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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Torbay hospital is the third oldest estate that celebrates being part of the NHS. In heatwave conditions, the tower block is like an oven and that has a massive impact on patients, staff and even equipment. Does the Minister think it is time to acknowledge that buildings are time-expired, and that in the light of that we need to accelerate investment in Torbay hospital?
T3. Studies show that iodine deficiencies in pregnant women can result in complications for their children, including impaired foetal growth and psychomotor development. Recent studies have shown that iodine levels among women of reproductive age in the UK are only 82 micrograms per litre, with 30% of women recording levels below 50, but World Health Organisation guidance says that pregnant women are iodine deficient if they have less than 150 micrograms. The last governmental review into iodine deficiency was in 2014. Will the Secretary of State ensure that a new review is urgently commissioned?
We have a duty to stand by the steel sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse, more jobs to be lost, or the risk of our last blast furnaces going cold. That is why the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector. I am particularly glad that the Government have accepted Liberal Democrat amendments that will require the Secretary of State to have regard to the costs of nationalisation before they table regulations to nationalise a company, as well as amendments that would ensure the consideration of environmental liabilities. Those Liberal Democrat amendments will strengthen the legislation, ensuring that these measures—and indeed the Government’s broader steel strategy—move us in the right direction to set the industry on a truly sustainable footing for the long term, while providing taxpayers with real value for money. Lords amendments 2 and 3 ensure that if the Secretary of State is to exercise the principal transfer power, the Government must consider the expected cost to the taxpayer. That is important not only for business and industry to have certainty over the nationalisation process, but for taxpayers, who need to know that their money is not being wasted or paid to foreign owners who will leave our industries high and dry. I am glad that the Government have also agreed to Liberal Democrat amendments that will strengthen the treatment of environmental liabilities in relation to the steel undertaking and ensure that they are explicitly identified and accounted for before compensation payments are made. On top of those legislative concessions, we are glad that the Government accepted other Liberal Democrat calls, including holding a debate in each House within 12 months of Royal Assent and requiring any future chair of a nationalised company to appear before the Business and Trade Committee. Those significant improvements to the legislation promote parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. We also welcome the Government’s having listened to Liberal Democrat peers and introduction of written ministerial statements on the day of acquisition, which will be repeated every three months until we reach a year from nationalisation. Again, that change boosts transparency, enabling Parliament to scrutinise the measures’ impact on local communities and jobs. Lastly, we are glad that the Government adopted Liberal Democrat proposals to strengthen the UK Steel Council and its role in facilitating nationalisation within the context of the steel strategy. Steel is a vital sector, bringing far-reaching benefits across the UK. It provides key materials for our national infrastructure from defence to renewable energy, and creates thousands of good jobs across the UK. The Liberal Democrats welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect British steel, backing a key plank of our critical national infrastructure. I am glad that the Government have worked constructively with the Liberal Democrats and that Ministers have adopted many of our proposals to improve transparency and accountability around the financial and environmental costs of any forthcoming measures. We will continue to constructively scrutinise the Government as they put these new measures in force to ensure that steel producers, local jobs and British taxpayers are properly supported and treated fairly.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate on our coastal communities, which are so often forgotten. Those of us who represent coastal communities like Honiton and Sidmouth can sometimes forget that we represent such a beautiful, stunning part of the world. Sometimes it is only on a Friday or Saturday, when my mind is here or on work, that I drive over a horizon and see the sea and am reminded what a beautiful place it is. But coastal communities often contain pockets of hidden deprivation. In particular, they are susceptible to low social mobility, which is what I want to spend a couple of minutes speaking about. The latest report by the South-West Social Mobility Commission highlights a paradox: the south-west region performs really well on some measures, such as employment and economic participation, but it is one of the weakest in England educationally for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. If we want there to be stronger local economies, higher productivity and better-paid jobs, we need a pipeline of young people with the skills, qualifications and opportunities to access them. The south-west peninsula has some fantastic opportunities for the economy and for the UK as a whole. Our agrifood, our defence industries and our clean energy are second to none. Yet the South-West Social Mobility Commission found that just 41% of pupils eligible for free school meals in the south-west achieved the expected standards in reading, writing and maths at age 11—the lowest level of any region in England. By the age of 19, only 30% of those eligible for free school meals achieved a level 3 qualification. Too often, ambitious young people are faced with a choice: stay in the community that they have grown up in and that they love or leave in search of better-paid and more varied career opportunities. That could be different. If we really value our coastal communities and the economic opportunities that they offer, we can set regions such as the south-west alight.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. There is a version of coastal communities that we like to tell ourselves, of chocolate-box fishing villages and tight-knit communities where people look out for one another, and there is certainly truth in that. In Tiverton and Minehead, I represent one and I see it. We talk of coastal areas being at the end of the line, but there is no line for west Somerset. It is a cul-de-sac. The west part of my constituency, for all its natural beauty, suffers from the lowest social mobility in the country, and it ranks among the poorest travel times to employment, at the 96th percentile. Education and employment opportunities for those living along the coast are so limited that teenagers are catching a bus at 6 o’clock in the morning, with a two-hour journey each way, just to reach the further education courses they need. It is a material hit to a young person’s aspirations, forcing them to compromise before they have even started and putting them at a direct disadvantage to their peers elsewhere. It creates a profound poverty of aspiration and ambition, brought about by an environment that tells people they have been forgotten. That is why my party has consistently called on the Government to apply a fair funding formula that properly takes into account the realities of coastal and rural life for education, travel, health and much more. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), much of whose political brand rests on regional empowerment, might turn his attention to the south-west as he closes in on No. 10, because the coastal and rural premium is real and is felt acutely. Over the last few months, my office has produced a report into dementia in Tiverton and Minehead. Isolation and loneliness ran through it as a constant, unrelenting theme, not as one issue among many, but as the backdrop against which everything else is experienced. This year alone, the west Somerset coastal area has lost dental services, its post office, hospital scanning equipment and its local citizens advice bureau. They are services that young and old alike depend on, and one by one they are disappearing. Devolution in Tiverton and Minehead means meaningful evolution to prosperity, opportunity and a better future for all my constituents.
