Sarah Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  Before being elected to this place, I spent many years working for charities seeking to tackle the challenge of youth unemployment. I remember fondly the future jobs fund, which, under the last Labour Government, delivered real change for people across the country. I have established the Get Hyndburn Working group to help tackle the challenge of economic inactivity in my constituency. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could outline how what he has announced today will support that group in its endeavour to see young and, of course, older people secure good employment. Will he also—as he develops further strategies in this regard—pay particular attention to the importance of place and locally-led decision making, in order to tackle the specific challenges experienced in different parts of the country as we seek to get everyone into a good job?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents consistently say to me that they support the Prime Minister’s decision not to take us into this war. My thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with our brave service people who are stationed in the middle east and across the Mediterranean. Will the Minister please update the House on discussions he has been having with his Cypriot counterpart on the defence of the Akrotiri base and the wider island?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Consular Assistance · Hansard source

  More

  Like many Members, I have been supporting constituents who are seeking to return to the UK. Although it has not been simple, Janet and Hugh are due to be on one of those extra flights that the Minister has helped to secure with British Airways, which will get them back today. Will the Minister reiterate the importance of any individuals with vulnerabilities using the consular helpline to ensure that they are prioritised for evacuation flights?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  An important element that maybe has not come through so far in the debate is the class impact of the current policy situation. Currently, 90% of paternity leave claims are made by the top 50% of earners. It is very rare that low-income earners are able to even access the current system. Unfortunately, the challenge of the policies laid out under the coalition is that parental leave is only accessible to those who were better off to start with. If we are going to get this right going forward, we have to design a policy framework and put forward legislation that puts those fathers and those families first. If we are not achieving parental leave for the families who are, if we are honest, those who are often dealing with the most complex situations, we are letting down the children that need us the most.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Women are 10% more likely to report that they do the majority of childcare. Some 66% of people surveyed want care to be more equal, and 74% of men want it to be more equal. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can only achieve that greater equality by addressing the fact that two weeks is not enough, and that patterns are laid in from day one that hold women, babies and men back from enjoying family life?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on this ambitious and much-needed plan. She met my constituent, Lorraine. Lorraine lost her daughter Milly and set up Milly’s Smiles, a charity that offers to families arriving at hospitals across the country a welcome pack of essential items to help them on their journey. I know that she will welcome the reference to improving non-clinical and supportive care for children in the plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only by working together with charities, families, researchers and the health service that we will deliver on this plan for everybody across the country?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I recognise my hon. Friend’s expertise: she worked in this area prior to coming to this place. Unfortunately, that statistic is no surprise, given the situation that children face in Gaza. This Parliament has repeatedly affirmed that human rights are universal, that the rights of the child are not suspended at borders or battle lines, and that international law must be upheld consistently and without double standards. The convention on the rights of the child obliges us to protect children from all forms of violence, including during armed conflict, yet in Gaza that obligation is being flouted with impunity. The United Nations continues to verify grave violations, and keeps parties that violate children’s rights on its monitoring list—a solemn reminder that we cannot look away. I ask the Minister whether the Government will push Israel to agree to and implement a UN action plan to reduce harm to children, and ensure it remains listed in the report until that has been fully achieved. I commend the work of the Labour Government. The latest figures show that they have provided £241 million in official development assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including £154 million in humanitarian funding, between 2023 and 2025. That has enabled more than 500,000 medical consultations, food for about 647,000 people and sanitation for another 300,000. I pay genuine tribute to the important work that my hon. Friend the Minister does, and I thank him for his dedication to the region, both before coming to this place and since he has taken on these responsibilities. He has made huge diplomatic efforts since the horrific and unforgivable events of 7 October. It is important to return to the United Nations children and armed conflict agenda. I know the Government champion it and have committed additional funding to support its mandate. Its yearly report identified the five most dangerous places to be a child in the world—the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Haiti and Nigeria—and is an important tool, acting as a catalyst for behaviour change.