Richard Foord MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 21 May 2025 · Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The hon. Member is right that pulling support from the programme is not an act of impartiality; it is an act of complicity. I am sure the State Department of the United States must have done it very reluctantly, given the professionals who work there on the programme. To summarise, a short reprieve for the programme is not enough. It must be preserved and fully funded, so that we have the evidence needed in the fullness of time to prosecute these potential war crimes.

• 21 May 2025 · Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Normally we would congratulate somebody on securing a debate, but on this occasion it is such an absolutely miserable subject that all I can say is that I am as sorry as she is about what is going on. It is ironic that yesterday at 2.30 pm in this Chamber we were debating kinship care and adoption in the UK and British Government support for that. When I first heard about Russia’s “adoption” of Ukrainian children, I wondered whether it was an exaggeration on the part of the people speaking about it, but then we look at the evidence provided and it is absolutely going on. Independent investigators at the Yale humanitarian research lab identified in March this year 314 individuals from Ukraine who had been placed in Russia’s programme of coerced fostering or adoption. It describes in great detail the circumstances of those 314 children, but the scale is much greater than that. Russia’s children’s commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, has boasted that 700,000 Ukrainian children have been “accepted” into Russia since the war began. Those children are being re-educated in an effort to assimilate them into Russian society. There are at least 57 re-education camps spread across Russian-occupied Ukraine, Belarus and Russia proper. This is an attempt to eradicate the national identity of Ukrainian children. Videos show children riding around on Belarusian tanks, in body armour and holding rifles. Reports suggest that the children are subjected to psychological coercion, denied their language and indoctrinated with Russian nationalist propaganda. Belarusian President Lukashenko has personally endorsed this so-called “humanitarian project”. Of the nearly 20,000 children recorded as having been taken, little more than 1,000—just 7%—have been recovered. Maria Lvova-Belova is subject to an international arrest warrant, as is President Putin, in relation to this alleged war crime, yet she can be seen on state television describing how proud she is to have adopted a Ukrainian boy from Mariupol. While the Kremlin has been escalating these abductions, the international response has fallen somewhat short and in some cases has regressed. Just a few weeks ago, the United States Government pulled funding from the conflict observatory based at Yale University. The observatory, which was compiling evidence, had forensically identified satellite imagery and biometric data. It has tracked the identities of 30,000 Ukrainian children taken and their locations. The decision by Trump’s State Department to pull funding has rightly drawn widespread criticism.

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  We heard from Ministers over the weekend that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The Prime Minister said in his statement that the deal paves the way for access to the €150 billion defence industrial programme, SAFE—Security Action for Europe. If everything has been agreed, why does the security and defence partnership not include access to the SAFE industrial programme now?

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this debate. About 3,000 children in England are adopted each year, and most have suffered severe abuse or neglect. Earlier this year, the Government left many adoptive families in limbo when they failed to confirm whether the adoption and special guardianship support fund would continue beyond 31 March. That was even the case right up to the end of March. I received a letter from my constituent Laura Blatherwick, the Devon lead for the Like Minds network, who wrote: “It is now the 22nd March and we still don’t have a decision from the Government on the continuation of the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund… In NINE DAYS the fund is due to close....New applications and top ups to existing support take MONTHS to approve. This means that already there are families not receiving the support they desperately need, and others will have a long gap in their therapy. We are very concerned about current increases to risk and recovery disruption for some of the most vulnerable children we support.” As we have heard, in the end the fund was retained, thanks in part to pressure from the Liberal Democrats and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who forced an urgent question in Parliament, but the funding available to an individual was slashed by 40% from £5,000 to £3,000. I have been in contact with two organisations in Devon that are affected by the changes: the Youth Arts and Health Trust and Family Compass. Between them, these two registered charities provide professional therapies for approximately 130 children per year. The children have experienced adoption, and their therapy has been terminated mid-process, often at very risky times in their lives. The Youth Arts and Health Trust is dipping into its limited reserves to continue to offer therapy—for free and at a cost to the charity—to some of those young people who are profoundly at risk. That therapy must continue because the young people are disclosing issues such as youth homelessness and sexual abuse and exploitation. The huge reduction in funding means that much-needed, year-long therapy is now unaffordable through good-value, trusted providers. We are likely to see other providers that we cannot be sure of moving in to fill the gap. This is not just a funding issue; it is a moral issue. In fact, it is a moral failure. A system that claims to protect children cannot simultaneously undermine the very services that support their recovery.

