Sarah Hall MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2026 · Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. The death of a child is something that no parent should ever have to endure. It is every parent’s worst nightmare. There are no words that can make sense of it, and no pain more unimaginable. For many families, understanding why their child died is an important part of beginning to process their grief. It does not take the pain away, but it can bring some sense of clarity. For families affected by sudden unexplained death in childhood, the answers never come, and that absence—that not knowing; that lack of clarity—brings its own trauma. SUDC is the sudden and unexpected death of a child between the ages of one and 18, where no cause can be found, even after investigation. It is one of the leading categories of death for children aged one to four in England and Wales. Yet despite that, we still do not know why it happens. We cannot predict it, we cannot prevent it and we do not understand it. I first came to this issue through a family in my constituency. At one of my surgeries, I met a grandmother whose 13-month-old grandson had died suddenly. The family asked me to share their story in the hope that no other family would have to go through what they have gone through. I pay tribute to the grandmother and her daughter for that courage. At their request, I will not use their names today. It was an ordinary morning like any other day. Mum put her toddler down for his nap. He was well, and there were no signs of illness—no warning—but he never woke up. That is the reality of SUDC: there is no build-up or explanation, just a moment that changes everything. The impact on that family has been devastating. Alongside the shock and grief came something else: the cruelty of not knowing why. That uncertainty compounded their trauma, and the emotional toll became so overwhelming that it caused severe mental health challenges. At the very point the family needed care, clarity and compassion, the system repeatedly let them down. They endured 13 months of pain awaiting a post-mortem. They received phone calls from medical professionals without warning, the day after their child died. Professionals used insensitive language, causing further harm. They were given inconsistent and incorrect information. At one stage, they were told the post-mortem had been completed while the child was still in the hospital’s care. This is not just about delay; it is about dignity. Sadly, that family’s experience is far from unique. Families across the country report similar patterns: long periods of silence followed by a sudden, distressing and poorly timed communication. They find themselves chasing answers when they should be supported, and in some cases having to explain SUDC to professionals. At a time of profound trauma, families are left to carry the burden alone. As is so often the case, those with less financial resources face even greater barriers, whether in accessing counselling, navigating systems or challenging poor care. Traumatic grief demands trauma-informed care, but too often it is missing. Organisations such as SUDC UK are stepping in to support families, raise awareness and push for answers, but the reality is that they are doing so in the absence of a clear, co-ordinated national approach. That gap should concern us all. At its heart, this points to a wider issue. SUDC remains one of the most unrecognised medical tragedies we face. Awareness is low, research is limited, and without understanding there can be no prevention. We cannot accept that. Families deserve answers, consistency and to be treated with care at every step. That means a system that is joined up, where knowledge is shared, professionals are trained and support is not dependent on postcode or circumstance. It also means addressing the workforce challenges we face. There is a severe shortage of paediatric pathologists in this country, and in some regions there are none at all. That is a key reason why families are waiting for months, and sometimes more than a year, for answers. After hearing about my constituent’s experience, I met with the Royal College of Pathologists, and I continue to support its work on recruitment, training and retention. The truth is that families should not face further trauma because the system does not have the capacity to respond, so I ask the Minister to take four steps: to develop a national plan for SUDC, formulated by Ministers working with officials and scientific experts, as a matter of urgency; to commit to regular reporting at a minimum of every two years, so that we can track progress and hold ourselves accountable; to ensure that clear, accessible information for families is available through the NHS website and other portals, including the NHS knowledge and library hub for professionals; and to move quickly on implementing the recommendations of the paediatric and perinatal pathology workforce report, so that we can achieve quicker post-mortem times and safeguard genetic information and other data to support further research. This is about every family, in Warrington South and across the country, who are living with unimaginable loss and deserve better from the system around them. We cannot change what has happened to them, but we can change what happens next. On behalf of my constituents, and on behalf of every family who has endured the unimaginable agony of losing a child suddenly and without explanation, I urge the Minister to act now.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Methane from Landfill Sites · Hansard source

  More

  At a time when families are already under pressure from high energy bills, what assessment has the Minister made of the risk that, without action before April 2027, declining landfill gas generation will undermine energy security and increase costs for consumers?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Methane from Landfill Sites · Hansard source

