What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
My constituents are cheering on the work that the Government have done by getting a grip of this situation after the Environment Agency was left to mark its own homework, and the self-monitoring and regulation framework failed. Will the Minister say more about the dedicated supervisory teams in the White Paper, which will be working to stop this happening again and ensure that Thames Water changes in future?
Before I speak to the Government’s new clauses and amendments, which ensure that there is no carve-out from the duty of candour for the intelligence and security services, I put on record my utmost respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have been relentless in pushing this Bill forward. However, it is the Hillsborough families and campaigners, who have fought doggedly through their pain and heartache, who deserve all our respect. In memory of their loved ones, through their courage and refusal to be silenced or ground down, they have fundamentally changed the relationship between the state and the public, ensuring the services that are there to protect and serve us are always accountable. There is something deeply wrong in our country that caused us to need to legislate for these services to tell the truth, and to face criminal sanctions if they do not. Telling the truth should have always been their position, not something that they were forced to do. The rest of us face reprisals for not telling the truth. At the very least, we should expect that from the state. Chloe and Liam, the children of my dear friends and constituents, Lisa and Mark Rutherford and Caroline Curry, were killed in the Manchester terror attack. They sat through utterly agonising years, months, days and hours of inquiry hearings, which revealed that MI5 had not given an accurate picture of the key intelligence held on their children’s murderer. The chairman of the public inquiry also found that MI5 missed a significant opportunity to take action that might have prevented the attack. Lisa, Mark and Caroline were signatories to the Hillsborough Law Now campaign letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister earlier this year. That letter says: “Despite MI5 lying to a public inquiry in this way, no one has been held to account. This lack of accountability needs to change. Creating a full duty of candour responsibility on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ is the clearest route to creating this change.” The letter went on to say: “Every security and intelligence officer should be required to tell the truth, and the leaders of the organisations should also bear full responsibility.” That is absolutely right, and I am relieved today that the Government have listened. Caroline, Lisa and Mark are not in the Gallery today. They told me that they feel that by not being here, they are letting their children down. They are not. Their loved ones will know that they, like everyone who has fought so hard and has been involved in getting us here today, have never, ever given up. They have fought with every breath, every single minute of every day since their loved ones were so brutally taken from them. This law will not be retrospective; it cannot right past wrongs. However, it will send a very clear signal to the state, and in doing so will instil a culture in which the truth, not the cover-up, is the primary focus. This is so important for everyone who is fighting for justice—the nuclear veterans, Chinook, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, the covid-19 bereaved families, and many others. As MPs in this place, it is now our job to make sure that this Bill becomes an Act, to make sure that every single word of it is fully adhered to, and that the people we represent are never again treated in such a despicable way. In a democracy like ours, truth and justice should never have taken decades; it should never have been this hard, this relentless or this painful. It is a real honour to have met all those involved with the Hillsborough law campaign, although I wish I had met them under different circumstances. I thank all of them. We all owe them, and I sincerely hope that now they have got Parliament to this stage, they are able to find some small element of peace.
I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for inviting me to respond to his concerns about the future of Thames Water. I have listened with his interest to his comments, and I hope I will be able to add some facts to the debate. I also accept his sympathy and anger on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, they must feel very angry about the fact that water was left in such a state, and that the Environment Agency’s budget was cut by half by the coalition Government, who also introduced self-monitoring. The Environment Agency was unable to fulfil its duties during the time of the coalition Government, and the regulators did not put forward forceful accountability for the water companies. It was left to this Labour Government to clear up the mess left by the coalition Government and 14 years of the Conservatives. I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares my anger about that—I certainly felt angry about it when I came into government and saw the mess that we had been left to clear up. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman exactly what we have done. We introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 within six weeks of entering government, to raise standards, enforce accountability, and make pollution cover-ups a criminal offence. We banned more than £4 million in bonuses, and unlocked money in private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure. Just last week we introduced automatic penalties. There is more I could mention, including 10,000 water inspections, which is many more than happened after the slash and burn of funding for the Environment Agency by the coalition Government. We have restored to the system the accountability that has been missing for so long.
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out how self-monitoring, which was introduced by the coalition Government, was such an utter mistake that has done so much damage to the water industry. It is why we are in the current situation. The purpose of the supervisory regime is to be able to intervene earlier, and it works alongside the performance improvement regime so that we can hold companies to account. That is why we are abolishing Ofwat—
I have heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman, so I would be most grateful if he would not mind giving someone else a chance. We are looking at introducing the performance regime for the same reason, because we want to ensure that we can intervene early to stop the abject failure that we saw under the coalition Government.
It is true that I feel angry on behalf of all our constituents who have been so badly let down by the system that we inherited, and that is exactly why we have taken the action that we have. There is, of course, lots more to do—nobody is saying there is not—but we have to acknowledge the dire straits and the mess that we inherited. We are going to bring forward a clean water Bill to deliver on our promise to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, and not just for today but for generations to come. The reforms will create a single powerful water regulator to act, and we will ensure that it has teeth in the way that the current regulator does not. Turning to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Witney about the consortiums proposal, regarding the recapitalisation proposal being negotiated between Thames Water, London & Valley Water Consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—and Ofwat, I reiterate that this Government will always act in the national interest. Before I turn to the proposal itself, it is important to be clear about the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved, because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding out there. I welcome the opportunity to at least introduce a few more facts into the argument about the proposals. Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, is responsible for assessing that proposal and deciding whether it meets the relevant regulatory and statutory requirements, including whether it is appropriate to take the proposal forward for consultation. However, section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a duty on both Ofwat and the Secretary of State to exercise their respective relevant functions in the manner best calculated to further or achieve certain objectives. This includes protecting customers, securing the proper delivery of water and sewerage services, ensuring that companies can finance those services and that statutory obligations are properly carried out.