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises an incredibly important point. Children absolutely deserve the right to continue to have even the tiniest opportunity for some form of normality—something that helps them to imagine a world beyond the conflict that they are currently living in. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how our Government are supporting children in conflict zones, including Gaza. Children are not simply collateral damage. With schools, hospitals and residential neighbourhoods struck, children are not just incidental casualties; they are front and centre in the decimation of armed conflict. Their places of safety, education and play are being mercilessly destroyed. Those children are forced to grow up faced with the daily nightmares of armed conflict and the impact that it has on their homes. More than 60% of child casualties in recent conflicts are due to explosive weapons. The Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Gaza, is among the deadliest places for children. We must remember these injuries cast a long shadow: a wounded child today becomes a young adult tomorrow, scarred physically, emotionally and psychologically. Many face a lifetime without adequate rehabilitation, prosthetics or even basic medical care because restricted humanitarian access and damage to hospitals make proper treatment nearly impossible.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered children and armed conflict. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and it is a privilege to bring this topic, which I know is an important one for many of my constituents, to Westminster Hall today. I open the debate with an uncomfortable statistic: today one in five children across the world are growing up in conflict zones. I am sure we can all agree that that is not a statistic we should accept or ever ignore. From Gaza to Ukraine to Yemen, children are paying the highest price for conflicts they did nothing to create. Between 2020 and 2024, nearly 50,000 have become casualties of war—the equivalent of 200 full passenger planes. Those figures are just the tip of the iceberg of the true scale of violations, are limited to incidents it was possible to record and verify, something that can be extremely challenging in situations of active conflict and where access restrictions are in place. UNICEF reports that more than 100 children have been killed in Gaza alone since the ceasefire in early October 2025. That is an average of one child killed every day—and that during a ceasefire. Is the Minister considering children’s distinct needs and vulnerabilities, and their additional rights under international law, in the context of assessing Israel’s compliance with international human rights law? The United Nations children and armed conflict agenda makes abundantly clear what has been documented: the very youngest victims of war are being caught in its merciless machinery. Children face indiscriminate harm, including killings, maiming, recruitment, abductions and attacks on schools and hospitals, at levels not previously seen and Gaza figures among the worst-affected contexts. Currently, the Occupied Palestinian Territory is the most dangerous place on earth to be a child, obtaining that title for the second year running, with grave violations committed at an extraordinary scale and pace by the Israeli forces. Most verified incidents were of the killing and maiming of children caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. It must be noted that children are seven times more likely than adults to die from blast injuries. Concurrently, we are witnessing the destruction of spaces dedicated to children’s education, development and play. Armed conflict exacts its heaviest toll on children.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately, the official numbers no doubt do not represent the full situation yet it is devastating to hear what my hon. Friend says. His intervention also points to a broader challenge, although it is not part of this debate, about the need for the international or global human rights order at the current time, and the importance of organisations such as the International Criminal Court and the UN in upholding that order and campaigning on these critical issues. What matters now is whether we act on what the research from the UN’s children and armed conflict agenda makes unmistakably clear. Childhoods are being destroyed and places of learning, safety and sanctuary are being decimated. We need to uphold international law and be a country that is promoting peace. It is welcome that Gaza’s key Rafah border crossing is gradually being reopened. According to local hospitals and the World Health Organisation, about 20,000 sick and wounded Palestinians are waiting to leave Gaza for treatment. Can the Minister inform parliamentarians what discussions have taken place with the Israeli Government on the process for the evacuation of all severely sick children now that the Rafah crossing is beginning to open? Does that allow for humanitarian and medical specialists, UN agencies and civil society organisations to gain access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories to support the unobstructed monitoring and reporting of grave violations against children?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Armed Forces Families · Hansard source

