Wes Streeting MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Ukraine and Russia · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his support and the work that he does, particularly with NATO. I reassure him that through the defence investment plan, we are investing £790 million in new homeland integrated air and missile defence, and are building on our broader air defence investments, including through directed energy weapons, Sea Viper upgrades and a new integrated air, space and missile defence operations centre. He is right to bring scrutiny to that issue, and it is right that the House maintains its focus on improving our air defences, not least given what we see in Ukraine.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Ukraine and Russia · Hansard source

  More

  I give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking on those three things to make it as easy as possible for him to support this Government: supporting the nuclear deterrent, building capacity in our armed forces and supporting NATO are things I believe in very strongly. In the spirit on these exchanges, I will take at face value the point he makes about the comparison with the cold war and resist the temptation to discuss the starting point we were faced with on defence spending and the condition of our armed forces when this Government arrived. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw historical comparisons and provoke all of us to think more widely about the context we are operating in domestically, across Europe and internationally. I have not heard a suggestion from the official Opposition that the Government should be making a 4% or 5% commitment, nor any proposals to that effect, but let this discussion help the public understand why, at a time of constrained resources for households, businesses and Government, we are making an active political choice to invest more in our defence. I respectfully say, as someone who has been responsible for hospitals and the NHS, that schools, hospitals and homes are important things, but they are valueless if reduced to rubble. That is the experience of the Ukrainians; that is the kind of threat that we are operating under; and that is why we must commit, and continue to commit, to increasing defence spending.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Ukraine and Russia · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue and the importance of learning from those who lead by example. We do need to raise our game in this respect. We absolutely will, and we are drawing on our international counterparts as we prepare for our own national conversation. We are also thinking through the capability that we need in terms of national resilience. I am very happy to involve him in those conversations and to underscore the importance of the UK Government—this is our responsibility—working closely with the devolved Governments as well. I want to have a constructive relationship in this post with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Ukraine and Russia · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive spirit with which he responded to my statement, and I very much hope we can maintain that on both sides of the House. I have certainly enjoyed my early conversations with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), so we will continue to work in that spirit, and maximise and project unity globally wherever we possibly can. The right hon. Gentleman referenced that I am the third Defence Secretary in recent months, for reasons that are evident, and I give him an undertaking to add this to the retention priorities for the workforce. I made that point very firmly to the Prime Minister, and I am very much in favour of retention in this post. On that note, however, I place on record my enormous respect for and thanks to both of my Labour predecessors —the Chancellor and the Security Minister. I particularly want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), who did an outstanding job during his time in this office, doing some considerable heavy lifting to get the defence investment plan over the line. Not only do I thank him for it, but I think the country will thank him for it in the longer term, too. I am enjoying working with him in his post. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned support for Ukraine, particularly the support we have given for a number of years on training. I should reflect back to the House, from my visit to Kyiv, that what is fascinating about the evolution of this terrible war is that, whereas we have spent a considerable amount of time training Ukrainians, we are increasingly finding that it is the other way around. We are seeing the rapid evolution of modern warfare, and the Ukrainians are at the forefront of defence innovation. We are actively learning from our Ukrainian friends, and their ingenuity and expertise. Yes, we have to provide them with the resources they need to fight and to win, but it is also important that we recognise their extraordinary capability under the most unimaginably difficult circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the multinational force for Ukraine. We hope for the best and plan for the worst in terms of the continuation of this war, but we are also actively working to prepare for conditions in which a ceasefire has been agreed by Ukraine, with Ukraine and, from our perspective, for Ukraine. I am proud of the work we are doing, particularly with our French allies, on the multinational force for Ukraine. I enjoyed seeing the MNFU in Paris during a visit to meet my French counterpart, Madame Vautrin, earlier this summer, and