Quite clearly, some of the behaviour that we have seen in the past from water companies shows that the regulatory system did not work, and that is exactly why we are changing it. Of course, between Blair and the current Government there were 14 years of Tory Government and five years of coalition Government during which those Governments could have taken the actions that we are taking today. On 16 June, the Secretary of State gave her preliminary views on the consortium’s proposal to Ofwat, with reference to section 2 duties of the Water Industry Act 1991. She was clear that she does not believe that the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment. She cited three particular concerns in line with her duties: unfair costs to customers, delays to infrastructure investment and delays to environmental improvements. However, the decision on how to assess the proposal and whether to proceed with consultation ultimately rests with Ofwat as the independent regulator. It is therefore important that the Government respect those boundaries. While the Secretary of State may express views in accordance with her statutory duties, it would not be appropriate for the Government to direct Ofwat’s decision making, prejudge the outcome of its assessment or be seen to exert undue influence on an independent regulatory process. We are working closely with Ofwat, which will engage with the consortium on any revised proposal. It is important to be clear that it is ultimately a matter for Ofwat to decide whether to consult on the consortium’s proposal. However, I reassure the House that while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities and the Secretary of State takes her duties very seriously. I will also use this debate as an opportunity to address some of the misconceptions that have developed about special administration. Too often, SAR is presented as a simple lever that the Government can pull whenever there are concerns about a water company’s performance, but that is simply not the case. The reality is that there is a high bar for the imposition of a special administration regime. A company can enter into a SAR only if it becomes insolvent, or if there has been such a serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is no longer appropriate for the company to retain its licence. Where performance is concerned, any application for a special administration regime would have to be supported by a robust and compelling body of evidence and would ultimately need to satisfy the courts. Bringing a case forward without sufficient evidence would not only risk the failure of that case, but waste a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. For any case brought forward, the Government and Ofwat would need to be convinced that there was a robust and compelling body of evidence. That is quite different from what is presented out there too often—that this is just a button the Government can press at will.
As I have just said, on the issue of performance, cases have to be brought forward to court, and the court must be convinced that the company is not performing—I will move on to insolvency. This issue is why regulators start by using the full range of supervisory and enforcement powers available to them where appropriate. Companies must be held to account, put forward credible plans to improve and deliver for customers on the environment. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we are introducing a new performance improvement regime through the clean water Bill. The performance improvement regime will help to prevent poorly performing companies from falling into a cycle of decline, allowing regulators to step in before a company approaches the point of failure. It will strengthen accountability, support improvements in performance and provide a clearer pathway for intervention long before special administration may be required. Let me address another misconception about special administration. Some suggest that placing a company into special administration would simply allow the Government to take over and run the company directly. That is not how the regime works. A special administrator is appointed by a court and has specific legal duties and objectives. It must manage the company’s affairs, businesses and property for the statutory purposes set out in the Water Industry Act. The special administrator’s primary responsibility is to ensure the continued delivery of essential water and waste water services while securing a long-term solution for the business. Depending on the circumstances, that could mean rescuing the company, such as through a restructuring, or transferring it as a going concern to new owners. That is why the special administration regime exists to protect customers and maintain vital public services while providing a framework for recovery or transfer. Customers continue to receive their services throughout the process, and the special administrator operates under the supervision of the court and within a clear legal framework. I know the hon. Member for Witney is particularly concerned about whether the consortium meets the criteria of acting as the ultimate controller of Thames Water. Let me use this opportunity to address his concerns. The classification of ultimate controller is a matter for Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, by reference to the terms of the company’s licence. Ofwat has given a detailed explanation of why it does not consider the creditors to be the ultimate controllers of the company in its letter to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), dated 8 September 2025. Ofwat has stated that one of the reasons why it does not believe creditors are in a position to materially influence the company’s policies or affairs is that it does not have the right to appoint directors to the board, and it does not hold any governance or veto rights over the Thames Water business plan or other strategic decisions that the company’s board is making. I am reassured that it has reviewed the matter and that the ultimate controller of the company has not changed—
This is the thing with the hon. Gentleman: he makes many assertions in this House when he stands up to comment, but then he refuses to allow me to address and answer them. I am still answering his point about the ultimate controller. If he wants to ask me a question, he should have the decency and respect to listen to the answer. I am also reassured that Ofwat will continue to keep the position of Thames Water’s ultimate controllers under review, and that it has made clear to the company its expectation that the company will continue to monitor whether there is, or may be, a change to the ultimate controller position. I hope that what I have said has introduced a few facts to what can otherwise be quite an inflamed conversation. This Government are serious about tackling water company failure, acting on behalf of customers and protecting the environment. We have demonstrated this with the action we took on our very first day in office, and the action we have taken every day since. I am always happy to discuss issues related to special administration. I have held a private briefing with the hon. Member for Witney before. I would do so again, but what I do not like is when things are presented to the House in a way that is—I am not allowed to say dishonest, so how can I put this?—incorrect. This Government will always act in the national interest, and while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities, including being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary. Question put and agreed to.
10. What steps he is taking to improve access to NHS dental services.
I thank the Minister for that answer. In the area that I represent, we have a problem. NHS dental practices in Shildon and in Bishop Auckland closed in the year before the general election, and recently another practice in West Auckland has been writing to patients to say that it cannot provide NHS care. While I respect and really appreciate the work the Government have done on emergency dental treatments, for primary care dentistry it is still simply not good enough. I know that the Minister knows that as we have talked about it. Will he commit to continuing reform of the contract at pace and recognise that we need to better fund NHS dentistry? Will he or his officials meet me to discuss what we can do to help the affected patients in my constituency?
