Nepal: UK Government Support
Is the Minister confident that the work of British International Investment, particularly in Nepal, is targeted on climate resilience and adaptation?
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I will indeed respect the amount of time for the third party, which I understand is 10 minutes. Thank you for giving me that time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Your advice is noted, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course it would be inappropriate to house 1,200 asylum seekers on a military base next to a village of a few hundred people, and of course it would be inappropriate to house them on a site that has never previously been used for residential accommodation. That goes without saying. The Liberal Democrats can back that element of the motion, even if we do not agree with the wording deployed by the official Opposition. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) to deal with the specifics of the local matter when he contributes later. What must be disputed, however, is the second part of this deeply harmful motion. Brexit has made us all poorer. It has reduced Britain’s standing in the world and made it more difficult for this country to run a safe and controlled asylum system. So why on earth are the Conservatives suggesting leaving the ECHR, which would be Brexit 2.0? Not only would that make the UK a pariah state, but it would likely result in the end of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Conservatives often tell us that the Brexit settlement must not be reopened, but that is exactly what they are suggesting. Once again, the Conservative party is arguing that this country should pursue what would basically amount to a no-deal Brexit, except this time it is not a fringe argument being contested among factions in the Conservative party, but the position of the shadow Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition, backed by all Conservative MPs. Indeed, their leader has told them that they will be barred from their party unless they adopt the position, which is why so many of them have now changed their mind on the issue. The drift of the Conservatives away from the centre-right to the hard-right is a dereliction of duty. It runs counter to many of the traditions in British Conservatism. But we know why they are doing it: they are terrified of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) so they chase after him. They increasingly make his arguments as they prepare for their grubby deal. We all remember what happened in 2019, when the hon. Member for Clacton stood down his candidates in alliance with Boris Johnson. People up and down the country are more than aware that those two parties would engage in the same sort of stitch-up again without a second thought, no matter how much Tory MPs and their leader plead the opposite in public.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
The point is that we are in Europe, we are a European nation and most of our relationships are with the ECHR nations. I gently caution the Conservatives that every time they change position in an effort to catch up with Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton will move further and further to the right. This week that resulted in the horrifying suggestion made by Reform that our military should be told to murder civilians on small boats in the English channel. The suggestion that leaving the ECHR will help us to deal with a broken asylum system is absolute nonsense—a system that was broken by the Conservatives, by the way, who now spend so much time brazenly telling us that they alone have the solution. Leaving the ECHR will not stop a single small boat crossing from France. It will not, as the Conservatives suggest, make it easier to deport people, because when a nation ditches international agreements, others are less likely to work with it. What leaving the ECHR would do, as I have said, is make this nation an international pariah. It would likely result in the conditions once known in the public debate as a no-deal Brexit, which the Conservatives told us they were against. In fact, the trade and co-operation agreement makes continued UK adherence to the ECHR a major part of our current Brexit conditions. If we were to leave the ECHR, we would also end co-operation with our neighbours on law enforcement and criminal justice, which risks leaving dangerous criminals walking free, unidentified and able to escape overseas and evade prosecution, and would seriously jeopardise public safety, including that of women and girls. That is deeply irresponsible.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I will come to that point later, I hope, with specific reference to Northern Ireland. There is more than that to this debate, though. Leaving the ECHR would also rob British people of hard-won British rights—rights that have for so long been championed across political divides, in so many notable cases by Conservatives, who now argue that we must scrap those rights on the altar of the debate about small boat crossings. Article 2, for instance—the right to life—helped the brave families of the Hillsborough victims to secure fresh inquests to get to the truth of what happened in that tragedy. Article 3 helped the victims of John Worboys, the black cab rapist, to get justice and build into British law additional protections for victims. Alongside article 3, article 4 helped victims of the Rochdale grooming gangs—who Conservative and Reform Members talk about so often—to secure damages and better justice from Greater Manchester police. Article 10 protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, something that the right tells us is so important—just for them; maybe not so much for everybody else—although certainly not important enough to retain and protect it in law for all of us. This article also guarantees the right for journalists to protect their sources. While it is not for me, as a one-time rubbish journalist and now a politician, to tell journalists how to do their job, there has so far been disappointingly little scrutiny from the fourth estate, particularly in the right-wing media, on the Reform and Tory proposals on the ECHR. Article 10, by the way, also protects the rights of people to hold their politicians to account in the most direct terms. This is established in law.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, the second part of the convention does tackle those sorts of derogations. It is important that we see the convention in its entirety. As I said earlier, all of this is before we consider the implications for Northern Ireland, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. When British people up and down the country hear Conservative and Reform politicians pledging to erase those rights, we must all ask ourselves whether we trust those politicians to give us back those rights when they no longer exist. The answer is, of course, that they will not give us those rights back. [Interruption.] And do not argue with me about the Wolfson report, because that is nonsense. Leaving the ECHR will mean that we have even fewer opportunities to work on agreements with the EU—the place small boats set off from—to prevent those crossings, and that goes to the nub of the matter that we are discussing today. If we have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that the concept of the UK becoming more successful and prosperous while distancing itself from its closest allies is a total fiction. It was a lie in 2016, and it is a lie today. The only way to move towards an asylum system that works is by working with our European allies, and that means that this Government must first drop their self-defeating red lines, and secondly apply to join the EU migration and asylum pact. While the media is excited that the Prime Minister has been more expansive in his wording on relations with Europe, it is important to note that he is pledging to retain all his red lines. He is not promising to remove any of them, even though he knows that those red lines are making us poorer and scuppering our chances of an asylum system that could, in future, command public trust, look after genuine asylum seekers and create a fair system, as this country has always had. It will also cost UK taxpayers more and more money.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
The hon. Member will know that the framework within which signatories to the EU migration and asylum pact work is different from the Dublin agreement. Today we renew our calls for Ministers to drop their red lines on Europe and to join the EU asylum pact. We also renew our calls for the Conservatives to recognise the reality that the first Brexit they gave us has failed this country. Do not pretend that giving us Brexit 2.0 will be any better.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
I think the hon. Member mentioned that 80% of women in one country said they had been sexually harassed in public. What is the rate of women in the UK who report being sexually harassed in public?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Can the hon. Lady tell us which of those countries are considering leaving the ECHR?