I hear what the Minister says; as a lifelong Liberal, I personally found those years extremely difficult. That said, rurality is not taken into account when the Government give out money for local areas. Accounting for rurality and remoteness in local government funding outcomes would make a massive difference to my constituency and others.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for introducing this important debate. The reports this week have been horrifying. That thousands may have died in this heat shows how ill-equipped we are as a country to deal with this kind of weather. I represent the rural and coastal constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, with a disproportionately elderly population, and the underlying health inequalities that often go with an area of its character. When the heat comes, my constituents are among the first to suffer and the least equipped to cope. I wish to highlight plainly where preparedness has failed them. In part of my constituency, not only has this period not been managed, it has been completely mismanaged. Some children cooling off in the River Exe on hot summer’s day, as any of us would want to, fell ill because of an alleged discharge into the river. The children’s father kayaked up the river later yesterday evening and reports encountering a pungent sewage odour in the vicinity of one of Tiverton’s sewage treatment work sites. He witnessed what appeared to be active discharge, which the company’s tracker failed to reflect, because it had not been updated. A monitoring system that does not monitor is worse than useless; it is a fig leaf. There is a hosepipe ban, although the company had months of warning. A wet start to the year gave way to weeks of record heat that was forecast and foreseeable. Yet, when the pressure came, South West Water was not ready. The imposition of the ban is on mid-Devon and parts of east Devon but nowhere else in the region. My constituents want to know why they alone are paying the price of a company’s failure to plan. Where was the investment? Where was the foresight? That is not bad luck, it is dereliction of duty. It is hard to shake the distinct impression that to South West Water stakeholders come a distant second behind shareholder interests, which is unacceptable. The consequences go beyond garden hoses. At a slaughter site in Willand, water pressure was cut to a quarter of its normal levels, leading to an unfolding animal welfare crisis. It posed a potential public health risk, as a site that cannot access adequate water cannot maintain hygiene standards. As the MP for the area, it took me five phone calls yesterday before someone from South West Water picked up the phone. I found the lack of urgency and concern to be outstanding. I am assured that some water pressure has now been restored, but this is on a cliff edge, and major welfare issues remain a concern. Despite what I heard from its new chief executive in a breakfast meeting just a few weeks ago, it seems as though South West Water has not learned any lessons. Finally, heat preparedness is also as much about the everyday infrastructure that people rely on. Buses, in particular, are used disproportionately by elderly residents, the very group most at risk of heatstroke. Too many buses still lack adequate air-conditioning. That has to be part of the preparedness conversation. This heat will come again and again. We need a system and the infrastructure that meets it head on and corporate entities that put people first, not profit.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this timely debate. As Britain experiences yet another summer of extreme heat, we cannot ignore the fact that the UK was built for a climate that no longer exists, as we have heard from all hon. Members here today. Climate change is not a distant threat; it is here today. Minister, it is an issue of national security. It affects our constituents, damages our economy and, increasingly, costs lives. On our current trajectory, average summer temperatures in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire could rise by more than 4°C. Days above 30°C are expected to increase six-fold, while summer rainfall could fall by more than a fifth. Those are just statistics, but like others I have heard stories of children struggling to learn in overheated classrooms, older people becoming dangerously ill in care homes, critical incidents in our hospitals, farmers facing drought and water shortages, and communities and wildlife under threat from wildfires, yet despite these growing risks the Climate Change Committee has concluded that the Government’s approach to climate adaptation is clearly not working and we are woefully unprepared. Can the Minister confirm that the Treasury has now accepted the forecast of 2°C warming by 2050, and, if we now have an agreed forecast, whether each Department is doing what it should be doing and setting adaptation goals, given we can now model what that means for every sector? Preparing for increasing climate impacts must be seen as an issue of national security and resilience. The Liberal Democrats are calling for adequate cooling to be installed in all NHS hospitals, care homes and schools in high-risk areas in the next five years, and for work with local authorities and mayors to create a network of air-conditioned cool hubs for vulnerable people. We also agree that we should have maximum workplace temperatures, as many of our European neighbours already have; increase green space and plant more trees to cool our towns and cities; and support households to insulate their homes and install heat pumps that can provide both efficient heating in winter and cooling in summer. Without greater resilience, the foundations needed for our UK security will struggle to function, but we have all the answers in our hands. That is the message of the multiple people’s emergency briefings that the South Cambridgeshire climate and nature group arranged across my constituency and which I have attended, and which have happened across the country. Does the Minister support the call for a Government-backed, televised national emergency briefing? People deserve the facts, and they need and want to be better prepared.
Just before the debate, we hosted a solar-powered ice cream van from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) in Speaker’s Court. Given the heat, it was very nourishing, and it was lovely that the Doorkeepers and those who work with Mr Speaker were able to come out and have some. It was fantastic to see Electrify Britain’s campaign to get bills down while we reduce emissions, and Styles Ice Cream’s fully solar-powered ice cream production and ice cream vans gave everybody a bit of comfort.
I presume that we are talking about degrees of warming. I want to confirm that we are looking at going beyond—keeping warming below 1.5°C, and that 2°C is not a minimum but a forecast that we would not like to see but is probably happening. If we do not do more, it will rise by 4°C by the end of the century.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, and I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing a debate on this very important topic. His wide-ranging speech highlighted the worsening climate outlook that we face; the impacts on physical health, mental health and sleep of the extreme heatwaves we have recently been suffering; and important issues about water storage. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly highlighted the impact that extreme heatwaves have on people with lower incomes, who may not be able to go and buy air-conditioning units and so on. As well as highlighting the mitigation of putting ice lollies in the freezer, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the impact on the elderly population in older, rural properties. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) added to her comments in last night’s Adjournment debate about the importance of embodied carbon in buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) joined a number of hon. Members in highlighting the failures of water companies—South West Water’s failings in her case—and the need to improve the reliability of water supply. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) highlighted the fact that Department for Education guidance has focused on open windows. I will come on to whether opening windows helps, after some experimentation that I have done in my own house as to how to deal with this. The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) rightly highlighted the fact we have had long-term knowledge of climate change and we have collectively, as a human species, failed to take decisive action thus far. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) talked about the impact of learning. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) talked with her customary passion and expertise on this topic. She said that the impact of climate change is here today and that it should be considered a national security issue. We Liberal Democrats share the concerns of hon. Members in this Chamber. We are acutely aware of the serious public health threat posed by heatwaves, particularly to those with underlying health conditions, residents of care homes and people living in temporary accommodation. Back in summer 2023, an estimated 2,295 deaths were associated with five periods of heat. This year so far, more than 2,700 people may have died from heat-related causes in England and Wales, as suggested by expert estimates. We have also seen wildfires. Very tragically, a wildfire led to the deaths of British citizens in Almeria in Spain, but I have also had fires locally in the Astons and West Challow in my constituency, although thankfully they have not led to fatalities. My constituency has also faced the challenge of hot school buildings. At recent school visits, I have felt this for myself—for example, at the Stanford in the Vale Church of England primary school but also at Aureus secondary school, despite that building not even being a decade old. That shows how we continue to not get these things right. I have attended a community national emergency briefing in Wallingford, and there has also been one in Didcot. That shows there is rising popular concern about these topics and that we need to take more action. Let us think about this issue through three categories. First, what can we do to prevent the root cause? Secondly, what can we do to mitigate it? Thirdly, what coping measures do we have in place? On prevention, I feel very strongly, as do several other hon. Members, that we cannot keep shunting carbon emission reductions down the road. We have made progress in a number of areas in the United Kingdom but there is a lot more to be done. Globally, the same issue applies: when we are confronted with a choice between making further and faster progress on reducing carbon emissions and other factors, it is often the other factors that win out. Progress has been pretty stagnant on introducing electric vehicles and adapting our infrastructure, and the UK’s hopeless record on rail electrification, including under this Government, and on industrial production needs lots of attention. That is before we even think about rainforest loss and the destruction of nature both here and elsewhere. That is why we, as politicians who care about these topics, must tackle net zero scepticism head on. We are directly seeing the impacts of climate change now, and we will spend far more money if we focus solely on mitigation—which, alas, we need to do because of our lack of progress—rather than on tackling the root causes of carbon emissions. The second theme is mitigation. Building design is important. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire made embodied carbon in buildings the focus of her Adjournment debate last night, and we can also learn how to design our buildings better so that they are resilient for the future. We know from some of the buildings here on the parliamentary estate what a long way we have to go: elements of the Palace can be very cool, but Portcullis House is hardly a triumph of modern building design, given that the atrium—and frankly every room in that place—is a greenhouse. I am personally delighted not to have won a room in Portcullis House in the ballot. I am happy to be in Derby Gate where the air-con actually works—for half of it anyway, but that is another story. It is not right that so many people are left to endure dangerously high temperatures in poorly insulated homes and buildings. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, beginning with free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households, while ensuring that all new homes are built to zero-carbon standards. That builds on our recent success of getting the Government to commit to putting rooftop solar on all new builds, which was encouraged by the sunshine Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). When we are dealing with heat pump scepticism, it is important to remember that heat pumps have the capability to provide air-con in summer. Successive Governments have comprehensively failed to take climate adaptation measures seriously, guaranteeing misery for people and communities affected by heat stress, as well as flooding and wildfires. That is why we would prioritise protecting communities by implementing a comprehensive UK adaptation strategy, embedding climate resilience into decision making across all Government Departments and agencies—rather than the current siloed approach—to prevent problems before they happen. We would deliver adequate funding to local communities to empower them to combat flooding, drought and heatwaves, including through nature-based flood management, sustainable drainage, water supply enhancement, building retrofits and urban greening, backed by stronger planning and regulatory frameworks. People continue to ignore the evidence that even simple solutions, such as more trees and more shade in urban areas, can make an enormous difference to our ability to withstand heatwaves. The Liberal Democrats would develop resilience standards for the energy, water, transport and telecommunications sectors, and support homeowners to install proactive adaptation measures against flooding and overheating. We also believe that no one should be expected to work in unacceptably high temperatures, and we support the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation to introduce a statutory maximum workplace temperature. The third theme is coping measures, and cool hubs are our policy solution. They would be rather like warm hubs with areas of heating, which are popular in Ukraine in winter when Russia attacks infrastructure, but they are the summer equivalent. Community spaces with air-conditioning, such as gyms, leisure centres and libraries, could provide much-needed respite from soaring temperatures in summer months, following similar “cool bank” schemes in other countries. We need to do more to make our transport networks resilient. We need to consider whether our current rail stress temperatures need to be increased, given a much wider range of temperatures and much hotter summers. The more modern railway electrification that we have in this country is much more resilient than older equipment installed in past decades. Melting tarmac can be an issue for roads and aviation. Public health advice and information will be more and more important. We need to ensure that people understand good practice for keeping houses cool. I have realised from contributions to the Didcot community Facebook group that I have been doing this all wrong and that, actually, having the windows open often does not help. Somebody said, “You’re such idiots for opening your windows. Keep them closed when it’s hot.” I have tried that and, I have to say, it is a lot better. Perhaps that exposes my embarrassing lack of understanding of science, but it shows that we can do a lot more to help people to reach the best conclusions for their own houses. Finally, we need a public information campaign on what we can all do to prevent fires and reduce the risk, particularly in the countryside where we should not be smoking, vaping or having barbecues in areas that have been subject to drought and are at much higher risk. This is clearly a very challenging topic, and one that needs action across Government Departments. For that reason, I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need Thames Water to go into special measures, so that it can invest in infrastructure? In my constituency, Thames Water has closed a road for three weeks in Horsell because it has not invested, and it dumped over 1,115 hours-worth of sewage last year into our River Wey. That lack of investment is why we need what he is calling for today.
The Liberal Democrats want a closer, more sensible relationship with our European friends and neighbours, so there is plenty to welcome here. I congratulate the Minister and his team on being able to secure some of the things we see today. Scrapping mobile roaming charges—charges that had to be changed when we left the European Union—will significantly boost support for consumers and the small businesses who trade across Europe. The Minister is aware that the European Union is our biggest single trading partner in services. Some 37% of our services trade is with the EU, so repairing our relationship with the EU is the biggest single thing we can do to boost trade in our financial and professional services. I know the Minister agrees: when he was in front of the Select Committee recently, he told colleagues that if he had the choice, he would rejoin the European Union. It is disappointing that the Government have not moved more on the European Union and followed the Liberal Democrats’ plan for a defence and growth partnership, cutting the red tape and barriers that British businesses face. According to TheCityUK, exports of financial services have declined by 5.9% since 2019, at least in part due to Brexit frictions. I would like to ask the Minister a specific question in relation to e-gates. We welcome the news about the changes to e-gates but, given the serious risk of disruption with the entry and exit systems, will he tell the House when our constituents can expect the same clarity and certainty for airports across the European Union, so that we can really make a positive change?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this debate on a fantastic subject. What I am about to say is specific to the highlands and Scotland, but it is relevant, to a lesser extent, to all hon. Members in the Chamber. I have written a brilliant report called “Remote Scotland: Spiralling towards Unviability?”—I imagine everyone will be scrambling for a copy after the debate. It is about education; childcare; health and social care; energy demographics; centralisation; housing; work and economy; transport; and digital connectivity—all subjects that have been covered in this debate. Isolation comes as a result of many of the issues that I will point out, and deprivation, as has been mentioned, is much less obvious in a small, pretty croft house on the lochside than in a deprived inner-city housing estate. An 82-year-old widow in Gairloch wrote me to say that she is living in her croft house in the winter and paying as much to heat it as she receives in her state pension of £182 per week. There is no daily bus to the town, she does not have a car, her carer comes intermittently and her daughter lives near Glasgow. She is both isolated and deprived. I will focus on four things. Being part of the EU was extremely important for remote areas. They received funding commensurate with the additional costs of delivering infrastructure and services across a remote, dispersed and sparsely populated area. A week before his election, Boris Johnson promised that not a penny of funding for rural areas would be lost as a result of Brexit. That money funded skills training, community projects and infrastructure, including roads and bridges. Between 2000 and 2018, EU structural funds contributed €1.2 billion to the highlands and islands, while in the past three years, the UK shared prosperity fund contributed £9.4 million to the highlands and islands—that shows the disparity. Boris Johnson’s Government broke his promise immediately, and the Labour Government have not replaced the shortfall. Centralisation of services in the UK, and in Scotland in particular, has seen powers move from councils back to Whitehall and Holyrood. In the highlands, powers and funding have also been moved back to Inverness city, at the expense of Wester Ross, Skye, Caithness, Sutherland and Lochaber. Capital investments, such as city deals, have been hogged by cities. In January 2024—before I joined it—the Scottish Affairs Committee produced a report showing that the cost of living premium in remote Scotland was up to 30% higher than in urban Scotland. As hon. Members will know, mains gas is really available only in towns and cities, at 7p per kilowatt. Those in rural areas pay for electricity, which costs 26p per kilowatt—four times as much—to heat their houses. Food costs a great deal more in rural shops than in supermarkets. Of course, the distances to central services such as banks, doctors and medical centres are far greater. The rest of the UK has not had the renewables boom. Scotland has, except that has produced very few local jobs, little legacy housing and minimal community benefit. It is not a boom. Scotland as a whole received only £30 million of community benefit in 2025, and the highlands, which are covered in wind farms, got only £7 million. Westminster could have legislated for community benefits at any time over the last 20 years, but it did not. Rural Britain will be generating electricity for urban Britain, but at the moment there is precious little in it for rural communities. We have a major demographic crisis; it has come up in debates before. In primary and secondary schools all the way up the west coast, the school roll has dropped by 50%. The school in Portree on the Isle of Skye was built less than 20 years ago for 1,000 children, but fewer than 500 children go to it. The small schools do not get science, technology, engineering and mathematics coverage; they do not get the physics, mathematics or computing teaching that the big urban schools get. That means that parents with children who are gifted in those subjects move into the cities, so there is a downward spiral at those schools. The University of the Highlands and Islands is a brilliant concept, but, again, it does not teach science, technology, engineering and maths in Fort William or Portree, say. Our kids leave—they go to Inverness or Glasgow, never to return—so we have a greatly ageing population. The highlands has seen a 71% increase in the number of over-75s, and that is set to increase by a further 34% in the next five years. We have had an 18% fall in the number of care homes, despite the rising number of elderly people; there are only 45 care beds in Skye for a population of 10,000. NHS Highland is paying £77,000 a day for delayed discharges. In short, people in rural coastal communities earn less money. Their housing, food, heating and fuel for their vehicles cost more, and public transport costs more because of the distances. They have less access to public services, find it harder to access equivalent education, and their young leave. When they need care as elderly people, it is often not available, and if it is, it is more expensive. Remote Scotland is spiralling towards being unviable, and neither the Westminster Government nor the Holyrood Government are stepping forward to support it.
