Stuart Andrew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This Government are trying to tell the public that this Budget was all about taking tough decisions to deliver change, about raising taxes to support the NHS and about pursuing growth and backing business. Those are commendable aims, but it is simply not the reality of what was delivered in the autumn Budget. This was a Budget for benefits paid for by hard-working people. Last year, taxes were hiked by £40 billion, borrowing went up, inflation went up, unemployment went up and living standards fell, but at least we were promised by the Chancellor that this was a one-off. She categorically said that she would not be coming back for more. But like the promises made during the general election, that was just not true. Then, as Halloween approached, we had briefing after briefing, that infamous press conference, markets affected and consumer spending depressed, particularly in the hospitality sector, all leading to one Cabinet Minister reportedly saying that “The handling of this budget has been a disaster from start to finish.” I wonder who that could have been. Now we have another £26 billion in tax rises to fund more welfare, because the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to stand up to Labour MPs and make the real hard choices. At the previous Budget and spending review, big promises were made to the public about how the Labour Government would solve the challenges in the NHS through a financial settlement that they said would improve patient care, including by bringing waiting times back to the 18-week standard within five years. We warned at the time that that money would be swallowed up, in large part by decisions of the Government’s own making. The then chief financial officer of NHS England said that it would go almost entirely on pay awards, national insurance contributions and drug price increases. What does Labour actually have to show for that? Elective care waiting lists have fallen by less than 2% since October last year. Meanwhile, waiting lists for community health services and diagnostic scans are rising. Waits to start cancer treatment are increasing. Trauma and orthopaedic waits are up; ophthalmology—up; neurosurgery—up; gynaecology—up. Winter pressures are growing, and long waits in A&E have hit record highs. The truth is that the Labour Government do not have a plan for the NHS; they have fallen into the classic Labour trap of thinking that issuing a press release about cutting waiting lists will magically make it so, just because they are in charge. I am afraid that is not how government works. What has the Secretary of State been focused on? A top-down reorganisation of the NHS—which not only did he not tell anyone about before the election but he explicitly said he would not do. As Conservatives, we support the principle of cutting duplication, reducing bureaucracy and saving on administration costs. The House will remember that a recent Conservative Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), reduced in a single year the number of civil servants in the Department for Health and Social Care by around one in six. Let us be clear: this is yet another announcement made by the Government without any plan for delivery. For months, not one Minister has been able to answer any of our questions about how much NHS restructuring will cost or who will be expected to cover redundancy packages. For months, integrated care boards have been warning that frontline patient services were at risk because they simply do not have the money to do what is asked of them. For months, staff were left in limbo, not knowing whether their job would still exist or for how much longer. We welcome the fact that the Budget finally provided some clarity, but shifting money between years means significant risk. The NHS is already behind on its efficiency targets. If this reorganisation falls short of its goals—no small risk given the Government’s performance—there is an even more significant shortfall to make up in future years, which will hit patient care. There are other elements of the Budget that we welcome for the health service. Focusing on improving productivity is the right thing to do, but whether the extra investment will make any difference in the grand scheme of things remains to be seen. Neighbourhood health centres can be cautiously welcomed. They build on the great success of the Conservatives’ efforts to bring care closer to where people live through the community diagnostics centre programme. However, has Labour truly learned the lessons of all the private financial initiative deals that it botched back in the 2000s, which NHS trusts are still paying for decades later? Will the Government simply move resources around or will there be genuinely innovative new ways or working, joining up services and improving the patient care experience? I hope that it is the latter, because shuffling the deck chairs into new buildings will not deliver the benefits that patients deserve. Despite those few bright spots, it simply is not right for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and others to justify this latest tax grab by saying that it is to protect the NHS. As the NHS Confederation noted, this year’s Budget did not have a health focus. That means that we are left with a lot of unanswered questions. The Office for Budget Responsibility specifically raised two risks to health spending. The first was the doctors’ strikes, which the Health Secretary has failed to resolve, despite making that sound very easy to do when he was in opposition. I will give him credit, because he did briefly end them, for a few short months, but only by caving in to the demands of the British Medical Association, in return for no productivity or modernisation reforms. We warned him that giving in to the trade unions would only see them come back for more—and indeed, here we are, with patients and taxpayers paying the price, and no end in sight. The OBR confirmed that strikes have already cost £500 million, and warned about further strikes. Now it has been confirmed, just before Christmas—the worst time of year for it—that the doctors are out again.