I am looking forward to hosting the MNFU here in the UK later this year. The objective of the MNFU is, in the event that a ceasefire is achieved, to increase Ukraine’s deterrence against war breaking out again, and that is the focus of the mission. The right hon. Gentleman referred to reports in the media about training, and I just want to unpack a few points. First, we are investing more in training, and it is certainly not true to say that training has ceased. [ Interruption. ] To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he did not make that claim, but I have seen people draw that conclusion from some of the reports. Of course training continues, although there has been some reprioritisation to make sure we are prioritising the activities that will provide most impact at this point in time. I acknowledge, however, that one of our responsibilities as a Department is to live within our means. One discipline I have to bring to the Ministry of Defence, drawing on my experience at the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS, is to ensure there is no culture of routine overspending, that we are improving productivity, that we deliver value for money and that we recognise that the money we are investing in defence comes with choices and trade-offs that apply across Government and ultimately rest with the taxpayer. Yes, we must make the case for more defence investment and spending, and we will—we will see that across the House—but we should not in the process distract from ensuring that we live within our means, that we deliver capability, effect and impact, and that we treat every penny of taxpayers’ money wisely. [ Interruption. ] I hear from the Opposition Front Benchers that they agree with that point. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman tempted me to announce the date at which we will hit 3% spending. He will know that getting ahead of a Chancellor and a spending review is a breach of the ministerial code, and having resigned from the Government once already, I have no intention of doing so again today.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Ukraine and Russia · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I put on record my respect for the expertise and experience he brings to debates on defence in this House. He is absolutely right about what the objective needs to be: lower cost, higher impact. We are actively working to drive innovation in this space, particularly through initiatives such as Project Brakestop. We are tracking our allies, who are also actively seeking to push the frontier of defence innovation in this space. I will, of course, keep the House updated as those initiatives progress.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, this Government would not have such an uphill mountain to climb were it not for the decisions taken by our predecessors. I really think the Conservatives would have more credibility if they acknowledged that fact more readily and with more humility than they have shown today, and on every previous occasion the shadow Secretary of State has been at the Dispatch Box. None the less, as the Secretary of State himself has acknowledged, we need to go further and faster. What we have here is a good foundation to build on, but there is more to do. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State set out the Government’s rationale for not joining the defence security and resilience bank, and will he reconsider?

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  May I add my thanks to Baroness Amos? I join the Secretary of State in emphasising the importance of culture change, but culture change will not happen without accountability. In all the conversations I had with families who were suffering bereavement, harm to themselves or harm to their children, what shocked me most was the cover-up culture in the NHS, which persists to this day, and was exposed once again by Donna Ockenden in her report last week. There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether we continue with place-based inquiries or have a national statutory public inquiry, and we must have that debate. But whatever the answer to that question, any report will be worth the paper it is written on only if all those involved in decision making and care are held to account through a duty of candour. Given that, where is the Hillsborough law? The law is important not just for justice for the 97, but for justice for these families and in preventing future harms. Will it at least go through this House before the summer recess? Until it is on the books, people will continue to duck the real questions.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). I will pick up on her last point, which was a challenge to all of us. There is always a danger, especially when you are a politician and you aspire to a better type of politics and a better type of discourse, that people will go through years-old media interviews, and increasingly your social media timelines, and say, “What about that time?” The point is—this was true of Jo, too—that none of us is perfect. We all aspire to be better, but we have to work at it. If it were the case that everyone behaved brilliantly all the time and was always the best versions of themselves, we would not have the challenges of division, and if it is the case that we cannot change hearts and minds, and that people who are racist—or prejudiced in another way, or brutal in the way they go about their lives—cannot be better, why do we bother with anti-racism campaigns? Why do we fight for equality? Why do we do offender rehabilitation? We do so because we know that people