Sovereign Grant Bill
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is expecting this, but it is important that he focuses his remarks on the Sovereign Grant Bill, and not wider issues to do with the monarchy, patriotism or why he joined the Labour party.
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Sovereign Grant Bill
Order. I reiterate that we are going to stick to the scope of the Sovereign Grant Bill, which is very specifically only about the amount of the sovereign grant and how it is to be determined in future years. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the grant goes to the King.
- Hansard source
Sovereign Grant Bill
Order. Apologies, and I appreciate that I am now leaping to my feet with monotonous regularity, but it would be more appropriate for the amendment to be discussed in Committee than on Second Reading.
- Hansard source
Sovereign Grant Bill
I remind Members that in Committee Members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use my name when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable. Clause 1 Amount of Sovereign Grant for the financial year 2027-28 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
- Hansard source
Sovereign Grant Bill
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert— “(3) Section 6 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 is amended as follows. (4) After subsection (4) insert— “(5) The Royal Trustees may not make any proposals to increase the percentage specified in Step 1 (as amended by Section 2 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2026) for determining the amount of the Sovereign Grant, unless— (a) they have commissioned the National Audit Office to undertake a value for money assessment of the proposed change, and (b) the National Audit Office’s report has been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and (c) a motion approving the change has been debated and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.”” This amendment would ensure that any future increase to the percentage of Crown Estate profit used to calculate the Sovereign Grant is subject to independent assessment and an affirmative vote in the House of Commons. Clause 2 stand part. Clauses 3 and 4 stand part.
- Hansard source
Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave
We now come to the motions relating to Select Committee Chairs, period of Leave; Select Committee participation; the Committee of Privileges report; and Standing Orders, machinery of government changes, which will be debated together. There is a small error on the printed Order Paper in the motion on Standing Orders, machinery of government changes. Under section B: Related Provisions, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (ii), the Committee names should be swapped around. A corrected version of the motion is available from the Vote Office and the online version of the Order Paper has been corrected.
- Hansard source
Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions: Select Committees (Participation)— That with effect from 30 November 2026:— (1) Select committee members may in the circumstances set out in paragraph 2 below participate in any select committee proceedings through electronic means of communication in accordance with guidance to be determined and published by the Liaison Committee, which must take into account the need for cyber security. (2) The circumstances in which this Standing Order applies are: (a) when access to the estate is significantly limited or prevented entirely, or (b) when reasonable adjustments need to be made for an individual committee member on the grounds of health and wellbeing, following the conclusion of an assessment process as set out in the Liaison Committee guidance. (3) A Member participating through electronic means in accordance with this Standing Order shall count towards the quorum of the Committee. (4) The provisions of this Standing Order apply to meetings held under the provisions of Standing Order No. 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees). (5) This Standing Order applies to all select committees appointed under Public Business Standing Orders, the Modernisation Committee, and such other select committees as the House directs. (6) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament. Privileges— That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges First Report of Session 2026–27, Matter referred on 4 September 2025: Actions of the Charity Commission (HC 315), and endorses its conclusions and recommendations. Standing Orders Etc. (Machinery of Government Changes)— That the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders: A: Select Committees Related to Government Departments (1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows— (i) leave out items 1, 3, 14 and 19; (ii) insert, in the appropriate place, the following items: “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” “Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” 11 “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” “Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” 11 “Science and Technology” “Government Office for Science” 11 “Women and Equalities” “Office for Equality and Opportunity” 11 B: Related Provisions (2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament, including for the purposes of calculating any period under Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees)— (i) relating to the Business and Trade Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee; (ii) relating to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee; and (iii) relating to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Science and Technology Committee. C: Liaison Committee (3) That the Resolution of the House of 4 December 2024 (Liaison Committee: Membership), be amended, in paragraph (2)— (i) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (ii) by leaving out “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; (iii) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”. (4) That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended, in paragraph (6), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”. D. European Committees (5) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended in respect of European Committee C, by leaving out: (a) “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (b) “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; and (c) “Science, Innovation and Technology”. E. Scrutiny of orders and draft orders (6) That Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (7) That Standing Order No. 141 (Scrutiny of regulatory and legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; and (8) That Standing Order No. 142 (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”. F. Planning: national policy statements (9) That Standing Order No. 152H (Planning: national policy statements) be amended in paragraph (2)(a) as follows— (a) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (b) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”.
- Hansard source
Apprenticeships
I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate him on his appointment. The Government are right to focus on the importance of parity between vocational education and academic education. However, when comparing the academic year 2025-26 with 2023-24, the number of people who have started apprenticeships has dropped by 9% and the number who have completed has gone down by 17%. With reference to the Minister’s point about vocational pathways, will he update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that they are linked with the needs of industry, so that this in itself does not become an academic exercise?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T6. Special educational needs and disabilities provision and access to education, health and care plans continues to be a worry and concern for many parents in Worcestershire. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the adequacy of SEND provision in Worcestershire, and what steps are the Government taking to improve it? If she does not have a comprehensive answer, perhaps she could write to me.