  More

  7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of trends in the level of methane harvested from landfill sites on energy security.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Social Enterprises and Community Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. In Warrington South, I have been working closely with grassroots sports clubs like Cromwell Athletic, Crosfields and Bank Quay Bulls, and people like Ste and Bob: volunteers who give their time week in, week out, not for recognition, but because they care about their community and the sports clubs that are a part of it. They are not asking for much—just decent pitches, facilities that are fit for purpose and a fair chance to grow the game for the next generation. They want to take ownership of the very spaces that they rely on, to secure them for the long term, improve them and open up access so that more people of all ages can take part in sport. When communities have ownership of their assets, they invest in them, protect them and make them work. In Warrington, we are now exploring a local sports co-operative, bringing clubs together and giving them confidence, structure and support to take the next step into community ownership. When clubs can take ownership of their pitches, it unlocks crucial external investment from organisations such as the Football Foundation, the Football Association and the Rugby Football League, all of which I have met alongside local clubs. They are ready to back grassroots sport and improve facilities back home in Warrington. That means better pitches, improved facilities, more games being played and more young people being involved and getting active. That is what community ownership makes possible. Right now, too many communities are being held back. In Warrington, the will from clubs and partners is there, but the system is not keeping up. Local authorities simply do not have the capacity or resource to move quickly enough on community asset transfers. Good projects are now at risk of stalling. Momentum and good faith are being lost. Opportunities are in danger of slipping through our fingers. Access to funding remains a barrier, because the ambition is there locally but the tools to deliver it are not always in place. If we are serious about community ownership, we need to match ambition with action. That means targeted funding to help communities to take on and improve local assets, especially in grassroots sport where the social return is so clear. It also means giving local authorities the capacity, resource and streamlined processes that they need to move at pace to support communities, not slow them down. I urge the Minister to work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to strengthen the role of the co-operative development unit in providing the practical support that communities need to take on assets and to work across Government, including with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to support governance structures that enable community and fan-led ownership to succeed. Community ownership is not just a model. It is a great way of making sure that when places grow, our communities grow with them. If we get this right, we will not only protect and improve the green spaces that matter to our constituents, but empower the clubs and people who make them such a vital part of our towns and villages.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Education · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the inclusion and nurture in education all-party group, I welcome the Northern Ireland Department of Education’s independent research showing that nurture provision delivers measurable improvements in pupils’ behaviour, attendance and attainment. What discussions are being had to share this good practice in inclusive education with the rest of the UK, including officials in England, as the Government seek to improve inclusion and educational outcomes for all?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Education · Hansard source

  More

  5. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on education.

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

  More

  I am going to carry on because of time. I have spoken to highly skilled public sector workers who are being told that their day job is somehow not contribution enough. I have heard from researchers and lecturers who are strengthening our universities and innovation base, yet are falling short of blunt thresholds. To be clear about what fairness looks like, it means no retrospective changes for people already on the route to settlement, clear guaranteed transitional protections, and recognition of regional pay differences. We should manage and control migration, and our constituents rightly expect that, but they also expect fairness. They expect a system that recognises the contribution of hard-working, tax-paying people who now call Warrington their home. I ask the Government to match that same sense of fairness, protect those already on the five-year route, recognise real contribution and give families the certainty they deserve.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will speak for my constituents who did exactly what this country asked of them. They came here legally, they worked hard, they paid their taxes and they built lives on the clear understanding that after five years they could settle. Now, part-way through that journey, as we have heard time and again in this debate, the goalposts are being moved. I have met and heard from NHS clinicians, care workers, engineers, researchers, academics, teachers and other skilled professionals, some only weeks away from being able to apply for settlement under the current rules. These are people who kept services running through covid and who pay thousands in tax, yet many are now living with anxiety and despair. Parents have asked me how they explain this to their children—children who feel British, because Britain is all they have ever known. These are households already paying more into the system than they take out. I understand the Government’s desire to reward contribution and support integration, but my constituents are struggling with a system that feels increasingly detached from the reality of their lives. Government power comes with responsibility, especially when people have arranged their lives around our decisions. We cannot invite people in on one set of rules, benefit from their labour and commitment, and then rewrite the contract halfway through. I recently attended a community meeting at the gurdwara in Warrington, with constituents who arrived in the UK from south Asia—members of the Sikh, Muslim and Hindu communities, all of whom came here in good faith. Every person in that room was at a different stage of the journey, and every single one would be affected by these changes. Some of the concerns that came up were about a single national income threshold that ignores regional pay differences. People working full time in vital jobs in Warrington cannot simply magic their wages up to a national figure. Many described normal career progression in highly skilled roles, with salaries starting lower and growing quickly, while others explained how visa restrictions limit their ability to move into higher-paid work. I have spoken to couples where both parents work and pay tax, yet neither earns enough individually to qualify.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement and the progress that it represents, and I put on record my thanks to the National Leasehold Campaign, which has spent many years campaigning tirelessly on behalf of existing leaseholders, who have been trapped in an unfair and archaic system. For the benefit of Warrington South leaseholders who are trying to understand the 40-year peppercorn cap, will the Minister explain how the 40-year cap was arrived at and whether there is any scope for the transition to be brought forward so that relief is felt sooner?