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government oversight of underperforming NHS trusts. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am the MP for Chelmsford in Essex, and my local trust is the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust. A few years ago, it was decided to put three hospitals under the same trust. My local Broomfield hospital is not actually in my constituency. It is in the neighbouring North West Essex constituency, but for all intents and purposes, it is my hospital because it is the main one serving my constituents, and it fills my inbox every single day with tales of woe from both patients and staff. I thank other Members whose constituencies are served by the same trust for coming along today. Other hon. Members from across the House, served by other NHS trusts, will probably be experiencing something similarly unfortunate. I look forward to hearing their stories, because it is incredibly important to get NHS trusts to perform properly, serve their patients and look after their staff. Looking after the most vulnerable underpins everything we do in society, and I am afraid to say that the Government are not getting it right. That is what I am here to talk about. Earlier, somebody not too far away from me said, “I think I am in the worst trust in the country,” and I said, “I will go round for round with you on that one.” Later, I will give some details about why I believe that. Back in March, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), announced that the Mid and South Essex trust would be placed into an intensive recovery programme, and we waited to find out the details. The reason for the programme is that, over several years, Mid and South Essex has been massively underperforming. There have been huge issues, and I do not exaggerate when I say that they fill my inbox every single day. We are talking about long waits, delays to treatment and difficulty accessing care. When patients do access care, they are not getting the service they need and, most importantly, they are not getting the outcomes they need and deserve. I pay tribute to the staff who work at Broomfield hospital, in the Mid and South Essex trust and in all the trusts across the country. They are working in difficult circumstances, and quite a lot of the time they are using infrastructure that is not fit for purpose and has not been properly invested in over many years. They are doing their very best, but unfortunately, they are not getting the support they need. I have met the staff, patients and leadership of Mid and South Essex foundation trust many times over a sustained period, and I know hon. Members from across the House have done the same. Unfortunately, I believe it is one of the worst trusts in the country on both patient and staff measures. We pushed for changes locally, but national support is needed. Let me talk about the range of issues that have been raised with me. I have walked around Broomfield hospital both with the senior leadership team and with the less senior leadership, shall we say? I do not think it should be possible for me to walk around a hospital and point out things that are so obviously wrong, yet I could. There were lights outside theatres that had not been working, I was told, for 10 years. Those are things that should be relatively easy to fix, but when patients have to write to me about mould growing on the walls and windows of a children’s ward, something is going seriously wrong. Two weekends ago, an 80-year-old gentleman told my staff that he had queued out the door of the emergency department on a Saturday for an hour. He is in his 80s and nobody even bothered to offer him a seat. Something is going drastically wrong when we have lost sight of the importance of common decency and human compassion when looking after patients. When consultants retire, they are not being replaced, and their waiting lists are just being disbanded. People are writing to me about those sorts of things all the time. Patients have very few ways to raise their concerns. They can go to the patient advice and liaison service, but unfortunately the delays in getting responses back from PALS are enormous. MPs can raise an issue with the trust leadership and go through PALS as well, but we still do not get the responses that we need. There seems to be a lack of communication between leadership and staff, and we seem to have lost sight of what is important—the things that just make sense to keep on doing. There was a roundtable earlier this week for the leadership of Mid and South Essex and the Essex MPs whose constituencies are in that trust. While not all the MPs could come along—I know many sent their staffers—I was certainly there. We talked about heat and the very long, hot summer we have had. We talked about how that has impacted on the running of the hospital. The chief executive told me that it meant some of the theatres had to be closed because there was too much humidity. Obviously, that has a knock-on effect on patient waiting lists, outcomes and experiences. The chief executive said that the hospital had been gifted some air-conditioning units by a very generous national company. That sounds great, but the hospital cannot plug enough of them in because the electrical circuits cannot cope. It is a fairly new build hospital—it is a combination of PFI and some older buildings—yet we cannot plug in enough air-conditioning units to keep our theatres open. I was told that humidity is not reduced by air-conditioning units, but I am not too sure about that. I am sure there are other ways of reducing humidity. I said to the chief executive that it was a really hot summer, and with El Niño, we are possibly expecting an even hotter summer next year. I asked the chief executive whether they are developing contingency plans to make sure that we can deal with that, because we know that long, hot summers are going to keep on happening. He said, “No, we’re not.” My mind was blown that he said that out loud. I say this as gently and courteously as possible, but it is obvious that the trust is massively struggling. It is not just the staff working day to day; it is the leadership. It is a new leadership team, and they have obviously lost sight of the importance of focusing on certain things.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we are in the same trust, and that our constituents experience each other’s local hospitals. I want to build on what he said about the experience of patients. It is really important that we remember the patients in all this. We can talk about financial planning, keeping budgets down and sticking within the envelope of how much we are supposed to be spending, but at the end of the day, it is patients who are suffering. One patient wrote to me in February—it was February this year, but just to give an idea of how long this has been going on, it could have been February two, three or five years ago. They said: “I waited four hours for triage, and it was eight hours until I was admitted to a ward. I spent much of that time sitting on the cold floor, by the open doors or standing as there were not enough seats.” It is not just about patients; it is also about the staff who work there. A nurse wrote to me just last month, in September 2026, to say: “I have worked at the trust since 2008 and when I first joined, I was so proud to say I worked there. The next few years this feeling remained but for the last 8 years or so things have definitely taken a nosedive. The trust seems to run on broken promises and the good will of frontline staff. I am no longer proud to say where I work. I know many staff feel the same and worry for the safety of the patients, the staff and the trust.”