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I am asking the question of who is going to pay for it. There is no detail in anything this Government do. They are full of plans and no delivery. The sectors I have been meeting are asking those questions—where is the money coming from?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me tell the House, from 16 years of working in the hospice movement, primarily as the head of fundraising, that if you are suddenly asked to find nearly £100,000 overnight, it is almost impossible. It is therefore not surprising that hospices up and down this country are cutting the number of beds that are available. In some instances, up to 40% of beds are being cut, and those people will end up having to be in hospital beds, putting more pressure on our hospitals as we go into winter.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Well, we did not spend tens of billions of pounds in pay rises just for the same old problem to come back. There should have been proper reform, and conditions for those pay rises, but the Government did not make that happen, and here we are again. The NHS Confederation has also warned that local services cannot continue to absorb the costs of ongoing strikes by the BMA without consequences for patient care. I pay tribute to frontline staff, who have been trying to keep everything going. I remind the Secretary of State that we have the answer: ban doctors from striking, like the Army and the police, and introduce minimum service levels, using the legislation that our Government passed. That would protect patients and taxpayers, so why won’t he do it? Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will make things much worse, because it reduces the vote threshold for calling a strike, and there will be no minimal service levels. In addition, the Government have shown that they cannot stand up to the unions. By pushing up inflation, the Budget will make it harder to reach pay settlements across the rest of the NHS workforce. Even an additional rise in NHS pay of just 1% of what the Secretary of State included in his pay review body evidence would create another £1.5 billion hole in his budget. Is he confident that he can head off wider industrial action with a 2.5% offer, especially given that benefits are rising much faster under this Government? The OBR has also raised the unknown risk of increasing drug prices. My understanding is that the spending review assumed that spending on branded medicines would rise by 25%—or £3.3 billion—between 2025-26 and 2028-29. In winding up, will the Minister clarify what happens when the negotiated price costs more than what was assumed in the spending review? The rest of the money is surely intended to be used to deliver more care and to cut waiting lists, so are frontline services at risk?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you have been incensed by the unprecedented briefings we have seen by the Government in the run-up to the Budget. It beggars belief that, despite your clear statements on this issue, they have done it again today by announcing that the Chancellor will announce £300 million for NHS tech in her Budget tomorrow—not through a briefing to journalists but with an article on the gov.uk website. This happened just today, after a Minister stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday and said: “I can assure the hon. Member, given the respect that the Government pay to this House and to their obligations in it, that if there is an important policy announcement to be made, it will be made to this House.” —[ Official Report , 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 32.] Given that that was clearly not the case in this instance, despite your statements, can you advise us as to what we as Members of this House can do?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  But, Mr Speaker: “The power to stop these strikes is in the Government’s hands.” —[ Official Report , 6 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 660.] “They need to sit down and negotiate to end the strikes, but Ministers are too busy briefing against each other.” Those are not my words, but the Secretary of State’s words when he was standing here on the Opposition side. He said it was so simple. The Secretary of State is embroiled in a leadership battle that is taking over the need to focus on averting walkouts, and the Employment Rights Bill reduces voting thresholds on strikes and scrapping minimum service levels. Does the Secretary of State accept that things are only going to get worse as a result of the Bill? And in his words, does he agree that patients have suffered enough?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Secretary of State why he has not sorted out the strikes and disputes?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Unpaid Carers: Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a really good debate so far, and I do not want to get into party politics, but the rise in national insurance contributions is having an impact on charities—it really is. The cost is about £1.4 billion. Charities have been a cornerstone of respite provision, and without them we would not have as many respite places as we need. The other point I want to make is about the social care review. I went to those cross-party talks, and I was encouraged by the first meeting—it felt like all of us, representing our political parties, wanted the talks to succeed—but it is disappointing that we have not had another meeting since. I am concerned. Baroness Casey is an exceptional person. She has a huge amount to contribute, and she certainly left me with the impression that she is absolutely determined to find solutions to some of the issues in social care, but I am anxious that she has responsibilities for other issues, all of great enormity. I hope the Minister can update us on when we might have another meeting. