Mims Davies MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Harris, and a privilege to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on a subject that could hardly be more timely and important. There are a few issues; I am conscious that I am delaying people on a warm afternoon, with football around the corner for some, but I think that they deserve our attention. It would be very easy for me to stand here this afternoon and dismiss any debate outright, and for hon. Members to just wave this order through without looking more broadly—although I am impressed with the Minister’s speed in opening this debate; it is clear she is going in one direction. Parliament’s responsibility is not simply to approve; it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill pointed out, to provide real scrutiny. Nobody disputes that Wales needs further investment on the ground, but after 27 years of Labour in the Senedd wasting money on schemes that have produced very little in the way of value or outcomes for communities, it is important that we question whether just increasing the Welsh Government’s borrowing limit is the right way to achieve change on the ground, and whether the case that has been brought forward is truly convincing. In my shadow ministerial role, I have the joy of travelling the length and breadth of Wales—as you know, Mrs Harris, because I am often in your constituency area—and that gives me the opportunity to meet people from across businesses, sectors and communities. It greatly pains me that despite more money, support and local devolution and decision making, there is a continuing sense of deprivation, dilapidation and deterioration, particularly around infrastructure, that is hitting communities too hard, and a sense that what has long been promised through investment and devolution into the Welsh Government has simply not landed on the ground. The Brynglas tunnels, for example, have descended into being a continued stranglehold on the economies of Newport, Monmouthshire, Cardiff and Swansea. How has the M4 been improved? It simply has not. Unemployment in Wales has hit the highest levels in the whole United Kingdom and is continuing to dash young people’s aspirations. It pains me that too many young people feel they need to leave Wales to find the opportunities that they want. Everyone, including me, knows somebody in Wales who is waiting in pain and in vain on never-ending Welsh NHS waiting lists. Despite ongoing promises of change and of better days ahead from the Senedd, that has not changed. Both Plaid and Labour have sounded like broken records in claiming that they do not have the money to fix Wales’s problems, but the truth is that the Welsh Government have benefited from substantial funding increases for years, so what has happened? In 2021 alone, the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), announced that the Welsh block grant would rise to around £18 billion a year—an increase of roughly £2.5 billion a year. That naturally raises three important questions, which are pertinent to think about this afternoon. First, if additional funding has been made available, why have so many structural problems remained unresolved since 1999? Secondly, before the Government agree to increase the level of borrowing, should Ministers in the Wales Office not ask how the previous resources have been prioritised? Thirdly, what have the actual outcomes been? For too long, the Welsh Government, who were aided and abetted by—let’s be honest—the Labour enablers Plaid Cymru, decided to prioritise the wrong thing. Under the then Labour Welsh Government, more than £100 million of taxpayers’ money was spent on expanding the size of the Senedd with 36 more politicians, and more than £150 million was spent on developing plans for building the M4 relief road, which was cancelled abruptly. Tens of millions were spent on imposing the 20 mph speed limit, which is increasing journey times and creating wider economic costs. Other previous wasteful spending projects at the Senedd include setting up embassies all over the world, the failed Circuit of Wales project and tree planting in Uganda—all of which have cost taxpayers money. If a decision is made today to increase the Welsh Government’s borrowing powers, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the money is not misappropriated again into pursuing Plaid Cymru’s ultimate goal of breaking up our country and setting up an independent country. At a time of wider geopolitical tensions, we need to be serious: we are better together. To attract more investment into Wales, I encourage the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government to heed the Conservative and Unionist party’s ideals: to get on and build the M4 relief road, to abolish business rates for small and medium-sized businesses, to scrap stamp duty in Wales and to scrap glass from the deposit return scheme. Those things, alongside public borrowing, will make a difference, but more public borrowing today is not an end in itself; it must be justified with a clear and credible plan. There are Committee members whose constituents will be directly affected by this measure, so we should be mindful of where the money is going and whether it is making a difference to the people of Wales. Devolution cannot be a one-way road. We cannot devolve powers and hand over more money only for it to be wasted on pointless schemes and for the people of Wales not to see change. We can no longer afford to devolve powers and increase borrowing while hoping for the best—hoping that the people of Wales will get more. They deserve so much more than that; it is about changing lives and supporting people. How did the Government come to the figure of a 10% increase? I think the Minister covered that to a degree in her opening speech. What will the change of Government and what is going on in the Senedd mean for this important capital funding—taxpayers’ money? What justification have the Welsh Government provided for increasing the grant, and how will they show the impact? I understand from the Minister’s speech that she is comfortable with this being devolved to the Senedd, but we should be holding those 96 politicians to account. I look forward to the Minister’s kind response. If there is anything that she cannot comment on this afternoon, I will be happy to see it in writing.