Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation
Order. I thank Members for bobbing. I know I am whipping through the speeches, but I am trying to make sure that I get everybody in.
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Leader of the House was a Whip of long experience, along with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore). I find it hard to understand how the Whips Office has fallen so far that the usual channels did not know what the motions would be tomorrow. Who is the Leader of the House trying to convince? One of those motions would have been to censure the Energy Secretary. The Leader of the House has made it clear that the crisis in the middle east has a direct impact on this country because of the energy crisis, yet we will not be able to censure the Energy Secretary for the tens of thousands of jobs he has seen disappear in the oil and gas industry. Perhaps he might act when there is one job on offer. Will the next Government carry on making statements outside of this House? That is what will happen all summer, basically disregarding this House, for which you, Mr Speaker, have admonished those on the Treasury Bench on several occasions.
- Hansard source
Support for Pig Farmers
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate. The British pig sector is in crisis, and our pig farmers need our help. My hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and Buchan and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly spoke the challenges north of the border. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) rightly called on the Minister to ensure that no independent farmer is unable to have their pigs processed. That is absolutely the crux of the issue. Let us be clear about what is at stake. The British pig sector contributes about £14 billion to our economy—£2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales, and exports to 88 counties worth almost £500 million. It is a major part of our farming industry, and we cannot afford to let the current financial challenges go any further.
- Hansard source
Support for Pig Farmers
Absolutely. There must be a UK-wide approach. The warning signs have been there for months. Since last autumn, the sector has been hit by oversupply, stagnant demand, falling European prices, factory disruptions and rising costs all at once. At one point earlier this year, around 100,000 pigs were backed up on British farms. That backlog has largely cleared now, but not without cost. The standard pig price has fallen by around 30p a kilogram, from roughly 208p to 178p. That is only part of the picture, because the vast majority of independent farmers will be receiving much less than that, as was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan. No market can survive on those terms. Without urgent action, the sector faces being pushed towards collapse. It is our independent producers who are bearing the brunt of the pressures faced by the sector, with thousands now seeing their contracts terminated early by major processors. Somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000 pigs a week are affected by notices being served on producers. The Government simply cannot stand on the sidelines and hope that the market corrects itself, because by autumn, the industry fears that up to 10,000 to 15,000 pigs a week could have no market at all. If nothing changes, we know what follows—more farm closures, more herds reduced and more businesses walking away from the industry altogether. The fair dealing obligations for pig contracts were brought in to fix the problem exposed by the last crisis—unequal bargaining power, poor contracts and a lack of fairness between producers and processors. We can all agree that those were worthwhile aims but if, during the implementation period, producers are still seeing contracts terminated early in record numbers and our farmers are still losing money on every pig they sell, the Government have to ask whether the regulations are doing what Parliament originally intended. Will the Minister commit today to an urgent assessment of whether the regulations are fit for purpose? As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) noted, there are also longer-term challenges. The threat from African swine fever and foot and mouth disease is real and ongoing. Protecting our borders from illegal meat imports and strengthening our disease defences must be a priority. What are the Government doing to work across Departments, including with the Home Office, to make sure that these live issues are addressed? The industry also needs a sensible workforce strategy. Like much of agriculture, pig farming is struggling with labour shortages. It needs a strategy that builds a workforce based on domestic skills and apprenticeships. We must also address the issue of transparency. Customers want to buy British and retail labelling has come a long way, but food services still rely heavily on imported pork, often with far less clarity about where that pork comes from. British producers deserve a level playing field and British consumers deserve to know what is on their plate. That is why the Conservative party has proposed closing the loophole that lets imported food, once merely processed or packaged in the UK, carry branding that many shoppers reasonably mistake as British. What progress has been made since the Government’s response on the food labelling consultation? Do the Government intend to strengthen country of origin rules? British pig farmers are not asking the Government to solve every single commercial challenge, but they are asking for regulations that genuinely protect producers rather than leave them exposed. Above all, they are asking the Government to recognise the strategic importance of British food production before more independent producers simply disappear for good. We cannot lose more of this vital industry. For the sake of our farmers, our rural communities and our country’s long-term food security, the Government must engage with key stakeholders. It is disappointing to hear that the last bilateral meeting between Ministers and the National Pig Association was back in September 2025. I call on the Minister to have an urgent meeting—I understand there may be one tomorrow. If that is the case, will the Minister guarantee that those meetings will continue at pace and at regular intervals with the British Pig Association, so that we can make sure that this vital industry is protected long into the future?
- Hansard source
General Practice Partnership Model
I know the Minister appreciates that access to GPs in rural settings is incredibly important. There was great concern when my Yorkshire dales community faced the closure of the Reeth medical practice. After a concerted effort by many, thankfully a solution was found to maintain services at Reeth. Will he join me in thanking all of those involved, especially Lynn Irwin, the Central Dales practice and everyone at the Richmondshire primary care network? Will he also welcome the ambition to in fact expand services at Reeth as a result of the collaborative partnership that the new approach has put in place?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The right hon. Member has highlighted that, in his view, this is not a binary choice between a debate on the middle east and holding the new Prime Minister to account. I wonder whether I might therefore offer him a solution. Why do we not have the debate tomorrow—it is clearly important, and no one on this side of the House is saying otherwise—and then have a vote, which is also in the right hon. Member’s gift, to return on Monday anyway? We were essentially doing the Government a favour by tabling the motion, because ultimately we all want to hear from this new Prime Minister. With the exception of a few lucky people on the Labour Benches, nobody knows what he is planning to do. For the benefit of my constituents in the south-west, I want to be able to raise his obsession with No. 10 in Manchester. I want to hear his views on defence, welfare, taxation and special educational needs. Those are the things that I believe the House deserves to hear directly from the new Prime Minister before we return in September. Might the right hon. Member consider that pretty simple solution, which would give everyone what they want?