After close inspection of the detail on Pride in Place, we found that 50% of the evaluation was based on data that was not available even to MPs. We could not understand in any way how the distribution of that money was decided, and it completely avoided what many of us thought were relevant data.
Might the Minister comment briefly on the Government’s approach to water? In the recent heatwaves, South East Water reported that water usage went up by 15% because people were taking extra showers and so on. She will know that South East Water has had huge problems with resilience in the network; that pushed it right to the brink. What are the Government doing to get a grip on this so that we build in resilience to areas such as Kent, which will be in a water deficit by the end of 2027?
We actually have examples of water companies lying. We had South East Water coming to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in January and giving false evidence—so much so that the Chair considered bringing it back for being in contempt of Parliament.
We have a similar problem with South East Water, which is probably the second-worst water company in the United Kingdom after Thames Water. With South East Water, too, this Labour Government have been too timid. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government, by acting, or not acting, in the way that they are, they are privileging shareholders over consumers?
Does the Minister think that the Secretary of State exercised those duties well when, under the Blair Government, Macquarie was allowed to come into Thames Water and South East Water and asset strip those companies?
My constituent Gary is one of the victims of the infected blood scandal. He was a pupil at Treloar’s College, and 120 boys from Treloar’s were given contaminated blood. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those boys who have fought so hard for justice, and does she agree that it has taken far too long?
The hon. Member is giving a very powerful speech. Water shortage is a very big issue for our farmers as well. At the moment, it is extremely difficult for a farmer to get planning permission for a small on-farm reservoir. It is a big investment for the farmer, so it is a big deal that it takes so long. We really need to make that process easier because food security is as important as energy security or any of the other issues.
I represent Horsham, an adjacent constituency, and very much experience the same problems, so the issue is not rare. I have many cabin crew in my area who say the same thing. One of the people affected is trying to get leave to remain, but the visa application is made extremely complicated by going back and forth out of the country, so I very much support the hon. Member and emphasise to the Minister that it is not a small problem.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. Time and again, everybody in this debate has come back to the word “community”, and I believe that coastal communities do it like nobody else. Although my Chichester constituency is affluent, that affluence often means that funding does not make it to the pockets of deprivation that are present, especially those on my coast. People look at somewhere like Chichester and say, “They don’t need the support,” so those communities are far more likely to fall between the cracks. I represent the coastal communities of Pagham, the Witterings and Selsey. Selsey translates directly to “seal island”, because even though it is part of the mainland, there is one road in and out, so if there is an accident on that road, it is literally an island. The people there do community like nobody else. When I think of Selsey, I think of the Selsey Care Shop, the Selsey Venture Club, the Selsey Beach Litter Ninjas and the Selsey Sea Bathing Society. All those charitable organisations and communities come together to support each other in tackling poverty in the area, as well as the isolation and loneliness. The other thing that happens in Selsey is that the population doubles during the summer, because of all the holidaymakers who come to enjoy our beautiful coastline. Despite that doubling of its population, Selsey does not receive extra police officers to patrol the streets or extra support for an ambulance service, and there are not suddenly fewer cars on the road in Selsey. No extra resource comes in and no extra infrastructure is provided. Instead, it is the community that ends up stepping up and providing support. When we think about isolation and hidden deprivation within our coastal communities, I have to say that I see those things all the time in places such as Selsey. I am grateful that we have amazing charitable organisations that help the people affected and try to fix the problems where so often statutory services have failed.
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that chairs of inquiries and inquests already have the power to hold closed sessions in private if they are looking at information that is sensitive or potentially poses a risk to our national security? That already exists, and the measures in the Bill do not impact that at all—it is already done on a daily basis in inquiries.
I wish to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name on behalf of my party. Up and down the country, those who have been failed by state institutions, unheard and ignored for years, will today be relieved that this hurdle has been cleared and the Hillsborough law can finally progress. I pay tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are with us in the Gallery, for their courage and perseverance through years of campaigning, and for never saying, “That’ll do”, and instead making sure that the Hillsborough law was delivered in full. This is known affectionately as the Hillsborough law, but it represents many victims and their loved ones. Be it the Post Office scandal, the Manchester Arena attack, the contaminated blood scandal, Grenfell Tower, nuclear weapons testing veterans, the pelvic mesh scandal, LGBT veterans, or any of the many others, those individuals have stood up for the voiceless and demanded change. These are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods, or suffered life-changing injuries.