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous to us all. I just want to reiterate the point about accountability. Between the announcement of this measure in the autumn Budget, and its publication on 2 June and the Minister’s presenting it today, the process, group of people and focus in the Senedd have changed. People’s feelings about the lack of accountability and openness, and about the wanton spending of other people’s money, are very acute when they are finding the cost of living so challenging. I offer to work with her if these powers are granted—we will not divide the Committee today—to make sure that we all keep watch equally that they do change lives on the ground, and we are willing to roll up our sleeves if we see that the money is being used wastefully and lives are not changing.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  I have two issues affecting my constituency. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Crowborough camp affects the back of my constituency, and Copthorne hotel is close to Gatwick. The Minister, when I met him and the mayor of Uckfield, promised to do proper engagement with MPs. Why did I not find out about the length of stay being extended to 2030 until today? It was the talk of our cadets on Armed Forces Day on Saturday, with London and the south-east affected, and I am very interested in the cost. On the prioritisation of closures, Gatwick expansion is coming and the Copthorne is one of the 170 hotels where planning permission is running out. It is needed for local uses, and issues of community cohesion and safety are playing out on either side of my constituency. I ask to join Madam Deputy Speaker in hearing from the Minister about Crowborough and Copthorne, because I am seeing this issue play out in real time in my community.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Windrush Day · Hansard source

  More

  I believe the hon. Lady to be my friend as well. I completely agree with standing up to that abhorrent behaviour and to those seeking to divide us. It is right that we reflect on the discrimination that many of the Windrush generation felt around housing, employment and daily life—barriers that no one in a fair society should endure. That is true now as much as then. Any injustices that are lingering need to be understood and dealt with. The hon. Member for Brent East rightly said that the experience of racism should belong to the past. We must never forget it, but we should also recognise that, as a country, we have changed fundamentally. As the Sewell report made clear, Britain is not a racist country, and that ought to be celebrated as an immense achievement, giving us renewed commitment, as the hon. Member said, to continue to tackle inequalities and ensure that they do not remain. There is a balance to be struck. In confronting injustice, we should also recognise how far Britain has come, so that people do not drag us back to the past. The overt racism that shaped the early experiences of the Windrush generation is unthinkable in today’s society—although we must recognise that some people may still experience it. The Conservatives truly and simply believe in treating people as individuals, not categories. Perhaps that is why we have been led by four women, and two people with ethnic minority backgrounds, and I am incredibly proud of that. That brings us to a broader truth about modern Britain: the Leader of the Opposition has argued that our country stands as a successful multiracial democracy, where people from different backgrounds rightly can and should be able to live together under our shared laws, values and institutions with respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield reflected on learning to be British, but we still love her accent—she did not hear that because she is not listening, but there we go. Our diversity is real, but so too is our unity. As the shield of Jo Cox on the Chamber wall behind me says—10 years on—there is so much more that unites us than divides us, and we truly have more in common. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brent East, who is my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. We must push and highlight the importance of women having voices and the vote, as we head to 2029 and the anniversary of universal suffrage. We cannot stand by and let any of that be eroded in this country or beyond. Our public bodies and institutions must have a common commitment to fairness and opportunity, so that we can preserve all that lies within that ideal. The Windrush generation shows that people from different backgrounds can come together, contribute, and fully and roundly succeed, by not retreating into separate identities—that is the danger—but building something that is truly shared and celebrated. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly loved hearing about the work of Baroness Benjamin—I think we all look up to the Baroness. In fact, coming to work in this place and finding out that she worked here too was pretty cool, which slightly shows my age—I don’t think I should keep going down that route! Today, we truly honour the Windrush generation’s great legacy. We do so with gratitude and we celebrate their success. It is a national success that is worth sharing this year and into the future.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Windrush Day · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is always wonderful to see you in the Chair. Where to start? I always love this debate. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to it. It is always a privilege to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) opened the debate very strongly in her typical style. I hope that at Windrush Square she and those commemorating have a wonderful time. I concur with her comments on the story of us. As we have heard from Members across the House this afternoon, celebrating the immense contribution of the Windrush generation is so important—the men and women who answered Britain’s call in the years after the second world war and helped to rebuild a nation truly in need. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and I are politically very different, and we approach things very differently, but in humanity we are so united. It is always wonderful to hear her speak. I loved her reflections on the Queen’s English. That was exactly what my mum said to me—I think it may be a parental stock phrase—around minding my p’s and q’s. Perhaps we were all told that. As I said, this generation answered the call, united by shared British values, as the hon. Member for Brent East rightly pointed out. They brought with them not only their labour but their resilience, their values and their determination to contribute to this country. It was, of course, not the first call answered by the Caribbean nations. On 3 September 1939, the first message received by the British Government following the declaration of war with Germany was a reassuring one: “Barbados is with you.” That short message was backed up by thousands of Caribbean men and women who served to defeat the greatest threat to freedom we have ever seen. Following the war, the Windrush contribution to British society was profound, as we have heard, and continues to be far-reaching. That should be celebrated. In our economy, the Windrush generation filled vital roles—we all know them—in our public services, the NHS, public transport and industry, truly becoming the backbone of post-war recovery. In politics, as we have heard, they and their descendants have truly enriched democracy with new voices, perspectives and, crucially, leadership. In sport, goodness knows what we would do without the Windrush generation, representing Britain on the world stage with distinction and inspiring generations through their excellence and perseverance. And in culture, as we have heard this afternoon, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), they have transformed British life—from music and literature to food, language and art—giving modern Britain its vibrant, diverse character. Alongside that story of contribution, we must also acknowledge a painful truth, as we heard about briefly this afternoon: the reality of the racism experienced by many in the original Windrush generation was real, harsh and deeply unjust.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Draft Conversion Practices Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the brief sight of her statement and for her apology. Let me start by setting out a principle that I believe rightly commands support across this House: we must protect people from harm. Violence, abuse and coercion are wrong—unequivocally so—and they are also already illegal under our current framework. The offences and the powers exist, and many of the examples the Minister used are already, rightly, illegal. This is a challenging area, so we must be careful that bad laws do not get on to the statute book. The duty before us is to consider whether any new legislation is necessary, proportionate and workable. There is a fundamental question about the current evidence base underpinning this proposal, so in any change, the Government must demonstrate why existing criminal law is insufficient and how a new offence would materially improve outcomes. If a non-abusive conversion practice is not a crime, why would we write it into a new law? Is the Minister reassured that a mother helping their child with their feelings when growing up is not accidentally being criminalised? What are we doing when it comes to invasion of young lives and how we support children and parents through any childhood issues? We must be honest about the risk of unintended consequences for families and parents. It is right to highlight the real concern that broadly drafted provisions, particularly in relation to gender identity, could have a chilling effect on those acting in good faith and stop our young people having the time and space to find out who they are and are comfortable being. Parents, teachers, clinicians and therapists must be able to support, guide and, where appropriate, challenge. That is not harm; that is safeguarding. Gender-related distress is complex and requires careful, sensitive and roundly exploratory engagement. If this Bill has the effect—intended or not—of creating an affirmation-only culture, we risk failing the very young people we are trying to protect. We have already seen the catastrophic impact where professionals have felt unable to raise legitimate concerns, most notably on the grooming gang scandal, and we must never sacrifice safeguarding for ideology. Let me turn to questions for the Minister—these are real ones; as the Minister laid out, this is difficult. Will she confirm that the pre-legislative scrutiny will be by a Joint Committee of both Houses? Given the legal, ethical and societal complexity of this issue, will the Government ensure that vital scrutiny is broad and rigorous? Will the Government undertake their own full public consultation, in addition to any evidence-gathering process carried out by the scrutiny committee? This issue affects families, clinicians, faith groups and individuals across the country, and their voices must be heard directly. Can the Government guarantee that exploratory therapy will be explicitly protected in the Bill, alongside appropriate support for those who detransition? Cases such as that of Keira Bell have highlighted the importance of ensuring that individuals can reflect on and, where necessary, reassess any earlier decisions. Professionals must not be deterred from providing that support. Will the Minister explain how the Bill will recognise the principle of informed consent for adults engaging in exploratory therapy in relation to gender distress? Consenting adults must remain free to discuss, question and explore their experiences without fear of criminal sanction. How will the proposed legislation interact with existing safeguarding guidance, particularly in schools, children’s homes and social services? Those working on the front line in safeguarding need clarity, not confusion, and must be able to act in the best interests of the child without fear that fulfilling their duties could expose them to legal risk. We currently have a lack of clarity in that area regarding consent in the new puberty blockers trial, so this area is already unclear. Puberty blockers are in reality a form of conversion therapy. How will they be separated from this process? Will the Minister point out any abusive conversion