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Vaz, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Too many people in Warrington South are being failed by the system that is meant to help them. Demand for ADHD assessments has risen sharply, with waits of up to six years. As someone whose ADHD was diagnosed when I was an adult, I know at first hand how difficult it can be to navigate a system that often does not join up or listen properly. Ahead of this debate, I asked constituents to share their experiences of seeking an ADHD diagnosis. Adults told me that they waited years for assessment, only to be pushed through mental health pathways that did not fit and prescribed medication that made things worse. While waiting, some self-medicated with alcohol or drugs, not to escape but simply to cope. Years of masking, burnout and misdiagnosis have taken their toll. Parents told me that their children were identified early in nursery or reception, but support stalled because schools are restricted in what they can do without a diagnosis. By the time the referrals are finally made, children are already struggling, falling behind or believing they are lazy or stupid. I heard from women diagnosed in their 40s, 50s and 60s, after a lifetime of being treated for anxiety or depression that never quite made sense. Teachers contacted me too—experienced, committed professionals who want to help but are trying to meet complex needs in classes of 30 or more children, with limited support and resources. They told me that diagnosis means very little if there is no capacity to act on it. In Warrington, concerns about waiting times came up again and again. Misdiagnosis, problems in education, workplace breakdowns, mental health crises and families forced into private care, if they can afford it, while others are simply forced to cope until they cannot cope any more. When Ministers point to frameworks and data improvements, I say that those things matter but do not help the child struggling in school today or the adult in crisis being told to wait until the next decade. This is not about ADHD being over-diagnosed; it is about a system that consistently under-treats and under-supports those who have it. We desperately need more specialists, more appointments, more assessments, and waiting lists that are measured in months not years.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, and I think this needs to be considered in the round. If regulations are put in place, funding will absolutely be needed to fill the gap. For too many people, fireworks no longer mean celebration; they mean disruption and nights without sleep. This debate is not about banning joy; it is about listening carefully to the people we represent and asking whether our laws still reflect the reality on our streets, in our towns and in our villages. People are not asking us to end fireworks; they are asking us to regulate them better. That is a reasonable request from my constituents and from thousands of others across the country.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. When I come to Parliament, I try to bring my constituents with me—not just their names on a petition, but their views, experiences and the reality of life on their streets. In shaping my contribution to this debate, I asked constituents to share their thoughts and experiences of fireworks as they are used today. Many people spoke about animals and their pets: dogs and cats traumatised by loud bangs, hiding for days, injuring themselves in panic or becoming permanently anxious. Other people raised the wider impact on wildlife and livestock, and the distress caused when explosions happen without warning. I also heard from parents about their children with autism and other disabilities, for whom the noise is overwhelming and frightening, often leading to meltdowns and heightened anxiety. Many people expressed concerns about the impact on veterans and others living with PTSD. Fireworks are no longer confined to one or two predicable nights. Constituents describe them being set off throughout the year, often late at night and often without notice. That unpredictability makes it almost impossible to prepare—to calm a distressed animal, support a vulnerable child or simply feel settled in one’s own home. Fireworks are explosives, and we already accept that they need regulation, but the clear message from my constituents is that the balance is no longer right. No one who contacted me wants fireworks banned outright; they ask for better regulation that reflects how fireworks are used today. There is strong support for quieter fireworks, including silent options, and for a shift towards organised, licensed displays with clear start and end times. These approaches do not end tradition; they make it safer, more predictable and more considerate of others. We have a strong tradition of celebration and commemoration in this country, from bonfire night at Thelwall parish hall to ringing in the new year with Big Ben and celebrating Diwali and lunar new year. [Christine Jardine in the Chair ]