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) said, we do not have to be invited by Baroness Casey; we can be invited by the Secretary of State. I know that Baroness Casey is doing an enormous amount of work on this issue, but it is important that, politically, we try to find where we can agree. If we can introduce things earlier, that would be to the benefit of everybody in the country who needs care. I say that because I want to be constructive in opposition. I recognise that some of these things are not easy to deliver. They are difficult issues, but they demand more than our sympathy—they demand action. I do not claim that we got everything right in government, but I am clear that carers need to know that we are all listening and are keen to respond and deliver when we can. Unpaid carers do not seek praise; they just want systems that they can rely on, policies that reflect their worth and services that offer real support. Finally, this is not about just one Department—it is not just the Department of Health and Social Care. There are many other Departments. Having been a Minister, I know the structure of Government means that working cross-departmentally can sometimes be a challenge. Can the Minister update us on how that is going? I know it is a challenge, and I wish him well in any cross-departmental work that is happening. Unpaid carers deserve fairness, support and action. I finish by saying to every single one of them: thank you for the amazing contribution you make every day, looking after others and being the backbone I mentioned at the beginning.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Unpaid Carers: Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I am pleased to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing it and for her long-standing leadership on carers’ rights. I acknowledge the contributions made by hon. Members across the House this afternoon. They have spoken very openly about their personal experiences, which helps to bring alive this debate and these issues. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) talked about how much work he has to do before he even gets to work, which reflects what so many people across the country feel. As has just been said, unpaid carers are the backbone of our care system. They provide vital support to loved ones, often around the clock and with little recognition, and at great personal cost. This debate is therefore not just timely, but probably overdue. Before entering Parliament, I spent over 15 years working mainly in palliative care, and much of that in children’s hospices—lastly at Martin House children’s hospice up in Yorkshire. I saw the extraordinary compassion, amazing resilience and sacrifice from unpaid carers every single day, whether from parents caring for their terminally ill children, many of whom had very complex needs, or relatives supporting someone at the end of their life—people managing both care and grief at the same time. I will always remember one parent saying they would consider it a good night’s sleep if they got up only eight times in the night to help their daughter, which gives an indication of how much work they do. As the hon. Member for Shipley said, so many carers end up giving up work because they have to provide that care. Sadly, so many relationships break down because of the pressures. I now find myself having to care for my elderly father. I had to move him into my home, and I am now seeing at first hand the things people have to do. When I am here, I always worry, “Is he okay? Is there enough food and milk in the fridge?” I also watch every single move he makes. I once turned my back, for literally a minute, and he fell flat on his face. I realise that it was not my fault, but I cannot help but have those feelings of guilt. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for her amazing work on the Carer’s Leave Act. That really is important, and the cross-party support for it showed Parliament at its best. It is great that carer’s leave is now a day one right and that it can be taken flexibly, because that is what unpaid carers need. They need to be able to take that half-day, or full day, if they need it because, as we have heard, one in seven are juggling work and caring responsibilities. I thank the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who I know would like to have been here today—she gave quite a bit of support during the Act’s passage—for encouraging the previous Government.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Unpaid Carers: Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  It just shows how, when Parliament works well, it works exceptionally well. I want to repeat some of the comments that have been made. The Government have launched a review of the potential benefits of paid carer’s leave, with the conclusions coming at the end of the year, I believe. As others have said, that is welcome, but I am sure that carers would hope that there will be clarity and no delays. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to some of the issues that have been raised in this debate, and to hearing whether the Government are genuinely open to acting on the review’s findings. A fair point has been made about the length of time that people have to contribute to that consultation, given the responsibilities that they have. We must ensure that the consultation is accessible. I was a critic of this when we were in government, but doing just online consultations means that those who are not digitally savvy can be excluded. It is important we make sure that is not happening. As other hon. Members have said, the financial pressures on carers remain severe, with one in four unpaid carers living in poverty. The employment rate among carers is just 50%, compared with 75% across the general population, but with the right support an estimated half a million carers could return to work. That would not only strengthen their security but contribute to the economy, which is what we all want to see. In fairness, it is not just the Government who have to act; there is a responsibility on employers, too. I saw in the hospices that