  More

  Another important factor in support for our brave troops is the provision of military clothing. The previous Conservative Government tied us into a contract whereby about 90% of Army clothing is secured through overseas suppliers, and a significant amount is secured from China. In my constituency of Hyndburn, the home of textiles, many businesses are eager to meet the needs of our British troops. Will the Minister review this and look into whether British companies can meet those British needs?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Armed Forces Families · Hansard source

  More

  15. What steps he is taking to support armed forces families.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that under this provision, with the right economic drivers, there could be consideration in future for family-friendly trains—a service seen in some parts of Europe, where entire carriages are set aside for toddlers and children to travel in comfort, which might no doubt also increase the comfort of passengers not travelling with children?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. My remarks will be incredibly brief, ahead of the Minister’s responses. To echo some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, as a representative of Hyndburn in Lancashire—which is currently not part of a mayoral combined authority—I look for reassurances that GBR will have regard to Lancashire’s transport authority and the local transport plans. This Government are clearly committed to the important agenda of devolution, but it would potentially undermine some of those efforts if in the transition phase—while we are trying to move as quickly as possible for as many areas as possible to benefit from that full devolution opportunity—a national body is undermining the local plans and those on the ground who understand the complexities of the needs of somewhere such as Lancashire. I would thank the Minister for reassurances in that regard.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is easy to debate who is getting it right and who is getting it wrong, fundamentally, we require a systemic shift in how we look at the problem, which is generational and intergenerational? Everything that she is outlining shows that we are taking a systemic view, to get to the cause of these problems, so that we can finally move forward for the generations that have been let down. We did not have that approach from the previous Government.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In Hyndburn, we are less than 40 minutes from Manchester, but very proudly in Lancashire, obviously— Andy Burnham: We have no plans to annex you yet, but I will let you know if that changes!

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In my constituency, we have a potential site for a rail freight terminal, and I welcome the commitment to rail freight growth in the Bill. As I understand it, GB Railfreight has invested in 30 new locomotives so far, and has raised more than £218 million of debt available for capital investment. Do you not agree that that demonstrates industry confidence, and that those steps, plus the other things happening in the industry at this stage, suggests that the industry is not unnerved by the progress being made by the Government and what is currently outlined in the Bill? Maggie Simpson: The industry is unnerved by the provisions in the Bill—I have members writing letters across Government to set out their concerns—but business goes on. Keith Williams picked up his biro in 2018; you could have raised a child in the time since then, so of course business has to go on. People are making good investments and, as I said at the beginning of the panel, we are pleased with the support of this Government. What we are looking at in the Bill is whether we have a framework that will enable those investments to happen in five, 10 or 15 years’ time, under a different Administration with, potentially, a different mindset, which might be better or worse—we do not know. That question has different layers. Are we unnerved now? Yes. Is that stopping investment now? Not everywhere, but possibly in some places; other factors are at play too, of course. Will it start to impact investment? Yes, it will. The first time that GBR says to somebody, “Take your freight train off my network because I want to run this service instead”, if we have no or very limited right to appeal, it will absolutely start to spook the market. Steve Montgomery: I know your question was about freight, but private sector investment, particularly in passenger rolling stock, is an area you have to look at and ask, “Where’s that coming from?”. We have committed to spend £500 million between buying new trains and maintaining them, and that keeps the supply chain going. We have potential future orders that we want to place, but we are again getting caught up in the mechanics of whether there will be open access, or whether we will lose our rights at any point under clause 71. All those different things are in play at this moment of time, so where do you get that confidence? The Bill is not strong enough in that area, particularly not for passenger service operators.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a very short question about a slightly different area. John, I understand that you have worked across Europe and looked at different approaches across the world. In Finland, as I understand it, they have gone all out on family-friendly trains and ensuring inclusive access to trains in the widest possible sense. Is there anything we can learn from that part of the world on how we can meet the ambitions for accessible services laid out in the legislation? John Thomas: I am fairly new to the role. We are a Brussels-based organisation and we do have lots of European members. I am not familiar with the Finland example, but the European Union is going in completely the opposite direction from us. They are continuing to liberalise, opening up their markets—in the United States, in Australia, in South America—