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that some sort of community ownership fund is required. Does she agree that the companies that own the pubs that the community is seeking to buy need to look after the properties? In Chardstock, the George Inn Continuity Group is trying to buy the pub, but the Wellington Pub Company is allowing water in through the roof, which is completely unacceptable. Does she agree that the pub companies that own the pubs need to look after them?

• 19 May 2025 · NATO: European Security · Hansard source

  More

  At the end of March, the US Secretary of State told the Foreign Ministers of the Baltic states that the US wanted to continue participating in EU defence procurement initiatives. What has the UK discussed with the EU about any exclusion of US companies linked to the security and defence pact?

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the point about soft power, China tends to deploy its vaccines in accordance with its regional influence and global standing, rather than on the basis of where there is the greatest need. Does she share my concern that the withdrawal of western funding from vaccine alliances could clear the way for China to engage in further vaccine diplomacy?

• 15 May 2025 · Accountability for Daesh Crimes · Hansard source

  More

  More than 900 people left the UK to engage in the conflict in Syria and Iraq. There was a lot of media attention at the time on the case of one of them, Shamima Begum, who was 15 when she left the UK to join Daesh. Did the Joint Committee consider her case in particular, and does it have any recommendations for the UK Government?

• 15 May 2025 · Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  The G7 oil price cap prevents us from selling shipping and insurance services to companies carrying Russian oil when it is sold above $60 per barrel. I appreciate that the Minister might say that he cannot preannounce future sanctions—I think we all understand that—but has the UK advocated with G7 allies for reducing that price cap further, given that in recent weeks, the price of crude oil has dropped below $60 per barrel?

• 15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Devon county council was run by the Conservatives from 2009 to 2025, over which time we saw a staggering 76% real-terms cut to youth services. Despite that, we have some really dedicated volunteers who are doing their very best with very limited means. In Cullompton, the John Tallack youth and community centre offers weekly youth club sessions through Involve Mid Devon, providing space for young people to connect, be heard and develop together. With the shared prosperity fund, we have seen that it is also possible to serve young people on the cusp of adulthood. We have youth and adult employment hubs, including those at Cullompton library and Honiton’s Beehive community centre, which, through the shared prosperity fund, provide one-to-one advice for people aged 16 and over to help them gain confidence, develop skills and find employment or further training. At least, that is what we had until March 2025, when the shared prosperity fund ran out. We are now very concerned about funding for youth services in Devon. Devon county council spends just £39.30 per young person, which means that the county ranks 105th out of 174 local authorities for spend per person. According to the Totnes Times , more than 10,000 children and young people in Devon are currently waiting for mental health support. Made early, this sort of investment can alleviate concerns downstream, and indeed can actually save the state money spent on other services later on. This is demonstrated in academic studies, with a review of evidence from 74 academic studies finding that youth work produces a social return on investment of up to £6.40 for every £1 spent. I urge us to build on what is already working and expand the brilliant examples that we have across Devon, but we need to do this through long-term, sustainable funding. We need to join up youth services with mental health and education provision and create a more integrated, co-ordinated approach, enabling our young people to get the help and support they deserve.

• 15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  Young people in Devon have incredible potential. Across our whole county we see their creativity, resilience and ambition. We are lucky to have a dedicated network of organisations and volunteers who support them every week; from youth workers to counsellors, community leaders and peer mentors, people across Devon are stepping up to help our young people to get new opportunities. In Sidmouth, for example, the YMCA plays a big role in the local community. It hosted election hustings last summer before the July elections, and the people who came to those hustings from across east Devon asked some really fantastic, searching questions. Sadly, with the demise of the Manstone youth centre, Sidmouth has seen the excellent work carried out by that centre either fold or, at least, move elsewhere in the town. The closure of this youth centre is symptomatic of the demise of youth services that we have seen over the past 15 years.

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  At the UN Security Council this week, humanitarian affairs co-ordinator Tom Fletcher talked about the need to prevent genocide in Gaza. He said: “Future generations will hold us in this chamber to account”. Members of this House were given the opportunity yesterday to ask the Government about their assessment of the likelihood of genocide in Gaza, but will the Leader of the House grant a debate about the obligation on Governments such as ours to prevent genocide?