- Hansard source
Speciality Steel UK
On behalf of Conservative Members, I send my thoughts to the Prime Minister, following the tragic passing of his father. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. In her statement to the House following the insolvency of Speciality Steel UK in September last year, the then Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), stated that the Government would pursue every avenue to keep the company’s sites producing, as part of the Government’s wider work to grow a resilient domestic steel industry. We can all agree that the compulsory winding-up order against Liberty Speciality Steels created a great deal of uncertainty, especially for the more than 1,000 workers employed there. I am keen to hear how the Government have kept their promise to stand by the entire workforce throughout this process, including while overseeing bids to sell former assets. Will any redundancies follow nationalisation? However, continuous operational failures have already pushed businesses into a state of chronic uncertainty; a failure to file accounts for more than six years led to a separate prosecution by Companies House, and there was an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. The Secretary of State said that the official receiver wanted to gain a better understanding of the company’s business and the conduct of its directors in the period leading up to the liquidation. Can he give an update on any investigations into conduct that the Government have undertaken, and on any steps taken to recover money belonging either to the business or to the British taxpayer? Despite the rhetoric about the Government supporting the UK steel industry, all that the industry has experienced is increased pressure and apprehension. From the steel strategy, which is likely to lead to ever higher costs for taxpayers, to the introduction of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which fatally weakens our national resilience, the survivability of steel producers is becoming more difficult. Indeed, a manufacturer in my constituency told me some months ago that it will likely dissolve by Christmas if the Government do not change course. Energy prices are also a significant hurdle for steel plants. The Government’s Clean Power 2030 action plan risks making things worse; it could force rapid change without ensuring the infrastructure or investment to support it, while increasing costs for manufacturers and threatening jobs in key industrial communities. Nearly 92% of global steel production faces no comparable carbon pricing. Only the UK, the EU, Canada and New Zealand, covering just 8% of global output, apply prices in the £30 to £70 per tonne range, but we expect our industry to compete with countries that pay a fraction of that, or nothing at all. The Secretary of State will say that the Government are helping to address the burden of high bills for manufacturers via the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but unfortunately their efforts are too little, too late. Having a strong steel industry is vital to our national security and resilience. Traditional bulk commodity steelmaking is vital to our national infrastructure, and modern advanced steel manufacturing is a vital foundation for sectors such as aerospace, defence, nuclear and automotive, all of which are critical, given rising geopolitical tensions. I understand that another issue facing Speciality Steel UK was having the capital to buy raw materials that would allow the continued production of advanced steels, such as the landing gears produced at Stocksbridge. Could the Government therefore outline what support has been given to maintain site operation through this process, and whether advanced steel manufacturing will be a priority following nationalisation? Circling back to the Government’s commitment to pursue every avenue, can the Minister explain how much consideration has been given to private investment as a solution? How much was spent on private sector solutions before the decision to nationalise, and what was the main basis for that decision? Considering that a preferred bidder had been identified, it is surprising that the Government have moved away from this completely. Indeed, at the Business and Trade Committee on 22 June, the Department’s director for materials and industry noted that “significant investment” was required, and stressed that the majority of this should come from the private sector. Other than a new Prime Minister who is ideologically committed to nationalisation, what has changed? Will the Minister outline the terms asked for by the private bidder that the Government were not willing to agree to? If the business has unique capabilities and demand is there for its products, does that not imply that the barrier to a viable private sector buyer is either the Government’s own ideological obsession with nationalisation, or an economic climate in which it is increasingly impossible to run a successful manufacturing business in Britain?
- Hansard source
Independent Fostering Agencies
10. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of independent fostering agencies on fostering sufficiency in England.
- Hansard source
Independent Fostering Agencies
The Minister will know that there is an increasing number of vulnerable children who desperately need good-quality foster care. At the same time, there is a crisis in the recruitment of those foster carers. Will he undertake to set up a commissioning system that includes not only local authorities but independent fostering agencies, so that these vulnerable children can get a safe place where they are cared for, which they desperately need?
- Hansard source
Pupils with SEND: Mainstream Schools
7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to block funding and the inclusion fund on mainstream schools’ ability to meet the needs of pupils with SEND.
- Hansard source
Pupils with SEND: Mainstream Schools
Following a recent visit to Tushingham-with-Grindley primary school, the headteacher raised concerns with me that for many small, rural schools like Tushingham and Shocklach Oviatt, the new inclusion fund does not compensate for the impact of changes to the school’s block funding. Not every child with SEND needs one-to-one support, but many need teaching assistants and other staff to help them regulate, access learning and benefit from targeted support. If school budgets are being squeezed, it is often that support that ends up being reduced. How will the Minister ensure that the funding changes do not inadvertently reduce the support that children with SEND need to thrive in mainstream schools?