- Hansard source
Extreme Heat: Preparedness
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate another valley MP, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), on securing this debate. He excellently outlined how many people have been affected by extreme heat over the last few weeks both in a personal capacity and in their work in schools, hospitals or farms. All of us will have had the experience of helping vulnerable groups in our constituencies in the last few months. Just last Saturday, I met an elderly couple with no fans or water who were not in the system. We have all helped vulnerable residents, and I commend everybody in this Chamber for the job that they do. During the hon. Gentleman’s opening speech, I noted that a Doorkeeper was bringing in another fan. The irony of the Doorkeepers wearing very heavy woollen suits was not lost on me. I hope that we think about them as much as everybody else when we talk about the extreme heat.
- Hansard source
Extreme Heat: Preparedness
I will leave that for the Minister to respond to, but I entirely agree that it is good that the Doorkeepers and House staff who support us so admirably were allowed to have a brief break. I did not manage to get a solar power-produced ice cream, but perhaps I will pop down afterwards. The hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) said that there had not been enough focus on mitigation over the last few years. They are absolutely correct, but I remind Members that we have seen a 40% reduction in total carbon emissions since 2010 and that the United Kingdom represents only 0.8% of total global emissions. If they had had longer to speak, I know they would have said that we have to tackle this internationally as well as domestically. Last summer was the warmest on record in Britain. The UK Health Security Agency estimates that 1,504 people died as a result of the heat. Behind that figure are families who have lost loved ones. What is particularly striking is that the overwhelming majority were elderly: more than 1,300 of those deaths were among people aged over 75. Fortunately, that number was lower than the more than 3,000 deaths that had been predicted, thanks in part to the successful implementation of the adverse weather and health plan introduced by the previous Government. That demonstrates an important point: preparation saves lives. As our climate changes, extreme heat can no longer be regarded as an exceptional event. It is becoming a recurring feature of British summers, and Government policy must adapt accordingly. Reducing emissions remains important, but adaptation must sit alongside mitigation. We have a duty to ensure that our homes, infrastructure, public services and energy system are capable of coping with the conditions we increasingly face. That begins with protecting the most vulnerable. The Cabinet Office is the lead Government Department for severe weather and has responsibility for identifying those who require particular protection during periods of extreme heat. Last year’s resilience action plan committed the Government to publishing new lead Department expectations and updated guidance to help Departments to identify those who may become vulnerable during emergencies such as heatwaves. Yet a year after those commitments were made, neither of those things appears to have been delivered. Will the Minister explain when those long-promised expectations and updated guidance will finally be delivered? Preparing for emergencies cannot simply be a slogan; it requires effective planning and proper co-ordination across Government. Preparation must also extend to the homes we are building today. Many of those homes will still be occupied at the end of this century, so they should be designed not simply for the climate of the past, but for the hotter summers that experts increasingly expect. In apartments in densely built urban areas or during prolonged periods of extreme heat, opening windows is often ineffective—as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), outlined from his personal experience—or impractical because of security concerns, pollution or noise. Current building regulations may not explicitly prohibit air-conditioning, but they require developers to exhaust every possible passive cooling measure before mechanical cooling can even be considered. In practice, that has created a system where air-conditioning has become the exception rather than a realistic option. Indeed, there have been cases where families have installed air-conditioning and have been instructed by councils to remove it. At precisely the moment Britain needs to become more resilient to hotter summers, Government policy is too often acting as a barrier to the adoption of technology that could help people remain safe and comfortable. Research suggests that wider use of air-conditioning could reduce heat-associated deaths among those at greatest risk by as much as three quarters. This is not simply a matter of comfort; it is about public health and protecting vulnerable people. It is also about ensuring that children can learn effectively during hot weather, that workers remain productive and that families are able to sleep safely through increasingly warm nights. Britain is increasingly becoming an international outlier. Around 90% of homes in both Japan and the United States have air-conditioning, compared with only 3% to 5% of homes in the United Kingdom. We in the Conservative party have already committed to removing the regulations that effectively discourage air-conditioning in new homes. I asked the Minister whether the Government will now consider doing the same. There is another contradiction in current policy. At the very time that we are discouraging greater use of air-conditioning, consumers are paying billions of pounds in energy bills to compensate renewable generators for switching off when there is excess electricity generation during sunny summer days. Air-conditioning demand rises precisely when solar generation is at its strongest. Rather than paying generators not to generate, surely it makes more sense to allow households to use that electricity to cool their homes. As electricity generation becomes increasingly dependent on intermittent weather conditions, maintaining grid stability becomes ever more challenging. This summer, the National Energy System Operator took the unprecedented step of issuing electricity margin notices following periods when supply became dangerously tight. That should concern every Member of this House.
- Hansard source
Extreme Heat: Preparedness
It may be quite normal, but it should still concern people that our electricity supply is vulnerable and that we are becoming increasingly dependent on weather conditions. Preparing Britain for a changing climate means much more than setting emissions targets. It means protecting vulnerable people, ensuring that Government Departments are properly prepared, building homes that are fit for hotter summers, embracing practical technologies that improve resilience and maintaining an electricity system that is capable of supporting them. Adaptation is not an alternative to tackling climate change; it is an essential part of responding to it, because whatever path the climate takes over the coming decades—and we all know what path that will be—our responsibility today is to ensure that Britain is ready.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Leader of the House will know that I have huge regard for him, and I wager that he thinks this decision is as disgraceful as we do. When he was Chief Whip, he would never have stood for the disdain that his party has shown for tomorrow’s Opposition day debate. My constituents want us to debate and know the plans of the new Prime Minister. That should be given to this House. How can my constituents not now deem that the disdain that this Government have shown for this Parliament over the past two years will carry on under the new Prime Minister? How will my constituents not think that this Leader of the House and this new Prime Minister are running frit from the feelings of my constituents and the wider country?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House, during his oration and statement, stated that the Government did not know the wording of the proposed motions for tomorrow’s Opposition day debates. Can you confirm that Opposition parties have until the end of business today to table the wordings of those motions and that that situation has not changed? May I put it on the record that the usual channels had informed the governing party of the subject of an Opposition day debate tomorrow? He knows that, and the Government Chief Whip knows that. Could you ask the Leader of the House to correct the record?
