Tom Gordon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. One of the issues concerning me is what scrutiny and accountability the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s new code of practice and guidance will have from this House. My understanding is that it will be laid before the House as a negative statutory instrument, meaning that unless the Leader of the Opposition pushes for time and scrutiny, there may be none. Will the Leader of the House outline what opportunities Members will get to scrutinise that guidance when it is published?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Early Education and Childcare · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the positive step towards providing affordable childcare. Coppice Valley primary school in my constituency is part of phase 1 of the scheme that the Minister outlined. However, it worries me that what he has outlined might come at the expense of private and voluntary sector providers, which deliver the majority of early years places. The new early years funding contract is putting huge strain on such providers, which are having to pass the unaffordable costs on to parents. The Minister has said that there will be a review of the funding in due course, but can he give us some more specific dates and timelines? Nurseries and parents cannot afford this issue in the meantime.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I recently visited the General Tarleton in Ferrensby, which has just reopened. A fantastic group of people have created the Jeopardy Hospitality project, which reopens pubs that have closed down; those involved include the celebrity chef Tommy Banks and Matt Lockwood. Pubs are the heart of the community. Does my hon. Friend agree that people who take these risks and try to put the heart back in our communities deserve help, not a clobbering from this Government?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Diabetes in Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, and over the summer, we visited the Northern general hospital in Sheffield. We met healthcare professionals who spoke about their one-stop shop for people with diabetes. They want to deliver services in communities, and in places with grassroots community sports. Does she agree that this might be a perfect opportunity that ties into what she describes?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Diabetes in Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for being very generous with her time. One key point is that when it comes to exercise and sport, our most formative experiences are at school. When my sister was at high school, diabetes carried a massive stigma, and she was told that she would have to inject her insulin in a toilet, which was completely inappropriate. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that people with diabetes have positive experiences, starting as early as school?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Eating Disorders: Prevention of Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  One of the great organisations that does a lot of work on the accountability of services, including eating disorder services, is Healthwatch. We know that these organisations are going to be scrapped. They have done loads of valuable work at local and regional levels. What levels of accountability will the new systems put in place for eating disorder services?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Eating Disorders: Prevention of Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this important debate. Prior to entering this place, I worked in the charity sector for type 1 diabetes charity JDRF, as it was then. In the last Parliament, Theresa May and Sir George Howarth published an inquiry report into T1DE, or type 1 diabetes and disordered eating, which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) outlined. Over the course of the summer recess I met with Dr Tony Winston at the Aspen Centre in Coventry. One of the key takeaways when it comes to diabetes and disordered eating and that complex condition is making sure that there are clear criteria. At the moment, as has already been outlined, as an eating disorder, T1DE falls through the net: it is referred to diabetes services, but often diabetes services try to refer it on to eating disorder services too. There is a bit of a gap in the net. One of the key needs is integration of services between those two Departments. There must also be better collection, integration and use of data to prevent death before it occurs. People with T1DE have a three times higher chance of mortality, and we know that over 100,000 people are at risk of it. One of the key findings of the inquiry report that I helped to work on was the lack of education for healthcare professionals when it comes to identifying eating disorders, particularly in other areas and specialisms. Can the Minister comment on what his Department is doing to pick up that report and implement some of those recommendations?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Solar Development: Newark · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency has a similar situation to the one the right hon. Gentleman is describing. The village of Scotton, which is home to the house where Guy Fawkes grew up, risks being encircled by a similar sort of development. People on the ground are pragmatic, but the issue comes down to planning rules and laws. It is simply not pragmatic or possible to get emergency vehicles or heavy goods vehicles through those communities. Does he agree that there needs to be a more common-sense approach to tackling these issues in rural communities?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Rebuilding Schools · Hansard source

  More

  A number of years ago, Woodfield school in Bilton in my constituency was closed. It has been rebuilt as a specialist school for children with autism. It was meant to open in September last year, but that was delayed until September this year. Will the Minister meet me and confirm whether it will open on time this September?