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, and she is right to highlight how long it has taken to get here. I commend the Government for ensuring that we eventually got to this point. These scandals have been uncovered despite the best efforts of public institutions to keep them buried. Institutions that should have been transparent and accountable instead used public money to protect their reputations and deflect blame. Every single victim deserved better. The efforts of campaigners are what have brought us to the point at which we can begin to level the playing field and address the imbalance between the power of the state and that of the ordinary individual. That is why we Liberal Democrats have, at every stage, welcomed the provisions in the Bill, but it was clear at the beginning of this year that there were major gaps in relation to the carve-out for the security services that needed to be addressed. Campaigners rightly pointed to the role that the intelligence services have played in the past in covering up mistakes and failing to take accountability. Last week there were reports that MI5 had lied in court about Agent X, who had violently abused his partner. Likewise, last year we had the Stakeknife inquiry—Operation Kenova—which raised serious questions about the running of, and collusion with, British informants, while once again highlighting the immense difficulties of obtaining information from the security services. It is clear that these organisations have at times suffered from the same protectionist, inward-looking faults that other public organisations have suffered from. It would have been completely unacceptable for there to have been a carve-out, especially considering that mechanisms already exist to allow for information with national security implications to be heard behind closed doors. The breakthrough announced over the weekend is welcomed by the Liberal Democrats and will come as a relief to all those wanting to see this Bill progress. I commend Members on the Government Front Bench who secured it, and those no longer there, particularly the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who worked so hard to get the legislation to the place it is today. I know from her contributions in debates, her willingness and openness to meet me and Liberal Democrat colleagues to hear our concerns, and her engagement with campaign organisations and families, that she has fought to deliver the Hillsborough law as it was intended by those involved in the campaign. The Bill Committee took place eight months ago, so it was fun going through all the notes to remind myself exactly what was said. I pay tribute to hon. Members from across the House who scrutinised the legislation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I know they sought to ensure that victims and their loved ones remained at the centre of the Bill and that their concerns regarding the drafting were heard. We have worked alongside them to ensure that no stone has been left unturned in seeking to secure the best possible outcomes in this legislation. Our amendments are all aimed at tightening the gaps that we can see in the legislation. First, there is the importance of whistleblowers, who, in many of the tragedies mentioned today, have provided vital information at great personal risk for the public good. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger whistleblowing protections to ensure that wrongdoing within organisations and public bodies is swiftly exposed and brought to justice. Amendment 3 ensures that public authorities involved in an inquiry or investigation demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure that individuals can safely disclose information relevant to that investigation. Amendment 6 would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information about to whom a person can make a protected disclosure and how that person will be protected. The Minister talked about additional guidance being provided with the legislation, so will she, when she sums up, set out whether there will be an expectation that that will include how to make a protected disclosure? We would have liked this Bill to go further on whistleblower protection, but much of what we proposed was considered out of scope for the Bill. I urge the Government and the new Administration to look more widely at what can be done to protect those who attempt to expose wrongdoing in the future. A statutory duty of candour in the NHS has existed since 2014, yet we know that there remains a culture of retiring or firing staff who dare to speak up. Our new clause 2 would create an offence for anyone who wilfully destroys relevant records after a major incident that could lead to an inquest or inquiry. New clause 3 is aimed at providing a national oversight mechanism through the publication of an annual independent report on compliance with the Act, as has been mentioned multiple times already in the debate. Many hon. Members spoke of the need to have an overnight mechanism, and similar amendments have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). Amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that the legislation is fully up to date with modern investigations by making it clear that digital messages must be provided as evidence to investigations. The Bill includes provisions for the inclusion of subcontractors under the duty of candour, but we do not believe that they go far enough. Amendment 4 would therefore extend those provisions to all subcontractors throughout the chain of provision. We need only look at the way local authorities subcontract to understand that most working within the public sector are subcontractors of subcontractors of subcontractors. We believe that the scope needs to be extended to include those. The extension of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests is also long overdue and greatly needed. For too long the system has been weighted against ordinary people seeking justice. Those attempting to bring these scandals to light have faced well-resourced and highly motivated public bodies intent on protecting their reputations, but we do not believe that the provisions go far enough and we will be seeking to amend them in the other place. Amendments 11 and 12 would ensure that public officials do not escape their responsibilities when they cease to hold public office, and that they remain accountable for their actions even if they have since resigned, retired or been shuffled out.
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate. I want to speak up for Ilfracombe in particular, and the challenges that will be familiar to coastal communities everywhere. Devon county council has identified Ilfracombe as one of the most vulnerable towns in Devon. Its remote location leaves it badly cut off from wider public services, economic opportunities and emergency intervention. That pattern will be all too familiar for those in this room. What I can never accept are shameless articles, such as the one recently published in a national tabloid newspaper that I will not name, punching down at Ilfracombe. Trashing a small town’s reputation for clicks is not journalism; it is monetising misery and it is not fit for tomorrow’s fish and chip paper. I have spoken with local business owners who pour their hearts and souls out into Ilfracombe trying to make things better, and the very last thing that they need is a hatchet job in the national press. Just yesterday, it was reported that a local teenager, Bradley Blackmore, bravely rescued another boy from drowning. Well done, Bradley. Ilfracombe can boast award-winning manufacturing businesses and several promising new housing schemes supported by North Devon council and the Ilfracombe Community Land Trust, delivering safer social housing for local people. Every year, crowds flock to Ilfracombe for the maritime festival. This August, a daring soapbox derby will again raise thousands for charity, and I am proud to say that Ilfracombe has just been shortlisted for the first ever UK town of culture awards, one of only 15 towns in the country on the list. I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider re-inventing the coastal communities fund or coastal revival fund for the new generation. How should we talk about challenges without damaging the reputation of coastal towns that deserve our help? How do we deliver what the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) called “good growth in every postcode”?
The recent heatwave has also caused an increase in A&E corridor care, something that NHS emergency departments were not built to cope with—let alone the corridors. In May this year, 69,504 instances of corridor care were recorded, increasing to 72,955 in June. Corridor care is dangerous in its own right, but there have also been reports of temperatures up to 40° in British hospitals. One Surrey consultant was reported in The Guardian as saying: “This heatwave has pushed patient care into concerning territory. In the heat, corridor care has become more serious and more unsafe.” No one should be treated in an inhumane space, so will the Secretary of State consider Liberal Democrat plans to end corridor care for good and ensure that the hospital building programme is accelerated?
The NHS Resolution annual report for the year to March 2026 shows that maternity made up almost £35 billion of the £60 billion set aside for future negligence payments, and £1.3 billion—or 40%—of the total clinical negligence payments last year. The Secretary of State has promised to put in place an action plan by the end of the year, but the recommendations of Baroness Amos and Donna Ockenden have already been published. Will he accelerate implementing those national recommendations and putting in place a maternity commissioner, because mothers cannot afford to wait and neither can the taxpayer?
The hon. Member highlights infrastructure issues, which my constituents are experiencing in Epsom and Ewell. Commuters to London have faced repeated train cancellations and delays, affecting their livelihoods and businesses. Does the hon. Member agree that it is really important that we improve the resilience of transport infrastructure so that people can continue to go about their daily lives and go to work, and that businesses can continue to function?