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Reform county council is trying to delay our progression towards a mayor, which is deeply frustrating because of all of the things you have outlined, and much broader things as well, about the benefits of devolution. What benefits might Hyndburn get, without being part of a mayoral authority, as the Bill currently stands? What more might we be able to do to benefit areas that are dependent on that progress before they can be talking in the way that you are today, Tracy and Andy? Andy Burnham: Obviously, from Hyndburn, people will travel to Manchester, but also to Liverpool, Preston and other places. Once you see the emergence of more integrated systems in which Hyndburn is included, travel will become more convenient and cheaper. In effect, there will come a point where your constituents, Sarah, will be able to tap into the Bee Network cap and come into Manchester and then use our trams and buses at a much lower cost than might otherwise have been the case. I think that is the way to think about it: as this spreads out, in the end, it will make travel more convenient and more affordable for people everywhere. It is really just within the city region boundaries at the moment, but it will grow beyond that, and I believe that your constituents will feel the benefit in three to five years, possibly, but maybe not as immediately as others. Jason Prince: We also have to remember that the reason we are here now is that the railway system did not work. What GBR will do, through the legislation that the Government have brought forward, is bring a much stronger focus. We will have a structure and a body that, almost as a minimum, seeks to deliver a good passenger journey and good access, whether that is for freight or whatever. We are starting from a stronger base and probably with greater clarity, but we have to acknowledge that different areas, such as Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, have been given powers and funding, and with that comes greater responsibility. They are all prepared to take that on and, conversely, with that they should have greater strengthening and probably deeper partnerships. I think that needs to be written into the Bill, to better define it. There are 20,000 words in the Bill, and the addition of probably only 500—about 2% of the overall text of the Bill—would make that relationship much stronger. I know that is quite geeky and very technical, but that is broadly where I think we need to land in terms of strengthening. GBR will set a framework that we have not had before, which should benefit every part of the country. I think that is what the Bill will do.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think that duty could help to ensure that inclusivity is taken in the widest possible sense? I travel with my toddler, and there is a risk when I go to the toilet with him that he will hit the emergency open button and I will be exposed to the train. There is a conflict there: I absolutely recognise that disabled people need to be able to use those facilities and get support, but I also need to be able to use the train safely as a mother with a small person. How will we ensure, if we move to co-creation in how we deliver accessibility, as Alex was proposing, that we consider a slightly wider group of people—as much as disabled people are absolutely the priority—to ensure that we deliver inclusive railways? Could that duty help to provide a bit of a framework for that to be considered going forward? Ben Plowden: Yes. By definition, if you want to increase the volume of travel by rail, you need to make that network meaningfully usable by the broadest segment of the population that you can. That also relates to issues around affordability that we might come back to. If GBR had a legal incentive to increase demand over time, as well as a duty to demonstrably increase accessibility over time, I think that would encourage it to think very broadly about how to get the largest number of people possible using a safer, more accessible, more reliable and more affordable network. Emma Vogelmann: In terms of true co-production, you are really looking at how to create universal design. That universal design is beneficial to everyone. I want to stress that if accessibility provisions and things that are built in to promote accessibility are done correctly and in consultation with disabled people and other passengers, you will not have that conflict in access needs. Universal design would allow everyone to benefit from those improvements. Alex Robertson: I agree absolutely with what Emma has said and what we are trying to achieve with this. The question, and this is obviously why you are asking it, is how much you can legislate for that. We had an experience with Merseyrail developing its new trains in and around Liverpool. You completely need to engage disabled passengers throughout the process, from the specification to the design and implementation, because things that you think are possible at the beginning may lead to trade-offs later on. You want to have people in the room making those decisions with you and balancing the competing the interests of different passengers, and you have to do that throughout. That did lead to—I hope this is reflected by people’s