• 7 May 2025 · Educational Opportunities in Semi-rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. Nowhere is it plainer that there are barriers to educational opportunity in semi-rural areas than in the part of Devon that I represent. Young people are held back not by any lack of talent or ambition—far from it—but by structural challenges in the recruitment of their teachers, in transport and in broadband access. Let me start with what matters in every school: the teachers. According to the latest data from the Department for Education, Devon has 5,620 teachers across 372 state-funded schools, which is a drop of nearly 50 teachers in the last year. Last week, I met National Association of Head Teachers representatives in Devon, who talked about a recruitment and retention crisis. However, there are positives. The University of Exeter is pioneering a new postgraduate certificate in education approach across the south-west. It has set up primary training hubs—rural local hubs—in Exeter, north Devon and Somerset. That model recognises that teachers often stay where they train and where they go to university, so this new approach is really quite positive. I will turn now to digital connectivity, which is another barrier that disproportionately affects semi-rural areas. The online newspaper DevonLive reported in 2021 that poor internet connection was impacting children’s learning. Four years later, that has not changed. I have had correspondence from constituents in Furley, Kentisbeare and Colyton who have all reported unreliable broadband, slow speeds and frequent outages. Problems with travel distances are particularly acute in counties such as Devon, which is said to be the third largest county by area. People live scattered many miles from colleges and education hubs, but over the past decade bus routes have been cut, costs have risen and the options for safely cycling and walking to school have become fewer. In its 2024 report “The Grass Ceiling”, the University of Exeter notes that rural underachievement is being hidden. On the face of it, there is high performance in rural areas, but that is because of some high-performing pupils. Advantaged households are skewing the data, and that masks the reality that many pupils are struggling—indeed, rural pupils are up to 8 percentage points behind urban pupils in GCSE results on average. To summarise, talent is spread across the whole country, including the whole of Devon, but right now opportunity is not.

• 6 May 2025 · Cullompton and Wellington Stations · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning economic and social opportunities. I too have been contacted by constituents about how they think a station in their town would provide those. Neil Perry, a resident of Cullompton who commutes daily to Exeter for his job as a teacher, told me that he spends nearly 10 full days each year stuck in Cullompton traffic—time lost to him simply because there is no local rail option. He leaves the house at 7.30 am to beat the worst of the congestion, and must leave work at 2.30 pm to avoid a 25-minute journey turning into an hour-long ordeal. The train from Tiverton Parkway to Exeter takes just 11 minutes, and we could see a journey of a similar time from Cullompton. Neil estimates he would save over £2,000 a year in parking, fuel, and car maintenance and points out that Cullompton would become an up-and-coming and much more prosperous town, which would help to drive growth. This Labour Government are very keen on economic growth, particularly the role that development and housing infrastructure plays in it. They have set an ambitious target to build 1.5 million homes by 2029, and its success hinges on delivering the necessary infrastructure to support those homes. I hear time and again from the people I represent in Devon that they do not want to, and cannot, see the homes built in advance of infrastructure that just does not arrive. Nowhere is that more evident that in the Culm Garden Village project. Located just east of junction 28 of the M5, the proposed development would bring over 5,000 new homes to Cullompton. Without a railway station, those new residents would be reliant on the motorway. That motorway is already under severe pressure; junction 28 sees queues on to the inside lane, making it already a very unsafe motorway approach road to use. Residents welcomed the recent news of funding for the Cullompton town centre relief road. It is a step forward but, on its own, that relief road will not be enough. We have already seen the consequences of building homes without the right infrastructure: gridlocked roads, overstretched public services and growing frustration among residents. We cannot see that mistake made again in Cullompton. Another of the people I represent from Cullompton, Tim Pethick, has worked in mental health services at Torbay hospital for 20 years. He was recently diagnosed as unfit to drive due to epilepsy, and now faces a 34-mile journey to work using public transport. Cullompton has no direct rail link. He has looked into using a bus pass, but that is not possible because bus passes cannot be used before 9.30 in the morning and the bus journey takes more than two hours. Here is somebody who has worked solidly for the NHS for the last couple of decades and whose career might be over if he cannot get good public access through the train. Those are just two examples, but my concern is that they are just two of many people who feel isolated and forced out of the workforce because of the lack of rail infrastructure in Cullompton. Thinking more broadly, the south-west as a whole is a region where social mobility is a challenge. The South-West Social Mobility Commission’s 2024 report confirms that our region is one of the worst performing in England for disadvantaged young people. By age 19, 34% of disadvantaged young people in our region have achieved a level 3 qualification, compared with 42% nationally. We can see that the south-west has quite a high proportion of disadvantaged students, but a low proportion of disadvantaged students who progress to higher education. The University of Exeter commissioned a 2019 report called “Social Mobility in the South West”, which revealed that only 17% of disadvantaged pupils in the region went on to university—the lowest rate among all regions in England. A major contributor to that poor performance is transport infrastructure. Young people in rural towns and villages—places such as Cullompton and Wellington—often struggle to access college, sixth form and any sort of further or higher education. For young people without access to a car, getting to college or university is not just difficult; it is impossible. The reopening of Cullompton station would be transformative, as would the reopening of Wellington station in Somerset. It would open up opportunities to get to Exeter college, the University of Exeter and FE establishments further afield, and would be fantastic for generating new apprenticeship opportunities. As the Labour Government have said, if we want to get Britain working, apprenticeships will be an aspect to that. Just two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and I met the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, and 30 local residents who had travelled to London to lobby him. Together, we made the case directly that reopening the railway stations would not just be a transport upgrade; it would be life-changing for our communities. A single journey by rail produces up to 75% fewer carbon emissions per passenger than the same journey by car. We know that transportation as a whole accounts for 27% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, so the railway stations would support and bolster the Labour Government’s climate change mitigation aims. The reopening of Wellington and Cullompton stations is not just some idea that will benefit a few people in the south-west of England; it is very much thought through, supported on a cross-party basis, economically sound and environmentally responsible, and it could be socially transformative.