some businesses took on our young adults despite their life-limiting conditions. The employers told us that what they got from those individuals was utterly amazing, and that they were really dedicated to their work. The recent increase to the carer’s allowance earnings limit is a step in the right direction, for which I thank the Government. However, the Carers Trust has rightly called for a full review of carer’s allowance and the wider support system. I am keen to hear whether that is something the Government are considering. I am also concerned that the level of respite support has been falling, and has dropped by 6% in local authorities in the last year alone. I am concerned about, and pay tribute to, the charities that offer so much respite support. I know, from my consultations with charities, that the rise in national insurance contributions has had an impact, and that they have had to reduce and scale back their staffing. That is a concern, and I hope we recognise the size of their contribution. At the hospices at which I worked, it was not just about end-of-life care. Some of the most important care they provided was respite stays. Either the child came on their own so that the family might go on holiday, or the whole family came together, which gave them the opportunity to be a family again. The child who needed care was being looked after by the care team, which meant the parents could be parents again to the siblings, who often miss out in such situations.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am sure it will delight the Committee to know that I do not intend to detain us for too long. [ Interruption. ] I always get a cheer when I say that. I would like to begin by saying that I do not see anything particularly contentious in this. The Minister rightly points out that these are technical changes that bring the Down Syndrome Act into line with the reforms introduced by the Health and Care Act 2022, in particular the replacement of CCGs with ICBs and the renaming of the NHS Commissioning Board as NHS England. However, it is worth questioning the Government on the longer-term stability of these changes. As hon. Members will know, the Government have stated their intention to abolish NHS England by April 2027. That process has already been delayed, reportedly due to uncertainty over who will meet the redundancy costs for staff within those organisations. If that abolishment proceeds, a new health Bill will be required. At present, we do not know when that Bill will be brought forward or what it will contain. It is therefore entirely possible that the statutory references being updated today will need to be amended again in the near future. I also note that there is no statutory review clause in this instrument. While that may be understandable given the technical nature of the changes, it adds to concerns that further legislative changes may not be properly anticipated or subject to adequate scrutiny in good time. While I support these draft regulations, I urge the Minister to clarify what transitional arrangements are being considered for the functions currently held by NHS England and the integrated care boards. That is especially important, as he rightly pointed out, for the consistency of support that we all want to see in the context of the Down Syndrome Act. We must ensure that people with Down’s syndrome are not adversely affected by any ongoing organisational changes within the health system. The Minister mentioned some of the updates to the Down Syndrome Act. Perhaps he could update us further on any other actions that are ongoing. How many still need to be done? In addition, I note that the Act seems to require the Secretary of State to publish guidance, on which the Government have just launched a consultation. One of the criticisms of the Act at the time was that it is specific to Down’s syndrome. Although I obviously welcome that focus, others face similar disabilities and challenges. How might the Government support them? Finally, it looks like people can respond to the guidance only online. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he is confident that those who are digitally excluded will not be prevented from taking part in this important consultation?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Again, the Secretary of State cannot answer. His answers are too vague. He is very good at making promises, but the facts are that he is presiding over a reorganisation that has stalled, creating uncertainty for staff. Waiting lists are up 50,000 in the past three months, hospices are in crisis because of national insurance contribution rises, and we have had strikes again—despite big pay rises—with the threat of more. If the Secretary of State wants the leadership in the future, perhaps he should show leadership in the NHS now, and tell us not just the plans, but when he will give the details and how he will deliver on his promises to patients.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  First, it is great to be in this new role. I genuinely want to be part of a constructive Opposition, but equally I want to do my role in holding this Government to account. I note the lack of detail in the Secretary of State’s answers on reorganisation, so can I ask the basics again? How many people will be made redundant, what will it cost and who is paying?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before beginning my questions, I meant to pay tribute to our former colleague Oliver Colvile, who sadly passed away last night. He served as the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport between 2010 and 2017 and was named by Conservative Home as one of a minority of Conservative MPs not to have voted against the Government, which, as a previous Whip, I thought was exceptional. He was a true gentleman whose eccentricities endeared him to many. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with his family.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I want first to recognise and thank everyone for the constructive debates we have heard here and in the other place throughout the Bill’s passage. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for everything he has done on the Bill, especially in Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for his expertise, whose involvement with the Bill began before he was elected to this place. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for their thoughtful contributions. This is clearly an important and emotive issue, and the respect and sensitivity that have been shown by all sides is a testament to this House. Since the election, we have said that we would not oppose for the sake of opposition. While we have rightly asked tough questions of the Government, we have done so with the best interests of patients at heart, because everybody here wants to help and support vulnerable people better—those patients with the most severe and complex mental health needs. This Bill, which started under the previous Government—I pay tribute to former Prime Minister Baroness May for that—and continued under this Government, will achieve that. We welcome efforts to improve the patient’s voice and involvement in their own care, to ensure that patients receive effective and appropriate treatments, to minimise restrictions on liberty so far as is consistent with patient and public safety, and to treat patients with dignity and respect. Although we are disappointed that opportunities to strengthen the Bill further have been missed, especially in public safety and the protection of vulnerable children, we listened closely to what the Minister said and to his assurances on action, for which we thank him. We will of course continue to push on these matters, not on party political grounds, but because doing so is the right thing for patients. We are very disappointed that the proportion of health spending on mental health has been reduced. We welcome the Government’s continuation of our work looking again at how we treat and protect people with the most severe mental health illnesses, so that we can improve the safety, treatment and dignity of patients and the wider public, and ensure that our laws remain relevant and proportionate in the modern world. The Government must now turn their words into action and deliver on the commitments that they have made. I thank everybody again for the constructive way in which they have dealt with the Bill. We are pleased to support its Third Reading. We hope that it will bring improvements for those we all care about: the patients.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Nothing—it’s you!

• 14 Jul 2025 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Go on, then—sing.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Marking its 150th anniversary in 2021, the Royal Albert Hall continues not only to host world-class performances but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned, to do a tremendous amount of outreach work and to do so, crucially, without drawing on public funding for its operational costs—other than in the covid situation, which of course was exceptional. That is something for which it should certainly be commended and celebrated. This Bill seems to have been going round and round for some time. I know that I was trying to deal with it when we were in government. It has been promoted by the hall, as we have heard, and seeks to provide legal clarity to an existing arrangement in which members, who own rights to approximately one quarter of the hall’s seats, forgo their right to attend events and, when not attending, make those seats available for sale. As we have heard, the hall argues that without statutory backing, this arrangement remains vulnerable to legal challenge, which could have acute impacts on its financial stability. During its consideration in the other place, the Bill attracted extensive scrutiny and was amended, as we heard. Concerns were raised by a number of Members, including Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, particularly in relation to the governance of the hall and the role of seat-holding trustees. He noted that although the hall has held charitable status since 1967, the current arrangements may allow some trustees to benefit financially from the reselling of tickets on the open market—sometimes at significant profits, as the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) said. In response to the concerns, an amendment was passed that provides that any power to exclude members from the hall under the Bill’s provisions can only be exercised by a sub-committee with a majority of independent members. It also requires that tickets made available under those provisions be sold through the hall’s ticket return scheme, thereby seeking to address concerns over potential personal financial gains by trustees. I also note that Lord Harrington of Watford, a trustee of the hall, expressed the hall’s position, stating that the Bill’s primary objective is to formalise existing practices and mitigate legal uncertainty, rather than to reform governance structures. He also raised concerns that the amendment may place undue limitations on members, including financial disadvantages and restrictions on charitable donations of tickets. In the light of these developments, it is evident that the Bill faces significant challenges in its current form. It also raises a broader issue relevant to many historic charitable institutions: the difficulty of updating foundational documents and governance arrangements under existing legislative mechanisms, which often require the introduction of private Bills. It may also beg the wider question of how many of our great establishments, which were founded in the Victorian era, can operate in a more modern era, but I accept that these are not easy issues to address. In conclusion, although His Majesty’s Opposition absolutely support the aim of securing operational clarity for the Royal Albert Hall, the concerns raised about governance and potential conflicts of interest are of some significance. We will therefore be abstaining on Second Reading. I know that this will certainly be an interesting Bill in Committee. I look forward to following it with great interest, and I hope that some of the concerns that are legitimately being raised can be ironed out.