Yesterday I had the pleasure of welcoming the Barnsley-based charity LimbBo Foundation, along with the Limb Loss and Limb Difference UK alliance to Parliament to celebrate Disability Pride Month. The alliance launched its campaign to end the postcode lottery of services and support for people with limb loss and limb difference. While the NHS has a strong policy framework in place, including the 2025 prosthetic service specification, the key issue is not policy, but inconsistent delivery across the country. Will the Minister meet with me and the alliance to discuss how we can secure better access to mental health services, fair and consistent prosthetic provision and lifelong joined-up pathways for people with limb loss and limb difference?
Could the hon. Member point to current legislation that has a gap and does not give the protection to the intelligence services that we all wish to see?
The hon. Member is saying that the intelligence services are not protected under the current legislation. Could he say why?
I support the Bill and the amendments put forward by the Government. Back in May 1998, when I first spoke in a debate about the Hillsborough disaster, I could never have imagined that 28 years later I would be debating new legislation to address the state’s failings in respect of that disaster. My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) was there with me. She and I first uncovered the altered statements in the House of Commons Library; she played a very important role in getting to the stage we did and in getting justice for the Hillsborough families. I speak from a unique position, in that I was at the Hillsborough disaster, I have worked closely with the Hillsborough families to obtain justice and there are families in my constituency who lost loved ones or were injured at the Hillsborough disaster and in the Manchester Arena bombing. More recently, I have become a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has oversight of the intelligence community. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), also a member of the ISC, in his place, although unfortunately he is unable to speak in today’s debate because he co-chaired the Bill Committee. I will keep my comments primarily to aspects of intelligence and controversies around the Bill. Our intelligence services keep us safe every day. Our intelligence officers and agents do difficult and sometimes dangerous work so that we can live safely. They deserve our sincere thanks and praise for the job that they do and it is right that we hold them to the highest standards. As a member of the ISC, which has oversight of the intelligence services, I been involved in trying to find a way forward with colleagues in addressing the concerns about the impact of the Bill on the intelligence services. I support the Government amendments and the Bill as a whole. It is welcome that the Government have listened to the campaigners and the ISC. I particularly praise Pete Weatherby KC, who has always been available to talk to me and others about the issues, and help us get to the point where the legislation gives clear protections. As I say, we have listened to the campaigners and the ISC has accepted a way forward that addresses the concerns raised in respect of the security services. However, I believe that could have been achieved much earlier, and I would like to make a few comments about that. I genuinely believe that if the ISC had not got involved in these matters, we would not be discussing the Bill today. That is not to take anything away from all those who had been working so hard on the Bill before that, but it had reached an impasse. I praise the work of the ISC Chair, Lord Beamish, and the Deputy Chair, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is in his place. It is the view of the ISC that the concerns about the Bill could have been addressed much sooner, as I have said. There has been a lack of direction and grip, with no one taking control. It seemed all too difficult for some, and that has caused the lengthy delays that we have endured. We should not ignore the fact that that has added to the anxiety and concerns of the families and campaigners. As I stated earlier, the ISC has oversight of the intelligence community. If it felt that the Bill did not address the concerns aired about the impact on the intelligence services or threatened the safety of agents or officers and the security of our country, we would say so—and I, for one, would not vote for it. I do not believe that that is the case; I believe that this Bill, with its amendments, addresses those concerns. Establishing a new duty of candour is key, but I am particularly pleased that the Bill will also bring forward the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade, so that any family facing the might of the state will no longer have to beg and borrow to afford a lawyer, as the Hillsborough families know too well from the early stages of their campaign. Many of my colleagues have made important contributions to the Bill and ensured that we got to this stage; my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) have been instrumental in that. I put on the record my thanks to them. There has also been support from the Prime Minister. Whatever the problems faced by the Government in getting to this stage, they clearly wanted the Bill to go through and have worked very hard to try to do that. It could have been done better, but I believe that, in the long run, we will look back on the tenacity and drive of the families as being what got us to this stage. Today is a landmark day for the Hillsborough families and other campaigners. It will help to ensure that the truth will out in the future. The state will not be able to repeat the appalling cover-up that we saw with Hillsborough. This landmark Bill will have a profound influence in helping prevent future injustices.
Due to a long-running dispute with the building’s landlord, Billinge medical practice in my constituency has been given a deadline of September to vacate the premises. I have previously spoken to the Minister about this and I am grateful for the help he has given me so far, but the integrated care board has now decided to move the practice out of the village entirely, to Garswood. I am worried about the impact of that on patients for many reasons, not least the fact that the new location is not easily accessible by public transport. Does the Minister agree with me that places like Billinge deserve their own medical practice? Will he or his officials agree to meet me to discuss the way forward?