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered neurodiversity in the workplace. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Neurodiversity is still too often misunderstood, overlooked or treated as a marginal issue, when in reality it affects millions of people across our workforce, across every sector and across every part of the country. This debate is about fairness, dignity at work and whether our workplaces are genuinely designed for the people who work in them. I also requested this debate for a more personal reason. I was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as an adult, and like many people who are diagnosed later in life, that diagnosis did not change who I am, but it clarified things. It helped me understand why some environments drained me, why others energised me, and why I had spent years adapting myself to systems that were never designed with people like me in mind. Since I became a Member of Parliament, many constituents have written to me with experiences that echoed that same story. This included people who have spent years masking, people who have been labelled difficult or unreliable, and people who have quietly left jobs they were good at because the barriers became too much. So when we talk about neurodiversity at work, we are not talking about abstract theory; we are talking about real people, real workplaces and real lost potential. Around one in seven people in the UK are neurodivergent, including autistic people, and people with ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and other conditions. Many neurodivergent people will qualify as disabled under the Equality Act 2010, which means that they are legally entitled to reasonable adjustments at work.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I agree and feel that the hon. Member is describing me a little bit in that. So yes, I absolutely agree with that characterisation. Just as concerning is the fact that nearly a third of neurodivergent workers have not told their manager or HR department at all, not because they do not need support, but because they fear stigma, stereotypes or the impact that disclosure could have on their career. That tells us something fundamental: the problem is not difference, but the environment that people are expected to work in. Neurodiversity describes the natural differences in how people’s brains behave and process information. We all think, learn and act differently and have different strengths and challenges. That is normal and human, yet the world of work is still too often built around a very narrow idea of what is typical. When workplaces are designed around that narrow norm, barriers are created.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. I will come on to some of the work that GMB, Unison and USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers— are doing in this area. The barriers that I mentioned are what disable people. Too often, neurodiversity is still approached through the medical model of disability, focusing on what is wrong with the individual, what they cannot do or how they fall short of an assumed standard. That approach creates low expectations and leaves people feeling pitied, patronised or quietly excluded. The social model of disability offers a different and more honest lens. It recognises that people are disabled not by their impairment or condition, but by barriers created by society: inflexible systems, poor understanding and rigid attitudes. Let me ground that in a practical example. An autistic retail worker struggled with constant changes to their working hours not because they did not want to work, but because of unpredictability, increased anxiety and sensory overload. What they needed was a stable shift pattern. Predictability gave them control and made work possible. Under the medical model, the problem would have been framed as the worker. Under the social model, the problem was the demand for unlimited flexibility. When the employer agreed to a stable shift pattern, it meant the difference between staying in work or having to give up their job altogether. There was no grand intervention, just a reasonable adjustment.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Some neurodiverse people would describe it as a superpower; some do not like that term, but there are so many wonderful assets and abilities that we in the neurodiverse community have. If only we were given a chance, we could make a real difference and be fantastic in whatever we choose to do. Recruitment processes often reward confidence over competence, eye contact over ability and social performance over skill. Vague job descriptions, ambiguous questions and high-pressure interviews screen people out before they have had a chance to show what they can actually do. We also need to talk about masking. Many neurodivergent people hide parts of who they are at work to fit in. Sometimes, they do not even realise they are doing it, but masking is exhausting. It contributes to anxiety, isolation, burnout and poor mental health. I recognise that experience myself, and I know from constituents how common it is. People might not need to mask so much if workplaces were designed with difference in mind. Although this debate rightly spans all sectors, I want to be clear that the public sector must lead by example. Unison has been clear that, despite legal protections, many public sector workplaces still lack awareness and fail to implement inclusive practices. Rigid recruitment processes, inflexible performance systems and delays or refusals in reasonable adjustments cause stress, sickness absence and employment disputes that could be avoided. There is also a gendered dimension to this. Neurodivergent women often face compounded discrimination. Unison has called for neurodiversity to be embedded properly within equality and diversity frameworks, backed by training for managers and reps, stronger enforcement of Equality Act duties and better access to support schemes such as Access to Work. Those calls matter, because without enforcement, rights are theoretical, and without adequate funding, inclusion becomes optional. Trade unions have been vital in driving this agenda, and I want to highlight the role of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—the retail trade union. Across the UK, thousands of shop workers, warehouse staff and reps are having conversations about neurodiversity. Many USDAW members are neurodivergent themselves. Many others are parents or carers of neurodivergent children and adults, juggling paid work with caring responsibilities in sectors where flexibility is often in short supply. USDAW talks about neurodiversity in the same way that we talk about physical difference. Some people are taller, some are stronger, some have more stamina. We accept those differences without question, and our brains are no different. I also highlight the work that the GMB has done through its “Thinking Differently at Work” toolkit on neurodiversity, which I value because it is practical and designed for real workplaces, covering understanding neurodivergence, good employment practice, the law, reasonable