• 17 Jul 2025 · NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to take this opportunity to put my thanks on the record to the Minister. I have spoken to her outside this place about the money we have secured for removing reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete at Harrogate district hospital, which I have been campaigning on for years. It is great having state-of-the-art hospital facilities, but if we do not have the staff there, it is all a bit moot. I want to press the Minister on the concerns raised by colleagues that people might not come back or take on additional hours in the NHS as a result of this issue. Will she commit to updating Members throughout the recess on progress on this matter?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A couple of weeks ago at a Quaker Asylum and Refugee Network event in Harrogate, I met constituents who came to the UK from Afghanistan under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy scheme, and who still have family living in Afghanistan. They showed me photos of their loved ones, some smiling and some a lot more brutal and bleak after attacks they had faced. The statement earlier this week focused rightly on the Afghanistan Response Route scheme and the associated super-injunction. Will the Leader of the House liaise with her Cabinet colleagues and look for further opportunities for MPs to meet relevant Ministers to discuss existing applications under the ARAP scheme, such as those of my constituents and their families?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Accountability for Daesh Crimes · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Government for engaging with the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, “Accountability for Daesh crimes”, and for the response they have provided. There are some areas of welcome agreement; for instance, the Government have reiterated their commitment to ensuring justice for survivors. They rightly agree that where there is evidence of international crimes such as genocide, individuals should be prosecuted for those crimes, not merely for terrorism offences that fail to capture the full horror and scale of what has taken place. However, let me be clear: for all the Government’s assurances, we are still left with the sobering reality that not one single Daesh fighter has yet been prosecuted in the UK for genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes of any sort. The UK is a signatory to the genocide convention; we are one of its founding champions. We cannot continue to rely on theoretical commitment to it, while outsourcing accountability to other jurisdictions, or to international courts with limited reach and resources. The Government’s response repeatedly emphasises that prosecutions are best pursued “close to where crimes occur”, but where that is not happening—and in many cases it is not—the UK cannot, and must not, turn a blind eye. If a British national takes part in genocide abroad and returns to the UK, they should face justice here. There must be no safe haven for perpetrators of international crimes, especially not on UK soil. Turning to universal jurisdiction, I am disappointed that the Government have rejected the recommendation to amend the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to remove the limitations based on nationality and residency. What is recommended is not a radical departure from established practice. This is about closing a clear loophole that allows perpetrators of genocide and other international crimes to escape justice simply because of where they are from. The UK exercises universal jurisdiction for torture, and for grave breaches of the Geneva conventions, so why not for genocide? This is not just a legal oversight; it is a failure of political will that continues to undermine survivors’ access to justice. The Government claim that sufficient co-ordination exists between the Crown Prosecution Service and the war crimes team, but despite the structures having been in place since 2019, we are yet to see any meaningful outcomes. Structures alone are not enough. Survivors want justice, not process. Co-ordination must be measured by results, and so far, the result is zero prosecutions for international crimes. I am also deeply concerned by the Government’s stance on citizenship deprivation. The assertion that there is sufficient transparency does not hold up to scrutiny. The public deserve regular, accessible reporting, and Parliament deserves the ability to scrutinise use of this powerful and exceptional tool. Deprivation of citizenship should never be a substitute for due process, or a way of quietly absolving ourselves of responsibility for British nationals being involved in atrocity crimes overseas. Finally, I come to British nationals, including children, detained in north-east Syria. We note the Government’s repeated statements about the practical challenges, and I acknowledge the complexity of the security environment, but the absence of precise public data, the slow pace of repatriation, and the ambiguity around the next steps on those detained and potential prosecutions remain deeply troubling. These children are British nationals. Some are orphaned, and others are at risk of radicalisation and violence. Leaving them in indefinite limbo in unsafe camps is a moral and strategic failure. The UK should lead with humanity, clarity and resolve. If we are serious about upholding the rule of law; if we mean what we say about the genocide convention; and if we truly honour the memory and suffering of Yazidi survivors and other victims of Daesh crimes, we must go further than warm words and procedural reassurances. We need action, prosecutions and leadership. The Government have the opportunity to turn rhetoric into reality. I urge Ministers to reconsider the case for universal jurisdiction, for greater transparency, and for a clearer, more co-ordinated path to justice. That is our moral and legal obligation, and we owe nothing less to survivors. Bill Presented Planning and Development (Community Infrastructure) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Ben Maguire presented a Bill to require housing developers to construct any planned community infrastructure before commencing construction of housing with which the planned community infrastructure is associated; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 290).