I start by paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have got us to this point, and to the many hon. Members across the House who have shared personal testimonies and those of their constituents from many different disasters, including Hillsborough. If the House will allow me, I will change the context of the debate a tiny bit and talk about amendment 149, tabled in my name, which seeks to include water companies in the scope of the code of conduct and duty of candour.The amendment has been sponsored by 33 Members from across the House. Under the Bill, privately owned water companies do not have to follow the same code of conduct as publicly owned water companies in Scotland or Northern Ireland, which is absurd. Although privately owned water companies operate under the Water Industry Act 1991 and are designated as statutory undertakers, they exercise public functions of fundamental importance to health, the environment and daily life; they hold exclusive regional monopolies, meaning that consumers have no alternative provider; and they benefit from statutory powers and privileges normally associated with public authorities.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have seen docudramas such as “Dirty Business”, in which water companies have sought to evade scrutiny. This amendment would correct that anomaly. The companies are supposed to perform the same public functions with the same public impact, but without the discipline of market competition. In the Bill, publicly owned water companies such as those that exist outside of England and Wales must follow standards of ethical conduct, including following the principles of integrity, accountability and openness. They must adopt a code that sets the standards expected for those who work at the authority, and make people aware of the consequences of failing to act in accordance with it. There must be a clear way for people not working at the authority to complain about their conduct. Requiring companies in England, such as Thames Water, to adopt such a code of conduct by law is one clear and immediate way the Government could reduce the problems we currently see with such companies. Constituents of mine tell me just how much they struggle to raise a complaint with Thames Water and are often ignored when they do so. They include Judy Washington, whose case I raised directly with the Prime Minister at PMQs. Time and again, we have seen Thames Water prioritise its own shareholders and debt, taking more from consumers in bills and delivering less in quality of infrastructure and water. These actions would simply not be acceptable under the code of conduct in this Bill. There would be ethical standards for these companies to follow and clear consequences for subverting these goals. By holding these companies to the same standard, we can reinforce the public interest obligations inherent in their statutory role and ensure consistent ethical standards across all providers of essential services. If the Government are serious about holding the water companies to account, they must close the loopholes that allow them again and again to escape judgment for their wrongful actions. It should not be one rule for them and another for everyone else.
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for rugby in schools. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the Chamber. Rugby is far more than 80 minutes on a Saturday afternoon: it teaches young people that success is earned collectively rather than individually; it instils discipline, respect, resilience and leadership; and it provides a place where people of every shape, size and background have a role to play. There are few sports where a prop, a scrum half and a winger can all become international stars despite having entirely different physiques, skills and strengths. Rugby’s greatest asset is not Twickenham; it is not the premiership, and it is not even the England team or the Red Roses. It is the thousands of volunteers who open the clubhouse on a cold Saturday morning, mark out the pitches before dawn, coach the under-7s, wash the kit, cook the burgers, pull the pints, organise the fixtures, referee junior matches and somehow still find time to mow the grass. Across my constituency of West Dorset, we are fortunate to have extraordinary clubs, including Bridport, Dorchester, Puddletown and Sherborne. Those clubs are about more than rugby; they are community hubs. They bring together generations: parents become coaches and grandparents become supporters. Every membership subscription paid, every burger bought after a match, every pint served in the clubhouse and every raffle ticket sold helps to keep those clubs alive. A thriving grassroots ecosystem produces world-class athletes, and world-class athletes inspire the next generation to pull on a pair of boots for the first time. But our grassroots game cannot be taken for granted. Over the last 24 years, 174 amateur clubs have disappeared. Many more are under immense financial pressure. Changing rooms are ageing, clubhouses need investment, facilities are often unsuitable for women and girls, and volunteer numbers are hard to sustain. Many clubs that once fielded six senior teams now struggle to put out two. Youth sections increasingly struggle to field full teams at the weekend. We need to support our grassroots teams by encouraging children to start rugby in the first place, and the best place to do that is schools. If we want world-class international rugby tomorrow, we must invest in grassroots and school-level rugby today. Research has found that physical activity improves classroom behaviour, attention, reading and mathematical performance. Another study found that children who consistently participated in organised sport experienced lower absenteeism, better attention, stronger memory, higher educational attainment and were more likely to progress to university. Importantly, team sport produces some of the strongest educational benefits. Rugby teaches young people to solve problems together, as well as teaching communication, leadership, decision making under pressure, discipline, trust and resilience when things inevitably go wrong. Those are precisely the skills employers tell us they struggle to find. The Confederation of British Industry found that 61% of employers were dissatisfied with young people’s resilience and self-management, while nearly one third identified poor teamwork skills. Rugby develops those qualities. It teaches young people how to win graciously, how to lose with dignity, how to lead and follow, how to respect officials even when disagreeing with a decision and, perhaps most importantly, that individual brilliance only succeeds when it serves the team.
The hon. Member must forgive that my speech is weighted towards English rugby, as he is absolutely right that the important role rugby clubs play in a community is true in all four parts of the United Kingdom. Research has now described the evidence linking organised sport with improved psychological wellbeing as compelling. Researchers found that with more physical activity they saw improved classroom behaviour and concentration, stronger social relationships, attention, readiness to learn and cognitive function, healthier body composition, improved mood, reduced stress, increased blood flow to the brain and increased oxygen delivery. There is strong evidence that physical activity is associated with lower anxiety, lower depression, better mood, greater happiness, higher self-esteem, greater life satisfaction and better body image. I could go on. We often discuss young people’s mental health in this House, and rightly so. Rural areas like West Dorset have worse access to services, and children often struggle to get the help that they need, but we should also recognise that sport is one of the most effective preventive public health interventions available to us. Children who are active are significantly more likely to become active adults, which means lower long-term healthcare costs. During the 2023-24 season alone, rugby generated over £2.03 billion in value, including £707 million through improved physical and mental health, more than £823 million of wider social value, and over £500 million in economic growth. The Rugby Football Union’s all school programme, originally established as part of the rugby world cup legacy, introduced rugby into hundreds of state secondary schools. Independent research found remarkable outcomes. 73% of participating schools reported improved confidence among pupils; 49% reported improved resilience; and nearly one third even reported improvements in academic performance. Participants themselves reported improved leadership skills, greater confidence, better behaviour, reduced stress and improved self-esteem. The Sky Sports living for sport programme has supported more than 500,000 young people to gain access to sport. More than 90% of teachers reported improvements in pupils’ confidence, self-esteem and teamwork. Teachers also reported an improvement of 71% in pupils’ attendance, 72% in academic attainment, 78% in behaviour, 83% in engagement with learning and 85% in engagement with school life. These are exactly the qualities we should want every young person to develop. They demonstrate why Government support for rugby and sport should never be viewed as just about exercise. It is also about the tangible benefits that follow. For too long, access to elite rugby in England has been dominated by a relatively small number of independent schools. Although those schools have made enormous contributions to the game and continue to develop exceptional players, the current pathway is simply too narrow and based on privilege. Talent exists in every city, town and village in this country, but opportunity does not. If English rugby is to reach its full potential, we must ensure that a child’s postcode or their parents’ income no longer determines whether they have the opportunity to excel. The numbers demonstrate the challenges and the opportunity. Independent schools educate about 7% of pupils in England, yet continue to produce a disproportionately large share of professional rugby players. That is not because talent is concentrated in one part of society; it is because access to coaching facilities, fixtures and clear development pathways often are. Independent schools are more likely to have experienced staff, and sometimes ex-professional. That means that their students have far easier access to such facilities and better opportunities to perfect their sporting skills, compared with those at many state schools. There are thousands of children attending state schools who have never picked up a rugby ball, not because they lack the ability or enthusiasm, but simply because the opportunity has never been presented to them. If we are genuinely seeking to improve England’s competitiveness on the international stage, the answer is not simply coaching the same group of players more effectively. It is finding talented young people who currently sit entirely outside the system. That is why I welcome the work being undertaken by the RFU. The All Schools programme shows what can be achieved when rugby is brought into state education. Hundreds of schools that previously had little or no rugby provision are now introducing the sport to thousands of young people. Government can play an important role by ensuring that schools have access to suitable facilities, qualified