practices that she has directly identified that are not already criminal offences, and spell out directly the current problem she is seeking to fix? Will she clarify and be specific about the current legal gap, and say what she sees as the true gaps in the law and what is currently legal? Can she guarantee that a young person who is simply same-sex attracted will not be encouraged to go down a pathway that will actively lead them away from their sexuality and being the gay person they are, as they need to be helped to be happy and comfortable with that? Those questions go to the heart of the Bill. We have seen well-meaning legislation such as hate crime offences have a chilling effect on free speech. Conservative Members believe in pragmatic evidence-based policymaking and in strong safeguards. In conclusion, we firmly stand against abuse and coercion. We must ensure that this Labour Government are seeking to prevent harm, and that they do not create any new harm.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  As a 16-year-old, Kate worked a summer at Harrods. In 2024, she told her story of being raped at work. Intimate medical examinations were carried out on women by senior Harrods staff and security. Hundreds of women’s attacks were silenced. How will the Justice for Fayed and Harrods Survivors be heard? I met some of those brave women this week. How will they get the whole truth, justice, and systemic change, if the Met police inquiry remains stalled, and if enablers—some of them women—are left at large? Incredibly, over 500 victims still need answers.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). Where to start? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute on behalf of my constituents. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing and opening this debate and on all his sterling work. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have constituents who stick in my mind and who I want to stand up for. My constituent Robert Ellinor has given me a huge understanding of the terrible injustice in this particular area, just as the Webster family has done in your own constituency. I thank Robert, who is from East Grinstead and who I have known for some time. He has done sterling activity and parliamentary engagement on this subject, which affects him, and with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. I am keen to raise points on behalf of Josie, from Turners Hill, and her father, Andrew Quin. Much of what I will say today will be her words, on behalf of her father. It reflects much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has said, and it also reflects engagement that I have had with the Cabinet Office on behalf of Josie and her father. Josie writes: “I am writing to you as my family is one of the first 15 families to be asked to begin our compensation claim for the estate of an infected blood victim, this being my dad, Andrew Quin who passed away in May 2020. We are now a few weeks into the claim process and frustratingly and sadly I feel my dad is being completely failed by the core route and I’m doubtful at this point that the proposed supplementary route is going to be any different, for the following reasons: CORE ROUTE: My father was infected with Hepatitis C and developed cirrhosis of the liver, we believe around 2017, which puts him in the severity level 3 of the core route. However, in 2018 my father underwent a 12 week course of Harvoni Hep C treatment… after completion of the 12 week course, it not only failed but at the very same time, my father was also told he had developed Mantle Cell Lymphoma, which could have been a side effect of the Harvoni treatment or could have simply been caused by the Hep C. My father was told he was too ill to undergo full chemo, due to his liver cirrhosis and other ailments caused by the Hep C, and so he did not have the required 2 rounds of chemo needed to qualify for severity level 4. My father died on 16th May 2020 from Hep C liver cirrhosis and lymphoma. What could possibly be more severe than the above? To summarise, my father died because he was infected with Hep C, which caused liver cirrhosis and gave him lymphoma, ‘for which he was too ill to receive the required 2 rounds of chemo’ and consequently he died! Yet my father does not qualify for the highest severity level 4?” That is the highest severity level. Josie continues: “Ironically, had my father’s health not been as severely impacted by the Hep C, he would have been well enough to have had the required 2 rounds of chemo, in order for him to qualify for severity level 4 of the compensation scheme, and may have even still been with us today! I believe my father has been discriminated against for being ‘too ill to receive 2 rounds of chemo’, which I find utterly disgraceful! SUPPLEMENTARY ROUTE: The supplementary route, requires victims to have had at least 12 weeks’ treatment of Interferon, in order for them to be considered for the next severity level, this being a level 3 or a new level between 2 and 3. I strongly object to this as some victims, including my father, had such severe side effects, such as chronic depression and a mild heart attack, etc, that they were un-able to sustain 12 weeks of Interferon. Not that this would even benefit my father’s claim as he is already in severity level 3 due to him developing cirrhosis—i.e. the supplementary route is no help to my father either. To summarise, once again, I believe victims who were too ill to sustain 12 weeks of interferon treatment are being discriminated against. I do not believe anything could be more severe than the death of an infected blood victim—‘a death which was caused by their infection!’ At present neither the core route nor the supplementary route addresses this injustice. I would sincerely appreciate your help and support in this matter—help to identify and rectify this injustice—in order to bring about the rightful justice the infected blood victims deserve. As the family of an infected blood victim, we desperately want to put all the hurt and pain behind us, but we cannot do that if we are still discriminated against and unfairly treated.” This week, Josie wrote to me again. She was very keen that I speak in this debate, and I am very grateful to her. She wrote: “The letter you forwarded me from the Minister for the cabinet office stated that infected blood victims would not be discriminated against for not being well enough to receive treatment, however, IBCA will not recognise this despite my making them aware of what the Minister for the cabinet office stated in their letter. IBCA have stated that in order for them to recognise this statement and not discriminate against victims who were not well enough to have treatment, this statement made by the Minister for the cabinet office would have to be made law.” Josie urged me to raise this issue today in Parliament, on behalf of “all the victims who were not well enough to receive treatment, because as it stands, victims who were not well enough to receive treatment and have died as a result of their infections will receive less compensation than those victims who were well enough to receive treatment and survived. I’m sure you will agree that this is an injustice and needs to be addressed” today. Those are Josie’s words. She and families like hers must get justice and proper compensation, and must feel that the process works for them and reflects the impact on them and their loved ones. We know that all of this is so wrong; we must make it right. I hope that the Paymaster General can give Josie and many families like hers the comfort they deserve.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the progress made since the publication of Dame Louise Casey’s review into group-based child sexual exploitation, and the impact of recent developments on confidence in the Government’s statutory inquiry.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answer. It has been one year since Dame Louise Casey’s stark and deeply troubling review of group-based child sexual exploitation, known rightly as the rape gangs. She exposed what we now know was a culture of institutional blindness, weak data and fragmented accountability and a reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths and ultimately to stand up for women and girls who have been systematically abused, or a culture where people simply chose not to act for the bigger fear of being labelled racist. It is disgraceful. Deep concerns remain that progress on justice has been too slow, and in some areas is simply superficial. The Minister has rightly warned of a box-ticking culture. This Government talk a good game, but recent ministerial Home Office resignations have raised serious questions about what they are delivering in practice. How does the Minister respond to the deeply distressing but bold testimony of Fiona Goddard, who has bravely highlighted that some of the men convicted of abusing her have been released early, with others potentially due for release soon? These are Labour’s choices, and we warned about them. What action is being taken to rebuild the confidence of the victims in this process? Does the Minister deeply regret opposing measures to prevent early release in such heartbreaking and horrific cases? Finally, how are the Government ensuring that sentencing and post-release supervision reflect the severity of these crimes? I remind the House that we warned them about the consequences of their dire choices for the safety of women and girls. What are they going to do about it? Will anything change before the next election, or is this issue simply in the long grass? Survivors’ voices and community concerns need to be heard. This is a matter of justice, accountability and trust. This Government need to step up and protect our women and our girls.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  Boarded-up windows, derelict buildings and deserted towns are increasingly common on high streets in Wales, as highlighted by North Wales Live and its readers. Our hospitality sector is being hollowed out thanks to Plaid Cymru and the last Welsh Labour Government’s disastrous tourism tax. The Conservative and Unionist party believes that this tax should be urgently scrapped to support the approximately 150,000 people in Wales who are employed in this crucial sector. Does the Minister now regret her party’s decision to impose the tax, and will she join me in calling on the new Welsh Government to scrap it?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  “Inadequate…failing…unable”. Those were the damning words used to describe this Labour Government’s approach to defence by the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), after his dramatic resignation. The defence industry in Wales is vital for the defence of us all, as well as for local jobs. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge why, after a recent defence visit, the Wales Office used the incorrect figure on X of a £270 billion increase in defence spending in this Parliament? Was that post deleted because it was disinformation and factually inaccurate?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The previous Welsh Labour Government spent more than £100 million developing plans for the M4 relief road, only to scrap the project before construction began. Congestion at the Brynglas tunnels continues to cause significant delays, hampering economic growth. The previous Conservative UK Government offered funding to back that crucial scheme. Will the Secretary of State urge her colleagues to make a similar offer to the new Welsh Government, and does she regret her party’s decision to cancel this vital project in the first place?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent from East Grinstead, Holly Vivian, an NHS nurse, is very concerned about late diagnosis, particularly given her own medical training, saying that she was concerned and was not diagnosed until she had her second child because of pregnancy symptoms. Whether it is the constant headaches that we have heard about today, or light vomiting, it is really important to give those patients the best chance to be heard.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I know you have had your own issues with water, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the dire ongoing issue with flies in Chailey, water outages due to heat, cold and storms, and a lack of confidence in infrastructure and drought planning, does the Minister think it is acceptable that Southern Water and South East Water remain separate? Would proper joint working and firmer accountability through partnership be the answer for my constituents, who are struggling with higher bills?