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
I think this is bigger than just one person; it needs much more attention from the Government and across the board—and I do not just mean the local trust board. It needs a lot of oversight and intervention, and really quickly. We are talking about an intensive recovery programme that was billed by the then Health Secretary as being a rapid improvement programme. I have not seen anything rapid yet, I am afraid. The programme was announced in March, and I am still waiting to see any real outcomes. It is supposed to deliver results within six months. I know they waited until the new chief exec was in place in June, so we are now a few months in, but patients—my constituents—are really suffering. Let me give a few stats. For cancer being diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days, the national median is 78.6%. The average for Mid and South Essex is 64.3%, placing it 114th out of 117 trusts. For elective patients waiting under 18 weeks—in this case, higher is better—the median is 65.2%. In Mid and South Essex, it is 50.4%, placing it 117th out of 117. For elective patients waiting over 52 weeks—lower is better—the median is 1.5%. In Mid and South Essex, it is 8.1%, again placing it 117th out of 117. I would rather not claim the prize of having one of the worst trusts in the country, but here we are—the numbers don’t lie.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
Yes—the hon. Member makes a really important point. I have no problem with making cuts if they are genuine efficiencies. If we look at a system and go, “Do you know what? There’s wastage over here, so we can cut it from here because we’re confident that things are going to continue to do well over there”, but that never seems to be the case. It seems to be a case of just cutting, and to hell with the consequences. I find that really frustrating. The bottom line is that patients suffer from it, and that is never good for the economy. If we want to boil it down to money, economics and finances, that is never good for the economy, because when people have worse outcomes, they tend to need to stay in hospital for longer, which costs more money. It is ridiculous—it is a crazy way of running things. A staff survey was done in the trust last November, and the results speak for themselves. Members can look it up, but this is the money answer that tells us pretty much everything we need to know, even if we read nothing else. Staff were asked whether they would be happy with the standard of care provided by the organisation if a friend or relative needed treatment. The national average for those agreeing is 60.83%. For Mid and South Essex, it is 38%—my word! Nearly two thirds of staff working in the trust are saying, “I wouldn’t want my friend or loved one to be treated there.” That has to be ringing enormous alarm bells. If we are not throwing everything at turning this around right here, right now, I do not understand the point of Government. I am conscious of time and I have taken three interventions, so I will go on for just a few more minutes. There have been six years of interventions at the trust, starting after the merger in 2020, when the Care Quality Commission rated it “Requires improvement”. In April 2024, we had a recovery support programme, which was a successor to special measures, and in March this year, as I have said, we had the intensive recovery programme. Six years and two programmes, with no CQC improvement. We have had so many health inquiries in this country—inquiries into maternity and other services—and they have all made loads of recommendations. Can the Minister say how many of those recommendations have been implemented, across the country and in Mid and South Essex? How are we keeping track of that? Let’s not reinvent the wheel. We have had inquiries that have told us what is going wrong, so let us make sure we are implementing their recommendations. I have written to the Minister three times, and three times I have had a response back. I have welcomed the announcement and asked questions about the detail, but I have had different details back each time. In June and July, I was told that the responsibility lies with the trust’s board, with targeted external expertise. In the July response, I was told that there was a recovery compact and a six to 18-month recovery period. In the September letter, I was told we would be getting enhanced support from NHS England regional and national teams. It struck me when rereading those letters earlier today that there is very little reference in them to improving patient outcomes or experience. They focus a lot on money. I genuinely think that we need to get things right and then deal with the money afterwards. Sometimes we have to invest to get things to the point that they need to be, and then step back and make savings; we cannot do it all in one go—I can tell hon. Members right now that it just will not work. There is too much of a focus on financial performance right here, right now. We can get to that later, but we must first sort things out for the patients who are suffering right now. The September response promised long-term sustainability. I just have to point out that NHS England is reportedly set to be abolished in April 2027, which is inside the recovery window I have been given. That creates a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty. Where will we be getting consistency on this? Members will be pleased to know that I am on my last page, but I do have a list of questions for the Minister. Where is the “external expertise” coming from that will be helping Mid and South Essex? I get fed up with the merry-go-round of chief executives moving from one failing trust to another. Why on earth do we think we will get a different answer or outcome? If they did not fix it over there, why do we think they will be able to fix it over here? Where is the genuine expertise with a tried and tested track record coming from? Who chooses the experts? Who reviews whether the support is working—or are they going to be marking their own homework? Who holds the trust to account? Do not just tell me “the board” or “MPs”—that is not the answer. What specific support is Mid and South Essex getting? If there is no improvement within the six to 18-month window, who will intervene then, and what will be the consequences? How is this long-term if NHS England is going to disappear in April 2027? Finally, where is the commitment to making things better for the people this really matters for: the patients and the staff? I conclude by paying tribute once again to the staff who do amazing work under very difficult circumstances. Patients—my constituents—deserve better.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
I would love to hear more of what the hon. Lady is saying, but none of us can hear her well. My plea to the hon. Lady is to speak up a bit.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
I thank all Members who have taken part in this important debate and the Minister for her response. Hon. Members from across the House have pointed out that rural constituencies are not the same as urban constituencies, and that they have very different needs. They have pointed out that we need investment in the infrastructure at our hospitals. Some hospitals are failing because their buildings have been neglected for decades. That needs to be fixed. None of us is here just to criticise. We are all listening to our constituents, to patients and to staff. It is our duty to call problems out and demand better, and that is what we have done today. I do not like hyperbole, and often when people talk about life and death, it is hyperbole. That is not the case here. It is literally life and death for people on waiting lists. People have tragically died because they have been on a waiting list too long or because they have been mistreated or misdiagnosed, as we have heard from Members. I make a final plea not to concentrate only on the finances. Finances will help with rural issues and infrastructure issues, but they will not help with cultural issues. The CQC did a well-led inspection of the Mid and South Essex trust recently. The stark line coming out of it was that staff are afraid to speak up for fear of reprisal. Money is not the problem with that system; it is a cultural problem, and we need to do something about it. The Minister said that we could meet again. I gently say that we have not actually met yet, so I would love to take her up on the opportunity to meet for the very first time. I thank her for her response, and everybody who took part in the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government oversight of underperforming NHS trusts.