I started my speech on Second Reading in November last year by saying: “This has been a long time coming.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 681.] Even more time has passed since then, but thanks to the determination, strength and effort of many survivors and campaigners—some of whom are in the Gallery today—and of those on the Labour Benches, and to the support of a number of dedicated people in this place, we are here at last, with the finish line in sight again.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for raising this important issue today and for the work that he and neighbouring MPs, on a cross-party basis, have been doing to highlight the concerns that their constituents have raised with them. I can see that hundreds of people in the Crawley constituency have signed the petition. It is similar in Horsham and people near Heathrow and other major airports have signed it, too. The issue clearly affects many staff who work in the airline industry and, as my hon. Friend points out, particularly affects those who are on lower wages. Yes, they might enjoy and love the travel and going to visit so many different places as part of their work, as well as the benefits that come from a job working in the sky and working for airlines, but there are costs associated with being away from home. It was right to have the overseas scale rates system in place back in 2014, but it is not right at that the system has not been updated since then. The OSRs play an important role in reducing administrative burdens when employees incur subsistence costs while travelling overseas, and the key thing is that they provide a practical alternative to reimbursing and evidencing every single expense. As a result, if they were abolished at any point in the future, that could place a significant burden on airlines, which is certainly something we want to avoid. As my hon. Friend set out, the rates have remained more or less frozen since 2014. I was doing the maths earlier today in preparation for the debate, and I came up with a similar figure to him. If they had been uprated in line with inflation in the UK, they would have increased by 40% since 2014. Of course, inflation rates vary across the globe, but that gives us a sense of the size of the gap that has opened up over the last 12 years. The Government have been listening to representations made by airlines, individuals and Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend. As we announced just a few short weeks ago, we will review both the OSRs and the benchmark scale rates, which are the domestic equivalents that set out the scale rates for lunches and dinners that employees may have when they are in the UK on business. We will also look not just at uprating the rates but at whether there is scope to simplify the OSRs. We want to engage in detail with businesses on such a proposal, and officials in HMRC have already begun that work. Rather than having hundreds of individual rates for individual countries that need to be updated in a painstaking and administratively costly way, and that are also difficult for businesses to administer, we may find that having buckets or bands works better for employers and employees. That is something we will want to look at as part of this review, so I would really welcome representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on what changes their constituents would like to see. Let me be clear: we have not taken any decisions on where we would like to go, and our mind is not made up. We are convinced that we want to review the rates to make the system better, but we want to consider the issues carefully and gather evidence from those who are affected before a decision is made. Just last week, I met the CBI, which represents some of the large airlines, and it welcomed the announcement of a review. I look forward to receiving further representations from the private sector. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is important for the Government to strike the right balance between supporting businesses and maintaining fairness in the tax system, while also protecting the Exchequer to ensure that, in the round, we raise the necessary revenue to fund and put right our public services after the last 14 years, when too many were cut back. We also need to ensure that any administrative arrangements such as these remain straightforward and proportionate. Of course, there is political change in the air, but I hope that this review will conclude in time for the Budget. We do not want to be in a place where, in years to come, we are still waiting for these changes. I hope that we can make swift progress in the coming months, so that my hon. Friend’s constituents, as well as employees of airlines across the country, can see some improvement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham for his intervention. I will take the strength of feeling in their representations back to the Department, for as long as I will be there. Question put and agreed to.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, in this debate on a matter that has affected a great many of our constituents and all Members who are struggling through the London heat. I am grateful to Members for their valuable contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing the debate. I hope to give all Members some confidence that we are making progress in what is an extremely complicated and interconnected problem. It is not only interconnected in this country; it requires action locally, nationally and internationally, and it cannot be solved easily or quickly. Despite some of the issues and considerable challenges—they are considerable—that hon. Members have pointed out in their contributions, I want to cheer people up slightly with the statement that the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), made on the Floor of the House yesterday. She pointed out that before the Paris agreement, the world was on track for 4% of warming, but we have now got it down to 2.5. That is still way too high, but I use that example because I want to inject a little bit of confidence that if we can get our processes right—internationally as well as nationally—we can do something about this. Such issues are so complex and interrelated that it is easy for people to think that the problem is too great and we cannot possibly deal with it, and then be despairing about it, so I wanted to inject that little bit of optimism. We have made progress, and we have to make sure that we carry on making progress. The Government recognise that extreme heat fuelled by climate change is no longer a rare seasonal event to be managed with temporary emergency measures; it is a chronic, recurring, structural risk to our economy, public health and national security. Every hon. Member who has contributed today has recognised that point. Our response to extreme heat is built on a combination of tried and tested plans and capabilities that have been refined over time, and also longer-term programmes to meet the specific challenges of climate change. Evidence suggests that without action, the physical impacts of climate change could cost England’s economy between 1.1% and 3.3% of GDP by 2050, and at least 7.4% by the end of the century. We are taking action now in recognition that it is economically beneficial to invest early to reduce emissions. As Nicholas Stern said many years ago, the more money spent on investing to prevent, the cheaper it is to deal with the consequences. The Government have put clean energy and climate action at the heart of their agenda, which includes showing global leadership by setting a world-leading target to reduce emissions by at least 81% by 2035. Cutting emissions remains our first line of defence, but it is harder when the political consensus that existed about climate action has broken down globally and in this country. There are still people who claim that climate change does not exist and that we are spending a load of money for no particular reason, when we know that scientists are universally agreed that the increase in heat and changes in climate that we are talking about have been caused by human effects on our planet’s climate. The sooner that everybody recognises that globally, the easier it will be for the great ingenuity of the human race—when it is in a good mood—to deal with the consequences of what was done in the past with industrialisation. We are taking action as well as mitigation to prepare the UK for the impacts of climate change. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, we maintain a robust climate change risk assessment, and through the national adaptation programme, DEFRA co-ordinates a rigorous cross-Government response to ensure that our sectors remain resilient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), the Minister for Water in DEFRA, is probably in a better position to give the hon. Member details on that. The water White Paper will seek to create a more coherent system than the one that we inherited, which we know is inadequate. The Government are strengthening long-term climate adaptation by setting stronger objectives based on common planning assumptions, informed by the guidance that we requested from the Climate Change Committee. Yesterday, in the statement given on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Nature Minister on the state of climate and nature, she announced on climate adaptation that we are building our resilience for a minimum of 2% of warming by 2050 “and supporting combined authorities to increase their resilience to climate change, too.” —[Official Report, 13 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 649.] The Government will take forward that minimum temperature increase as an assumption in our adaptation planning; I think that is what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) was asking me about.