experience in Liverpool—a much better experience for disabled passengers and for the general travelling public. How much you could legislate for that I am not entirely sure, but it will have to be absolutely integral to how GBR goes about its business. The other advantage you will get through having GBR at the network-wide level is that we know that we have trains of different sizes, platforms of the wrong height—it is a mess across the network. Putting GBR in a position where it can make those decisions, plan long term, and get some consistency to a higher and better standard is what we are hoping for, and I believe we can do that with the changes that are being made. Michael Roberts: I think at the nub of your line of inquiry is the need for inclusion in its broadest sense. However a duty is expressed around the interests that GBR needs to take into consideration, whether in the Bill or in other statutory documents, I think some consideration ought to be given to, for example, diversity in its widest sense—that is, the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 rather than just necessarily one of those, important as the needs of disabled travellers are. There are needs of other travellers that also need to be taken into consideration.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As it says in the register, I am a member of GMB, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and Community union.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Ben, I want to come to your proposals around the duty to grow passenger use. Could it not be assumed that that runs throughout the Bill? Why do you think it is needed as an additional explicit provision? Ben Plowden: Clearly, in broad terms, GBR will be incentivised to increase passenger demand, not least because of the revenue that would flow from that, as well as its ability to deliver its other duties, such as the public interest duty. It seems odd to us that there is a difference between the way that incentive is expressed for passengers versus freights; there is a very clear requirement in the Bill to promote the use of the network for the carriage of goods and for the Secretary of State to separately set a freight growth target. We think that, for consistency, and to give a statutory incentive for GBR to grow passenger use alongside its commercial incentives, there should be an equivalent duty to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers, and a separate duty for the Secretary of State to set a growth target for passenger demand over time. The Secretary of State will obviously need to determine that growth target in the light of financial circumstances, network capacity and all the other things that will determine what could realistically be achieved. But, unless there is a statutory incentive for GBR to grow passenger use over time, we think it may find itself perversely and unintentionally, or at least in terms of its other duties, reducing service frequency and crowding people off the network through fares, because of the specific requirements about passenger service standards that we discussed before. I think it would be very helpful in the drafting to provide an equivalence for GBR for passengers so that is like the freightduty.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I spend about four hours a week on a train with a toddler, so I know well that inclusion on our railways is not just for those with disabilities, although that is incredibly important. I am interested in whether you think that the provisions in the Bill around accessibility are strong enough and will go far enough to ensure that we have a railway that truly works for everybody, as it needs to if we are to persuade more people out of their cars and on to the railways, and as is right given the endeavour around net zero and the Government’s wider ambitions. Richard Brown: Yes, I do. There are clear duties placed on the passengers’ council, for instance, to produce standards for accessibility. Those can then be enforced by the ORR or by persuasion with GBR. The improvement of accessibility is mentioned at several points in the Bill as a duty or responsibility or something that is important, and as something to be taken fully into account in planning and developing investment schemes. I think the Bill actually provides greater impetus on that score, but this is a long-term thing. There are railways with platforms and track such that you have to cross over the track to get from one platform to the other, and there has been a long-term programme of investment to try to improve accessibility with things like lifts. This needs to carry on, and ideally at a faster pace. Keith Williams: One of the disappointing things for me, when I did the review, was that we did not really know what accessibility was. We actually had to do an audit to look at where we had accessibility to begin with, and I would encourage you to keep the pressure on that one. It is one thing to have an audit of what does and does not exist, but the next thing is to prioritise what really needs doing going forward. I think that is part of the longer-term strategy for the railway, which is in governmental hands.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  I want to put on the record my gratitude for the leadership that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have shown on this issue as it evolves. Does she share my confusion about why Members of this House who claim to be patriots would join a party that blames NATO for starting the Ukraine war, that has a leader who admires Vladimir Putin, and that has a former leader in Wales who is serving 10 years in prison for taking Russian bribes?