are not born perfect, but nor are they born bad. The whole point of life is to aspire to be a better person, and to leave something better behind us—and my goodness did our friend Jo do that. I can well understand why the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) can scarcely believe a decade has passed since Jo’s murder, because when he looks in the mirror every day, the same image is staring back at him. He has not aged a day, and I wish the same could be said for the rest of us. In the short time this debate has been taking place, it has been really nice when people have got to their feet and opened by saying, “I did not know Jo,” because you did not need to know Jo; she always let you in. Even if you had not met her before, if you did not connect with her in some way, or if you did not have mutual friends, the door was open and she would let you in. In the short time we were in this place together, I realised how lucky we were to have become friends. One of my abiding memories of Jo is in the Members’ Lobby around votes, because she was never standing still. She was always running around—ducking and diving, bobbing and weaving—trying to sort some deal out, or trying to get some motion signed or some cause over the line. She was a real troublemaker, in the best possible way. It is hard following my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), but they have given me courage today. Ten years ago, in the wake of Jo’s murder, I was asked to say a few words in this House on behalf of all of us who were elected alongside her in the 2015 intake of Labour MPs, and I could not do it. I did not think I would be able to hold it together, and I feared I would not find the words to do justice to the truly wonderful and powerful woman she was or to just how much she was loved—and is loved—by all of us who had the privilege to know her. My God, do we miss her. Her wisdom, experience and insight are so desperately needed now in our national life. There is always a danger that when words are repeated often, they lose meaning or become a cliché. It is with that risk in mind that I dwell on those words, so well known from Jo’s maiden speech, where she said: “While we celebrate our diversity, what surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.” —[ Official Report , 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 674-75.] I feel exactly the same about my community—my home—in Redbridge as Jo did about her community in Kirklees. Jo’s words were never intended to be sentimental; they were meant to be challenging. “More in common” does not mean pretending that our differences do not exist—Jo knew they did. She represented a constituency of proud Yorkshire towns and villages with different histories, different faiths, different traditions and different politics. “More in common” does not mean a politics without argument—Jo argued. Yes, she was able to work across party lines, but she was tribally Labour. She knew that change does not happen because people wish for it, or just because it is the right thing to do; change comes because people organise, campaign, persuade, demand and refuse to give up. “More in common” certainly does not mean a politics without courage—it demands it. Jo had courage in abundance, whether it was courage to stand up for refugees fleeing war, courage to demand action to protect civilians in Syria, courage for women and girls facing violence wherever in the world they face that violence, or courage for the people of Batley and Spen, whose dignity and decency she reflected to the whole country. To be courageous requires strength. Jo was strong, but there is a difference, especially in politics, between being strong and being brutal. Jo showed us that courage and kindness are not in competition, and they are two qualities that obviously run in the family. We are so blessed that Gordon and Jean gave our country two daughters to serve Batley and Spen, and now Spen Valley, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley gives true meaning to the words “honourable” and “friend”. It is a regular complaint of my mum’s that we use such language, by the way, because as far as she is concerned, there are not many honourable people in this place and she does not think I should be friends with any of them. [ Laughter. ] That is a consequence of social media. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has warned that our country faces increasing polarisation. Her family, including Brendan and Jo’s two wonderful children, know better than anyone where extremism can lead. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we face a choice about what kind of country we want to be. The Britain that I love, and the England that I love, is open, confident, generous and kind. It is serious, but with a great sense of humour, and it is a country that loves an underdog as much as being the top dog. We are a small island that has led the world in every industrial revolution, and whose language and literature, and songs and science, are enjoyed throughout the world. That is the Britain that we have to fight for and stand up for. I think it is the Britain of the majority of people in this country, and we must not let others grab the microphone or social media feeds to paint a picture to each other, or to the rest of the world, that does not reflect the true nature of what it means to be this United Kingdom. In the week that Jo died, she brought together a whole group of us down in Wapping, where she lived, and we had the most wonderful party. There was a lot of laughing, a lot of talking and a lot of drinking. Awards were given—one day we should publish the