coaches and meaningful links with local community clubs. School sport should never operate in isolation. The stronger systems are those where schools, clubs and governing bodies work together. That now needs to become the norm, rather than the exception. We also need to look at a model that does not place the burden on teachers to become professional sports coaches, alongside their already demanding and vitally important jobs. We have world-class universities with outstanding sports coaching degrees. We should use that pipeline to develop a new generation of professional coaches, who can support schools, take the pressure off teachers and help build the next generation of athletes across different sports, including rugby. We should also recognise that not every young person wants or is initially able to play full-contact rugby. Providing a non-contact version of the game—the T1 rugby initiative—removes many of the barriers that might otherwise prevent young people from becoming involved. It offers an accessible introduction to rugby values, teamwork and skills, while giving participants confidence to progress if they wish. Importantly, it also enables schools with limited experience of rugby to introduce the sport safely and inclusively. One of the greatest successes in English sport over recent years has undoubtedly been the rise of the Red Roses. Their success in winning the rugby world cup and wider participation present an extraordinary opportunity to build on that momentum. When girls are inspired by watching the Red Roses, there must be somewhere local for them to play the following weekend or through the week at school. Evidence shows that children from more deprived backgrounds are less likely to participate in organised sport, despite often benefiting the most from doing so. If we genuinely believe that rugby builds confidence, resilience, leadership and teamwork, those opportunities should be available to every young person, regardless of background. Sport should never become another form of inequality. That is why partnerships between schools, local authorities and community clubs are so valuable. Community clubs already possess qualified volunteers, coaching expertise and strong local networks. Schools possess young people eager to participate. The challenge is ensuring that those two worlds connect more effectively. We should make it as easy as possible for schools to signpost pupils towards their nearest club and equally as straightforward for clubs to engage with local schools and introduce children to the game. That is particularly important in rural constituencies such as West Dorset. Our geography means that opportunities can sometimes be harder to access. Transport presents challenges, schools are more dispersed, volunteer recruitment can be more difficult. That is why clubs such as Bridport, Dorchester, Puddletown and Sherborne, continue to play such an important role in growing our game. With greater connection with local schools, they can play an even greater part. When state schools have been given the right funding and offered support, they have demonstrated exactly what is possible. A powerful example is Northampton school for boys. In the 2025-26 season, NSB achieved the historic breakthrough by winning the national schools cup, defeating Epsom college in the final, and ending a 20-year absence of state school winners. That reflects a deeply embedded and highly effective rugby programme, with 19 players currently part of Northampton Saints under-18 academy and seven players earning England under-18 international honours. Earlier in the same season, NSB also secured the SOCS Daily Mail schools trophy, becoming the first state school ever to lift that title. Taken together, those achievements represent a watershed moment for state school rugby. For decades, these competitions have been dominated by independent schools. Before NSB’s success, the last state school to win the national cup was St Peter’s high school in Gloucester in 2006. NSB has shown that when state schools are properly supported with access to coaching and facilities, integrated into local clubs and provided with clear talent pathways, they can compete at the highest levels. Their success challenges long-standing assumptions about where elite rugby talent comes from, and demonstrates that excellence exists across the entire education system when opportunity is made available. We can already see the impact of widening those pathways in the players who have reached the very top of the game. Sadia Kabeya of the Red Roses attended a state school. Ellis Genge, a British and Irish Lions player, also came through the state school system. They are outstanding examples of players who did not follow the traditional route into rugby, yet have become some of the exciting and influential figures in sport. Their success shows exactly what can be achieved when talent is given the opportunity to flourish. We must make it easier for more young people to follow that path, because when we do, the game of rugby benefits enormously from the skills, diversity and character that those players bring. Investment in changing rooms, floodlights, sports kit, state school pitches and time in children’s weeks would unlock years, if not decades, of increased participation. It would enable clubs to expand youth sections, to create better facilities for women and girls and to host schools’ disability rugby and walking rugby. Rugby contributes more than £2 billion annually to England through improved health, stronger communities and economic activity. Those benefits are felt in every constituency. Healthy young people place less pressure on the NHS. Young people engaged in sports are less likely to become isolated. Communities with thriving sports clubs tend to have stronger volunteer networks and greater civic participation. Businesses would benefit from healthier, more confident and more resilient workforces in the future. Investment in grassroots rugby and sport more widely delivers dividends across multiple Government Departments. It benefits education, health, local government and the economy. I hope Ministers will continue working closely with the RFU, schools, local authorities and community clubs to develop a genuinely long-term strategy for growing participation. We should ensure that every child has access to rugby during their education, strengthen links between schools and local clubs, and continue supporting the growth of women’s rugby. We should invest in community facilities in schools and clubs that are fit for the next generation, because every England international once pulled on an oversized shirt at their local club, every professional player began with a volunteer coach, and every packed stadium begins with a child picking up a rugby ball for the first time. If we continue investing in those first opportunities, the future of English rugby will take care of itself. Will the Minister work across Government and with governing bodies to deliver the new school sport partnerships and enrichment framework, and provide early clarity on the objectives, priorities, delivery models and timescales? Will the Government ensure that schools have the capacity, facilities and support to deliver high-quality sport, so that every child can participate, especially in deprived communities? Will they guarantee sustainable funding, sufficient staffing and strong professional development for school sport partnerships? Will the Government support investment in the wider school workforce to help deliver activities such as rugby? Will they reaffirm the importance of PE and commit to a minimum of two hours of high-quality PE each week? Will they ensure that the curriculum recognises the wider benefits of team sports? If we get this right, we will not only secure the future of English rugby across codes; we will strengthen our communities, improve the health of our nation and give every child the chance to grow, belong and thrive through sport.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this important and timely debate. Pig farming is an important part of our rural economy in West Dorset. Alongside several family-run pig farms, we are home to a large integrated producer and businesses that support local employment, veterinary services, feed supplies, agricultural engineering, haulage and food processing. We are also fortunate to have Dorset’s last remaining independent abattoir, which processes around 100 pigs a week and provides a vital local route to market for small family farms. Since August 2025, the standard pig price has fallen from around 208p per kilogram to approximately 178p. However, many independent producers have said that they are receiving far less—in some cases, only 130p to 140p per kilogram. Some farmers are losing as much as £50 on every pig they sell. That is unsustainable. Once again, it is independent farmers who have borne the greatest burden. Around half of the UK’s pig herd is owned by independent producers. If they disappear, rebuilding the capacity will take many years. We should remember that the United Kingdom is only about 58% self-sufficient in pork. We should never accept a situation where British farmers, who produce to some of the highest welfare standards anywhere in the world, are undercut by cheaper imports produced to standards that would not be permitted here. No future trade agreement should weaken UK food safety, undermine British farmers or lower our animal welfare standards. West Dorset farmers are proud of the standards they have achieved. Every farmer I have spoken to wants to see further improvements in animal welfare. I want to see, as they do, an end to farrow crates and to inhumane or distressing methods of slaughter, such as carbon dioxide stunning for pigs, through the implementation of DEFRA’s 2025 recommendations by the end of this Parliament. We should work together to prevent unnecessarily painful practices in farming, but it must be properly funded. Farmers operating on small, or in many cases, non-existent, profit margins cannot absorb further mandated changes unless they are properly funded and accompanied by practical support. One pig farmer in my constituency told me that they fully support moving towards better systems, but estimate that a realistic transition could take up to 15 years. For many family farms already carrying debt from previous reforms, unfunded regulation is not an option. If we move too quickly without proper support, we risk reducing British production and replacing it with imported pork products produced to lower welfare and food safety standards. Small and medium-sized abattoirs continue to disappear at an alarming rate, with fewer than 200 now remaining across the United Kingdom. Rising inspection costs, energy prices, waste disposal costs and increasing regulatory burdens have all contributed to their decline. For independent pig farmers in West Dorset, our local abattoir is essential infrastructure. Without it, transport distances increase, haulage costs rise and farmers lose access to local markets. Supporting local processing capacity is therefore every bit as important as supporting primary production. Farmers manage more than 70% of our land. They underpin our food security and sustain the economies of rural communities such as West Dorset. All they are asking for is fair markets, fair treatment, practical regulation, acknowledgment of all their hard work and the confidence to invest in their future.