I absolutely accept that, and so do the Government. It is not ideal that 2% is the minimum that public authorities must plan their adaptation assumptions on. We want to avoid getting to 2%, but the fact is that the way things are going, that is a realistic assumption for our planners to incorporate into their work.
I was hoping to deal with a lot of these issues, but I want to leave the hon. Member for Waveney Valley enough time to say a few things. I have many more things to say, so perhaps we can resume this debate in the future.
Do the Minister and the Government agree with the principle that an independent body should oversee the Government’s performance in responding to inquiry recommendations? Is that the way we are going to go forwards? The way that the Government—not just this one, but others in the past—have responded to recommendations from inquiries has, to say the least, required improvement for a very long time. Can we be assured that independence will be introduced into the scrutiny process?
I decided at a very late stage to speak in this debate, because I chair the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood and I wanted to add my voice on behalf of all the people who campaigned on that scandal and express their appreciation for the work of the Hillsborough families and what they have achieved for our country. Ordinary people up and down the country will have a power to take on the state in the future and not to be crushed, as the state has attempted to do in respect of so many other scandals that have been mentioned today. I pay tribute to the MPs from the north-west—not just Liverpool—who, over the many years that I have been in this House, have campaigned consistently on this issue, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg). I should also acknowledge Steve Rotheram, who spoke out very powerfully on behalf of the Hillsborough families, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who spoke so passionately earlier. I pay tribute to all of them, but it tells us something: in spite of the fact that some very fine Members of Parliament have been raising this issue over a very long period of time, it has taken this long to get to where we are today. That shows us how important it is that we are tenacious and stick with our campaigns, and also that we have oversight of the Government and can hold them to account, to make sure that they do not treat people in the way that they have attempted to do. The cover-up, and the opposition to the campaigns for justice, tells us that we can never drop our guard in holding people and the state to account, so I really welcome the fact that we will pass this Bill today. I could stand here and read out many examples of the way that individuals were treated by the state in the contaminated blood scandal, but one particularly springs to mind. At the age of 18 months, a baby was experimented on, without anybody being told. The baby was infected with hepatitis, but this was not discovered until the baby became a teenager. The parent found out, and the state made her believe that she had given consent for her baby to be experimented on at the age of 18 months. That parent went on to attempt suicide. It just shows the scale and depth of the cruelty that people have had to endure in that scandal and others. It is one of the most powerful testaments that I have come across, and it shows why we need to fight for justice in this place for the people who suffered in all the scandals that we have spoken about. I will discuss two issues. First, I see the duty of candour as part of a framework that we need to put in place, and we must have a national compensation body. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority, the independent body for the contaminated blood scandal, is a unique body that has been set up to pay out compensation. It is learning a lot about how to go through this process, and it would be wrong to have to relearn the process all over again with every subsequent scandal where compensation is paid out. We should set up a national body for compensation to perform that task, to ensure that we keep in place the knowledge and expertise that has been learned and do not lose it. Secondly, we need a national body for oversight of the recommendations of inquiries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has set out in his new clauses 5 and 6, which I fully support. We have had over 400 recommendations from inquiries since 2024, but who has oversight of those recommendations and how the Government are responding to them? Sir Brian Langstaff, who chaired the contaminated blood inquiry, reported in July 2024, but he deliberately kept his inquiry open because he wanted to see how the Government reacted to his recommendations. In 2025, he reconvened that inquiry, took further evidence and gave further recommendations because of the tardy way in which the Government were responding to his recommendations. We cannot be in that position again, and we cannot rely on the Sir Brian Langstaffs of this world to be that guarded and to protect our rights in that way every time. We must have a body that is independent of Government, and that will scrutinise how they behave and how they react to the recommendations of public inquiries that we the public pay for. Finally, I would like to congratulate the Hillsborough families. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate. Blackpool is a town with huge potential and pride, but we are also a case study in what happens when national policy neglects the specific needs of coastal communities. The decline of traditional industries, the collapse of secure employment and decades of under- investment in housing, education and health have left scars that no one-off funding round can heal. In Blackpool, the impact of deprivation extends far beyond income; it affects health, wellbeing and social connection. Last year’s community life survey found that adults living in the most deprived communities are nearly three times more likely to report feeling lonely than those in the least deprived areas. Loneliness does not exist in isolation from health; people living with disabilities or long-term health conditions are almost three times more likely to experience chronic illness and loneliness. Left unaddressed, isolation and poor health feed one another, deepening inequality and creating a cycle that is difficult to break. Tackling isolation is vital to improving public health, reducing health inequalities and helping people live healthier, happier lives. Against that backdrop, I have seen what is possible when people are given a chance to build that connection. I have seen it at Grow Blackpool at The Grange community centre. I have seen it in The Hub in South Shore with the Monday lunch club run by Brian and Karen, and I have seen it at the Forget Me Not dementia café led by Jenny Fitzsimmons and all her brilliant volunteers. Such places are stepping up to fill that gap. I have seen volunteers, community groups and local organisations build connections and create hope where it is needed. We need a Government who match that determination. We need targeted funding, long-term planning and genuine recognition of place-based disadvantage. That means the scaling up the ambition and speed of projects such as Pride in Place and moving beyond short-term pots of cash and towards sustainable, multi-year investment tied to measurable outcomes in coastal towns, such as better jobs, improved health, higher educational attainment and connected communities. It also means a dedicated coastal communities Minister leading all that change.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his speech, because this is hugely important. Residents in Harlow are also fed up with their bills going up because of what appears to be Thames Water’s incompetence. Does he agree that that should not be the case, and that if Thames Water is so incompetent that it cannot sort out this problem, the Government need to step in and do something about it?