list of the winners and ask, “Where are they now?” That was the last time I saw Jo. That brings me to the political culture that we need to live by. We all came together as a tribe on that boat, and what was remarkable about the 2015 intake of Labour MPs is that we spanned the full spectrum of our wonderful and sometimes slightly dysfunctional Labour tribe. At a difficult time for our national politics, but also for our Labour politics, we were reminded in those moments of joy and laughter how much we have in common. When Jo sat on the Opposition Benches and looked at the other side of the House, she did not see enemies; she saw political opponents. She also saw opportunities, because her politics was about seeking converts, not traitors. It was about trying to reach across the aisle, where possible, to get things done and change things in a progressive and positive way. That is the kind of politics that we can provide when we are collectively at our best. In this information and attention economy, where it is the sensational, the most outrageous and the most divisive language or words that grab attention, the tragedy is that the country does not get to see much of what goes on in this place—the all-party parliamentary groups, the camaraderie behind the scenes, and the overwhelming kindness of this place when people experience tragedy, as I found when I was going through cancer. The country does not get to see inside that Commons that we get to see every day, and we need to show more of it to the public, because they need to see in us what so often people here see in each other. That is what makes this country a wonderful country to live in. I still believe that this country’s best days are ahead, not behind. We have a proud history, but ultimately there is no hope in nostalgia. The purpose of our politics is to be a better path to a brighter future, where opportunity and security are shared by all. We will build that future if we live like Jo, love like Jo and remember that we have far more in common than the things that divide us.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  I finally understand why my rating is slightly below five stars!

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. The Minister has seen at first hand the disruption and misery caused by the closure of the Broadmead Road bridge for safety reasons. He will also be aware from his visit that the cost of repairs dwarfs what the London borough of Redbridge is able to afford. What support can the Department for Transport provide to make sure that the bridge is reopened, while minimising disruption to the Central line during the repair works, so that we can get Redbridge moving again?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that sounded really good in the mirror when the right hon. Gentleman practised this morning, but can I bring him back to the real world, where the permanent secretary is, in fact, a woman and an outstanding leader at that? In the real world, I am able to say something that not one of my Conservative predecessors was able to say when they left office, which is that I left the NHS in a better state than I found it. Why is he so determined to defend the bloated bureaucracy that his party created over 14 failed years?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That was a characteristically thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It is also a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who was an outstanding Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care and has demonstrated again today why his expertise and integrity are highly valued on the Government side of the House. I strongly supported the speech made by the Secretary of State. He has hit the ground running, and he knows that he has my full-throated and wholehearted support. He does not need a predecessor being a back-seat driver—something that I am sure the Prime Minister feels about one or two of his predecessors after recent days. I also thank the Minister of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for her leadership on the Bill, and the brilliant team of officials, who have worked exceptionally hard to prepare the Bill for its introduction. It will come as no surprise to anyone that I strongly support the Bill. The latest NHS waiting list figures show the biggest cut to NHS waiting lists for 17 years, and as we heard from the Tories today, they cannot stand it. They cannot stand that within less than two years we have done something that they failed to achieve in 14: lowered waiting lists. Waiting lists are shorter than when we came in—lots done, and lots more to do, but the numbers are there. Despite record levels of demand and strike action by the British Medical Association, we delivered record levels of activity and waiting lists are falling. That is the difference that a Labour Government make. To understand how and why this happened is to understand why the Bill matters. Those who claim that recent improvements in NHS performance are simply the result of more money are making exactly the same mistake that held the NHS back for years under the Conservatives. Investment matters—of course it does—but, as the Secretary of State outlined, we are combining investment with reform. We are embracing technology, cutting bureaucracy, improving productivity and changing how care is delivered—from cutting £1 billion from spend on agency staff to funding GPs to treat more patients in the community, equipping NHS staff with the latest AI tools, and sending crack teams of top clinicians to bust the backlogs in hospitals with the most patients off work sick. Every single change