• 6 May 2025 · Cullompton and Wellington Stations · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of reopening Cullompton and Wellington railway stations. It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. The Minister may have heard some of these arguments before, but there have been developments in recent months that he should hear before any decisions are made in relation to Cullompton and Wellington stations. The south-west has suffered from chronic under-investment in transport infrastructure—a legacy of the Beeching cuts in the 1960s, when communities were cut off as many stations across the country, including Cullompton and Wellington, lost their rail services. The campaign to bring back those stations commenced almost as soon as they were lost. In 1996, Devon county council commissioned a preliminary design for a new station at Cullompton, and by 2013 the metro board had been established, bringing together MPs, local councils, the rail industry and enterprise partnerships. Since then the metro board has met more than 30 times, co-chaired in recent months by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and me. The studies have culminated in the submission of a final business case to the Department for Transport in May 2024. Later that summer, my colleague and I received letters from the Chancellor pulling the plug on Restoring Your Railway funding. That was a gut punch for communities across the country with less well-established programmes, but I am pleased to say that Restoring Your Railway had already done a lot of the hard work relating to Cullompton and Wellington stations.

• 6 May 2025 · Dedicated Schools Grant · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. Let me start with a simple fact: Devon is one of the worst-funded education authorities in the country. For 2024-25, Devon receives just £5,484 per pupil—about £200 less than the national average and about £1,500 less per pupil than in inner London. I have experienced the difference through the eyes of the teachers I have talked to in Devon who have taught in both inner London and rural Devon, and who described to me the difference the funding makes. For an average Devon primary school, it equates to losing the budget for one whole teacher. Devon is an f40 authority—one of the 40 lowest-funded areas in England. The national funding formula was supposed to level the playing field, but it has left schools in areas like east and mid Devon struggling. Nowhere is the crisis more obvious than in special educational needs. Devon’s high needs block allocation for 2025-26 is £125 million, but the anticipated cost of supporting SEND children is £172 million. Up to now that funding gap has been filled by the so-called safety valve, but I understand that we might not have that safety-valve relief from 2026. If we compare Devon’s high needs allocation per pupil to that of a council such as Camden, we see a real disparity, as we do with Westminster, which receives £2,610 per pupil against Devon’s £1,245 per pupil. Devon is being asked to deliver special educational needs provision on half the budget. Let me share the story of one affected family. Kathryn Radley lives in Uplyme in the area I represent, and her daughter Sophia is autistic. At one point Sophia was offered just six hours a week of online education, and her family had to borrow money to keep that minimal support going when the council did not fund it. The education, health and care plan that was issued for her was unworkable, did not name a school and was not supported by any deliverable provision. Sophia, who did not misbehave or disrupt her class, and who simply needed specialist support, was left isolated at home with anxiety, and with no place in the system. Devon currently spends £55 million on SEND provision in the private sector, which is not properly audited or scrutinised. Meanwhile, state schools in the area I represent, such as in Honiton, Axminster and Sidmouth, are crying out for more resources to support special educational needs—more teaching assistants, specialist hubs and early intervention services—but they cannot get them because the per pupil funding is far less than it is elsewhere. We therefore see teachers who are overwhelmed, too few teaching assistants and staff who prioritise behavioural cases over inclusion, meaning that many children like the one I described simply cannot cope. Devon needs urgent and fairer funding for its schools from the dedicated schools grant. We need to expand local SEND resource bases and give mainstream schools the tools they need to include every child. Indeed, the Department for Education should give Devon’s children the funding for education that they deserve.