• 17 Jul 2025 · Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms · Hansard source

  More

  I am a member of the Select Committee over which the hon. Lady presides as Chair, and I thank her and all the staff who helped with this report and inquiry. I know that many of us in this place wear not one, but multiple hats; I also sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we are doing an inquiry into AI and human rights. Some of the work from this report will be helpful and inform us in looking at some of the key issues, so, with another hat on, I thank her for that. One of the evidence sessions that has stuck with me from working on the report is when we had social media company bosses in front of us. They talked about how they removed most of the content within 10 minutes in 90% of cases, but they did not accept responsibility for the proliferation of that data, information and content outside their own spheres. What worries me is that, at a time when we have advancing technologies and a great pace of change and we need to maintain regulation at a breakneck pace, companies—particularly social media companies—are unravelling and unpicking their content notes, their monitoring and how they look for and remove information that might be harmful. Does the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee agree that we need to do more in regulating current approaches and ensure that the companies do not backslide on their obligations?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  There is lots in the strategy that the Liberal Democrats and I welcome. Could the Minister explain why there is a difference between Westminster elections and combined mayoral elections? We know that the majority of the British public want to see the scrapping of first past the post, and we know from when we had a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject during this Parliament that the majority of Members in this place want to see the scrapping of first past the post—indeed, we know that a majority of Labour Members want to see the scrapping of first past the post. So why is there a difference between the different types of elections?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps he is taking to support the hospitality sector.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I regularly meet the Harrogate business improvement district and the chamber of commerce, and we have a thriving hospitality and tourism sector in Harrogate and Knaresborough. I recently met Alison, a constituent who runs a number of local bars and restaurants, and she is worried that with the increase in employer NICs, rising energy costs and the other pressures that this Government are not getting to grips with, businesses like hers will not be there to see the benefits of business rates reform. What is the Minister doing with Treasury colleagues to support local hospitality?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Further Education Institutions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. One of the first things that I had to do after the general election was to ensure a funding guarantee of more than £20 million for a rebuild of Harrogate college. Due to the local authority dropping the ball, the planning expired and the funding period elapsed. I was grateful to work with the Labour Government to secure that funding. I do worry, though, about the £90,000 cut to Harrogate college’s adult skills funding. The response that I got from the Government said that that is now devolved to the Labour mayor. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more funding for our devolved mayors to ensure that we keep up adult skills funding?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  At a recent surgery, a constituent brought to me the leasehold problems that she is experiencing with her housing association. Despite paying a considerable amount in service charges, leaseholders have been whacked with a £7,000 bill for improvements to the property’s roof, with the expectation that they will pay within 30 days of completion. There was limited consultation, and leaseholders had no choice in who carried out the works. What does the Secretary of State advise my constituent to do?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Future of the Post Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, and I add my thanks to our postmasters, including Andrew Hart in my constituency. Last year, residents in Knaresborough faced a prolonged period without a Post Office service. I had extensive communication with Post Office officials about service continuity, minimum standards, types and awards of contracts, and I found them evasive when I asked them questions about that. As the Minister says, such issues of governance will be addressed in the inquiry, but how might that feed into the Green Paper consultation? Will he meet me to address some of my concerns about the issues that we are facing locally?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Disabled Bus Passes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. I hope he notes that I was quite measured in my speech, and I genuinely believe that he wants to put disabled people at the heart of the review. When the Department looks at the impact on the financials and on spending, will it look at how if disabled people can get to hospital appointments, opportunities in education and out spending their money in our economy that might feed into funding the system?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Disabled Bus Passes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. She has stolen the next line from my speech, but I shall forgive her on this occasion. I wonder whether she was reading over my shoulder. BSIP funding is allocated only on a year-by-year basis, offering no long-term security or reassurance for disabled people who are affected by these restrictions. Even where local authorities are willing to fund all-day concessions, the lack of guaranteed, ringfenced support means that provision is patchy at best. In East Sussex, only 1% of BSIP funds were needed to cover the reimbursements of offering full-time concessionary travel for disabled people—a modest figure with a significant impact. That shows clearly that the issue is not necessarily one of affordability, but of political will and prioritisation. We can take York and North Yorkshire combined authority, the local transport authority for my constituency, as an example. Of the £12 million allocated to the region, funding has been directed toward valuable but highly localised initiatives: bus station upgrades and improvements in