- Hansard source
Israel and Palestine
I start by expressing our condolences following the death of a member of our armed forces in Ukraine on Saturday. I thank them for their service and say to their family that we hold them very much in our hearts. As we approach the anniversary of Hamas’s barbaric 7 October terrorist attacks next month, we also approach three years of war. Two hundred and fifty-one people were kidnapped that day, over 1,200 murdered and hundreds raped. It was not until this January that the remains of the final hostage were brought home—may their memory be a blessing. After three years of immense suffering, recent months have, on paper, hinted at real progress towards peace: a UN Security Council resolution, a road map and transitional committee, and the first Palestinian legislative election since 2006 scheduled for November. Yet on the ground, neither the Israeli nor Palestinian people feel any safer. Hamas remains armed despite promises to the contrary, and Iran remains a destructive force, willing to sacrifice the futures of whole nations through its proxies in Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq, creating instability to ensure the survival of its own despotic regime. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), set out last week, there is much we agree on across this House, and even where differences of approach exist, we share a deep concern that current events are taking Israelis and Palestinians towards a darker future. We are acutely aware of the immense suffering in Gaza and the fragility of attempts at peacebuilding. We agree that some Israeli Ministers have espoused unacceptable, dangerous and hateful rhetoric, even targeting our own country in recent weeks, and that groups of settlers in the west bank are engaging in illegal acts and violence, often encouraged by this same rhetoric. We also know that most in Israel reject this and seek a peaceful future, and we must keep them in our minds and not mistake the loudest voices as the most representative. Before I turn to the Government’s decisions, let me say something as a friend of Israel, as someone who has worked with Israel to defeat shared enemies such as Daesh. We have learned from failures in Iraq and Afghanistan that how you prosecute the operation to defeat terrorists determines whether you build and secure peace for your people in the long term. You do not defeat an insurgency by creating conditions in which the next generation is recruited. My fear is that three years on, Hamas is still armed, still governing and still recruiting. Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, then spokesperson for the IDF, said, “Hamas is an idea,” and that those who believe that it can be eliminated by force alone are mistaken, and he is right. You cannot bomb an ideology out of existence; you must allow an alternative and create the space for political transition. That is not a moral nicety; it is the operational lesson of every counter-insurgency campaign our country has ever fought, including those we have lost. The defeat of Hamas is important to our security here in the UK, and these lessons cannot be dismissed if we are to create a safer future for us and if the region is to find peace. We all want a better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people, but to do so, we must have constructive channels of communication open with our partners in the region. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron was able to secure additional aid to Gaza and to open new crossings by using our relationship to benefit those most in need. It is imperative that the Government maintain those relations to reflect the strategic importance of this relationship and to allow us to continue to influence events as friends. I believe the world is a better place when Britain is at the table, and more clarity is needed on the Government’s position. The Board of Peace’s efforts have largely been rejected, at least on sequencing. Hamas will not disarm first, Israel will not withdraw first, but the Government have said nothing about the British view of what the sequencing should be, and that silence benefits no one. With Israeli elections next month and Palestinian elections in November, there is a small glimmer of hope that they will bring more moderate voices to the fore. That is why we remain concerned that the sanctions announced by the Government so close to the Israeli election may empower the very voices most opposed to peace. Before the Foreign Secretary’s announcement, Israeli news was awash with headlines that Netanyahu allegedly failed to pass on a warning from the President of the United Arab Emirates to Israeli intelligence 10 days before the Hamas attack. Britain’s sanctions wiped that off the news cycle; it is no longer being discussed. Given that Israel, a true democracy, is about to go to the polls, did the timing not warrant more reflection? I have spent years arguing that this country imposes sanctions without plans ever to lift them in order to punish, rather than to deter or change behaviour. Let me ask Ministers what I would ask of any sanctions regime: what must change for these measures to be lifted, and will that be published and made clear so that they can achieve the effect they wish to see? Turning to the Palestinian elections, there is a real possibility that Hamas could win a share of power. If Hamas win the Palestinian elections, will the Government give diplomatic accreditation to one of their representatives as ambassador? We must all speak honestly and accept that the odds are stacked against any Palestinian moderate while Tehran funds, arms and outbids all of them. A Hamas election victory could mark the first time the British Government accredit an ambassador appointed by a proscribed terrorist group. Will the Minister confirm in winding up that under no circumstances will the Government accept a Palestinian ambassador drawn from Hamas? I also ask for a written ministerial statement before 6 November setting out the accreditation criteria. The Iranian state continues to support Hamas to use violence to advance its political aims. It is therefore vital that the Palestinian Authority security forces can maintain the peace needed for an election to take place, so it is deeply regrettable that, following the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, the UK training advisory mission to Palestinian security forces has been terminated when it is most needed. What efforts have the Government made to replace our contribution, be it with Jordanian or EU or other authorities and forces? Likewise, the closure of our consulate in Jerusalem severs our main diplomatic channel to Palestinians in Jerusalem and the west bank when the situation is getting worse and the west bank should occupy more of our debate in this place. The Jordanians are doing an important job to protect