than 100,000 workers are employed by Network Rail and the train operating companies; tens of thousands more jobs are outsourced to security firms, cleaning contractors, catering companies and agencies supplying infrastructure labour. Many of those workers are on insecure, zero-hour terms. Altogether, well over 150,000 people form Britain’s rail workforce, yet sadly those workers cannot say who their future employer will be, what will happen to their pension, or how they might transfer into the new organisation. Although today is a great day, that uncertainty is not fair on them, and it undermines the stability and confidence that the new system needs from day one. We need to see some detail on how workers and their unions will be given a voice. Other public transport bodies, such as Transport for London, Transport Scotland and Transport for Wales, have built-in mechanisms for staff representation on their boards, but Great British Railways does not have any such route. If we want an organisation that benefits from the insights and expertise of the people who operate it, that has to be put in the Bill. We must be honest that the pressures that fell on the workforce over 30 years of privatisation have left deep scars. We saw repeated attempts to hollow out staffing, driver-only operation, de-staffed stations, ticket office closures, aggressive outsourcing and the downgrading of essential roles. The Government’s “Getting Britain Moving” promised to turn the page, and to recognise staff as an asset, not a cost. It pledged to make GBR a single employer that people would be proud to join. That vision was right, but it cannot be delivered if we keep the workforce scattered across a maze of private providers. If GBR is to inherit the contracts of Network Rail and the train operating companies, we should not simply carry forward decades of outsourcing. Cleaning, security, station staff, catering and maintenance are vital parts of the railway. Bringing them back in house is not radical; it is already happening across parts of Scotland and Wales, where insourcing has improved accountability and service quality. Removing the web of contracts would cut the cost of the work that was created by privatisation. I would welcome the Secretary of State’s adopting, in a spirit of constructive partnership, the sensible and pragmatic proposals on such issues from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. They would strengthen the Bill, and help to deliver the railway that we all want to see.