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. It has been a thoughtful, emotional and wide-ranging debate. The Minister’s opening speech highlighted her joy at being at the Dispatch Box. Her story reminded us that so much has been delivered by people like her, who we all know locally and nationally, who continue to do so much. She spoke about hope and unity over division and hate. I am always so proud to share the Opposition Dispatch Box with my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). He spoke about how we balance trans people’s rights and women’s rights, and how we talk about dignity, respect, compassion and love. He speaks from such personal experience, I am so proud to share this debate with him and I am sorry he cannot be here for the closing of it. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) spoke powerfully about how Pride is a place. It was a beautiful speech, and I thank him for sharing it. Pride should be an opportunity not only to celebrate LBGT people across our society but to recognise those who have lived with discrimination throughout history and to reflect honestly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry did when he talked about his younger life. We have done that today when addressing the disparities that remain. We continue to renew our commitment to ensuring that Britain maintains its long and proud tradition of liberty and tolerance, and that we are truly one of the best places in the world to live as a LGBT person. We all want and need it to stay that way. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you are particularly excited to be at Romsey’s own mini-Pride, the One Romsey festival, next weekend, which is now celebrating its second year—it is maybe a chance for you not to wear black. The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), was powerful in her position and her thoughts, as always. She mentioned that equalities debates always take place on a Thursday. I love being here on a Thursday— I would be here every day of the week if they let me—but I agree that it is challenging for some of our colleagues to join us. I agreed with her statement that it is not one or the other in terms of rights—I have never thought that. It was important that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke about the time people need to experiment with who they are and who they want to be. I wanted to be Madonna, Kim Wilde and Debbie Harry when growing up. Guess what, I still want to be—you can tell from the black eyeliner. The hon. Lady’s speech was a reminder that we all go through stages, and that we need to give young people the space to learn. I really appreciated her speaking up in that way. My party, and society more broadly, has gone through a profound shift in attitudes in recent decades. I will point out a few examples of that shift, and the pride that we have in our party: the election of Ruth Davidson—with apologies to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North—who was the first openly gay leader of a mainstream political party and brought so much to politics in Scotland; Justine Greening, the first openly lesbian Cabinet member; and the ennoblement of my friend, Debbie Stedman-Scott, an outstanding public servant and colleague.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I am wearing my Conservative pride badge, so I am quite happy to wear a flag, as are many in our party. As I say, the Conservative party roundly believes in treating everyone equally before the law, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation. The original rainbow flag is a widely recognised symbol. I am wearing it today to show respect and support for gay people. My personal view is that the traditional rainbow flag already rightly brings us together and has a sense of unity. Its purpose should be to bring us together, not to divide us. The progress pride flag, by contrast, can be seen by some as a symbol of identity politics, somewhat atomising society into different and divisive identities. Therefore, I am comfortable with our position in not being behind it in the way that the hon. Member described, but I fully respect his opinion, and I fully respect that other people feel differently.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will conclude. There has been a lot of agreement in the Chamber, but let’s be real: it is not going to be universal—that is the reality of politics and life today. Let me reiterate the phrase “safe, fair and equal”—there should be equality under the law regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation. That is my view. It would be remiss of me not to give an update from the Dispatch Box about Jed and Elliot’s wedding— I know that you were waiting for the next instalment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Next month on the Isle of Wight, we will finally see the wedding. It is one of the most exciting things to be happening, and I am delighted to be part of that celebration, as are so many. I am also delighted to be reading at the wedding. I am very proud of the Conservatives’ successes. We have heard from others about same-sex marriage, the Turing law pardons, the apology to LGBT veterans, progress on HIV testing and PrEP, fair blood donation rules and the real practical progress that we have made to change lives. We all welcome Pride Month as a time to celebrate the contributions of the LGBT people that we know and love both locally and in our national life, and we want more of them in our national life. We honour the progress made and commit ourselves to work for a future always grounded in fairness, respect and genuine equality for all under the law.