the stability that there is, but Christian communities, among the oldest in the world, are being harassed, attacked and driven from their homes. How are the Government now going to assess the situation there and speak up for those being persecuted? The Minister responded just now to a question from his Back Benches about the strike on the World Central Kitchen. James Henderson, John Chapman and James Kirby, three British veterans, were killed by Israeli fire while delivering food in Gaza. Their families are still waiting for the unedited drone footage to be handed to the coroner and for a resumption date for the inquest. Can the Minister give more clarity on what the Government are doing to secure that footage and that date, and on when we will get answers about how, in January 2024, an Israeli airstrike hit a residential compound in a designated safe zone in Gaza where British surgeons working for Medical Aid for Palestinians were living? Thankfully, none were harmed. This conflict sits within a wider regional destabilisation that threatens us all. It is indisputable that the Iranian regime is by far the biggest sponsor of global terrorism, and Iran must never achieve its goal of nuclear armament, because a nuclear-armed ayatollah is concerning enough, but who among us can truly say that we trust that that regime would not share such a weapon with the Houthis or with Hezbollah? We would be one step from nuclear-enabled terrorism. Just last week, the Houthis briefly captured the pivotal Perim island in the Bab el-Mandeb strait. Although Yemeni Government forces repelled the attack, that must serve as a warning. Taken with the Houthi strike against the Saudi east-west oil pipeline, there is a real and escalating risk that Bab el-Mandeb will, like the strait of Hormuz, come to be closed. If the situation at both does not calm, the coming winter will be marked by rising inflation, economic hardship, medicine and food shortages, an energy crisis and worse. Given that, we must counter the Houthi threat and assist Saudi Arabia and other partners in maintaining maritime freedom. The previous Prime Minister did at least work earnestly to establish an international coalition aimed at protecting the flow of trade. The Prime Minister now needs to convene this group, otherwise he will walk into a winter of discontent. The British people need him to take action. What contingency plans have been drawn up if the Houthi campaign continues and the Bab el-Mandeb strait and Saudi pipeline infrastructure are degraded? Given this context, the choice to delay the decision on the Jackdaw gas field in the North sea is mistaken. We must not put our heads in the sand, because the reality is that next year we may find ourselves in a three-theatre conflict: Ukraine; the strait of Hormuz; and—which would be the greatest shock to the global economy and the cost of living in my lifetime—Taiwan. We must be prepared. Britain did not choose this conflict, and we cannot choose to be unaffected by it, but Government action is needed to protect our economy, our supply chains and our people, because Iran and its proxies continue to target us directly, feeding and funding a national emergency of antisemitism in our country, and working to undermine our freedoms and security. Just last week, another two individuals were arrested on suspicion of assisting Iranian intelligence; that takes the total to 15 in the last two years. The Government must also take action to shut down blatant propaganda operations on our streets: Al Masirah, the Houthis’ main television station; LuaLua TV, which has an Ofcom broadcasting licence; and the Islamic Centre of England in Maida Vale, whose director has to be appointed by the ayatollah himself. There are various cut-outs across our country currently sponsoring visas and giving terrorists not a back door but a front door into our country, and we must end this game of whack-a-mole and unplug the machine. That means we must designate Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security. It is in our interests to see a lasting peace in Israel and Palestine, and indeed across the whole region. We have an historical obligation not to look the other way, and the suffering of 7 October, Gaza and the west bank pain us all. The consequences of that day continue to reverberate and grow ever more pressing for us. We hope for the best and there are small glimmers of hope, but action is needed to protect us here in the UK by assuring and shoring up our interests in the region. So let us prepare for the worst and ensure that, if it comes, we have the means, the will and the vision to weather the storm.
- Hansard source
Israel and Palestine
To add to the hon. Gentleman’s point, he may not be aware that the Government have also closed the atrocity prevention centre that was set up in the Cabinet Office. I spent two years fighting for its introduction. Its whole point was to identify the signs of ethnic cleansing very early on, so that the Government could send experts in to improve the Foreign Office’s response. Does he not agree that that closure is concerning, given that we see more conflict around the world, not less?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation in Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire
This petition calls on the Government to abandon their plans to force a local government reorganisation designed by the cities of Lincoln and Leicester across our rural communities in Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and Stamford villages. In every single proposal, the Government are imposing the least popular option on our communities. That is why in the last few weeks there have been 1,326 hand-written signatures from residents, on top of 7,249 online, as part of 40,000 people across Leicestershire. Therefore, 8,573 are rejecting the Government’s plans for our communities. The 1,326 petitioners “therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and reject the current proposals for local government reorganisation” being imposed on us. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that the petitioners oppose Government plans to break up local government across Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire by imposing the proposals of the cities of Leicester and Lincoln; further declares that residents of Rutland and the Harborough villages oppose being forced into a sprawling Leicestershire Council serving over 578,000 people; further declares that residents of Stamford and South Kesteven oppose being forced into a council serving 574,000 people stretching from Gainsborough to Stamford; and further declares that residents of the Harborough villages of Thurnby, Bushby, Scraptoft and Stoughton do not consent to being taken over by the City of Leicester. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and reject the current proposals for local government reorganisation in Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003240]