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
I was nine years old at the time of the Hillsborough tragedy, and I remember listening to the news of the terrible events on the radio, sitting behind my parents in the car. I was 32 when, while working in the Home Office, I received a copy of the report by the Hillsborough independent panel, which detailed the full horror of that terrible tragedy. In my time in the Home Office I saw many intelligence reports and papers about serious crimes and terror plots, but the Hillsborough report was undoubtedly the most shocking thing I read. More than two decades passed between the tragedy itself and that moment of truth and transparency, and we can only imagine the pain felt by the victims and their families who fought for years for justice. I pay tribute to them and would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister. They have known grief and suffering none of us would ever wish to experience. This is not a debate about the need for transparency. I am proud to have played a modest part in bringing that about when I worked in the Home Office. Nor is this a debate about the need for accountability. I have spent many years in different roles making the case for better police accountability and, indeed, working with those who lead and work in our security and intelligence agencies. They themselves would be the first to say—though their work is by definition often secret—that they need to be accountable. They are only citizens of this country, just like everyone else. I am sure that everyone here today agrees on the need for accountability. The question is, how should this accountability work? Today we are considering one specific issue among several: is the proposal to extend the duty of candour to the intelligence agencies, the military, military intelligence, Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Crime Agency, which all necessarily work to some degree in secret, appropriate? Does it deliver accountability, and does it allow these sensitive services to do their work to the best of their abilities? Our job today is to consider that question and that question alone. Of course, we may be informed by the trauma, pain and emotion that come from terrible tragedies—tragedies that have, in some instances, been compounded by undue secrecy and even outright dishonesty from the state itself—but it is our job in this place to get the law right, for if we do not, we may find ourselves back here in future debating another tragedy that could have been stopped had it not been for the unintended consequences of what we are debating today.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
I am confused by that intervention from the hon. Lady, who was the Minister in charge of this Bill. The argument I am making is consistent with the position she brought to the House in January, only to back down when it became controversial. As I was saying, this could lead to intelligence that should, for good reasons, remain secret being published, which undermines the way the intelligence agencies and others work. We know this is a matter of grave concern for the agencies, the military and those in law enforcement because they have told us that. The Government know this, because the same people have told Ministers, and we know that the Government accepted this, because that was why they tabled the amendment in January, which they have since dropped. Allied military and intelligence partners—most notably, the US and other Five Eyes partners—will look at what the Government are doing today and question what can be done to protect them and their methods. The Justice Secretary is once again not here today.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
I am not sure I follow the hon. Member’s question. If he wants to repeat it more clearly, I will happily listen.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
The point is that this is a new duty, which is backed by criminal sanction, and that is why it is different from the status quo. As I was saying, the Justice Secretary is a Privy Counsellor. He is the Deputy Prime Minister. He was once the Foreign Secretary—the man to whom MI6 and GCHQ were accountable. He knows that these sources of intelligence from allies are essential. They support our national interest, protect our way of life and save the lives of innocent people. Neither he nor the Minister can, hand on heart, stand here today and say that they know for sure that this Bill does not endanger that intelligence. Nobody can say that, because this Bill will change the behaviour, decisions and actions of those we ask to keep us safe, because it might change the terms of the relationships with our allies, and because we cannot anticipate the decisions made by individual heads of future investigations and inquiries.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
What the hon. Lady says is not entirely relevant to this proposition. This is about the provision of information to particular investigations and inquiries, and we do not know—indeed, we cannot know—the identities of the people who lead those investigations and inquiries. That is one of the reasons why this is such a step into the dark.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
We are sent here to scrutinise legislation. That is what we are doing. We have talked to people in the intelligence agencies, the police and others who are very concerned about this. The concerns that I am expressing were shared by Ministers themselves, which is why the amendment we are proposing today reflects the amendment that the Government themselves brought to the House in January.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Prime Minister said this was going to be one of his first acts as Prime Minister; it turns out it is going to be his final act as Prime Minister. He is only doing it by the skin of his teeth, because he is presenting a proposal to the House that none of us got to see even this weekend, and those who had been drawn into the consultation process and had been privately consulted say that this bears no relation at all to what they have been shown, even very recently. The Government are clearly doing this on the hoof, and it is very worrying. It is no exaggeration to say that some of those people who may be appointed to lead investigations and inquiries might be influenced or pressured by those whose purpose is the destruction of the British state and British sovereignty itself.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
I am tempted to say that the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the Attorney General, who used to prosecute British soldiers and was still appointed to one of the highest offices in the land. Irish republicans, Islamist extremists, useful idiots deployed by Putin’s Russia—they will all see the opportunity in this law, as we know they have seen the opportunity in examples of lawfare fought elsewhere, including Northern Ireland. These are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns. [Interruption.] There is an additional risk that the security services will be tied up in court cases, thanks to differing interpretations of the legislation, or that the scope of the Bill and the information that must be disclosed will be widened over time. I can hear sighs and complaints from Government Members, but they do not seem to understand that new laws—especially when they are to be taken in balance with existing laws—are tested in the courts, and their interpretation widens. That is a fact, and it is one of the concerns expressed by the intelligence agencies, the police and others. If Government Members think they are above listening to those people, I am very sorry about that. There are questions, too, about the role of investigations and inquiries set up by the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland. I was alarmed by the Minister’s earlier answer to a question about the need to reveal information about intelligence agency sources in that context. These are the reasons that my party proposes an amendment, informed in part by the Government’s own proposed amendment back in January, to give control of secret material back to service leaders, who are rightly then accountable to elected Ministers, in not only the intelligence services but the armed forces, the National Crime Agency and counter-terrorism policing.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