• 6 May 2025 · Dedicated Schools Grant · Hansard source

  More

  After the Government conduct that review of the national funding formula in 2026-27, will the Minister set out what additional funding she expects to have to put into the formula that urban councils such as Westminster might attract to cover their costs?

• 30 Apr 2025 · UK-USA Trade Agreements (Parliamentary Scrutiny) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any trade agreement between the UK and the USA which the Government proposes to implement; to prohibit the implementation of such an agreement without the approval by resolution of each House; to make provision for the amendment of such agreements by Parliament; and for connected purposes. Let us cast our minds back four years to the spring of 2021. Liz Truss was the Secretary of State for International Trade. Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. The export of British goods to the EU had fallen sharply in January of that year, and the end of the Brexit transition period was nigh. The Government were in a hurry. Boris Johnson sat down for dinner with the Australian Prime Minister here in Westminster. After three hours of small talk, a little negotiation and plenty of Australian red wine, Johnson agreed to remove tariffs on over 99% of Australian products entering the UK, including beef. The Government knew that such a deal would harm the UK agriculture and food industries. The Government’s own analysis predicted that the deal could leave the UK agriculture and food sectors £278 million worse off. The Australian high commissioner, who had been sitting at the table, moved quickly. Scribbling down Johnson’s generous pledge, he excused himself to go to the toilet and handed a note to an aide as he did so. Within minutes it was scanned, turned into a formal trade document, printed and slipped into an official-looking folder. The high commissioner then casually walked back into the dinner carrying the so-called deal. That was all it took to sell out the UK’s farmers: a wine-soaked dinner, a hastily scribbled note and a signature from a Prime Minister prepared to ignore the good advice of his own trade negotiators. Without proper parliamentary scrutiny and a vote on any deal with the United States, we risk adding to the pressure on our already struggling farmers, stripping away safeguards on British citizens’ data and sidelining democratic scrutiny itself. Currently, parliamentary scrutiny of international treaties in the UK is woefully inadequate. The Government can negotiate and sign a treaty with another country—even one as significant as the US—using prerogative powers, without having to put it to a vote in Parliament. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, known as CRaG, signed treaties must be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days. Parliament can raise objections but it cannot propose amendments and there is no requirement for a vote. Recommendations born of scrutiny are advisory, and not in the least bit binding. Evidence was provided to the International Agreements Committee in the other place last year. It showed just how outdated the UK’s treaty scrutiny system is, set against how trade arrangements have evolved and become more complicated. Modern trade deals now reach deep into domestic policy: they shape our food standards, our data rights and even the regulation of artificial intelligence. If Back-Bench MPs are shut out of the process, so too are the people we represent. Parliamentary scrutiny was demonstrably weak in the wake of the UK’s trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. The International Trade Committee condemned the Government’s approach, saying that it had “undermined” scrutiny. The Johnson Government did this by triggering the 21-sitting-day statutory period before Committees had received evidence or completed reports on the trade deal. This meant that Parliament had little information with which to assess the agreements. When the Australia deal was signed, Labour—then in opposition—rightly demanded a parliamentary vote. Now in government, it would do well to heed its own previous calls for proper scrutiny. In east and mid-Devon, farmers who I represent have been hit hard by the poorly negotiated trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which come on top of the planned changes to inheritance tax and the peremptory closure of the sustainable farming incentive. Even if a future UK-US trade deal upholds our food standards, west country farmers and others could still be undermined. The Government offer assurances about shutting out hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken, but concerns remain that the US could still flood the UK market with beef that is not hormone treated. The Government have assured us that there will be no compromise on environmental and animal welfare standards in the UK, but again, these assurances count for little if imports from overseas are not produced to the same environmental standards or with the same requirements for high animal welfare standards. The UK is already too reliant on imported food. Imports made up around 40% of the UK’s food supply in 2023. UK food self-sufficiency has already fallen sharply, from 78% in 1984 to just 60% today. There are those who say that some sectors will always fall victim to trade negotiations, because the Government must balance the demands of various industries, but some of the factors currently being discussed by our trade negotiators are cross-cutting, and that includes matters of digital trade and data. The US wants a digital-first deal. That would mean locking in rules that protect the interests of silicon valley, not the British public. It has already been speculated that the Government are considering reducing or scrapping the digital services tax, which would cut taxes for some of the wealthiest and most powerful American companies in the world at the expense of public service users in the UK. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasted that the tax raised £700 million in 2024-25—revenue that the Treasury can ill afford to forfeit at this time. Vice President J. D. Vance alleged in a speech at the Munich security conference that “old, entrenched interests” are “hiding behind ugly, Soviet-era words like ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation,’”. That brand of free speech pays little heed to facts. Vance may be representing some not altogether transparent interests himself. The US is pushing to overcome data localisation. That could allow US-based tech firms to centralise their data operations in the United States and rule out data storage in the UK. If that came about, it would weaken the protection for British citizens’ data, making it difficult to enforce UK privacy laws. Take as an example the contract that Palantir agreed with the NHS in 2023 to install its federated data system. If a US-UK trade deal restricted data localisation, it could allow NHS medical records to be exported to the US, handing Palantir the power to exploit the enormous commercial value of British citizens’ data. Although Palantir claims that it will only act as a processor of data, its business model is rooted in extracting value from data for commercial ends. With access to one of the world’s richest health datasets, Palantir could package insights and sell predictive analytic services to private healthcare providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies. Palantir’s co-founder Peter Thiel has called the NHS a system that “makes people sick”. He claims that freedom and democracy are no longer compatible. Parliament should have the means to ensure that Thiel’s understanding of freedom cannot bypass British democracy. This is not just about trade; it is about trust. The Leader of the Opposition should know: the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) was the Secretary of State for International Trade in 2023 when the Australia and New Zealand trade deals came into effect. Farming paid the price last time, and it could happen again—our digital freedoms could pay the price, too. My Bill is simple: it does not block a US deal or tie the Government’s hands; it requires that Parliament has a greater say. That is what democracy demands, and that is what the public expects. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Tim Farron, Calum Miller, Helen Morgan, Sarah Olney, Edward Morello and Richard Foord present the Bill. Richard Foord accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 228 ).