Skipton, Whitby, Selby and Malton; bus stop improvements in Helmsley, Easingwold and Leyburn; and discounted family travel in York city centre. Those are all worthwhile investments, but they offer no benefit to constituents who require access with a disabled bus pass, especially those living with disabilities, who remain excluded because of outdated restrictions. I do not want a patchwork solution that fixes the problem only in my area, but one that will apply across England and bring everyone forward. Sadly, it is equally clear that where budgets are stretched, discretionary travel arrangements are the first thing to be scaled back to cut costs. Recent data from Local Government Association has highlighted the £452 million gap in Government funding for the concessionary travel scheme. It is therefore not likely that local authorities will be able to fund enhancements themselves when Government funding is already falling short of the required amount. Hampshire county council recently moved in the wrong direction, in the light of funding shortfalls and budget constraints, by removing their discretionary services, including free peak time travel for those with companion passes. That sends a worrying message. We cannot rely on local authorities alone to deliver change. Leadership must come from this place and central Government. The Government cannot continue to wash their hands of responsibility by framing this as a matter solely for devolution and local transport authorities. The simple truth is this: it was the Government who introduced time restrictions under the English national concessionary travel scheme, and it is the Government who hold the power to remove those restrictions. National problems require national solutions. If we are serious about building a fairer and more inclusive society, the Government must stop kicking the can down the road and start acting with the urgency and authority that this issue deserves. I urge the Minister to reflect not just on the policy, but on the people affected by it. This is not about politics; it is about fairness, dignity and equality of access. The barriers facing disabled people are already too high. Let us not allow a bureaucratic time restriction to be one of them. Ending this arbitrary time would promote independence, reduce social isolation and help disabled people into work, education and healthcare. The power to change that lies with the Government. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to act now: lift the restriction and help to build a transport system that truly works for everyone.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Disabled Bus Passes · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment. My constituency is in north Yorkshire—a vast rural area where we have exactly the same challenges that she describes in her own patch. The impact of this restrictive rule is particularly clear when we listen to young disabled people themselves. In a recent conversation with Whizz Kidz, a charity that supports young people with disabilities, it highlighted the specific harm this restriction causes for young wheelchair users. The charity recently conducted a survey asking whether free 24/7 bus travel would make a difference. Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming response was yes. Young people said that all-day access to free bus travel would significantly boost their independence, help them build social connections and develop crucial life skills. As one individual put it: “We’re normal young people who therefore can’t afford taxis, can’t fit in Ubers but still have social needs. If you want us to be able to integrate and contribute economically, we need the opportunity to build social capital and skills.” While bus travel is by no means perfect, it remains the most consistent and accessible option for many disabled people. It does not require pre-booking and offers regular services and allows for greater independence. In contrast, other modes of transport are much less accessible. One constituent shared how they have missed trains because pre-booked assistance failed to show up, been unable to use underground or metro systems, which was cited as a common issue, and struggled to find accessible taxis, especially outside major towns and in rural areas. That experience is not an exception; it is a reflection of the systemic gaps in our transport networks, which fail to accommodate disabled passengers reliably and fairly. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has highlighted that for those with sight loss, bus travel is often the only accessible option. Pavement parking, dangerous e-scooter driving and inaccessible crossings all make transport on foot far too difficult. Some 95% of respondents to its recent research said that they use buses at least monthly. It is therefore clear that if we are to restrict concessionary access to buses, we must first ensure that alternative modes of transport are truly accessible and affordable—something that, as my constituent’s experience makes clear, is far from being the case today. At a time when disabled people face extra burdens and cuts from every angle, we must find ways to support our disabled community. The current cost of living crisis has had a disproportionate impact on disabled people. They are more likely to face fuel poverty, skip meals and struggle with rising costs across the board. Disabled households are also more likely to be among the poorest in society, with around a third of adults in the lowest-income households living with a disability. Scope recently published its “Disability Price Tag” report, which demonstrates that disabled households need on average an additional £1,095 a month to have the same standard of living as a non-disabled household. These are not luxuries, but necessities for daily life. Whether medical equipment, higher energy bills or accessible transport, they are unavoidable costs. One of the crucial benefits of removing the 9.30 am restriction would be to significantly improve access to employment, education and training, much of which begins before 9 am.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Disabled Bus Passes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to stand here today and raise, once again, the issue of restrictions on the use of disabled bus passes. The Minister will be well aware of this matter, which I have raised with him on a number of occasions, and I have already had the opportunity to discuss it with him directly, for which I am grateful. However, I want to use today’s debate not only to underline the real and lasting impact that these restrictions have on disabled people’s lives, but to make a clear case for why it is the Government’s responsibility to address this inequality. Currently, under the English national concessionary travel scheme, eligible disabled people are entitled to some limited free local bus travel. It is a policy rightly designed to help those who, for physical or legal reasons, are unable to drive. The scheme plays a vital role in helping disabled people to stay connected with healthcare, work, education, family, and the wider community and society.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Disabled Bus Passes · Hansard source