- Hansard source
School Funding: Stockport
I beg to move, That this House has considered school funding in Stockport. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I start by declaring an interest: I am in my 20th year of being an unpaid primary school governor. I am currently at the wonderful Fairway primary school in Offerton. I am sure that we all agree that being an MP is a real privilege, and one of the best things that we get to do in this job is spend time in schools. Young people get to the nub of issues. They have very little filter, and they always leave me feeling much more positive about the future of our country. However, the school visits that I have made since being elected have included conversations with headteachers who—while they are doing remarkable things for their pupils and their school communities—are having to explain which posts they cannot fill, which support they have had to cut and which requests from parents they have had to turn down because the money is just not there. The chief executive of the Honeycomb education trust, which includes Mellor primary school in my patch, told me that he had recently been left with three choices: lose three or four members of staff, lose a headteacher or take early retirement himself. He chose retirement. That is what the funding position is doing to experienced and celebrated school leaders such as Jim in my constituency. Schools across Stockport are expected to provide the same educational experience for students as the rest of the country. Yet schools in my constituency and across the borough are funded at disproportionately lower levels per pupil compared with other places, including neighbouring Manchester. That is the case for much of the rest of the country. Funding for our education system can be complex. Education has two core funding streams: the education cash limit budget, which comes through the council, and the dedicated schools grant, which is the core funding provided by central Government through the Department for Education for education purposes. That budget reaches schools mainly according to the number of pupils that are enrolled. Other considerations are also taken into account, including deprivation, number of children on free school meals, number of children with English as an additional language and low prior attainment. The rate attached to each child, and the number of children in the school, decides almost everything about a school’s budget. The primary schools’ unit of funding in Manchester is £6,404. In neighbouring Stockport, it is £5,623. It does not cost almost £800 more to educate a child in Manchester than it does in Stockport, and it is hard to justify that big gap. At secondary schools, the funding in Manchester averages £8,452. Stockport receives £7,320. That is a gap of £1,100 for every pupil and is £350 less than the national average. We are not just a little bit below the average in Stockport. Among all the authorities in England, Stockport’s secondary rate is one of the lowest in the country. At the top of the table are the inner London boroughs, some of which receive over £10,000 per pupil. The distance between the top of that table and those areas near the bottom is hard to defend. Those differences in funding are having a dire effect in Stockport. I have been told that 68 of the 78 schools in Stockport are heading for a deficit, and that school reserves have fallen from £11 million to around £5 million. The schools that are attempting to remain financially resilient are joining multi-academy trusts based outside Stockport, and others are being pushed towards mergers. When speaking to Jim from the Honeycomb education trust, he laid out the additional burdens that school leaders are facing in addition to limited funding. Those include the removal of the trust capacity fund, national insurance contributions that were not fully funded, long-term staff sickness absence and a growing number of children with special educational needs.
- Hansard source
School Funding: Stockport
I, too, have family members with ADHD diagnoses. We as a society have got much better at understanding neurodiversity. We understand the strengths of those who are neurodiverse and how best to educate and work with them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a better understanding of our fellow citizens is a good thing, and if that comes with a diagnosis, let us welcome that. Councils receive a high-needs budget to pay for specialist places and extra support in mainstream schools. In Stockport, that came to just over £56 million this year, with more than 1,100 students holding high-needs places last year. That brings me to the deficit on the high-needs budget, which hangs over councils across England, and which Stockport knows well. By March 2027, the cumulative deficit on Stockport’s dedicated schools grant is expected to reach about £68 million. Because of the statutory override, that sum sits in an unusable reserve, rather than on the council’s balance sheet, where it could be put to better use. The Government have said that, as part of their wider reforms to special educational needs provision, they will write off 90% of the accrued deficit at March 2027. For Stockport, that is an estimated £61 million, so of course I welcome that. It is the right thing to do, and councils have been asking for it for years. However, the override is due to end in March 2028, with a new funding model due to begin in April 2028. In between, Stockport expects to build up a further deficit of about £60 million across 2026-27 and 2027-28. The Government have said that more support will be confirmed, but that puts councils and schools in a difficult position, as they have to set budgets without knowing whether a sum almost as large as the first write-off will be covered. Schools and councils want to work with a clear understanding of what they should expect. The council and families across the borough deserve better than that uncertainty. Parents of children with special educational needs should be provided with the certainty that school places will be available to them and that they do not have to worry about whether they will be funded. They should not be told that it depends on a funding model that is yet to be published. I would be really grateful if the Minister can update us on when schools should expect publication of the new funding model. Funding disparities can disproportionately affect students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Stockport is one of the most polarised boroughs in the country. We have communities that are among the most affluent in the region, and we also have the most deprived ward in the whole of Greater Manchester. Children in that ward start school with disadvantages that, on average, will never pick up. A funding system that sees only the prosperous areas of a borough and sets the rate to match lets down those children. That is why Stockport is a founder member of the f40 group—the campaign of the lowest-funded local authorities—which has pressed for years for a fairer distribution of education funding. The case has not changed. The gaps mean that an average one-form-entry primary school in Stockport receives about £164,000 less each year than it would if it were based in Manchester. Headteachers in my constituency cannot simply absorb such a gap. The pressure is not only on budgets. In Marple and the surrounding villages, families living in the catchment area of Marple Hall school find that their children are not offered a place because the school is oversubscribed.