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make the exact point that the hon. Lady raises in my later remarks, so I wholeheartedly agree with her. My colleagues have succeeded on merit, but, to the hon. Lady’s point, they were asked to step forward, be part of things and stand. They did not rely on their identity; it was talent, dedication and leadership. That is in everybody, however we identify. As has been said many times in this debate, who someone loves should not affect their success. There should be no barrier to someone’s success and ambition, and who someone loves should not be the measure of what their ambition or success can be. Pride is there for everyone to be represented equally and for us not to be divided. Safe, fair and equal is true equality for all of us. I am concerned that in some quarters, as has been raised today, Pride is not being used to unite; instead, it is being used to inflame tensions. It is important that we recognise that. Let us be honest: we saw this, in a way, with Monday’s statement, when we heard speaker after speaker saying that the EHRC code of practice is exclusionary and anti-trans. We have heard some of that today. I fundamentally do not believe that, although I acknowledge that some people have said that today and that they do believe it. That is, of course, the reality of this place. I reiterate that I believe that that characterisation is not correct. The Equality Act remains clear in its protections, including those related to gender reassignment. The code reinforces rather than diminishes those protections. It is important, as I think we all agree, that the code works and that it does not diminish wide-ranging, hard-fought rights. Of course, it reflects on other areas, such as age and disability. It is striking that in the debate earlier this week we did not roundly acknowledge the importance of lesbianism, which the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) has just referred to, and the fact that the code needs to work for same-sex groups, particularly lesbian organisations. I have spoken about this before. These groups have often found themselves at the sharp end of an increasingly fraught debate about the relationship between biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. There have been credible reports of lesbian groups being deplatformed, pressured or silenced simply for asserting their same-sex attraction. That is the reality for some women. The fact that in 2024—just a couple of years ago—a representative of the LGB Alliance was required to offer a legal definition of the term “lesbian” in court is still, frankly, extraordinary. The situation reflects a wider confusion that risks eroding hard-won protections. We should be wary— I think we have all said that in the Chamber this afternoon—of repeating past mistakes of marginalising and dismissing same-sex attraction in particular. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, lesbian women played a vital role during the AIDS crisis in supporting gay men during some of the most difficult chapters of our history. That solidarity should never be forgotten, and neither should it be replaced with division. I know that some Members in the House are supporting the measures in early-day motion 240. I believe they are doing so because they have not necessarily fully appreciated the implications for women’s rights, particularly for lesbians who rely on the clarity of law to maintain their safe single-sex spaces. I welcome the thoughtful speech made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), in which he covered his views and approach to that. I think that does accord. It is clear from what has been discussed around the code of practice that it is vital that healthcare for all matters. That is absolutely something we need to look at. On flags, I personally think we need less tribalism and more grown-up and pragmatic conversations. We can and must protect women’s rights, respect trans rights and find workable solutions. I do not think we should be arguing about flags. We can stand up for people, communities and, crucially, harmony. The Conservatives do that through the LGBT+ Conservatives. I am going to invite the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) out on the best night ever—once again, a Conservative willing to let him come out on the best night ever. The Conservative party roundly believes that everyone should be treated equally before the law, regardless of their race, sex or sexual orientation.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It is understood that the Secretary of State first received the draft code of practice in September last year, nine months ago—nine months in which the law has been clear, the Supreme Court had ruled, and women, girls, public bodies and businesses across the country have been waiting for the Government to act. What did the Government do when they received it? Instead of action, we saw delay after delay from a Government reluctant to face their own Back Benchers and protect vulnerable women and girls. First, the Secretary of State claimed that she needed impact assessments; then she said that consultation with devolved Governments was required, despite this being a reserved matter; after that it was purdah; and finally, having exhausted every excuse, she chose to lay the code of practice before the House on the very last day before the Whitsun parliamentary recess, seemingly actively minimising scrutiny. That is not acceptable. It is also telling that the Secretary of State has sadly not even come to the House herself to account for these decisions—it seems the lure of Makerfield is too great. The Secretary of State previously told the House that she requested only minor changes to the EHRC’s draft. If that is the case, I ask the Minister, in the Secretary of State’s absence, why it took eight months to request them. The statement talks about engagement—in the interests of transparency, who was that with? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and I have written to the chair of the EHRC asking for clarity on what changes were made. Under the Equality Act 2006, the Secretary of State must provide written reasons for rejecting the original draft. As changes plainly have been made, will the Minister commit to publishing the detail on what has changed and why? The code of practice is right to emphasise the importance of protecting single-sex spaces and services for women, but the law has been settled since the Supreme Court judgment over a year ago. Sex means biological sex, and yet the Secretary of State has failed to enforce that ruling and women have faced ongoing harassment and discrimination for stating that basic fact. We have seen cases such as the Darlington nurses, who were hounded out of their roles or drawn into lengthy tribunal processes for asserting their legal right not to share changing rooms with men. The Government have done nothing to protect them. What does the Secretary of State and the Minister say to those many women whose privacy, safety and dignity have been compromised during these nine months of inaction? Why did the Secretary of State fail to get a grip on her own Government when Department after Department claimed that they could not update their policies while awaiting the code? The Minister said in her statement: “We are committed to doing this and are working across Departments, considering the implications of the code to policies and activities.” Is that why, more than a year after the Supreme Court ruling, the NHS still has not updated its policy on single-sex spaces for staff? Perhaps following the new Health Secretary’s recent remarks there may be greater clarity in the wider Labour Government about what a woman is, but this revisionist mindset about Labour’s supposed long-term support for single-sex spaces will frankly be fresh news to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). Will the Minister set out the steps that all Departments will now take to comply with the code, and will they all do so without further delay? In the meantime, some have sought actively to misrepresent this issue as an attack on trans people. It is not. It is simply about applying the law correctly while safeguarding women and girls. I think the Green party’s deputy leaders’ inflammatory rhetoric is reprehensible and unhelpful, especially at the start of Pride Month. Not to be outdone, we are witnessing peak Lib Dem-ery, with the party leader claiming to accept the Supreme Court’s judgment while opposing the guidance that flows from it. As has rightly been said, that position is unprincipled. Only the Liberal Democrats can claim to support the rule of law while rejecting the practical application of it. This code of practice is welcome. As the Minister said, it covers a broad range of areas including age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, race and so much more, but, disgracefully, it has landed nine months overdue—and helpfully after local elections in which we women voted. During that time, women have paid the price of inaction. Now that the code has finally been published, women and girls need proper action—not hiding away, not further delay and not more excuses. We need the immediate enforcement of the rights that women and girls are entitled to under the law of this land.

• 21 May 2026 · Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Will he confirm on the Floor of the House that Craig and Lindsay Foreman are not spies?

• 21 May 2026 · Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing the debate and thank him for the cross-party nature of his approach. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs for its work on the concerning case of Craig and Lindsay Foreman. This is a crucial moment for the UK Government and hon. Members in the Chamber to ascertain whether the support given to Craig and Lindsay is satisfactory. The tourists Craig and Lindsay were formerly my constituents. Joe and the family are living in deeply challenging times, and they want to know that that welfare and protection is roundly being given.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Sexual Assault Survivors: Isle of Wight · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister said, sexual assault survivors from the Isle of Wight and all across the United Kingdom must be heard. Virginia Giuffre took her life just one year ago. She had shared her abuse by convicted paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, the friend of Peter Mandelson. On 16 April, Lisa Phillips—another courageous survivor—supported by Carly and Sam from the Sexual Predator Accountability Institute, came to Parliament seeking transparency from lawmakers. The clear question for the Government is: when will they go from giving platitudes to victims to tackling trafficking and cover-ups and delivering adequate support and justice for all women and girls?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Compensation Following South East Water Outages · Hansard source

  More

  I present a petition on behalf of 116 constituents from East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages, and a further 87 online signatories. My constituents suffered unprecedented and unacceptable water outages in January. Although nothing will compensate them for a week without running water, there has at least been recompense for householders. That is not the case for local businesses, however, which have lost thousands of pounds in trade and income. I and the East Grinstead Business Association are clear that more must be done for our small businesses in the town and the affected villages. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages, Declares that recent South East Water outages have had a particular impact on businesses in the constituency of East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages; further declares that compensation offered to date is not adequate; and further declares that compensation can be paid to landlords in cases where landlords pay the water bill, but this does not reflect the end impact on businesses themselves of water outages. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take action to ensure that water companies are obliged to pay adequate compensation directly to affected businesses following outages such as the South East Water outage recently experienced in the constituency of East Grinstead and Uckfield. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003195]

• 22 Apr 2026 · Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  The bedrock of our country’s defence rests on our crucial membership of NATO. The defence industry in Wales employs more than 15,000 people in well-paid and important roles. Yet the separatist Plaid, along with the Greens, opposes full membership of this deterrent, while Reform bizarrely claims all sorts of things like blaming NATO for provoking the war in Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State stand up for NATO, for more Welsh defence jobs and for the thousands in Welsh communities who rely on growing employment in this crucial sector?