  More

  Many of those opportunities start before 9 am. Disabled people can still board a bus earlier if they pay, but we have just established that disabled people already face much higher daily living costs. Those on low or no income are therefore disproportionately affected by this decision and their opportunities impacted. That financial barrier makes travel during peak hours a burden that many cannot afford, limiting their opportunities before they have even begun the day. Bernie, a blind bus user living in one of the few areas with 24/7 concessionary travel, described that access as a lifeline. Living rurally, he relies on buses from as early as 7.30 am to get to work, and says it would be near-impossible without free travel. There are unique challenges faced by disabled people that many without that lived experience find hard to understand. For example, as a blind person, Bernie feels at risk counting money on the roadside. Similarly, another respondent with vision and hearing loss said her conditions worsen later in the day, making early travel essential. Yet in her village, the first concessionary service does not arrive until after 10 am. Those examples highlight why disabled people need consistent, unrestricted access to transport, and why a postcode lottery simply does not work and is not fair. The previous Government’s approach to supporting disabled people amounted to a patchwork of short-term fixes and empty promises. The current Government’s rhetoric on personal independence payments—although that has changed recently—and disability support continues to fall short. If the recent wave of dissent from Government Back Benchers over these issues is not evidence enough of the need for urgent change, I am not sure what is. The Government have made it clear that they want to encourage disabled people into work. The Minister here has a perfect opportunity to dismantle one of the many barriers they face. I urge him to do that. The solution here is not just achievable; it is affordable. Research by Whizz Kidz suggests that removing time restrictions would cost £8.8 million, reflecting only 1% of the annual spend on concessionary travel across England. That does not even include companion passes. If we are serious about improving opportunities for disabled people—the Government have said repeatedly they are—then this is a logical, low-cost place to start. It is a matter of fairness and equality.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Disabled Bus Passes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she speaks extensively about an area in which I know she is a champion. I completely agree with her. If we are giving people disabled bus passes, we are doing that for a reason, and those reasons often do not apply only from 9.30 am onwards. That brings me to the next part of my speech. From 11 pm to 9.30 am on weekdays, the English national concessionary travel scheme entitlement becomes a postcode lottery and is dependent on whether a local authority or transport authority chooses to extend the benefit and, crucially, whether it can afford to do so, from some already stretched local budgets. Disability Action Yorkshire, a charity based in my constituency and one whose work extends across the wider region, brought this issue to my attention earlier this year, and indeed last year at a local panel event, where local people pointed out the barriers they faced to participating in our society. Service users rightly point out the absurd contradiction in providing a travel path for disabled individuals that is designed to improve accessibility, only to then restrict its use to peak hours. The absurdity lies in the obvious truth that disabilities do not appear only at peak times. There are approximately 870,000 disabled bus pass holders in England, representing about 10% of all concessionary travel users. The Department for Transport has on several occasions pointed to the fact that 77% of local authorities offer some form of free travel before 9.30, suggesting that the issue is relative minor, but framing it in that way obscures the reality on the ground. In many areas, including my constituency, free travel is still not permitted until after 9 am, making travel to work, education or early medical appointments financially and logistically difficult for disabled people. In fact, research shows that 35% of transport authorities offer unrestricted, 24/7 access for disabled passengers. The result is a postcode lottery, and the majority of disabled people remain constrained by an arbitrary time restriction that does not reflect the demands of their daily lives. Let us be clear: the time restriction may be more relevant for older pass holders, who make up 90% of concessionary users and are in general less likely to be commuting to work or education. But that simply does not apply to many disabled people, with disabled bus pass holders typically being of working age. We live in a country where disabled people continue to face unnecessary and unacceptable barriers, whether physical, financial or social. We must be honest that we are simply not doing enough to break down those barriers. Removing the weekday time restriction on disabled bus passes would be a straightforward, immediate and meaningful step in the right direction. Ending the restrictions would do more than improving access to transport. It would promote greater independence for disabled people. It would support health and wellbeing by reducing social isolation and making it easier to attend early morning medical appointments, which are often difficult or costly to reach under the current rules. It would also contribute to environmental goals by encouraging greater use of public transport over less sustainable alternatives. Most importantly, by allowing disabled people to travel freely, we enable fuller participation in community life, whether that is volunteering, social engagements, work or education. In doing so, we would take a meaningful step toward greater social inclusion and a more equal society for disabled people.