- Hansard source
School Funding: Stockport
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, for raising that point. There are a number of challenges when it comes to admissions, and funding is part of the answer. Multi-academy trusts, which are their own admission authority, work alongside local councils, which have the responsibility to find a place for a child, but their wishes and desires do not always align. I am doing work—I have been in correspondence with the Minister—to find a way through that. Every child deserves a brilliant education at a good local school, and parents should be able to choose the right school for their child, so I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I have heard directly from parents about the effect on them of their children having to get a bus that drives past Marple Hall to get to the school where they have been assigned a place. School funding challenges are also reaching organisations that work alongside our schools. One of my constituents, David from Romiley, runs a social enterprise with his wife that delivers educational activities in primary schools. He came to see me because of the Government’s decision to end the PE and sport premium. He is now expecting to have to make redundancies among his staff. Will the Minister look again at how the national funding formula treats areas such as Stockport? A system that locks in historical allocations and averages out pockets of real deprivation does not match funding to need. Will the Department review the way the formula is built and, if so, set out a timetable for doing so? Will the Minister confirm what support will be available for the deficits that build up in 2026-27 and 2027-28 before the override ends? Councils need certainty now, not in the spring. Will she commit to publishing those figures in good time?
- Hansard source
School Funding: Stockport
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that more funding coming to our borough is absolutely welcome, and he is completely right that the three of us, although we are not always ideologically aligned, work well when it comes to the shared ambitions for our borough. I strongly agree with him on that. I also agree that EHCP turnaround and the service that parents and families have been getting in Stockport have not been good enough. The three of us have raised that with the council, which has a clear aspiration and duty for it to improve. I also agree that some of the funding discrepancies are historical, and we need to work to fix them. The children who are going through our education service deserve better. Additionally, when will the detail of the new special educational needs funding model, which is due to take effect from April ’28, be published? Will the Department consult councils and schools before it is finalised? The children of Stockport are as bright, hard-working and deserving as any in the country. They should not be funded as though they are worth a little bit less, or indeed £800 less, than children in a neighbouring borough. I urge the Minister to look again at how we fund our schools, give councils certainty about special educational needs funding before the override ends and give the children of Stockport the fair deal they deserve.
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
The hon. Lady is giving a powerful speech, and it is a reminder of why there are no Conservative MPs or councils led by the Conservatives in Oxfordshire anymore. I absolutely commend the women of Piddington for speaking up, and I commend the young women in Oxford who have come to me to say that their voice has not been heard. However, there are women in all parts of this country, and in all sorts of circumstances, for whom that is true. The violence against women and girls strategy was criticised by the National Audit Office in January 2025. It was written by the Leader of the Opposition when she was the Minister for Women and Equalities, and she should have tackled this issue. Will the Leader of the Opposition apologise to the women of Piddington, and those across this country?
- Hansard source
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Misogyny exists in many cultures; I would point out that it does in ours, too, and that is well recognised. Did it ever occur to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps some of those people are leaving those countries because they do not agree with those values and that, notwithstanding the issues that we have too, they would rather come to a country that better respects the rights of women? Is he suggesting that every man in those countries holds those views?
- Hansard source
Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation
Debate and discussion about issues of benefits, entitlements and calculations can often be relegated to the mere spreadsheet, but we all know that there are individuals who sit behind each and every one of those awards and numbers. One of those people—an individual who I have mentioned more than I have mentioned anybody else when speaking in the Chamber—is Pauline Cole. Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole served our country during the Aden emergency in 1967. She was a trailblazer and she told her story in her book, “Army Girl: The Untold Story”. I believe the Minister has a signed copy of that book. Pauline was funny, fierce and utterly determined, as the Minister got to experience at first hand. She also carried the cost of her service for the rest of her life. Her service left her with skin damage and post-traumatic stress disorder. The military tribunal rightly recognised that reality and awarded her compensation for those lifelong conditions. That compensation was meant to acknowledge her pain, her injury and the quality of life that she had lost. It should have given her a little bit more security and dignity in her retirement. Instead, the opposite happened. Because military compensation is treated as income when calculating pension credit, which Pauline was receiving, most of what Pauline won at tribunal was effectively clawed back by the Department for Work and Pensions.
- Hansard source
Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation
I completely agree. No one should be penalised for serving their country, although that is effectively what happens under the current system. I will come to some of the other benefits that the hon. Gentleman refers to shortly.
- Hansard source
Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation
I agree with the Chair of the Defence Committee, who I know has worked on this issue for some time. I think his suggestion needs to be done sooner than the next armed forces compensation scheme review. We also need to remember that the war pensions scheme, from before that system—before 2003—needs to be looked at. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some commitments to that effect later, and I will spell them out specifically.
- Hansard source
Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation
I agree. I will talk later about the armed forces covenant and the new legal duties that will be on the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments from the new year. Let me animate what my hon. Friend describes with the example of what happened to Pauline. Her pension credit fell from £77 a week to just £11 a week on being awarded military compensation. Let me put that very plainly, just as others have done: she was financially punished for being injured in the service of her country. That was not an abstract loss. The material impact was that Pauline was, in the end, forced to leave her home because she could no longer afford to keep up with the living costs. That is what this policy and the status quo mean for people like Pauline. I made Pauline a promise that I would fight this injustice on her behalf. I used my first ever question in Prime Minister’s questions to raise the case, and I met the Pensions Minister to press it further. It is with huge sadness that I say that Pauline died on 30 November last year, without seeing the justice that she was so determined to secure. At her funeral, I renewed the promise that I made to Pauline to her sons, Les and Simon Haffenden, and to everyone who loved her, and I am here tonight in an endeavour to keep it. That is why, earlier today, I tabled the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill—that is a bit of a mouthful, so Pauline’s law will do. However, this is not just Pauline’s story. According to the Royal British Legion, some 144,000 veterans and their families receive compensation for injury, illness or bereavement caused by their service. Over half of our veterans are over 65.