• 30 Apr 2025 · Energy Grid Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  There are over 100 battery energy storage system—BESS—facilities operating in the UK, and another one is planned for Hawkchurch in East Devon. Residents there are very worried about fire risk. South Korea is a global leader in BESS, yet the safety issues are plain. There were 38 fire incidents linked to BESS in South Korea up to 2022. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the safety of BESS technology and exploring energy storage solutions that are less subject to fire risk?

• 30 Apr 2025 · UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility · Hansard source

  More

  On 17 March, I asked the Foreign Secretary why the UK had taken a kinetic role in strikes against the Houthis under the previous US Government, but have not taken an active role in those carried out by this US Government. We have since seen those leaked Signal messages in which the US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, lamented the lack of European involvement in the strikes on 15 March. How much has the involvement of British jets in these strikes come as a response to the allegation by Pete Hegseth of European freeloading?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. The pay review bodies have recommended a 4% pay rise for school staff. Will the Department for Education pay 4%, and will that really be expected to come from existing school budgets?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could add to his thanks list Lorna Harries, the professor of molecular genetics at the University of Exeter, who has pioneered alternative approaches that can replace some of the experimental techniques that have been used on dogs.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has mentioned Ofwat. Last August, it recommended penalties for four water companies amounting to £168 million, but so far it has not collected one penny. Does she agree that Ofwat needs to be scrapped?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Pension Funds · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) asked whether pensioners might be given more control over where their pension funds are invested. That issue has also arisen recently in terms of whether pension funds can be invested in defence companies in the UK. Will the Minister comment on that?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. It is plain from what others have said that this is a sector-wide problem. In 2017, Sajid Javid, when he was the Secretary of State, set up the regulation of property agents working group, under Lord Best. When it reported in 2019, it recommended “a model for an independent property agent regulator” and “a single, mandatory and legally-enforceable Code of Practice for property agents”. The Government would do well to follow that advice. I want to refer to the constituency case of Cathy Gardner, a resident of Sidmouth. Since 2017, her insurance premiums payable to Blue Cedar Homes management company have risen from about £100 a year to as much as £900 because she is being charged for every single eventuality, including terrorism. Now, we do not have a great deal of terrorism on the retirement estates of mid and east Devon, so I can be certain that a large cut is being taken out of that fee. We need transparency so we can all know why that is happening and where that money is going.