has been opposed by vested interests, but that is why we are seeing more patients treated and better value for taxpayers. That is the difference between managing decline and delivering change. For all our progress, we know that there is so much more to do. Too many people are still waiting too long. Too many staff are working against systems that make their jobs harder, not easier. Too many patients have to tell their story over and over again. Too much money is trapped in bureaucracy when it should be reaching the frontline. Too often, accountability is blurred between two different headquarters or two different boards, bodies and acronyms that the public do not know and cannot hold to account. This Bill is the NHS modernisation Bill, and it addresses every single one of those challenges, giving expression to the principle that the NHS should be run for the patient, not the other way around. The Leader of the Opposition recently claimed that we have not kept our promise to abolish NHS England. In fact, we have already started: 7,000 posts removed from ICBs, and 4,500 more posts going from NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. I know that those changes are not easy for the people affected, and I never treated them lightly, but abolishing NHS England is about cutting duplication, reducing bureaucracy and putting responsibility for the NHS where it belongs: with elected Ministers who are accountable to the public. Every pound wasted on administration is a pound that could be spent on patient care. That is why we are stripping out unnecessary layers and directing more resources to the frontline. Hearing the opposition from Conservative Front Benchers, it is no wonder that they presided over such a bloated bureaucracy. This Bill will save money, but they never once asked how much it would cost to pile on layer after layer of bureaucracy, saddling the NHS with top-heavy management, which frustrated patients and really frustrated staff. Some will say that there is a contradiction: that centralising accountability and giving patients more control over their own data pull in opposite directions. But that is precisely the point. For too long, power in the NHS has sat in a no man’s land—an accountability sink, too distant from patients and citizens to be meaningful and just far enough away from Ministers that there is plausible deniability when things go wrong. The Bill takes back power in order to give it away: accountability for Ministers where it belongs, and power for the patient where it belongs, too. The Government must face down powerful producer interests on patient data. Our health data is precious. Two things matter above all else: that our data is held securely and that it is used ethically. However, the single patient record is one of the most important reforms of the NHS for decades. It is frankly unsafe, as well as absurd, that patients are still being asked to repeat their medical history every time they access a different service. We also have to take on the producer interest of those who think patient data belongs to them rather than to patients. Our health, our data, our NHS—patients should control who can access their data, and they should control their own data. By all means let us scrutinise the Bill and suggest improvements, but do not slow it down. The NHS does not have time to waste. The NHS is on the road to recovery, and this Bill puts the foot down on the accelerator.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Secretary of State mentions “bankrupting the country.” I think he is thinking about Liz Truss and the joyride that he was no doubt cheering on. A period of silence, or at least an apology, might be welcome from those on the Conservative Front Bench. We need to recognise that a nation draws its strength from the condition of its people. A recent survey of 16 to 29-year-olds suggested that around half of all young people in this country would not be prepared to fight for it. I am not so sure about that; I think they would be every bit as brave and self-sacrificing as their grandparents and great-grandparents were, or as their contemporaries holding back the Russians in Ukraine have been. When the cause is just and the need is urgent, they will step up, regardless of what they might have told opinion pollsters. I know that because, when this country was facing a dire threat—from covid—young people did step up. The generation least at risk gave up the most to help the rest of us keep safe. And how did Britain repay them? By short-changing them on their education, layering on debt, making it harder to get on the housing ladder, and failing to protect them from the AI jobs apocalypse. This generation is the first left totally exposed to the time-sucking algorithms and perils of social media. The Education Secretary and I have raised our concerns about the impact of this on their learning and their wellbeing, but I also wonder what it is doing to their sense of connection with community and country. But patriotism is not a lecture that the old deliver to the young; it is a relationship. For generations, Britain understood that relationship as a social contract: you work hard, you play by the rules, you contribute to society, and in return you can build a decent life, a secure job, a home of your own and a family if you want one, with the hope and conviction that your children will do better than you did. A generation ago, the average home cost around four times average earnings. In many parts of Britain today, it is eight, 10 or even 12 times average earnings. Private rents consume vast proportions of household income. Millions of young people who