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I welcome these orders, and I hope it will please the Committee to hear that I do not intend to detain us I do, however, want to raise a few issues. As the Minister said, a statutory review in 2021 conducted by Ofcom recommended that the Secretary of State should broaden the scope of public interest considerations beyond print newspapers and broadcasters to capture a broader range of news creators to reflect changes in consumption. As many colleagues will be aware, the 2024 news consumption report found that 71% of UK adults consume news via online sources. It is therefore right that action is taken to future-proof our media regimes. The Government admit that their measures are narrower than Ofcom’s recommendations. Will the Minister report on any issues Ofcom may have raised with her about this approach, given that it does not cover the full recommendations? The Government’s press release noted that they did not want to put any “undue pressure on businesses”. Is the Minister confident that the right balance has been struck? I accept that this is quite a narrow tightrope to walk, but it is important that we get this right. I also note that some respondents to the Government’s consultation shared the view that broadening the scope of the public interest consideration to apply to mergers involving enterprises involved in newspapers or broadcasting was unnecessary. The responses suggested that this could have a “chilling effect on investment and consolidation”. Will the Minister please reassure the Committee that this will not be the case, as we want to see as much investment as possible, especially given the current media landscape? Can the Minister update us on the secondary legislation to further bolster the foreign state influence regime, to prevent multiple states acquiring 15% of newspapers? When will it be laid? We had to alert the Government to this seemingly a significant oversight in the drafting of the legislation. There is clearly a lot of concern out there, and while we want to see investment, we must safeguard against any state ownership of our free media. More broadly, the Opposition will always support accurate news reporting, freedom of expression and the plurality of voices within the newspaper market, so I welcome the speech the Minister made and the action the Government have taken. None the less, I would be grateful for answers to those questions.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I have to say that I am as disappointed as she is that the BBC has not been able to come back with even basic facts. There were hundreds of BBC staff there, and it is not acceptable that it is unable to identify who ultimately had the final decision on whether to broadcast. The chairman needs to inform her, as a matter of urgency, who that was and what action they are going to take. While I absolutely understand the independence of the BBC, just as artists cannot hide behind artistic expression for vile commentary, the BBC cannot hide behind independence from accountability. I hope the Secretary of State knows that she has the full support of the Opposition as she pushes it for greater clarity.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the tributes to Diogo Jota. I understand that his brother was also killed in the accident, and my heart goes out to their family. Since the Secretary of State’s statement on Glastonbury on Monday, it has come to light that the act in question had spouted equally vile rhetoric at another concert just a few weeks ago. Given that the BBC is seemingly able to pull live broadcasts when things go wrong at football matches, for example, it is extraordinary that it did not happen on that occasion. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the discussions she has had with the BBC? Why did the same thing not happen on this occasion? What due diligence did it carry out about the acts that were performing? Given that we are still waiting for a response on the previous Hamas documentary, is she satisfied with the conversations she has had and the urgency with which the organisation is acting?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, for advance sight of it and for her tone. I have always been a strong advocate for the BBC, which is a cornerstone of British public life with a proud history of cultural contribution. The events of the weekend, however, have made that incredibly difficult. During coverage of the festival, as we have heard, the artist whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster led the crowd in a chant of “death to the IDF”, a moment that, extraordinarily, was transmitted by the BBC. Let me be clear: a national broadcaster funded by licence payers must adhere to the highest standards of impartiality, responsibility, and commitment to social cohesion. I hope we can all agree that in this instance it has failed profoundly. Free speech and political activism are the sign of a healthy democracy—they are essential to it—but when someone crosses the line to incitement to violence, there must be a consequence. Broadcasting is not a passive act. Every second of broadcast transmitted is an active choice. Airing Robinson-Foster’s hateful rhetoric was not just a lapse in editorial judgment; it was a disgraceful affront to the Jewish community and a violation of the BBC’s own public charter to entertain without undermining the fundamental values of our society. As the Secretary of State said, let us be clear that hateful rhetoric should never be cloaked as artistic expression. This incident also raises fundamental questions about the BBC’s institutional culture. This is a broadcaster that has time and again given airtime to representatives and supporters of Hamas, while refusing to clearly identify the group as what it is: a terrorist organisation. The BBC has repeatedly failed to call out antisemitic rhetoric when it emerges under the guise of political commentary, and has faced serious allegations of minimising attacks on Jewish communities. The BBC’s decision to also broadcast material from Kneecap, a group whose members have openly called for Members of Parliament to be killed, is as indefensible as it is shocking. We have already seen the devastating consequences of political violence in this country, with the loss and tragic murder of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. For the BBC to amplify voices advocating similar violence is grossly irresponsible. Even more troubling is that a leading member of the group is currently facing a terrorism charge. That fact alone should have prompted an immediate editorial intervention. Instead, the BBC gave the group a platform on a publicly funded service. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has spoken to the director general, and I am grateful to her for coming to the House to report on that exchange; however, I would like to press her further to ensure that the gravity of this matter is fully recognised. Is she satisfied with the BBC’s explanation that it originally decided that streaming the performance was in line with its editorial guidelines, and has now decided that “we will look at our guidance around live events so we can be sure teams are clear on when it is acceptable to keep output on air.” Does she think that the BBC’s editorial guidelines were not clear enough, or that the BBC misinterpreted them in the first place, and does she think that that sort of weak response will be of cold comfort to the Jewish community? I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has spoken to the Home Secretary. I wonder whether she could also assess whether the BBC’s actions constituted a breach of section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986. Does she believe that the BBC’s current editorial oversight mechanisms are adequate, specifically across the commercial broadcasting arms like BBC Studios, and does she think that it is still right that the BBC gets to mark its own homework in the first instance before Ofcom gets involved, or is an independent inquiry what is needed? In the light of the repeated failings, will the Government commit to a full review of the BBC’s impartiality and governance standards as part of the royal charter renewal, and can she provide an update to the House on why the charter renewal framework and Green Paper have not yet been published? I thank the Secretary of State for her work so far. She will have the support of the Opposition, and I welcome her commitment to come back to the House to update us.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  Yeah—but I am butch like you! [ Laughter. ] As I was saying, most people do not really comment on the fact that I live with a man. They are more interested in the fact that he works for Marks & Spencer and gets 20% off. But it is important that we have these conversations because there are still people around the world, and in communities in this country, who cannot come out. There are people in communities in our country who live a different life from the one that they want to live, and there are people around the world, as the Minister rightly says, who will be put to death if they love the person they really want to love. That is why Pride Month is important, and its theme of activism and social change emphasises a reflection on the contributions of LGBT individuals and communities in creating a better world for us all. We are lucky in this country that we have a host of people in our history who have been at the forefront of fighting for equality. Yes, there are the famous people—Dame Kelly Holmes, Tom Daley and Sir Ian McKellen, to name but a few—but there are so many inspiring LGBT people from right across the decades, as the Minister mentioned. I would like to mention Sophia Jex-Blake, Scotland’s first female doctor, who fought for so many women to be allowed to train as doctors and founded medical schools up in Scotland, where she eventually met her life partner, whom she lived with until her death in 1912. I also want to mention Patrick Trevor-Roper, who was one of only three witnesses who could be convinced to appear before the Wolfenden committee. His evidence helped to start the journey to decriminalisation. Those people, in my view, are incredibly brave. Given that we have commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day this year, I think we should also remember one of my personal heroes, Dr Alan Turing, a man whose brilliance cracked the Nazis’ Enigma code. This was an incredible feat, given that Enigma had 159 million million million settings. He played a crucial role in cracking the intercepted messages that enabled the allies to defeat the enemy in the Atlantic and in other engagements. We owe him so much, but his treatment later, when he was prosecuted for being gay, is a shame that I know we all find abhorrent. The Government rightly apologised and he was later posthumously pardoned. In my view, he is a true hero of our nation. Of course, we have had champions in this place, too—people like Chris Smith, who bravely became the first openly gay MP; Edwina Currie, who led a debate on changing the age of consent; and too many other hon. and right hon. Members to name. I do want to name one or two from the Conservative side because I know everyone will do their own pitches. There are people like our former colleague Eric Ollerenshaw, who was on that first Gay Pride march in 1972. He recalled to me that he was actually spat at by the police—that is how bad it was. There are people like Mike Freer, who campaigned hard on issues like PrEP, and our former colleague Elliot Colburn. I would like to take this opportunity to say happy birthday to LGBT+ Conservatives, which celebrates its 50th birthday this year, making it one of the oldest LGBT-affiliated groups for a political party in the world—a title it shares with LGBT+ Labour. I wish LGBT+ Labour a happy birthday as well. In 1975, the LGBT Conservatives were established by Professor Peter