I think the hon. Lady, whether it is by design or by mistake, misunderstands my point. Of course, there should be accountability and transparency, and there are many ways in which we can do that, but there are ways of doing it that do not jeopardise the operations of the most sensitive organisations in the country by revealing their sources, their methods and their technological capabilities. There are also serious flaws in the proposals to create a new duty to prevent death or serious injury and the new crime of misleading the public. Senior police officers are concerned that the new duty will have a chilling effect on operations. Police officers may be deterred from taking vital split-second decisions to give chase or to restrain, for fear of being sued or charged, placing their careers and livelihoods in jeopardy. Those employed in other parts of the public sector, such as the welfare system or the health service, might also be affected. These measures also risk snarling up the police and others in time-consuming and costly litigation. There is also a serious risk that the new crime of misleading the public could stifle legitimate political disagreement and debate, criminalise honest mistakes, or punish people for making statements that we only later learn are wrong when the facts change. That is why a lock on such prosecutions, with a requirement for the Attorney General to approve them, is absolutely essential, and we invite hon. Members to support our amendment to ensure that this evening.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
In the circumstances following the late change to today’s business, Mr Speaker has selected amendments tabled after what would have been the usual deadline. New Clause 8 Information contained in public records “(1) This section applies to information contained in a record that is transferred to a relevant authority under— (a) the Public Records Act 1958, (b) the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937, (c) the Public Records Act (Northern Ireland) 1923, or (d) any other enactment or arrangement under which records are transferred to a relevant authority for their care and preservation. (2) For the purposes of this Chapter, the information is not to be treated as information that is held by— (a) the relevant authority, or (b) persons who work for the authority. (3) Each of the following is a ‘relevant authority’— (a) the Public Record Office; (b) the Keeper of Public Records; (c) an authority responsible for records deposited at a place of deposit appointed under section 4 of the Public Records Act 1958; (d) the Keeper of the Records of Scotland; (e) the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland; (f) any other person with responsibility for the care and preservation of records under arrangements made with an authority within any of paragraphs (a) to (e). (4) In this section references to a record being ‘transferred’ to a relevant authority include references to it being transmitted to, or accepted or acquired by, the authority.”—(Catherine Atkinson.) This new clause provides for an exemption from the duty of candour and assistance for bodies such as the National Archives so far as relating to their statutory responsibilities of holding public records. Brought up, and read the First time.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 9. New clause 1—Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into— (a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident. (b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident. (2) The report must assess— (a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act. (b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents. (c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b). (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.” New clause 2—Offence of wilfully destroying information or records relevant to an inquiry or investigation— “(1) A public authority or public official commits an offence if— (a) they deliberately destroy relevant information or records relevant to an inquiry, investigation, or inquest; (b) they know that, or are reckless as to whether, the information is relevant to or required by an inquiry, investigation, or inquest. (2) A public official who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).” This new clause introduces an offence for wilfully destroying relevant records after a major incident that may lead to an inquiry or inquest. New clause 3—Monitoring compliance with duties under the Act— “(1) The Secretary of State must commission and publish annually an independent report which monitors public authorities’ compliance with their duties under the Act. (2) The report must assess— (a) public authorities’ record-keeping, disclosures and responses to inquiries and investigations; (b) the effectiveness of enforcement and sanctions provisions in the Act in helping to ensure that public authorities and public officials perform their functions in line with the duty of candour in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; and (c) the effectiveness of the provisions in the Act for supporting persons, including public officials, making protected disclosures and for reporting wrongdoings to an inquiry or investigation following a major incident. (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report before both Houses of Parliament. (4) The first report must be laid within the period of 12 months of the passing of this Act. (5) Each subsequent report must be laid annually beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to commission and publish annually an independent report with the purpose of providing an oversight mechanism to monitor compliance with duties under the Act. New clause 4—Conduct of public authorities and access to legal aid for seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries— “(1) Legal aid must be made available, without a means test, to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where there are reasonable grounds for believing the matter under investigation relates to the conduct of public authorities tasked with carrying out public functions, or public officials working for bodies in a public capacity, in connection with the discharge of their public duties. (2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, make regulations to— (a) add civil legal services to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in connection with proceedings relating to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries as under subsection (1); (b) amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) for the purposes of providing criteria for a determination for legal representation in respect of cases under subsection (1). (3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.” This new clause would extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question. New clause 5—Review of the merits of establishing a national oversight mechanism for ensuring candour and transparency of public authorities in respect of inquests and inquiries— “The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, carry out a review to determine the merits of establishing an independent oversight mechanism to help ensure candour, transparency and follow up with respect to the actions of a public authority arising from the conclusions and recommendations of inquests and inquiries.” New clause 6—Monitoring the standards of ethical conduct of officials in response to the recommendations from inquests and inquiries— “In discharging its duty under section 9(1) of this Act a public authority must monitor the standards of officials in response to the recommendations from inquests and inquiries to ensure they are acting with candour, transparency and frankness.” New clause 7—Public interest— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must define in regulations what constitutes the “public interest” for the purposes of section 1(1)(b). (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to define public interest for the purposes of this Act by regulations. New clause 10—Expected standards of conduct and duty of NHS boards to report medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings— “(1) This section sets out a duty for boards of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in England to adopt codes of conduct mandating reporting of concerns in relation to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within an NHS body. (2) A member of the board of directors of an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust in England must report any evidence or reports they have seen of systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within the trust to— (a) the Care Quality Commission, (b) the Department of Health and Social Care, and (c) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. (3) The board of directors of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust in England has a collective duty to— (a) refer the trust to the Care Quality Commission, and (b) alert the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, if staff employed by, or acting on behalf of, the trust raise concerns of systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety. (4) In discharging its duties under subsection (1), an NHS trust board must, in particular— (a) adopt a code of conduct which sets standards expected of members who serve on the boards of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust, and (b) ensure that the code of conduct is published. (5) An NHS trust’s code of conduct must in particular— (a) require members of a board of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust to act in accordance with the duty of candour in reporting concerns relating to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within a trust, (b) require members of the trust’s board to promote ethical conduct, candour, transparency and frankness within all parts of the NHS trust or foundation trust for which they work, (c) contain information about the steps that a person who works for an NHS trust should take if they believe that a member of a trust’s board has failed to act in accordance with the code of conduct. (6) In this section— ‘systemic medical malpractice’ means an action or omission in the provision of health care that falls below the expected standard of care and indicates a widespread, patterned, or recurring failure within the systems, processes, or governance of the trust. ‘wrongdoing’ includes abuse of authority, perverting the course of justice, neglect of duty and the exploitation of vulnerable people.” This new clause sets a duty for boards of NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England to adopt codes of conduct mandating reporting of concerns in relation to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within a trust. New clause 11—Duty of candour and enforcement of standards of ethical conduct in DHSC— “(1) In discharging its duties under section 9 of this Act, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), must, in particular— (a) set out the steps DHSC will take to ensure that legal services provided to NHS bodies and other relevant health-related organisations are consistent with the statutory duty of candour and the principles of openness, transparency and learning following patient safety incidents. (b) set out which oversight body is responsible for ensuring the standards set out in DHSC code of ethical conduct are adhered to and enforced. (c) set out provisions to allow a relevant oversight body to examine on its own initiative suspected serious or systemic breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct. (d) set out a mechanism for ensuring that any breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct are recorded and that proper data is kept and published that records the extent to which complaints have been made regarding its ethical conduct and their outcome.” This new clause would set out additional requirements for the DHSC in respect of the statutory requirements it must fulfil under section 9 of this Act. Amendment 13, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, after “public authorities” insert “, Members of both Houses of Parliament” This amendment is connected to Amendment 14. Government amendments 151 and 152. Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert— “(ca) where the authority or official has relevant records, including digital messages and communication, retain and disclose those records;” This amendment would add the disclosure of digital messages and communication to the assistance that a public authority or official must provide to an inquiry or investigation. Amendment 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert— “(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.” This amendment requires public authorities or officials who are assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation. Amendment 150, page 2, line 39, at end insert— “(4A) Where in exercise of its duties under subsections (1) to (4) a public authority or public official intends to provide information to the inquiry or investigation, and that information includes information about a person who has or may have been caused harm in the incident under inquiry or investigation it must, subject to subsection (4B) below, provide to that person, or if deceased, the person administering their estate, such part of that information as is relevant to the nature and cause of the harm they have or may have sustained. (4B) The obligation described in subsection (4A) above does not apply if the chair of the inquiry or investigation directs, either on application or their own motion, that the subsection should not apply, or where the chair directs that subsection (4A) shall apply subject to conditions specified in the direction, the subsection shall apply subject to those conditions.” This amendment would require a public authority or public official to provide information to a person, or the relatives of that person, who was affected by an incident under investigation subject to the chair of an inquiry or investigation directing otherwise. Government amendment 153. Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, after “authority” insert “or any sub-contractor in any chain of provision to a service provider” This amendment ensures that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider which was subcontracted will fall under the duty to comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry or investigation. Amendment 5, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by— (a) a public authority, or (b) a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act, the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.” This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority or a corporate body with public responsibility under Clause 4 for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance. Government amendments 26, 28 and 154 to 157. Amendment 20, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end insert— “(2A) Where an obligation to give notification would have arisen under section 2(3), save for the exemptions in subsection (2), the head of the relevant intelligence service must provide a written notification to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament summarising the acts that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation.” This amendment aims to provide accountability for intelligence services and their operations in relation to the duty of candour and its exemptions from them. Amendment 199, page 6, line 3, at end insert— “(2A) Where, in compliance with the obligation under section 2(4), a person who works for an intelligence service, a military intelligence service, the National Crime Agency, Counter Terrorism Command, or one of the armed forces, would be required to provide security or intelligence information, the obligation applies in respect of that information only if the head of the service or agency consents to it being provided. (2B) The head of an intelligence service, the head of military intelligence service, the head of the National Crime Agency, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing UK, or the head of one of the armed forces may withhold consent under subsection (2A) only if it appears to the head that either of the following conditions is met. (2C) The first condition is that it is necessary for consent to be withheld in the interests of national security or otherwise for the purposes of the proper exercise of the functions of the service. (2D) The second condition is that the information would not be of assistance to the inquiry or investigation in meeting its objectives. (2E) Where the head of an intelligence service, the head of military intelligence service, the head of the National Crime Agency, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing UK, or the head of one of the armed forces withholds consent under subsection (2A), the head must notify the person leading the inquiry or investigation of that fact.” This amendment ensures that the duty of candour and assistance may require a person who works for an intelligence service, military intelligence, the NCA, Counter Terrorism Command or the armed forces to provide security or intelligence information with the consent of the head of their service. Government amendments 32 and 33, and 158 to 168. Amendment 2, in clause 9, page 8, line 3, after “work” insert “including the retention and disclosure of digital records including messages relevant to their public functions” This amendment ensures that digital messages and records are added to the duty of candour in relation to inquiries and inquests. Government amendment 37. Amendment 6, page 8, line 18, after “disclosures” insert “and to whom such disclosures should be made; (ba) how a person making a protected disclosure under paragraph (b) is protected; (bb) a list of prescribed people and bodies to whom a potential whistleblower may speak to in confidence about a relevant concern.” This amendment would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information on whom a person can make a protected disclosure to and how that person would be protected. Amendment 7, page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (6) and insert— “(6) The Secretary of State must introduce a standard template for ethical code of conduct for completion by public authorities which satisfies the requirements in this section and which may be added to by public authorities to include information specific to their organisation or function.