adjustments and more. Clear, accessible guidance is what too many workplaces are missing. It shows how much progress can be made when knowledge is shared early, rather than after problems escalate. Without neurodivergent minds, the world would be a poorer place. We would miss out on different ways of seeing problems, spotting patterns and challenging assumptions. That is true on a shopfloor, in a hospital, in a classroom and here in Parliament, which is why I have joined other MPs who are neurodivergent or disabled to support work on modernising Parliament, not just to make it more accessible for those of us already here but to encourage more people from different backgrounds to come into politics in the first place. Neurodiversity should never be a barrier to ambition, public service or opportunity. Earlier this year, the TUC passed a motion calling for stronger national action on neurodiversity at work, calling for: clearer rights to reasonable adjustments, including for those waiting for a diagnosis; recruitment reform that assesses ability rather than social performance; investment in inclusive apprenticeships and work experience; better workforce data; and a national neurodiversity strategy co-created with disabled people. Those serious, practical proposals are grounded in lived experience. Supporting neurodiversity early is not a “nice to have”. It is a prevention that benefits everyone. I have six asks of the Minister. First, will she commit to strengthening compliance mechanisms for how the Equality Act duty to make reasonable adjustments is understood and enforced in practice? Secondly, will she set out what the Government will do to make sure that people can access support at work, based on need not paperwork, including those who are waiting for or do not have a formal diagnosis? We cannot build workplace inclusion around a system where people may wait years for an assessment. Thirdly, will the Minister commit to improving Access to Work, with clearer signposting for employers and employees, a simpler process and faster decisions, so that support arrives when it is needed and not months later? Fourthly, will she ensure that the public sector shows leadership by adopting consistent neuroinclusion standards, including manager training, so that reasonable adjustments are not left to chance or the good will of individual teams? Fifthly, will the Minister commit to collecting and publishing workforce data on neurodivergent employees, so that progress can be tracked? At the moment, too much of the conversation relies on anecdote rather than evidence. Transparency matters and what gets measured gets improved. If we are serious about accountability, workforce data must be part of the picture. Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that neurodivergent workers’ voices are central to this work, based on the principle of “nothing about us without us”, so that policy is shaped with people and not done to them? Neurodivergent people should not have to work harder than everyone else just to stay afloat. They should not have to mask, explain themselves repeatedly or wait until they are in crisis before support appears. We should design work that works for people, not expect people to endlessly adapt to systems that were not designed with them in mind. If we want our workplaces and our Parliament to reflect society as a whole, neurodivergent people must be able to see a future for themselves. I hope today’s debate helps to push us towards inclusive workplaces, where difference is expected, supported and valued, and not tolerated as an exception.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I absolutely agree. I echo his comments about the fantastic work that is being done in Northern Ireland on inclusion, and I am sure that the Minister will address the points he made in her closing remarks. It is also important to say this clearly: not all neurodivergent people have a diagnosis, and many are diagnosed far later in life. In some parts of the country, people wait years for assessment. During that time, they are still expected to work, cope and perform, often without any understanding of why things feel harder than they should. We cannot design workplace support around a system that is already overstretched and inconsistent. Support has to be based on need and not on paperwork.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am passionate about inclusion in the workplace and for children in schools. I would be happy to work with him on driving that forward. The response to my constituent was not inclusion, but exclusion, and it shows how neurodivergent women can be pushed out of work at exactly the moment that they most need understanding and flexibility. Many neurodivergent people are still met with damaging assumptions that they lack empathy, cannot understand humour, struggle socially or are somehow less capable or reliable. None of that is true, but those assumptions shape recruitment processes, performance management and workplace culture in ways that quietly exclude people before their abilities are ever recognised. The National Autistic Society has been clear that the biggest barriers that autistic workers face are a lack of understanding, negative stereotypes and failures by employers to adapt.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, and I will come on to that point in my asks of the Minister. Something that I hear repeatedly from constituents is the lack of consistency around reasonable adjustments. Support agreed with one manager often disappears when roles change, teams move or a restructure happens. People are forced to re-explain themselves, re-justify their needs and start again. That is not dignity at work. Adjustments should travel with the worker and not depend on who happens to be in charge that month. A constituent who contacted me described a stark contrast between workplaces that created barriers and those that removed them. In early roles, including in a warehouse and later in a café, my constituent was keen to work and learn, but support was minimal. Tasks were not adapted, opportunities to build skills were restricted and they were left without support. In more recent roles, they now volunteer as a radio presenter and at the Lowry theatre, and are also employed as a trainer delivering the Oliver McGowan mandatory training programme. My constituent tells me that she loves the reasonable adjustments that they have put in place for her, compared with the very little that was in place in earlier roles. Another constituent, a new mother, contacted me about her attempt to return to work following maternity leave. She is autistic and requested reasonable adjustments to support her return. Instead of support, she was met with suggestions, including from HR, that needing reasonable adjustments meant that she is not fit for work at all. That response is deeply concerning, and it speaks to a wider problem about how disabled workers are too often treated.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that one in five neurodivergent workers have experienced harassment or discrimination at work because of their neurodivergence.