work hard and do the right thing cannot see a path to home ownership or security. Today, nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training. Many are trapped in insecure work, unable to move out, delaying starting their families and postponing adulthood itself. Layered on top of this economic insecurity is a new technological anxiety. For generations, people believed that there was a ladder of advancement, with an entry-level job, skills acquired over time, promotion, security and progress. Now, many young people fear that artificial intelligence may remove the lower rungs of that ladder altogether. They ask what skills will still matter. Will there still be routes into stable, middle-class lives for kids from working-class families like mine? Will deindustrialisation be replaced with reindustrialisation and the jobs of the future? Will opportunities extend to our towns, rural and coastal communities, or will inequality become entrenched? Those are not irrational fears; they are rooted in real economic change. Unless mainstream democratic politics can answer those questions, others will exploit that vacuum—they already are. Defence is about hard power and capabilities, but it is underpinned by the soft power that binds a country together: pride, belonging, shared activities and institutions, and hope. We need to rebuild those things for modern times. This is the calling of the Labour party, which was brought into existence to champion the interests of the working man and woman—for the many, not just the privileged few. It gave me—this kid from a council estate in Stepney in east London—the chance to realise my potential, to go to a great university, and to spend my career tackling the injustices that hold back other kids from backgrounds like mine. The greatest tragedy of Britain today is that the next generation, for the first time in our modern history, faces worse prospects than the last. The question is not whether young people would fight for their country, but when their country is going to fight for them. This is our generational challenge: not only to deal with the immediate issues of affordability, small boats and NHS waiting lists, but to face up to a turbulent world being remade by climate change and the biggest and fastest industrial revolution in the history of the world; to make sure that no one is left behind and no one is held back—that is our job now, as the old economy of the 20th century finally gives way to the AI revolution of the 21st; and to tackle the crisis facing the next generation as an emergency, with the urgency that the moment requires. Never waste a minute: that has been my mantra in government, and it is why I do not believe our party has time to waste treading water. The thing about emergencies is that they make the impossible possible. Look back at the crises we have confronted: we could not vaccinate against the deadly virus—until we could; we could not nationalise the banking system—until we could; we could not reorient our entire manufacturing base towards building aircraft—until we could; we could not build hundreds of thousands of homes fit for heroes—until we could. In times of greatest peril, our country has been capable of doing big things. We still can. Britain used to punch above its weight in the world. We still can. Each generation used to provide a better future for the next. We still can. Another member of the cancer club, the late, great Bowelbabe, Dame Deborah James, famously said: “take risks; love deeply; have no regrets; and always, always have rebellious hope.” It is with that in mind—and with the belief that we can and must do better, with deep love for my party and my country, with no regrets, and with rebellious hope—that I have left the Government. The Labour party was elected to deliver real change. We still can.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by joining others in expressing my condolences to the family of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan. It is a pleasure to follow my parliamentary neighbour, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), despite our best efforts to retire him at the last general election. The test of any of us in politics is: did we leave things in a better place than we found them? Thanks to the choices made by this Labour Government, the NHS is on the road to recovery. Waiting lists fell by 110,000 in March—the biggest fall in a single month outside of the pandemic for 17 years. Ambulance response times for heart attacks and strokes are now the fastest in five years, patient satisfaction with access to general practice has gone from 60% to 75%, and at a time when public trust in politicians is low, we hit our target of recruiting 8,500 more mental health workers three years early. On social care, I am proud that we are investing an extra £4 billion; that we have delivered the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s; that the extra £150 million in the disabled facilities grant is providing more dignity, freedom and independence to thousands more disabled people; and that the first ever fair pay agreements will be delivered in social care, because the people who care for our loved ones should never care for their own. That was all made possible thanks to the efforts of the entire NHS and social care team. In the four and half years that I have led for Labour on health and social care, I have met the best of them: the ones who ran towards danger in Southport and fought to save those children; the ones who scrubbed up and went to work during the pandemic, while the rest of us retreated to safety; the ones who bring new life into the world; and