- Hansard source
Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave
I support the motions in the name of the Leader of the House and thank him for his opening remarks. The motion on privileges asks this House to agree with the findings in the report by the Committee of Privileges, of which I am the Chair, relating to the Charity Commission taking legal action to prevent the laying of two reports before Parliament by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Before I go further, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, first brought this matter to the House’s attention and moved the motion to refer it to my Committee just over a year ago, on 4 September 2025. Our report deals with a rather technical but very important matter that concerns us all: parliamentary privilege. We must not forget that the case arose from serious complaints and allegations made against a number of charities, including the alleged concealment of child sexual abuse. The PCA reported on those complaints and made recommendations to the Charity Commission. Having concluded that the injustice had not been remedied and was not likely to be remedied, she decided to lay reports before Parliament, as was her right under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. It was not the role of my Committee to reach a judgment on the substance of the cases, and so we did not do so. Our role was to consider matters of parliamentary privilege and, in this case, the obstruction of the provision of information to Members. Before touching on the details of the case, I should acknowledge at the outset that, as the Leader of the House said, the commission has already accepted and acted on one of our recommendations. On 14 July—the day that we published our report—the chair of the Charity Commission, on behalf of the board, wrote to Mr Speaker, the Chair of PACAC and me, as Chair of the Privileges Committee, with an unreserved apology. The chief executive officer, Mr Holdsworth, apologised in writing to Mr Speaker. The letter to me has been published on the Committee’s website. I welcome the fact that the commission has finally acknowledged its error, albeit at a regrettably late stage. I hope it will not try Members’ patience if I remind them of the findings and significance of the report. Although it has seemingly technical issues at its heart, it is about the flow of information to this House and is therefore of the greatest importance to the House—to each and every one of us—and its ability to function. The Charity Commission interfered with the flow of information when it sought to prevent the PCA from laying reports before Parliament using the powers given to her in legislation. To make matters worse, the commission refused for a very long time to accept that this was a privilege matter and persisted in its efforts to prevent publication. That was despite repeated written advice, including from Speaker’s Counsel, that its legal action was improper interference with the House’s right to be informed, and could not be considered by the courts as it would have entailed impeaching and questioning proceedings in Parliament, contrary to article IX of the Bill of Rights. That is deeply regrettable, especially given that the reports related to the commission’s failure, as the PCA saw it, to implement properly the recommendations arising from its handling of the very serious complaints to which I referred. At the same time as agreeing to refer the matter to my Committee, this House ordered that the PCA’s reports be laid. That resolved the immediate issue: the interference with the provision of information to the House, as a result of which the courts ruled that the case was academic and the legal merits were unarguable. It remained for my Committee, however, to consider whether the behaviour of the commission was a contempt of Parliament and to come to a view on whether reports laid under section 10(3) of the 1967 Act are indeed proceedings in Parliament, as Speaker’s Counsel had advised. In conducting our inquiry on behalf of this House, we took evidence from Speaker’s Counsel, the PCA herself and three representatives of the commission: its then interim chair, Mark Simms; its CEO, David Holdsworth; and its head of litigation, Felix Rechtman. Although we were grateful to all the witnesses for giving evidence, our report was highly critical of Mr Holdsworth, in particular, especially for repeatedly insisting, both in his oral evidence and elsewhere in correspondence, that it was never the commission’s intention that Parliament should not see the information in the reports. The Committee could not see how that claim could be squared with the commission’s pre-action letter, which specifically sought to quash the decision to provide Parliament with that information. In the light of that, we recommended that Mr Holdsworth and the board of the commission should apologise to the House. As I said, and as the Leader of the House confirmed, those apologies have now been made. The inquiry sought to establish something that has never been explicitly considered by the courts, not even in this case, since the judge ruled that the legal merits were unarguable: namely, whether reports to be laid under section 10(3) of the 1967 Act are in fact proceedings in Parliament. That is crucial to the rights of Parliament, since article IX of the Bill of Rights confers on proceedings in Parliament protection from being “impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” That is one of our most foundational constitutional principles. If such a report is a proceeding in Parliament, any attempt to obstruct its laying could be a contempt of Parliament. The Committee found that such reports were intimately connected to the House and were therefore proceedings in Parliament, and so covered by article IX. It consequently found that any attempt to prevent the laying of a paper before one or both Houses was capable of being a contempt, and that in this particular case the commission had clearly committed such a contempt. It is deeply regrettable that the Committee had to consider this case at all. I very much hope that the Charity Commission, and indeed other public bodies, learn the lessons so that we avoid a repeat of these unfortunate events. I thank the other members of the Privileges Committee, the Clerks—especially the Clerk of the Journals, who is soon to be Clerk of the House—and Speaker’s Counsel for helping us to navigate what was at times an incredibly difficult subject procedurally. I hope that my speech and that of the Leader of the House have demonstrated to all of us, however, that it was also one of great importance to the proper functioning of the House of Commons. I hope that Members will agree to the motion.
- Watch on YouTube
Nigel Farage's Pledge to Britain.