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce a standard template to ensure a consistent and high standard approach to completion of code of ethical conduct documentation across public authorities. Government amendments 38 and 39. Amendment 14, in clause 11, page 9, line 22, after “public authority” insert “, Member of either House of Parliament” This amendment expands the offence of misleading the public to apply to Members of either House of Parliament. Amendment 15, page 9, line 23, after “authority” insert “, Member”. This amendment is connected to Amendment 14. Amendment 25, page 9, line 26, at end insert— “(1A) An act under subsection (1)(a) includes the provision of misleading information to a person acting for the purposes of journalism (as described in subsection (4)(b)) carried out via a press statement, media briefing, or other communication intended for dissemination by a recognised news publisher.” This amendment would ensure that the offence of misleading the public would include a public authority or public official providing misleading information to a recognised news publisher. Amendment 16, page 9, line 38, after “authority” insert “, Member of either House of Parliament” This amendment is connected to Amendment 14. Government amendment 40. Amendment 8, page 10, line 5, leave out paragraph (b). Amendment 17, page 10, line 8, at end insert “, or (c) in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament.” This amendment is connected to Amendments 13 to 16 and 18. It provides that the offence of misleading the public does not apply to any act done in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament. Government amendments 41 and 42. Amendment 19, page 10, line 23, at end insert— “(7A) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.” This amendment requires the Attorney General to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public. Amendment 18, page 10, line 37, at end insert— “(8A) A certificate signed by the appropriate authority (as defined in section 34 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000) certifying that an act is done in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.” This amendment is connected to Amendments 13 to 17. Government amendments 43 to 51. Amendment 12, in clause 15, page 13, line 7, at end insert— “(2A) References in this Part to a person who ‘holds public office’ include references to an individual who was, but is no longer, such an office holder, in respect of conduct occurring while they held such office.” This amendment would ensure that public officials would still be liable for misconduct during their time in public office if they resign or retire. Government amendments 52 to 69. Amendment 11, in clause 23, page 22, line 20, at end insert— “(6) For the purposes of this Act, any duty or liability imposed on a public official or a person holding public office applies in respect of any act or omission occurring while the person held that office or performed those functions, notwithstanding that the person has subsequently resigned, retired, or otherwise ceased to hold that office or perform those functions.” This amendment would ensure that the duties and liabilities in this Bill apply to public officials during their time in public office even if they have since resigned, retired or ceased to hold a public office. Government amendments 70 and 71. Amendment 9, in clause 25, page 22, line 30, leave out subsections (1) to (8) and insert— “This Act shall come into force on Royal Assent, save for sections 9, 10 and 18, which will come into force six months thereafter.” This amendment clarifies that the Act should come into force straightaway except for those sections which require the provision of codes or guidance. Government amendments 72, 76 and 169 to 178. Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert “, independent panel or review established by a Minister” This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown. Amendment 146, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert “, independent panel, review established by a Minister, or independent panel or review established by a local authority.” This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown and by local authorities. Government amendments 78 to 80, 91, 93 to 97, and 179 to 198. Amendment 149, in schedule 2, page 47, line 22, at end insert— “(4A) Notwithstanding regulations made under sub-paragraph (4) a statutory water company holding an appointment under Chapter I of Part II of the Water Industry Act 1991 as a water undertaker (company) must meet the obligations set out in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of this Act for public functions in connection with their duties to— (a) provide water supply within their area; (b) supply water that is wholesome for domestic or food production purposes; (c) provide, improve, and extend a system of public sewers and to treat sewage within their area; (d) comply with water quality regulations; (e) ensure long-term resilience of water supply and sewage networks against climate change, population growth, and consumer behaviour changes; (f) maintain their assets to prevent sewage from polluting watercourses; and (g) reduce sewage pollution.” This amendment would place privatised water companies in England and Wales under the obligations of Chapter 2 of Part 2 on the face of the Bill for the functions for which they are responsible of a public nature. Government amendments 98 to 142.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Order. I know that this is a highly sensitive debate, but interventions must be short and to the point. Lots of colleagues want to get in on the debate.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Order. Minister, either you take an intervention or do not. Please do not continue a conversation when Members are seated.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Order. Before the Minister responds, I just point out that many colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, so I hope she is coming to her conclusion soon.
- Hansard source
Maternity Services: North-west
Blackpool Victoria hospital’s maternity services have been subject to two inspections by the Care Quality Commission in recent years—in 2022 and 2025—which resulted in findings of “Inadequate” and “Requires improvement”. The inspectors cited particular concerns about staffing and the care provided for mothers and babies. We all know how scary it is to go into maternity services, especially for those experiencing challenging pregnancies or health complications. Can the Minister give my constituents some reassurance about the improvements in that hospital’s maternity services that the Government are seeking?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
This is a farce. It is a charade. We are all puppets in a political pantomime being orchestrated by the new Member for Makerfield. I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman wanted a job in the reshuffle so much that he would put himself through this. Today the Table Office cleared, or had had sight of, the motion for tomorrow. The right hon. Member for Makerfield has been avoiding scrutiny from the press; he has avoided scrutiny from his own parliamentary party through an uncontested leadership election; and now he is trying to avoid scrutiny from any Member in this place. Does the Leader of the House at least recognise that that is not a good tone for an incoming Prime Minister to set, and that it does not bode well for his future if that is how he is going to conduct himself as Prime Minister of this country?
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
The interventions and the shadow Secretary of State’s responses are indicative of what he said earlier: we should not be discussing something as technically complex as this, which could have wide-reaching ramifications, with 24 hours’ notice and without any opportunity to have a proper discussion and raise these points.
- Hansard source
Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation
It is a particular pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this important debate. I have lived and worked in a coastal community throughout my life, so I can speak with some force about the challenges they face. Our sea ports are not just transit points for goods but engines of regeneration, holding the unique power to lift coastal areas out of deprivation and firmly reconnect them to national prosperity. Ports are the lifeblood of coastal economic health, explicitly serving to catalyse jobs and drive local wealth where it is most needed. Their activities support 90,000 jobs across the broader region, yet a significant driver of isolation and economic deprivation in coastal communities is the severe lack of adequate transport connectivity. Coastal communities are, by their geographical nature, at the end of the line. When we talk about hidden deprivation, we are talking about young people who cannot easily travel to access further education, local businesses that struggle to attract external investment and residents who face profound social isolation.