the ones who hold our hands at the end. Leading that team has been the greatest joy of my life. The depth of love and gratitude I have for the people I have worked with is beyond words—the brilliant team of Ministers and officials at the Department of Health and Social Care, particularly my private office, NHS England, the best team of special advisers in Government, and the leaders and frontline staff across this remarkable system. I am rooting for all of them, as well as for my successor as Health Secretary as he takes on the best job in Government. I will not pretend that leaving Government has not been an emotional wrench. The scars that I bear on my abdomen from my cancer treatment are a daily reminder to me of a time in my life, not so long ago, when I was thinking not about politics, but only about survival—and the NHS was there for me when I needed it. Walking through the doors of my Department every day as the person entrusted with protecting the very service that saved my life has been a massive responsibility and the most enormous privilege, and not one that I gave up lightly or hastily. I left the Government because we are in the fight of our lives against nationalism, and it is a fight that we are currently losing. Unless we change course, we risk handing the keys of No. 10 to Reform, and I do not want that on our consciences. For the first time in our history, nationalists are in power in every corner of the United Kingdom. Scottish and Welsh nationalism represents an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom. Reform UK represents a threat to the values and ideals that have made this country great—values and ideals that are written into the DNA of the national health service that it would dismantle, given the chance, and whose very existence is an act of courage as well as conviction: that healthcare should be provided based on what each of us needs, not on what any of us can afford. It is a reminder that, even in our darkest hours, this country is capable of doing big things. It is our responsibility to defend that promise and the values that it represents, not just for the NHS or even for the survival of this Government, but to win the battles that we thought were long since won: of progressives against reactionaries, of patriots versus nationalists, of hope over hate. That is our fight. It is Andy Burnham’s fight in Makerfield, and it is Labour’s fight for the soul of our country. For too long and too often, patriotism in Britain has been left to the loudest voices and the narrowest arguments, as though love of country belongs to one tribe, one party or one point of view, but the Britain that I believe in is bigger than that. Patriotism is not about who you exclude; it is about who you stand beside. It is not rooted in fear of change or suspicion of difference; it is rooted in solidarity—in the belief that we rise or fall together. That is the best of our country’s story: a Britain where people from different backgrounds, different faiths, and different nations and regions, still see themselves in one another; a country where the son of Indian pharmacists can become our first Hindu Prime Minister without having his Englishness questioned; a patriotism built not on blood and soil but on shared values, shared institutions and shared responsibilities. I understand that SNP and Plaid Cymru Members will not see themselves in the English nationalist politics of the party whose Members sit on the Bench behind them. But nationalism is not progressive, and nationalism and patriotism are not the same things. Nationalism says, “Look inward. Protect your own. Turn away from the others.” Patriotism says, “This country is strongest when we are confident enough to be outward looking, generous and united”—united, but not always the same. On the Labour Benches, we believe in a stronger Scotland and a stronger Wales as part of a fairer United Kingdom. Twenty-eight years ago this week, the people of Northern Ireland took a leap of faith and voted to endorse the Good Friday agreement—the triumph of hope over bitter enmity, and a reminder that a bigger and better politics is possible when people have courage. That is why we must reject the politics that tries to divide us—whether that is dividing the countries of the United Kingdom or the people who call Britain their home. The nurse from Nigeria is not the enemy of the factory worker in Newcastle. The family fleeing war is not responsible for the cost of living crisis. Division is the oldest trick in politics, and Britain deserves better than that. The future of this country will not be built by setting neighbour against neighbour; it will be built by renewing the bonds between us, with decent jobs, strong public services, safe communities, a place we can call home and a sense that everyone has a stake in Britain’s success. That is the patriotism we need today—not a brittle nationalism built on grievance, but a confident British patriotism: decent, fair-minded and internationalist, bound together in common endeavour with the conviction that our greatest strength has always been one another. We need to mobilise that spirit as we face the gathering storm. The war in Iran may be over for now, but this fragile peace has not resolved the crisis in the strait of Hormuz. Even if it were resolved tomorrow, the long-tail consequences for the global economy and the British people will be stark. The tragedy for this Government is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been delivering the fastest growing economy in the G7, falling inflation and lower interest rates, but her hard work has been undermined by the consequences of a war we did not choose. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for keeping us out of it. It will be painful for the British people, who have weathered crisis after crisis: some imposed on us, like the wars in Iran and Ukraine and the pandemic; and others, like austerity, Brexit and Liz Truss’s joyride with the British economy, the result of poor political leadership. When I gave my maiden speech 11 years ago, I argued that none of the problems facing our country would be solved by leaving the European Union. Today, in the dangerous and volatile world we find ourselves in, dominated by an unpredictable superpower in the USA, a rising superpower in China and a failed superpower in Russia, it is even more clear that we would have been better off leading Europe than leaving the European Union—not despite our sovereignty and the need to control our borders, but to enable those things. That is why I argue for a new special relationship. It is also why I welcome the assurances that the Government are strengthening sanctions on Russia to underline the rock-solid support that we have given President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. The frontline in Ukraine is the frontline for our freedom and democracy. We are meant to be the party of internationalism and solidarity. It is only too disappointing to see Reform councillors taking down the Ukraine flag when the British people want to fly it in solidarity. It is truly, truly shameful. NATO’s Secretary-General is right to warn today that our alliance has an “unhealthy” reliance on one ally. We need to invest more heavily in our defence, and more rapidly. I know that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and his team do not need persuading on this—nor do they need lectures from Conservatives, who ran down our capability and now have the audacity to heckle from the sidelines like the arsonist complaining that the fire brigade has not turned up fast enough. I am with the Secretary of State and his team all the way.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Cancer Treatment · Hansard source

  More

  No, it wasn’t—not at all.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to announce that we are investing in 36 new and better community diagnostic centres in shopping centres and high streets across England. This is what a Labour Government deliver: the biggest expansion in diagnostics in a generation, shorter waits for tests, checks and scans, and an NHS on the road to recovery. It is a record that the Tories could not touch, the Scottish National party cannot match, Plaid Cymru cannot sustain, and Reform would destroy. On 7 May, people can only trust Labour with the NHS.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes; as part of our national cancer plan, we absolutely want to see survival rates improve in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. I welcome the new Minister working on this—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)—to her place, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) for all her leadership in this area, too.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I would be delighted to. Let us arrange a date.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case. It is shocking but sadly not surprising, because the injuries sustained by women during childbirth are often completely ignored as well as going unaddressed. We have to learn from the case raised by my hon. Friend to ensure that constituents such as his are not fighting for the care that they deserve, and we will act on those lessons.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Phil Woolas, who was an outstanding Member of this House and is dearly missed. I know the whole House will join her in sending condolences to Tracey, Josh and Jed, and their thoughts will be with them today. I am pleased to report that the National Institute for Health and Care Research brain tumour research consortium, backed by over £25 million-worth of investment, aims to unlock new treatments and transform outcomes. Earlier this year, we announced £3 million, with Cancer Research UK, for the brain tumour centre of excellence, including the glioma centre of excellence. Only recently, I was at Edinburgh University looking at progress there. It feels like we could be close to major breakthroughs, but she is absolutely right to hold NIHR and NHS England’s feet to the fire on this issue, and I will continue to join her in that.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 is making a difference. It has reduced competition from four to one to less than two to one, a fact that the British Medical Association might wish to acknowledge. We are absolutely up for looking at that issue as part of the workforce plan. I suspect that we will have to do that without the BMA, rather than with it, since it will be out on strike while we are getting on with governing.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We strongly support the aims of the Moon Shot Project; the challenge has been getting the proposal to a suitable standard for funding. The moment we overcome that obstacle, the money will be there.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I wish a happy Vaisakhi to all who are celebrating today. Let me reassure my hon. Friend that he is absolutely right. As I reported only this morning on BBC West Midlands, we are bringing down waiting lists in his area and across the west midlands, and we will make further and faster progress; that is what a Labour Government do. We are much more able to improve the health of our nation by working with Labour councils across the country.