- Hansard source
Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation
There are so many who need to act here. It is not just a Department for Work and Pensions issue; it is a local authority issue as well. The Royal British Legion has a very helpful map that Members can access to find their local authority and identify which locally administered benefits are disregarded.
- Hansard source
Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation
I absolutely congratulate my hon. Friend’s local veterans and commend them for their service. When I speak at his annual dinner in a couple of weeks’ time, I will pass on the message personally, if any of those veterans are local members. Of the folks I mentioned earlier, an estimated 146,000 are eligible for pension credit. Only around one in five receive an occupational pension for their time in service, so many of them live on low incomes. The most important number when assessing the viability of the disregard in question, though, is 4,120. That is the number of veterans and bereaved spouses who currently receive military compensation and would be claiming pension credit. These are the people I prioritise in pushing for this reform. If someone is ruled ineligible for pension credit, they do not just lose pension credit; they lose the passported help that comes with it. There is a ripple effect across the forms of support that folks can receive. On average, they can be denied around £5,900 a year in direct and passported support. For our poorest veterans, that is the difference between getting by and going without. I know the argument that the Department has made before. It is the argument against so-called double tapping—the principle that someone should not receive two separate payments from the state that meet the same need. I do not dispute that principle, which is a very long-held one within the Treasury, but it simply does not apply here. Double tapping assumes that both payments meet the same need; these payments do not. Pension credit exists to provide a minimum income for ordinary living costs; military compensation exists to recognise injury, loss or bereavement caused by service. They are different payments for different purposes meeting different needs, so the double tapping excuse will not fly. Counting compensation against pension credit simply uses the benefits system to claw back part of an award that was made for an entirely separate purpose, and the Government’s own policy already proves the point. Universal credit fully disregards war pension scheme and armed forces compensation scheme payments. The Government have themselves stated that this is in line with the treatment of civil compensation for personal injury, which does not impact pension credit calculations, so if military compensation is not double funding under universal credit, it cannot be double funding under pension credit. The Department cannot accept the principle for working-age veterans but reject it for older veterans. There is a further inconsistency within pension credit itself. Only the first £10 a week of military compensation is disregarded. The Minister has told me in correspondence that this partial disregard exists in recognition of veterans’ service. The Government already accept that service deserves to be treated differently, but everything above that £10 is treated as income for everyday living costs. I am yet to hear a clear rationale as to why £10 is the right figure. It seems arbitrary to me. If the Department believes that £10 of compensation serves a separate purpose, why not the rest? Meanwhile, under pension credit, a civilian with a personal injury compensation award, trust or structured settlement may have that compensation wholly disregarded. Pension credit therefore currently gives greater protection to compensation for an injury suffered at work or on the road than to compensation for an injury suffered in service of our country, one of the most valiant forms of work. The armed forces covenant promises that members of the armed forces community should face no disadvantage as a result of their service.
- Hansard source
Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation
The Royal British Legion’s “Credit their Service” campaign is one reason I am here. I pay particular tribute to Elliot, Jo, Claire, Hannah and Hermine, who were in Parliament today running an event to help promote the campaign. While I am here, I pay tribute not only to Sam McManus from my team, but to Euan Morrison. He started out as a case worker, picked up Pauline’s case and fought and fought. Through the Armed Forces Act, the covenant of duty is being extended to central Government, to welfare benefits and to service-related compensation. When it comes into force early next year, the Department for Work and Pensions will be legally required to pay due regard to those principles. Treating military compensation as income for pension credit fails both tests, in my view. It disadvantages veterans as compared with civilians who receive compensation. I am ultimately asking the Government to act with a few key asks. First, will the Minister commit to amending the pension credit regulations so that military compensation is fully disregarded, bringing it into line with pension credit? Secondly, if he is not ready to go that far tonight, will he at least set out a commitment to review how much that would cost? Currently, the DWP has said that it has not done that piece of work. Thirdly, will he meet me, the Royal British Legion and the veterans affected so that we can find a way forward? Members across this House—from the Labour party, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Green party, Alliance, the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and more—have signed my amendment on this issue in the past and have signed my cross-party letter. We are determined for change, because people like Pauline deserved better, our veterans deserve better and this House must do better.
- Hansard source
Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation
In Pauline’s case, she did not choose whether to receive monthly instalments or a lump sum. If she had had a choice, she may have preferred a lump sum—first, because it was a big amount of money to do something with, and secondly, because she would not have fallen foul of the rules. Why should whether payments are disregarded be a lottery that is based on whether someone receives a lump sum or instalments?
- Hansard source
Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for his point on the armed forces covenant. The DWP’s position in relation to the covenant has changed in the light of the Armed Forces Act’s new legal duties that the DWP will have to adhere to come January. What assessment has the DWP made of its obligations with respect to that change in the context of this pension credit disregard?