- Hansard source
Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation
I was not aware of the situation of the two towns the hon. Gentleman mentions, but he highlights a key point. I have been campaigning for the last 15 years to reintroduce the direct train service from Grimsby and Cleethorpes to London King’s Cross. What Hull Trains has done for the north bank of the Humber—many Members will be familiar with it—has been a real boost to the local economy. I now look to Great British Railways to do the same for the south bank, but it has to be said that I have my doubts. If we are really serious about tackling hidden deprivation in our coastal communities, we cannot leave them cut off from the capital. A direct rail link would be a real boost to the economy of the south bank of the Humber. If we are to truly break physical barriers of isolation, we must also strengthen east-west rail freight connectivity. Immingham is the largest port in the country, measured by tonnage, and it needs better access to other industrial centres, which would relieve the M62 of an enormous amount of heavy goods vehicle traffic. When we invest in fundamental infrastructure, private investment and supply chain growth will naturally follow. I urge the Minister to recognise that upgrading transport infrastructure is absolutely key to reducing isolation and deprivation in our local communities. More in Common recently published a report, commissioned by Associated British Ports, that provides a fascinating array of statistics and opinions gleaned from extensive research. It shows very clearly that the state of high streets and the cost of living are the key issues in our coastal communities. I urge the Minister to focus on that when she responds to the debate.
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Lords amendments. As hon. Members will know, part of my constituency takes in the Scunthorpe steelworks, and hundreds of my constituents work there. My aim throughout the rather tortuous and long saga about the future of the steelworks has been to ensure that their jobs are retained. As the shadow Secretary of State outlined, the Bill could have been further improved, but I am delighted that we have at least reached a conclusion. There will be a sigh of relief among my many constituents who rely on the steelworks for their employment. I look forward to engaging with the Minister as we move forward on the future of the steelworks—because, as I think he is well aware, if energy costs in particular stay as they are, there are future disasters ahead. We must do something on energy costs if we are to maintain any sort of a steel industry and heavy industry in the UK. I thank the Minister for getting us to this point and look forward to working with him in the future.
- Hansard source
Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is a huge privilege to wind up the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this very important debate. I welcome the Minister to her place; this will be the first time we have had an exchange in this place. As hon. Members will know, I do not represent a coastal community. The River Lea and the white water rafting centre that proudly hosted events for the 2012 Olympics are the closest my constituency comes to having a coastline. However, many of my constituents grew up visiting our coasts, and have warm memories and strong cultural attachments to the beaches, clifftops and seaside towns of our great island nation. I fondly remember trips to places such as Clacton, Bournemouth, Great Yarmouth and Southend. From my visits to many of our seaside towns, and from hearing hon. Members’ testimonies, it is apparent that those places face unique challenges. Unfortunately, many of them have experienced decline in recent decades. The challenges that they face are not always adequately acknowledged or addressed by central Government. Understandably, many feel as if they are overlooked time and again. Many Members have made eloquent cases about that, providing us with valuable insights from the people they speak to and from their own experiences, but I will touch on some of those challenges again. They include poor or sometimes non-existent transport links, unemployment and changes to a once-reliable and profitable seasonal trade, a lack of housing supply, and large disparities in income, which mean that many people cannot afford to live in the places where they grew up. That is made even worse by the conversion of former hotels, B&Bs and residential properties into houses in multiple occupation, with councils and Government Departments using them to house people from elsewhere, leading to transient and unstable communities. Another challenge is an education system that receives far less money per pupil than some inner-city areas of London, for example. Unfortunately, decisions made by this Labour Government have worsened and compounded many of those issues. Businesses such as hotels, ice cream parlours and fisheries have been hit hard by the increase the employer national insurance and by burdensome regulations. Business rates have increased—in some cases massively and seemingly arbitrarily. Many people I meet in the hospitality industry, which is vital to coastal communities, tell me that they are really struggling; they simply have no more to give, and they ask why they should even bother. The Minister’s Department is now pushing through local government reorganisation, which in some areas will lump coastal communities together with inland towns and villages that have completely different priorities and challenges, and risks marginalising coastal communities even further. I urge the Government to pay particular attention to that when making decisions on local government reorganisation. Ultimately, our coastal communities and the whole United Kingdom deserve better. We need a Government who cut rather than increase taxes, reward rather than punish aspiration and success, prioritise quality housing for local people rather than HMOs for illegal asylum seekers, and put the interests of ordinary British people first, not least those in our coastal communities.
- Hansard source
NHS Trusts: Digital Infrastructure
I spent a day last week with the palliative care team at William Harvey hospital in Ashford, which serves a large chunk of my constituency, and I was amazed by how much time they spent gathering and sharing information. They were clicking through on really old systems, all on pdf, which takes up a huge amount of time that they could instead be spending on clinical care, especially given how technology is evolving. When are we going to get past the situation in which every single time a doctor sees a patient, it is like the whole interaction with the NHS is happening for the very first time?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Tomorrow, the Conservatives were going to ask for Parliament to sit for one more working day, so that the new Prime Minister could come here and set out his agenda for the country, which we could then scrutinise on behalf of all the people we represent. Instead, there will be a general debate which, no matter the topic, can have no actionable outcome. We will have no chance for a month and a half to scrutinise the Prime Minister’s plans. I ask the Leader of the House genuinely: how does he think that looks to the people who send us here?