Walter Campbell. I am that old that I have seen LGBT Conservatives go through several guises over the 30 years since I first joined. Back then, it was known as TORCHE—Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality. I pay tribute to the work it has done over those 50 years. Little did those founders and that first generation of our LGBT Conservatives and Labour know it, but they were merely years away from a global HIV/AIDS epidemic. Around the world, hundreds of thousands of people would lose their lives, including people here in the UK. Gay and bisexual men lived in fear, and many felt powerless and hopeless. If we fast forward to 2025, we find ourselves in a truly different world, and I want to thank all those who have made that change possible. I recognise that those contributions have come from parties across this Chamber, and I thank them all for it. I am proud of our record as a party over the last 14 years for the lives of LGBT people, not least the rolling out of highly active antiretroviral therapy treatment for HIV in England and funding the first ever HIV testing week. In 2013, we introduced same-sex couples’ marriage in England and Wales, which was one of the most memorable debates in my time in the House and one of my proudest moments here. We introduced the legalisation of self-testing kits for HIV, as well as a host of other things that we are proud to have done. I also want to remark on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is no longer here, about people in the armed forces and to pay tribute to Lord Etherton. When I was the Equalities Minister, I had the privilege of meeting him several times as he went through that report. He did not just get evidence from thousands of people; he personally read every single testament because he wanted to know those stories inside out, and thank goodness he did that. I pay tribute to him for the work he has done. Thinking about all these achievements and those of former MPs and other inspirational figures, I find it appalling and deeply disappointing that some Prides across the country have banned our political parties from this year’s parades. LGBT Conservatives, LGBT Labour, LGBT Lib Dems and all others are not allowed to attend. Like the Minister, I also remind the organisers that it was these groups and so many MPs in this House that brought about the changes we enjoy today. As Jo Cox said, there is more that unites us than divides us. Them causing this divide is a retrograde step, and I pay tribute to the likes of Owen Meredith and others who have taken up this fight. I call on the organisers to think again, especially as two parties celebrate their 50th birthday in terms of LGBT issues. I am aware that many colleagues want to contribute, but I have a couple of questions for the answering Minister. I would like an update on the HIV programme. It touched me that people across the House want to embark on that ambition of having no new HIV infections in this country by 2030; of course, we have only one Parliament left to get that done. Could the Minister set out where the Government are up to on that and what plans they have to ensure that we meet that ambitious target? Will the Government ensure that they are working with our devolved regions to ensure a UK approach to eradicating new HIV cases—not just England, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too? We can end new HIV cases without a vaccine or cure, and wouldn’t it be great for the UK to be the first place to do so? We want the Government to succeed on this issue, building on a lot of the work that we did in office and working with great organisations like the Terrence Higgins Trust. Let us make that an ambition for all of us. Let us remember why we have Pride in the first place, and make this Pride count.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to follow the Minister and to speak in this important debate. I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House, across my Daventry constituency and across the country a very happy Pride Month. The Minister is absolutely right to say that Pride is still needed. I have certainly seen significant changes over my lifetime, including things that I never thought would be possible when I was growing up as a young gay man in Anglesey, but he is right to say that these are important issues that we should continue to discuss. On the whole, I have been privileged to have a life in which I have been accepted pretty much everywhere I have lived, but I have had those difficult occasions that I have spoken about before, not least being badly beaten up and my father coming to my rescue and being beaten up too, trying to protect his son. Those are the things that we need to remember. We also need to remember people like the young man that I heard about in Manchester a few years ago who had been kicked out of his home because his parents could not accept his sexuality. His life took a nosedive and, sadly, he ended up selling himself for sex to survive. He was eventually murdered by someone who he was supposedly trying to get some money off. These are the disgusting consequences that may happen if we do not remind ourselves of the journey that we have been on as a country. I have to say that things are pretty good for me. Most of the time, most people do not care that I am a gay man—

• 22 May 2025 · Lower League Football Clubs: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  May I gently point out that the gentleman in question was approached not by me or by any other Minister, but by the permanent secretary who is not a political appointee. I know that the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism has been on a long audition for the role of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, so his comments on the rumours about the abolition of the Department are reassuring. However, I gently point out that most of these briefings seem to be coming from No.10, so will the Secretary of State speak to people in No.10 to reassure all of those sectors that this Department will remain for the years ahead?