• 15 Dec 2025 · NATO: European Security · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday I visited the Ukrainian family hub in Warrington for its Christmas celebrations. Many families who fled Putin’s war of aggression have made Warrington their home, but they are deeply worried about what the future holds, what peace might look like and whether they will ever be able to return safely to Ukraine. Can the Minister reassure them that the UK and our NATO allies remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine both in defending its sovereignty and in shaping a just and lasting peace?

• 15 Dec 2025 · NATO: European Security · Hansard source

  More

  8. What recent discussions he has had with NATO counterparts on European security.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Many families in Warrington South have been in touch with me over recent months, worried about their future. We opened the BNO pathway because it was the right thing to do. We did not do it out of charity but because we recognised a historic responsibility and a bond that runs deep. When the BNO route opened, thousands of Hongkongers uprooted their lives under extraordinary pressure. They arrived self-funded, often highly skilled, and determined to make a contribution. In Warrington, that is exactly what they have done. They work in our public services. They set up their own businesses. They volunteer. They pay taxes. They have bought homes. They are raising their children here with the quiet hope for stability in a country that they now call home. I welcome the Government’s confirmation that the five-year route to ILR will remain intact for BNO families. That was the right decision: it recognises Hongkongers’ unique position and our responsibility to them. But that reassurance is valid only if the mandatory requirements reflect the same spirit of stability and trust. The concerns that I am hearing are simple: people feel that the goalposts are being moved in the final minutes. Raising the English language requirement from B1 to B2 and introducing a mandatory earnings threshold for settlement risk shutting out people who have built their lives here in good faith. I have heard from constituents who met every rule set out when they arrived who now fear that they may not qualify because their partner struggles with the written element of the B2 test, or because a family member earns below a threshold, despite working. I have met constituents who have already taken their B1 test, fully prepared to apply for ILR in 2026, who now fear that the standard might change at the last minute. Additionally, a rigid income requirement risks misunderstanding how many BNO households operate. Many are income-poor but savings-rich; others have one parent working part time to support the family through their transition to a new country. If income is measured at the level of each individual rather than at the level of the household, thousands could be locked out of ILR through no fault of their own. That would be an unintended, deeply unjust outcome, and one that we should avoid. A longer journey to settlement risks leaving people stuck in limbo, which is no foundation for a stable life. These are our new neighbours, friends and colleagues. They fled political repression and trusted our word—that trust matters. Of course the immigration system needs clarity and fairness, but fairness and the rule of law cut both ways. These families followed every rule: they paid the fees, they made the leap, and they contributed to our economy and our civic life from day one. I ask the Minister, before any final decisions are made, to listen to the communities affected, to honour the commitments already given and to ensure that humanitarian routes such as those on which BNO families arrived are treated with the dignity and stability that those families were promised. Let us avoid retroactive changes. Let us make sure that transitional arrangements protect anyone already on the pathway. Let us keep the BNO route grounded in the principles it was built on: sanctuary, clarity and trust.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Funding for Deprived Areas · Hansard source

  More

  19. If he will take steps through the fair funding review 2.0 to ensure that the most deprived lower layer super output areas receive the largest increases in funding.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Funding for Deprived Areas · Hansard source

  More

  In Warrington we see some of the starkest inequalities anywhere in the country. One area is ranked the 899th most deprived, and the highest position is 33,480th, a gap of more than 32,500. Those vast disparities are masked by population-weighted averages, with Warrington ranking 199th overall and only 43rd in range. Will the Minister ensure that fair funding 2.0 truly reflects vast internal inequalities, so that resources reach the communities most in need?