- Hansard source
Support for Pig Farmers
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing the debate. We do not hear about pig farming as much as we hear about other farming sectors, but it is essential to our food system and rural economy. While this debate concerns the UK sector, I want to focus on the pressures facing producers in Scotland. As we have heard, the Scottish pig sector is under enormous strain from low market prices, rising costs, processing constraints and competition from imports. Many farmers are now selling pigs well below the cost of production. NFU Scotland estimates that Scottish members of the United Pig Co-operative lost around £2.7 million in the first four months of this year alone. Some producers were losing up to £37 per pig, while a typical 500-sow unit could face annual losses approaching half a million pounds. Those figures are unsustainable for family farming businesses. The consequences extend beyond individual farms. Scotland’s pig sector contributes around £300 million to the economy and supports around 2,200 jobs, as well as haulage firms, feed merchants, vets, processors and other rural businesses. Once that critical mass is lost, it will be exceptionally difficult to rebuild. In my constituency, farmers such as Adam Marshall in Berwickshire have spent decades investing in high-quality Scottish pork and adding value through local enterprises, including Reiver Country Farm Foods and Oink. That entrepreneurial spirit should be encouraged, but even innovative, well-run family businesses cannot absorb sustained losses indefinitely. If businesses such as Adam’s are struggling despite doing everything right, that should alarm us all. I welcome the Scottish Government’s recognition of the crisis through their £2 million emergency package for independent producers, but the industry is clear that it does not go far enough; the losses being sustained are far greater than the support on offer. Further assistance will be needed to protect Scotland’s pig sector, rural jobs and domestic food production. The UK Government must act too. Ministers should urgently convene an industry roundtable and resume regular engagement with the National Pig Association. It is concerning that no bilateral meeting has taken place since November 2024. The Government should review whether the fair dealing obligations are providing the protection that producers were promised, and farmers must not be left carrying an unfair share of commercial risk. We should also strengthen country-of-origin labelling, particularly in food service, so that consumers can support Scottish and British pork produced to high welfare and environmental standards. Finally, biosecurity must remain a priority. African swine fever poses a serious threat, and robust border controls and disease preparedness are essential for protecting food security and the rural economy. Our pig farmers are resilient and innovative. They are asking not for special treatment, but for fair markets, sensible regulation, meaningful engagement and support proportionate to the crisis. I hope the Minister will listen and act.
- Hansard source
Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this key debate. The vital question on “Desert Island Discs” is not what luxury a person desires or which tune they would save from the waves; it is how they would cope on their own. Although we all enjoy a bit of peace and quiet now and then, we are in the end social animals, which is why isolation and loneliness, grinding day in and day out, is such torture. The Scottish household survey says that roughly one in four people suffer loneliness, with 16 to 24-year-olds and over-75s disproportionately affected. Coastal areas such as my Dumfries and Galloway constituency have many remote and rural communities, which is, in itself, a problem. A person who has £10 in their pocket in a city can do something with it; they can go somewhere or see a friend. But £10 up an isolated farm track is of little use at all. The reasons for isolation are myriad. People living longer is of course a good thing, but the harsh reality is that one half of a couple is likely to outlive the other. Although the 2022 Scottish census was utterly botched by the SNP, it indicated that single-person households were the most common, accounting for about 37.1% of all homes. Places such as pubs, which were once the wellsprings of communities, are closing in droves. Rural deprivation, especially in coastal areas, where communities are fragile because of a lack of employment and critical infrastructure, is all too real. Coastal areas are beautiful, none more so than Dumfries and Galloway, with its rocky cliffs, secluded bays, unspoilt empty beaches and rolling gentle hills, but we cannot eat the scenery or have a chat with the big sky overhead. Loneliness needs to be seen for what it is: a public health issue. Rural people, by nature, have to be resilient and self-reliant, and the fact is that no Government can do everything. I must mention the charity A Listening Ear, which in my community, movingly, has a programme called “No One Dies Alone”. That outreach is compassionate and vital, and it is critical that communities work together to tackle loneliness.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Metal prices being what they are, if we were to take the amount of brass neck on show here today and melt it down, we could fund defence properly. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the ship of state will sail on regardless throughout the summer, but my constituents want to know whose hand is on the tiller and what course will be set. Is that so unreasonable? If Manchesterism is so fantastic, why can the right hon. Member for Makerfield not come here and tell us all about it?
- Hansard source
UK-Switzerland Enhanced Free Trade Agreement
As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, it is a delight to see the fruits of Brexit being brought home. Will the Minister confirm that the deal is not contingent on us taking Swiss courts as being superior to our own? We are not aligning with their rules on angular chocolate, for instance, and I know that the Swiss do not have a large fishing fleet, so there is no impact on our fishing waters. I am struggling to understand why we are bold with this deal, but so supine when it comes to the EU.
- Hansard source
Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation
I congratulate the hon. Member, my neighbour, on securing this debate, which is important not only for us on the Isle of Wight, but for so many MPs, hence the wonderful turnout in the Chamber today. In particular, I thank him for highlighting our issues with ferries. I am sure he would agree that it is not just the price we all pay to get back and forth, but the whole impact on our local economy. That is a message we really need to get across, and use the opportunity of a new Prime Minister to do so.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
This is a total humiliation and embarrassment for the Government. Yesterday they published an emergency change to Government business in order to ram the Hillsborough law through this House, with no notice and an absolute minimum of scrutiny. Now they have backtracked again on their own business and cancelled the Opposition day that they themselves had scheduled. Why is that? Let me read the motion that caused so much consternation in the Whips Office and in No. 10: “That this House calls on the Government to bring forward a motion to change the date it adjourns to Monday 20 July to enable the new Prime Minister to make a statement about his plans for Government.” In other words, the Government changed the business and refused to delay the activity of this House by even one day to permit the Prime Minister, as he will be, to make a statement and to answer questions about his intentions and plans. The Government have a majority of more than 150, but they could not trust their MPs to vote the right way on that motion and they could not bear the idea of a new Prime Minister facing any scrutiny before September. Let me remind us all that that Prime Minister has been chosen by a coronation, not a contest, with no known platform, almost no known policies and no idea of his priorities or his Cabinet team. The Government pushed us to take an Opposition day tomorrow, but they cannot bear the scrutiny, and now they are cancelling it. To do so by hiding—thoroughly distastefully, I am afraid—under the very distressing news of what is happening in Iran, when a Minister could have made a statement today or tomorrow on that issue, is completely disreputable. The Government are not even cancelling the Opposition day for legislation. They could have kept the day for the Representation of the People Bill, but they are cancelling it for a general debate, with no votes. This is the worst possible exit for a Prime Minister—it is a desperate attempt to create a legacy, as though that could alter two solid years of failure—and the worst possible start for a new Prime Minister. People across this country will see what has happened, and they will conclude that this is a man who is frit, running scared of public scrutiny before he can even take office.