In the first 100 days of a Reform UK government everything will change.
- Watch on YouTube
Nigel Was Right.
Nigel Farage was right all along.
- Watch on YouTube
Robert Jenrick's Pledge to Britain.
In his first 100 Days in government as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Robert Jenrick MP will raise the tax-free Personal Allowance to £15,000. If he fails, he will RESIGN.
- Watch on YouTube
Suella Braverman's Pledge to Britain.
In her first 100 Days in government as Education and Skills Secretary, Suella Braverman MP will lift the cap on medical school places, cut funding for useless degrees and give nurses interest free student loans. If she fails, she will RESIGN.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
My hon. Friend is making a very informed speech on how the medical landscape has changed, but while the arguments we make today are the same, the political landscape has changed as well. Would he agree with the Father of the House that we now have a Prime Minister committed to solving the problems with social care and palliative care, and that in Scotland, where the hon. Gentleman comes from, we saw the political landscape change in front of our eyes? MSPs initially voted for similar legislation, but ultimately voted against it. People can change their minds, and I hope that they do.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Will my hon. Friend confirm how many amendments were accepted in the House of Lords, and that it was about 90 peers who were involved in supporting all the amendments tabled?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I am sure that I am not the only Member who came to this place because I felt that the voices of the people I wanted to represent are seldom heard, and I felt a duty to ensure that they were heard in decision making at the highest level. While I am the Member of Parliament for everyone in Hyndburn and Haslingden, and I recognise that many people in my constituency might support the principle of an assisted death, when I vote today, I must consider the perspective of the many hundreds of people who have written to me for whom this Bill is a terrifying prospect. Many of those who have written to me are disabled; caring for severely disabled children or family members; people who are getting older, and who worry that they will become a burden; or people who know that because of the colour of their skin, they will face different treatment in our NHS, and who worry about what that would mean for them or their elderly parents. We must all consider the privilege that we in this place hold. We have the confidence to challenge a doctor’s assessment, and to turn down the suggestion of assisted death, and the belief that we might be able to afford the care that we need when we are older, and so can make a true choice about how we might die. However, we must remember that this is not the experience of most people, and certainly not the experience of those with lower levels of education, those from ethnic minority backgrounds, those with disabilities, or those who are struggling to make ends meet. For them, the suggestion made by a doctor may easily sound like a decision based on what is best for them. The likelihood of their mental capacity being accurately assessed is far lower than it would be for many of us. For them, and indeed for most of us, the assessment of how long they have left to live is often hugely inaccurate.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I could not agree more. Those people cannot escape the often unintentional prejudice that they face every single day in their engagement with our health services. They know that the Bill would treat them unequally, and they are begging us not to pass it into law. Disability rights groups have shared with us that introducing assisted dying devalues the lives of disabled individuals by framing dependence as an intolerable condition, and one not intrinsic to all our lives. Relying on each other is what makes our society strong, and we must not tolerate a situation in which individuals make decisions from which they cannot return on the basis that they perceive themselves to be a burden. This law, if passed, will almost certainly further increase the gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest, given that people living in more deprived areas are likely to acquire complex multi-morbidity seven years younger than those in the richest areas, and are far more likely to feel that they are a financial burden on their family. It is reasonable to anticipate that this will lead to people with less money dying younger. Is that the legacy that those voting for this Bill today want? In Hyndburn and Haslingden, I have seen how systemic failures in social and palliative care have added to the suffering and challenges that many in my community have faced. Like many of us, I have sat with loved ones as they were dying without the palliative care that they needed. According to Marie Curie, one in three people die without good palliative care. During these debates, we have heard so many horrific stories of death, and of course we must do all we can to avoid those situations. I spoke with one of the most highly regarded palliative care nurses in the world, who has spent most of her career in South Africa with children who have AIDS and who die far too young. She told me that, in her decades of practice, in which she has cared for thousands of patients, she could bring to mind only two patients whom she was unable to offer a good death, with the right treatment and care. Assisted dying is not a choice if palliative care is not provided as an alternative. As it stands, the cost of assisted dying is supposed to come from the existing health budget. Research by Sue Ryder found that if we offered consistent palliative care to every patient who needed it, we would need to double NHS funding for that care; it would cost around an extra £300 million a year. We have to be clear about the priorities and honest about what is possible. This Bill intends to force the NHS to implement assisted dying within four years. Given the budget constraints and capacity limitations, it is just not realistic to say that we can simultaneously improve palliative care and introduce assisted dying. We are taking 10 years to implement the proposed SEND reforms, yet we expect to do this within four. This Bill should provide that assisted dying will not be introduced until palliative care is fixed, and it fails to do that. Furthermore, the evidence from other countries is overwhelmingly that introducing assisted dying leads to decreased investment in palliative care. In closing, it was a Labour Government who introduced the national health service, with the aim of securing “improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”. It is that mission that NHS staff have signed up to deliver. Let this Labour Government not be the one to bring in a Bill that effectively entirely undermines and changes that founding purpose of the NHS, and let us instead vote today to kill this Bill.