I begin by echoing the words of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) in paying tribute to the Hillsborough campaigners. Our whole country owes them a debt, and I want to speak about that, but I want to do so in the spirit of cross-party support and working that this moment demands. I want to pay tribute personally to the Prime Minister for the work that he has done on this, having to overcome the difficulties, as we know, with the security issues. I also want to pay tribute—I hope this is not the last time—to the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is welcome back in this House. He has for many years paid a very personal role in this campaign, so it is very fitting that he is in the House tonight to see this law passed. I echo the tributes that he has paid, and that others will no doubt pay, because people have campaigned for many years for this moment. The enormous debt of gratitude we owe them for their courage, tenacity and determination is one that I hope this historic moment gives proper credit to. But let us remember, as others have said, that it is not just the Hillsborough scandal; it is Grenfell, it is Windrush, it is Horizon, it is Orgreave, it is infected blood, it is covid, it is the nuclear test veterans, and the other scandals that have been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Makerfield was right to add Primodos to the list. I hope, by the way, when he takes the office we expect him to take soon, that he will put right those scandals. We will hold him to that in a cross-party manner. There are many tragedies and scandals that have been compounded by state cover-up. This is an issue of rights between the state and individuals: victims, survivors and families having to fight for years or even decades just to expose the truth and win the justice they should have had straight away. All too often, when things have gone wrong, we have seen a tendency to cover up mistakes, to close ranks, to protect institutions and, so often, to lie. Victims and families have spent years campaigning tirelessly against a system and an establishment that have tried to find countless ways of saying no. Thanks to those campaigners, we now take a big step closer to ending that culture of cover up, ensuring that no one has to fight so long and so painfully to get truth, justice and accountability. There is more to do, and not just on the individual scandals but on the need to protect whistleblowers. That is an issue the Liberal Democrat party has raised and we want to work cross-party with the Government to ensure that we set up an independent office for whistleblowers, so that people come forward to expose scandals and ensure justice happens more quickly. Many of the people who will benefit from this law will not recognise and will not even know how hard—how painfully hard—the campaigners have had to work over so many years. It is important that we remember that. It is truly remarkable, having suffered so much pain and injustice, that they kept going. What has been achieved in the Bill is something that will change the very nature of power in our country. It will make the lives of so many people better. I thank the campaigners. I say to them, from the bottom of my heart, thank you. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this timely debate. I grew up on a sheep and beef farm, and when I was about 11 years old, I bought 13 pigs from market to take home. They became more like pets; I used to play football with them—
No, I used to play football matches with them. They were a lot of fun, and I learned that of all livestock, they are potentially the most intelligent and certainly some of the most affectionate animals. I had a particularly interesting visit to Sparsholt agricultural college in Winchester with the National Pig Association. I used to love going there when I was a vet to treat the animals; now I go there as an MP to look at its teaching and facilities. It has a fantastic indoor, high-welfare unit that delivers piglets without the use of farrowing crates, and I pay tribute to the staff there for their teaching and the welfare standards that they maintain. To touch on something that many Members have spoken about today, one of the top issues threatening the pig industry is biosecurity at the border. I have been to Dover and met the vets and border inspectors there who look at the potentially illegal meat coming in and the tonnes of it that get seized. The crazy thing is that currently, if I were caught smuggling meat into the UK, I could not be arrested and my vehicle could not be seized, but the meat would be confiscated and my vehicle would have to be cleaned, because it would be a biosecurity risk. The only deterrent to trying to smuggle illegal meat into the UK would be that I might get my van cleaned for free at the taxpayer’s expense. That is absolutely ridiculous. I totally understand that enforcing biosecurity at such a busy border is difficult and comes with huge challenges, there are not even suitable deterrents in place for people who get caught. I urge the Minister at the very least to look at implementing some. One thing that the pig industry has done phenomenally well is to reduce antibiotic use by 72% since 2015—just over 10 years. That is hugely important, not only for animal welfare, but for public health. Antimicrobial resistance is like a slow pandemic; it never gets media attention, but it will kill 39 million people by 2050 if we do not take action. It is important that we do not undercut our high animal welfare and farming standards with products from countries that have lower standards. Countries that use antibiotics as growth promoters are not only farming with lower welfare standards, but contributing to this huge public health crisis, so we must do our bit to tackle that issue. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned labelling. It is hugely important that we can identify where meat has been produced. Consumers are currently being hoodwinked; they believe that they are buying products from animals reared in the UK, but it turns out that they were only processed in the UK. They want to support British farmers and high animal welfare standards, so it is completely wrong that they are being hoodwinked into buying products that potentially undermine UK standards. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made a very important point about the lack of small abattoirs in the UK. Their closure is a huge animal welfare issue, as animals have to be transported further than necessary to be slaughtered, and a huge economic problem too. I urge the Minister to see how the Government can work with the pig industry to move away from the CO2 stunning of pigs. It is a big welfare concern, and the British Veterinary Association and others are keen for the industry to make a sustainable transition away from it. It causes a lot of concern to a lot of constituents, and it really upsets me as a vet. Finally, I urge the Minister to meet the National Pig Association as soon as possible to look at supporting UK farmers, maintaining high animal welfare standards and improving our nation’s food security.
As an Opposition MP myself, I must say that my party and I have been critical of the handover of power that has taken place in the Labour party, but this particular moment, on Third Reading, should belong to the families. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] We can do our party political point-scoring whenever and wherever we like, but does the hon. Member not agree that this moment should belong to the families?
Quality and consistency of care are vital in improving cancer outcomes. How will the cancer manuals support earlier diagnosis, and will they include specific guidance to improve outcomes for children and young people?