- Hansard source
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West for introducing this important piece of legislation, and all the Members who have supported its progress. I have two points that I hope the Minister can clarify. The amendment mentions prospective parents, and a prospective parent is defined as somebody who is experiencing a pregnancy. I wonder whether that includes parents who are undergoing IVF. They might not know whether an embryo transfer has worked, but at the moment after an embryo transfer, they are pregnant. There is a postcode lottery in respect of IVF services in this country. Someone can live on one road and get three rounds of IVF or live on another road and get only one. Those people are prospective parents in my mind, because they are working very hard and going through real difficulties to bring into this world young people who would be loved. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding and inequalities. When I launched the APPG, it was called the APPG for infant feeding; we added “and inequalities” afterwards because it is so important to make sure that inequalities are addressed throughout everything we do. Families from more deprived areas are half as likely to breastfeed their children, even though breastfeeding can have positive outcomes for the health of both the mother and the baby and in terms of affordability for those families. Will the Minister clarify whether breastfeeding support will be included in the infant support services that are assessed under the Bill? A recently published survey found that seven in 10 mothers who stopped breastfeeding by the time their baby was four to six months old said that they would have liked to have breastfed for longer, so there is clear demand in the public realm. If people saw more support for breastfeeding, they would be able to continue to do it for longer. For whatever reason—perhaps all the challenges that come alongside breastfeeding—they stop earlier than they would like to. There are also positive steps. The infant feeding survey that was published in June 2026 shows that breastfeeding rates are going up, but it would be helpful to understand whether that will be monitored as part of the process so we can make sure that trajectory continues. Reducing health inequalities should include making sure that no mother experiences the postcode lottery of breastfeeding support that is currently so apparent. So many breastfeeding services are run by volunteers, midwives on their days off or health visitors who are squeezing in the time to provide those services. For many families, those services are not available at all. Will the Minister commit to publishing clear statutory guidance that defines the breastfeeding and infant feeding support services that local authorities ought to provide under the Bill? The most recent Government announcement on the roll-out of Healthy Babies funding to all local authorities is excellent, but it did not explicitly mention breastfeeding and infant feeding support, whereas the wording in respect of the previous roll-out was far more explicit.
- Hansard source
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
The shadow Minister is making a really important point. Does she also agree that representation in politics is so important and that having women in politics matters because they are able to talk about their unique experiences when it comes to breastfeeding? We need to make sure that we get lots of women into politics so that they can raise important points like she has just done.
- Hansard source
Nuclear Energy: Scotland
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing this debate. As regards the good-natured jibe from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), I received it in the manner in which it was intended, but I ken his mother quite well, so I will be having a wee word in another place. My party’s policy is to support small modular reactors, and we make no bones about it. Their roll-out can provide a hugely cost-effective and safe decarbonisation mix. We also believe that planning should involve taking people with us. That takes me straight to what the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) mentioned: Dounreay. Dounreay was an example, prior to 1954-55, of the tragedy of highland depopulation. Mr Stuart, if you drive up the A9 from Latheron to Thurso, you see cottages—crofts—without roofs; they are open to the skies. People had gone, and it was the curse. That is why there are so many people from highland families living in all corners of the world. In 1954-55, the planning application to build the reactor at Dounreay went through—can you believe this?—in three days flat; these are changed days indeed. Dounreay was a godsend for the area. It not only halted highland depopulation, but reversed it. People were moving in, and the school rolls were going up. I think it would be fair to say that in not just Caithness but the wider area of Sutherland, many a person would work at Dounreay—and still does today. Some would have a croft; they would work at Dounreay in the day and go back and run the croft in their other time. The advent of Dounreay literally kept the lights on in the straths and glens of the highlands. None of us should ever forget that. Highland council, the local authority, is just the same as the other councils we have heard about. It is keen to get a new reactor, an SMR, at Dounreay. Great British Energy, as my colleagues have mentioned, specifically mentions Dounreay as absolutely suitable for an SMR. Here is the nub of the matter, and it is really my conclusion. At Dounreay, one of the first nuclear sites ever in the UK, we have a licensed site. That is pretty dashed important. We have a highly skilled workforce and a local population that would warmly welcome an SMR. All the bits of the jigsaw are in place—and yet we have heard repeatedly what the roadblock is. To show the nicer side of my nature—if there is one—could I just gently point out to the Scottish Government that Plaid Cymru has embraced the concept of new nuclear in Wales? I do hope that Plaid and the SNP will talk to each other, because at the end of the day people cannot just go on punting out old policies that have no practical application whatever in Scotland. I hope they take my advice. I long for the day when the jobs come back to Dounreay through an SMR.
- Hansard source
Fraud and Economic Crime: Prosecution
1. What steps she is taking to help ensure the effective prosecution of fraud and economic crime.
- Hansard source
Fraud and Economic Crime: Prosecution
Fraud is growing, and artificial intelligence is making it easier for it to be committed at scale. While cases can be complex, all too often victims tell me that they feel abandoned by the system. The CPS strategy folds fraud into organised crime and national security issues, and none of its seven priorities is actually about victims; in that regard, it differs from the previous economic crime strategy. How will the Solicitor General ensure that fraud victims are not lost in the CPS’s new approach?
- Hansard source
Business without Debate
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Devon and Cornwall MPs have received a letter from the Department of Health and Social Care stating that a decision on reopening North Devon district hospital’s maternity unit could be made next week. That directly contradicts the Royal Devon university healthcare NHS foundation trust, which has insisted to me and the public again today that a decision will be made on 26 October. For the sake of many worried families in North Devon, it is important that Government communications are accurate, so please can I put this point on the record?