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
It is a pleasure to be back in the House today to see through the final stages of this Bill. The Government support all the Lords amendments before us. I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Minister Leong for so expertly guiding the Bill through its passage in the other place. I also wish to place on the record my thanks for the constructive approach taken by peers to the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the upper House, including the constructive and careful consideration from His Majesty’s official Opposition, Liberal Democrat peers and Cross-Bench peers. I thank them for their contribution. We have a responsibility to act now to secure the future of the UK steel industry. This Bill will assist in that by ensuring that steel production is secured, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and supporting the Government’s economic growth plans where the public interest test is met. The Lords amendments before us strengthen the Bill in several ways. Amendment 1 ensures that the sunset power in the Bill may be extended only by increments of two years. This means that the Government would have to seek parliamentary approval at regular intervals to keep the principal transfer powers on the statute book. Lords amendments 2 and 3 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the costs that are likely to be associated with the exercise of the principal transfer powers, ensuring that such costs are considered in any decision making over the use of these powers. Lords amendments 4 and 5 upgrade the parliamentary procedure relating to continuity obligations and enforcement, ensuring that Parliament has increased scrutiny of these matters. Lords amendments 6 to 18 all relate to the appointment and role of an independent valuer and ensure that key considerations around environmental and health and safety liabilities are taken into account during any valuation exercise. A final decision on the use of the powers in the Bill has not been taken. Any decision to exercise the powers in the Bill will be subject to satisfaction of the public interest test, based on the relevant facts at the time of the decision. Steel has shaped our nation’s history, and this Bill is an opportunity to ensure its long-term success. The Bill enables decisive action for a strategically vital industry, defending our national security and supporting our critical national infrastructure, our economy and our national interest. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members to support the Lords amendments before us today.
I have listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks and those from the shadow Minister, and I will address them in a moment. I am grateful for the support of the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), and of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), both of whom are unable to speak in the debate as a result of their positions elsewhere in the House. I opened by remarking on the constructive and careful consideration that the Bill has had in the other place; it is disappointing to see that the shadow Secretary of State is not taking the same approach. I will pick up a couple of the issues he raised. I am acutely aware of the position in which the previous Government left us, with uncompetitive energy prices for industry. If he had been attentive in some of the debates we have been involved in, he would be aware of some of the measures that I have taken to address that. Those include our energy-intensive scheme, increased relief on our supercharger scheme and our British industrial competitiveness scheme. I am determined to do more. On tariffs, I am not saying that making the decision on tariffs was easy, but the shadow Secretary of State would clearly throw British industry to the mercy of dumped steel on the global market. We will not make that decision. He mentions coal for coking ovens. He may be unaware that there are no coking ovens in Scunthorpe. They were closed on his watch. This Government are acting decisively and with purpose in the national interest, but the shadow Secretary of State is blinded by his ideological position on nationalisation. We believe that a steel industry, where necessary run by the Government and owned by the people, at least gives the opportunity to attract private sector investment. If the public interest test is met, that is the right thing to do. But if that does not convince the shadow Secretary of State, perhaps I can appeal to his sense of patriotism. I said on Second Reading that the England men’s football team had only ever won the world cup in a year when we had nationalised the steel industry. If he has any sense of duty towards our team and wishes them well, he should support nationalisation this time as well. Lords amendment 1 agreed to. Lords amendments 2 to 18 agreed to.
T7. Our NHS is heavily reliant on penicillin-based antibiotics for many of its core functions, but close to 90% of global manufacturing capacity of an essential component of those antibiotics is now concentrated in China. The risks to our NHS are obvious. What steps are Ministers taking across Government to reduce our NHS’s dependence on these highly concentrated supply chains?
I rise to present a petition alongside a corresponding online petition signed by hundreds of my constituents in North East Hertfordshire calling to ban housing developers from donating to political parties. Developers are some of the largest donors in politics, pouring in massive sums to tilt the planning system ever further in their favour. Cash for access leaves the impression that the same developers are wrecking nature and failing to deliver affordable homes. Those profiting from low-quality, overpriced housing are also writing the rules. This cements inequality at the heart of democracy because the people living with the consequences of a profit-driven housing crisis never get a seat at the table. The petition states: The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that housing developers are among the largest donors to political parties and donate massive sums of money in an attempt to tilt the planning system further in their favour; further declares that cash-for-access leaves the impression that the same developers profiting from low-quality, overpriced housing are also helping to write the rules; and further declares that the corrupting influence of big money should be removed from the planning system and politics should be refocused on genuine solutions to the housing crisis that bring down housing costs for ordinary people and give local communities more of a say over their future. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ban housing developers from donating to political parties. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003225]
To provide treatment for alcohol and drug dependency, charities such as Change Grow Live need to use the NHS electronic prescription service, which has been unavailable to them until recently. The Government have agreed to allow access, but have provided no timetable. Will the Minister provide one today?