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I have watched the assisted dying debate for many years, since it started in Oregon. Many countries across the world now have assisted dying, including some of our Crown dependencies, and I am pleased that this Bill builds on the good and rejects the bad that can be seen. I am also reassured that there have been hundreds of hours of debate and scrutiny, which has built the Bill in front of us, so I am very comfortable supporting it. I know that people have extremely strong views on this Bill, and I respect them for that. I want to speak to the people who are undecided, because a lot of myths have attached themselves to this Bill, and I hope to knock some of them out. I am not sure if Members are aware that I ran a children’s hospice before coming to this place. I can say that the palliative care system is amazing. The end-of-life care it provides is absolutely incredible, but everything everybody has said about it being a postcode lottery is true. It depends on whether a facility is in your area, has space, and has funding. We need more funding, and we need universal palliative care, but that is not what this debate is about. When the subject was first debated, I was deeply shocked by the number of disability groups and disabled people who thought that the Bill was targeted at them. I had not realised how vulnerable they felt in our society, and that they could believe that the Bill might be an attack on them.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I am not going to give way, because we are really pushed for time. I want to say to those people that the Bill is tightly drafted. It specifies that it is for people of sound mind who have a terminal diagnosis of six months or less, and that has to be verified by two clinicians and then a panel to ensure—
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I am still not giving way. The two clinicians, followed by the panel, will ensure that the person is of sound mind, and will make sure that this is something that they want to do. A lot of time has been taken up debating the issue of coercive control. I defer to my amazing hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) on that subject; her entire career has been spent fighting against coercive control. As she said in her powerful speech, there are not robust measures in place for people—generally women—who are suffering domestic violence or coercive control, but in this Bill, there are some measures to try to ensure that there is no coercion of people who take this action. What is this debate about? It is about choice. It is about giving adults of sound mind choice in the last six months of their life. Currently, the only choices available are these: if people have a lot of money and are physically able, they can go to Dignitas; otherwise, as was so powerfully and emotionally outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), they can take their own life. It is not acceptable for us to continue with that position. The issue is not just about pain. However, I know from experience that there is some pain that is unmanageable, and not everybody gets the dignified death that they want. I would like adults who are able to make an informed choice to be able to choose the time. Let us look at what has happened internationally. Many people who go through the process and get to certification do not actually use it. It is a comfort blanket to them, an insurance policy. Let us not be under the illusion that as soon as people get their certificate, they are marched off, and that is it. That is absolute nonsense. The choice is there, all the way through. When hon. Members walk through the Lobby later today, I ask them to think about their constituents and their ability to have an informed choice. I genuinely believe that this legislation provides that.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for sharing heartfelt stories, and showing the strength that I would not be able to —my mum passed away in November last year. Their stories, and what they shared with us today, are inspiring. Like many across this House, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this debate, reading constituent stories—many of them heartbreaking—and reflecting on what this Bill means to me personally, as well as what it means to the people of North Somerset who sent me here. At the heart of this debate are autonomy, dignity and humanity. The question of whether someone who is terminally ill can choose the manner of their death is fundamentally one about agency. These people did not choose their illness. They did not choose the suffering that came with it. They did not choose the impact that it has on those who love them. But they might be able to have some say in how their story ends, and that, I believe, restores some measure of the dignity and control that illness has taken from them. Many hon. Members will know that I practised as a pharmacist for nearly 20 years before my election. That means that I have seen the faces behind this debate. I have watched people collect prescriptions that offer nothing more than a sticking plaster over terminal illness—pain managed, but suffering not ended. A safe and legal route at the end of life would not replace good palliative care; it would sit alongside it, offering the small mercy of choice to those who want it. There was another element of this debate that I had to consider: as a Muslim, this question sat alongside my faith in a way that I had to think through carefully. I have concluded that, while I personally may not choose to make use of this provision, my faith guides my own life; it is not my place to let it dictate someone else’s final chapter. This debate is, at its core, about whether people have the right to choose. It is worth remembering that choice is itself central to faith. Belief has meaning only because it is freely chosen. If I were to use religion as a basis for stripping others of their choice, it would turn faith against one of its own foundations. My faith guides me to live my life and make my choices. That right to choose, I believe, should not be denied by any one of our beliefs, however sincerely held.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I will not. Like so many North Somerset residents who have written to me on this issue, I believe that those who are suffering, often for long, unimaginable stretches of time, deserve to be offered a choice.