- Hansard source
North Devon Maternity Services
Further to our online petition signed by more than 15,000 people calling for births to be restored at North Devon district hospital’s maternity unit, I present this petition on behalf of all those families across northern Devon and Cornwall who need local maternity services at North Devon district hospital reinstated at the earliest possible date that it is safe to do so. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bolster recruitment and maternity staffing levels among NHS Trusts,…build local resilience in the NHS to prevent dangerous travel distances for expectant mothers, and ensure that the National Maternity and Neonatal Task Force works to stop emergency suspensions of maternity services at NHS hospitals. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Northern Devon, Declares that Maternity Services should be urgently reinstated at North Devon District Hospital on the earliest possible date it is safe to do so. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bolster recruitment and maternity staffing levels among NHS Trusts - especially consultant gynaecologists and obstetricians - build local resilience in the NHS to prevent dangerous travel distances for expectant mothers, and ensure that the National Maternity and Neonatal Task Force works to stop emergency suspensions of maternity services at NHS hospitals. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003244]
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate. Tackling underperforming NHS trusts is essential if we are serious about taking the necessary strides forward for patient safety and experience—as well as for the wellbeing of NHS workers, who are suffering anxiety and burnout at an unprecedented and frankly unacceptable scale. The Liberal Democrats have put forward our robust plan to end corridor care and transform patient safety, with essential measures needed to fix our NHS and relieve the pressure at both the front door and the back door of the service. Years of Conservative mismanagement and neglect of the NHS have left many trusts on their knees, with huge challenges from which to recover. The onus is now on the new Labour Government, with their intensive recovery programme, to finally create the right conditions for failing trusts to succeed where their predecessors have failed.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
I do agree, and I echo my hon. Friend’s call. The estate that people work in is part of the fundamental problem that we are trying to tackle across the NHS. I hope all the Members here who have made excellent speeches highlighting shocking failures in their own trusts can take heart from the fact that it is possible to tackle the issues in underperforming trusts. In my time as the MP for North Shropshire, I have seen meaningful changes for my constituents. From 2018 to 2023, Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust was obviously underperforming, with CQC inspections consistently rating it as inadequate. That included inadequate levels of safety and services—reflected in the horrifying stories received at the time in my inbox and those of the other Shropshire MPs, and on doorsteps—and a churn in the management team that led to constant uncertainty about what was going to happen there. The human consequence of those stories was devastating. When I was first elected, the overwhelming issue was the abysmal ambulance waiting times, related to poor handover times, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) highlighted. I will never forget the letter I received from a headteacher: after a pupil dislocated his knee playing football, he and the teachers waited so long for an ambulance in the dark and cold on a winter night that he was at risk of developing hypothermia by the time the ambulance arrived. We heard countless devastating stories, including ones where the ambulance had taken so long to arrive that it was too late, and the outcome was fatal. Following a targeted campaign, which included me joining the West Midlands ambulance service team for an eye-opening shift, wait times have significantly improved, and we see far fewer of these cases in our inboxes. But challenges remain, not least in corridor care in the accident and emergency department, which has at times been rated one of the worst in the country. A constituent told me of the shocking experience of her aunt Cath during this period, who was admitted to Royal Shrewsbury hospital following a serious stroke. One night, Cath fell out of her hospital bed and broke her hip after staff had failed to put up the necessary guardrails. She spent nearly half an hour trying to attract the attention of staff on the ward with the alert bell, but they were so overworked that they did not respond, and in the end she was forced to dial 999 from the floor of the ward. She was left in the ridiculous position of explaining to the call centre staff that she was actually on the floor of a ward in Royal Shrewsbury hospital before the staff reached her. That cannot be right. We heard of many heartbreaking situations where cancer patients’ scans could not take place because waiting lists had meant that they were booked in the wrong order and of fatally long waits for diagnosis in some cases, with the trust failing to hit key targets across the board. Finally, the 2022 Ockenden report shook my community with its devastating finding of over 200 preventable deaths of babies and unimaginable harm done to families. Campaigning and voicing justified anger, which everyone has done today, and working with Ministers on the failings can bring about change. That was essential in Shropshire, and though things are not perfect, it is encouraging to see the improvements that have been made so far. It has been a really difficult environment for staff to work in. I pay tribute to them and the new leadership team for all the hard work that they have put into turning this extremely difficult situation around. The trust’s CQC rating has recently been upgraded, although it still requires improvement, with emergency department waiting times and understaffing as key focuses. However, there is much to be pleased with. Reviews have noted a positive culture, and the trust has recently been shortlisted for several awards for its performance improvements. We must celebrate the many trusts in the UK that provide high levels of care and innovation, and support those making significant improvements. For underperforming trusts, it is our duty to our patients and constituents to ensure that we campaign to bring them up to good standards, and I congratulate everyone here today on doing just that. However, if conditions for care are stretched and staff are expected to deliver the impossible with limited time and resources, it is patients who suffer. How can we transform patient safety? To start, we need to hold failing leaders to account, as I have discussed. Reports have pointed to a culture of unaccountability among NHS leaders, which has accompanied recent scandals and undermines public confidence. Failing trusts need to be held to account, and our amendments to the Health Bill would help do that by retaining the necessary structures for accountability. First, we must retain the independent patient voice, Healthwatch, which was established in the wake of the Mid Staffordshire scandal. Although still in its infancy, HSSIB, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, should also be retained because it promises to improve the patient safety environment. Our amendments would also introduce duties and a standardised framework for the reporting of suspected health system failings and medical malpractice by coroners, medical examiners and members of ICB and NHS trust boards. Whistleblowing routes to the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, HSSIB and the police would be accompanied by statutory protections. We would also place a corresponding duty on senior leadership to escalate any concerns they have about safety or malpractice to the relevant boards. My colleagues in the other place will be re-tabling those amendments at the next stage of the Health Bill, and I urge the Government to accept them.
- Hansard source
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
I fully agree, and that is why HSSIB has a role to play, because it provides a safe space for people to raise concerns without fearing for their jobs. The National Guardian’s Office, which is also being removed by the Health Bill, enables and encourages safe whistleblowing across the NHS, and it is important that we retain it. The Thirlwall inquiry highlighted constant reorganisation as a problem as well. I received a notification in my inbox this week that Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB had clustered with Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB to get ready for a merger, but that it is all on hold now because it does not line up with local government reorganisation. It is really problematic for local health services when their management teams do not know whether they are coming or going from one month to the next. I urge the Minister to deal with that problem as well. It is clear that urgent action is needed to turn around underperforming trusts for the safety of their patients, the welfare of their staff and the value delivered for the taxpayer. I hope the Government will look at the measures we have outlined and accept some of them in the Health Bill as it passes through the House of Lords, so that we can really affect people’s lives and put back their confidence that the NHS will be there for them when they need it most.