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the enhanced free trade agreement that was concluded yesterday between the United Kingdom and Switzerland. This is the sixth trade deal that the Government have secured over the last two years. We already had an FTA with Switzerland, which was based on the 1972 EU-Switzerland agreement, but in keeping with many FTAs of that era, it was primarily focused on trade in goods. By contrast, this is the most significant trade agreement for services that the UK has concluded so far, and it includes the UK’s most ambitious digital chapter and most comprehensive business travel commitments in an FTA, along with high-ambition outcomes across services and investment. It especially plays to our strengths as a pre-eminent services superpower. It includes some of the strongest services commitments that we have ever secured, while creating opportunities in the eight core growth-driving sectors of our industrial strategy, including financial and professional services, life sciences and digital technologies. Our trade strategy, published one year ago, underscored what everyone with an eye on trade already knew: that our “services sectors are the most powerful engine of our growth and prosperity”, and that it was high time to pull services trade out of the margins of trade discussions. Some 83% of UK workers are employed in services, including through regional employers such as Capital Law in Cardiff and the Edinburgh-founded Skyscanner; large firms with multiple offices across the UK, such as Julius Baer, which has a regional office in Newcastle, and KPMG, which has offices in Leeds and elsewhere; and thousands of smaller firms across the country. We have worked hard to ensure that this deal really works for them. Switzerland is already the UK’s sixth largest services export market, and bilateral services trade was worth more than £30 billion last year. This agreement is estimated to increase UK services exports to Switzerland by £5.2 billion annually in the long run, while supporting jobs across the UK, including the 171,400 already supported by exports to Switzerland. On top of this, we know that Swiss-owned businesses employed around 150,000 people in the UK in 2024, and bilateral foreign direct investment stood at £87 billion at the end of 2024. The agreement we have reached ensures that job creation and investment will continue to grow as our bilateral trade grows. The UK and Switzerland have agreed that future improvements to access in certain sectors are locked in—the first time that Switzerland has agreed to adopt this approach. It gives UK firms a more stable business environment, and greater confidence to plan and invest. The agreement permanently protects the rights of UK lawyers to advise on foreign and international law in Switzerland without requalifying. Additionally, it includes the most comprehensive digital chapter that Switzerland has agreed to in an FTA. Over 70% of UK-Swiss services trade is delivered digitally, so it was absolutely critical to us that we laid out provisions that supported the free flow of data while ensuring that privacy remained protected, and I am glad to say that we have been successful. Our digital chapter modernises the digital trading environment through commitments on electronic contracts, signatures and invoicing, prevents customs duties on electronic transmissions, and restricts unjustified data localisation requirements, all of which will make digital trade easier and more appealing for businesses, whether they are based in Birmingham or Berne. This FTA locks in the commitments of the UK-Swiss services mobility agreement, which was due to expire in 2029. That will protect an estimated £700 million in UK services exports, and allow British professionals to supply services in Switzerland for up to 90 days each year without a work permit. I should add that this is the first UK FTA to cover Gibraltar from day one, ensuring that Gibraltar’s businesspeople will continue to be able to supply services to Switzerland for up to 90 days a year without a permit. Perhaps the real power in this agreement is the statement of intent for future co-operation between our two nations. For example, we know that the UK and Switzerland are global leaders in life sciences. It is in both our nations’ interests for our best and brightest to be able to work together, which is why we have included iron-clad intellectual property and data protection provisions. The outcomes of the deal will support the discovery and development of new medicines, and it does not change UK legislation or practice, maintaining the existing balance between supporting pharmaceutical innovation and the NHS’s access to lower-cost generic medicines. The generics and biosimilar industry supports this deal, saying that it safeguards the NHS’s access to affordable generic medicines. The agreement establishes an innovation working group to bring together business, academia and the Government, with the goal of finding the biggest opportunities and challenges facing our generation. The group is designed to keep pace with emerging technologies and global conditions, which keeps our agreement focused on the future and helps both the UK and Switzerland to stay on the front foot in an ever-changing world. To that end, the agreement also strengthens our co-operation on climate change, development and gender equality. This FTA is designed to evolve, survive and thrive over the long term. One of the key asks of UK businesses was to improve business mobility. Alongside the FTA, Switzerland has announced that UK nationals will soon be able to use e-gates at Swiss borders, in line with Schengen requirements, and they will be able to exit via e-gates at Zurich airport from as soon as the end of this year. Switzerland is also working towards allowing entry via e-gates, particularly at Zurich, Geneva and Basel airports, and will set out a timetable very shortly. The agreement will benefit all nations and regions of the UK. It will support services firms—from major financial and professional services employers in London and Leeds, to specialist small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. My Department’s focus now is preparing the treaty for signature and implementation, and we will of course update the House as soon as this can happen. I am immensely grateful to my counterpart, Frau Budliger, with whom I had several assertive conversations—that is an understatement—and to my officials, especially Rob Whiteway, James Clarke, and Georgia Taylor from my private office. When it comes to trade, the primary role of Government is to pave the way for UK businesses by taking down barriers that prevent them from exporting their goods and services around the world. Of course, we also have to protect key sectors, and we will never compromise on animal welfare or food standards just to get a deal. This last year, this Government have made good on that responsibility. We secured the best deal with the USA of any country in the world. We took the India deal from signature to entry into force tomorrow—in record time. We secured a significant upgrade to our deal with the Republic of Korea. We concluded an agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council worth £3.7 billion. We started discussions with China about a services agreement. We secured ratification of our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership with Canada and Mexico, and started accession talks with Uruguay, the United Arab Emirates, the Philippines and Indonesia. We are pursuing a new strategic partnership with the European Union. These deals are all about building a stronger and more resilient UK economy. They will be felt up and down the land in enhanced job prospects and better pay. I was delighted to mark the conclusion of negotiations at KPMG with some of the graduates and apprentices there. Our decisive actions are helping to make a difference to young people’s lives as they build their careers. They also prove that free trade can deliver the goods for British jobs and livelihoods, that the rules-based order is still in fine fettle, and that free and fair trade can enhance our lives. In the end, an FTA is just a piece of paper unless businesses seize the opportunities it affords them. We will play our part in informing and supporting businesses to do that, but it is British entrepreneurs, risk takers, innovators and deal makers who will be the real heroes of this era of UK trade. For all those reasons, I commend this statement to the House.