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I supported this legislation first in 2015 and will do so again as it goes through its processes. I am truly grateful for all the work that so many hon. Members here and in the other House have done on the detail of the Bill. I am confident that it has been improved significantly and that we have learned from the experiences of jurisdictions across the world, many of which have had assisted dying for many years. Let us remember that in most of those jurisdictions only about a third of people who choose the option of assisted dying actually go ahead and need to use it. My resolve has been strengthened by those I have heard from with direct experience. I will mention just two such experiences, told to me by people I know well. One is a constituent who asked me to support the change in legislation. His brother was diagnosed with cancer, and after an operation that proved unsuccessful, he was admitted to a hospice for end-of-life care. About his brother, he said: “He was very philosophical about what was going to happen. His one request and hope was that his death was not going to be prolonged and painful. He received excellent care from an amazing team at the hospice. Sadly, when the time came, he suffered in a way no human should have to…We don’t allow our pets to suffer the way he did. His acute suffering and pain lasted 4 days. When he was able he pleaded for help for the pain to stop. The hospice did everything possible to help, but there are legal limits to what they can do. If he could only have received a life-ending intervention 5 days before he died, as he wanted, he would not have had to suffer the indignity and agony of a painful and long, drawn-out, horrific death.” The second experience is that described on several occasions in the House by Paul Blomfield, the former MP for Sheffield Central, about his father’s death. Paul continues to be a powerful advocate for the right to choose. His full speeches are preserved in Hansard, so I will quote just a small part about his experience. Paul received a phone call that his father had been found dead in his garage after receiving a terminal diagnosis of inoperable lung cancer. In Paul’s words, “He had had his share of health problems, but he faced them all positively, until a terminal diagnosis of inoperable lung cancer clearly led to his decision to take his life. He could not talk to me or his partner about it, because he would have made us complicit. The current law forced my father into a lonely decision and a lonely death. And he died prematurely, because I am sure that what drove him to end his life at that point was the fear that if he did not act when he was still able to do so, he would lose the opportunity to act at all.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 231WH.] Those potentially facing unimaginable pain or suffering after their terminal diagnosis, despite the best palliative care, currently have options that are unbearably lonely—like for Paul’s father—or involve an arduous and costly journey by going to Switzerland; or they have no choice, like my constituent’s brother.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I will not. The many people who have shared their experiences of facing death soon have told us that they want to die on their own terms. We also know, through various credible polls, that the majority of people in this country want that choice for themselves. I do not want to deny them the right to be able to make that choice.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
What we are considering today is not the general principle, “Do we or do we not agree with assisted dying?”; it is this Bill. We are not a debating society; we are a Parliament. I therefore ask my hon. Friend why it is the case that virtually no disabled people’s organisation in this country supports the Bill. Disabled people often feel voiceless, and I think it is important that their voices are heard today. They are outside Parliament, so I would like her to address that point in her speech.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Does my hon. Friend agree that unless this House makes it absolutely clear that it is outrageous and unacceptable for a very small number of unelected peers to block legislation, supported by the elected Chamber, then the same tactic could be used again with any private Member’s Bill that comes forward in this House?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The hon. Lady speaks with great passion. Does she agree that members in the other place bringing forward amendments such as suggesting that women who had been through the menopause, or men, needed to have a pregnancy test before they could be eligible for an assisted death, was a deliberate attempt to wreck the Bill, as opposed to undertaking their important role of scrutiny?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I led the independent commission on palliative care, and the data shows a worsening of palliative care; 170,000 people do not have access to the care that they need, and even those who are able to access palliative care may not have access to specialist techniques such as neuromodulation and palliative radiotherapy, and to nerve blocks. Does the right hon. Member not recognise that we need to look at the skills available, as well as the access points?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I have long said that my support for this private Member’s Bill is contingent on a commitment to improving, not sidelining, the palliative care system, and I pay tribute to the courageous and dedicated palliative care workers of our country, including those at Mount Edgcumbe hospice in my constituency. Despite being seen as charitable organisations that work alongside the NHS, hospices provide a vital line of support and reduce the cost of care in our NHS, which is something that should be considered.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Each year, independent hospices help around 20,000 people spend their final days outside hospital settings, and this saves the NHS an estimated 1.5 million bed days and more than £800 million annually. Our Prime Minister is right to say that we must fix palliative care, and I greatly welcome his commitment to work cross-party to end the decades of political drift on social care, too. Ballooning budgets have hit not just the NHS but local authorities, particularly those in Cornwall—they have hit us really hard. We need to fix the system so that it gives people dignity.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I will keep going, so that everyone has a chance to speak. We must give people dignity, security and support when they need it the most. At present, palliative care remains lovingly—but to an embarrassing degree—funded through donations and by supporters who run marathons, charity shops and fundraising events for hospice charities across the UK. The National Audit Office concluded that, in 2023-24, around two thirds of the independent adult hospice sector’s total income was generated from those charitable sources, while around 29% of total income was Government funded, primarily through integrated care boards. I am all for social enterprises and charities using their assets to generate income, but the reliance on this model has to stop. Why not have a system in which the Government provide consistent, centralised support frameworks for hospices, reflecting the consistent and vital services that they provide to our NHS and people at the end of life? It is in our Government’s gift to fix this. If we believe that high-quality palliative care is a fundamental service at the end of life, but recognise that it currently depends on commissioning decisions from integrated care boards, ad hoc grants and the fundraising of local hospices, is the system really fit for purpose? We must ensure that a consistent national minimum standard of provision is delivered by every integrated care board, to end the end-of-life postcode lottery.