It is an enormous delight to put a smile on the hon. Gentleman’s face. It is such a rare outing to see a smile on his face that I feel my job is done—my work is done.
My legacy will be a smile on the hon. Gentleman’s face. It was nice that he actually congratulated us. I think that is what he was doing. He said that was without any condition, but then he said it was really the Conservatives who started all of this business. It is exactly what he said about the GCC deal earlier this year, when he said that really all the work was done by them. But to be honest, it is not about where you start; it is about where you finish, and it is actually getting a deal over the line that is the difficult bit. I was standing in Hyde Park at a Duran Duran concert, I think 10 days ago, when—[Interruption.] Wild boys, calm down! Frau Budliger rang me, and she wondered what was going on in the background. It was actually the Scissor Sisters, the act on beforehand. I was just thinking, “I don’t know whether we want to dance or not,” because we had not been able to get all of this deal over the line yet. The truth of the matter is that the last two weeks are nearly always the most difficult bit. Sometimes it is a degree of negotiating between different Departments, and I am enormously grateful to all my other colleagues in the Government who have made it possible to get this to the place where we are now. Indeed, I do not want to exaggerate, Madam Deputy Speaker—
I do not think you are meant to take part in the conversation, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Or deviate. Or repeat! I do not want to exaggerate, but this may be the most significant iconic moment for the UK and Switzerland since Sean Connery and Ursula Andress met one another in “Dr. No” back in 1962. [Interruption]—no exaggeration at all, of any kind. I am worried about one thing the shadow Minister said, which is about how he would appoint ambassadors. I would just say that appointing ambassadors in unusual circumstances has not gone very well for this Government, and I would not urge him to do it himself. I did not use the term “Brexit dividend.” It is factually accurate that we would not have been able to have had these negotiations if we were still in the European Union. Of course I am 100% up for exploiting every opportunity we have, and that is precisely what we are doing and we have a pretty good record. Most of the FTAs agreed by the previous Government were basically cut and paste from EU FTAs into UK legislation, whereas we are making agreements that are a bit more bespoke. It is great to see the European Union following suit—for instance, in India. The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point about Mercosur. I would like us to be able to start that process fairly soon. I think that will be a matter for the new team, whoever they may be, in a week’s time. But I would just say to the hon. Gentleman that the losses we have incurred by virtue of leaving the European Union are very, very dramatic. The single most important trade deal we could do at the moment would be with the European Union, not just to sort out a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement but to provide what he used to promise day in, day out: frictionless trade with the EU, our single biggest trading partner. That is precisely what we have to secure.
I am very grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee; I look forward to seeing my right hon. Friend later today and then again tomorrow, in two different sessions. He is absolutely right that this is a very important deal. Of course, it is not just done by the politicians involved. The teams in our embassy in Switzerland and in our respective Departments—I include other Departments such as the Home Office, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and so on—are all part of the team that get a deal over the line. My right hon. Friend makes an important point about intellectual property. Of course, that is frequently now a key part of any FTA, because we want to look at how we can ensure we are protecting UK IP. We are an IP superpower and that is a key part of any of our services negotiations, and certainly in digital trade as well. I can confirm that the deal will do no harm to the NHS—far from it. It will mean that our life sciences industry, working closely with the Swiss life sciences industry and pharmaceuticals, will be able to deliver groundbreaking new drugs and generics more quickly to NHS patients. I am not worried in any way, shape or form about the anxieties raised by some campaigning groups. I think they have abstracted from a couple of figures and ended up with the worst possible estimation of what might happen. That fear is misguided.
Now, you see, the hon. Gentleman always has a smile on his face—every single day of the week. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) has managed to keep it going for at least half an hour now, so that is a good thing. The honest truth is that we all want to achieve the same thing: to increase our trade in services and goods across the European Union. It is a shocking sadness, I think, that 16,000 businesses in the UK have stopped exporting to the European Union. The figures for last year are actually slightly different from the figures that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) gave. Our services exports to the EU rose by 7%, but our goods exports to Europe fell. He, like many other Members, will have heard concerns expressed by people who export small goods and are suddenly facing an additional charge that they did not previously have to pay, because of the de minimis rules being changed. They are also being changed by the United States of America, of course. I want to achieve trade with the EU that is as frictionless as possible, and I will strive to do so as fast as we possibly can. I do not have personal responsibility for e-gates across the whole of Europe, so I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot hold me to account on that particular issue. On Switzerland, it is not as simple in Switzerland as it might be in some other countries, because some of these issues lie with cantonal Governments. I have worked very closely with Frau Budliger. She has made a lot of headway in trying to get us to a place where British business folk and others will be able to use e-gates, both in and out, in the very near future. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue of roaming. It is another issue where we need to finalise the details over the next few months, because it requires some changes in Switzerland in particular, but we have a very strong commitment to achieve that. I think most British people who travel to Switzerland will be very happy to see that.
No, there are no direct connections between the two. More importantly, I have read some of the commentary about our US deal on pharmaceuticals. I am really glad that we have a zero-tariff deal on pharmaceuticals. We were seeking to do two things that had not been addressed for a considerable period of time: first, to ensure that the big pharmaceutical companies based here in the UK remain here, because they provide jobs for lots of people in the UK; and secondly, to ensure that we did not end up with tariffs on our pharmaceuticals being sold into the United States. We have achieved both aims. Some of the commentary in the press suggests that lots more people are going to die, but that is simply abstracting from a single figure and presuming what the future financing of the NHS will be. That is a false, reductio ad absurdum position to adopt. I am very confident that the deal we have struck is a good one.