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 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Juries are the bedrock of our legal system, and public involvement in the justice system is central to public trust and consent. It cannot, and it should not, be eroded. This is a prime example of this failing Government implementing reforms for no good reason. Why will the Solicitor General not call this out as the attack on the rule of law that it clearly is?
The ongoing conflict puts our own energy security at risk, so can the Minister assure us that our energy supply routes are safe and there is no risk of blackouts this winter?
Crooked SNP chief Peter Murrell had his hand in the SNP piggy-bank to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds; he bought camper vans, crockery, and even toilet paper. We now learn that Police Scotland is also probing the Yes Scotland movement. Will the Leader of the House bring forward a debate, in Government time, on the financing of the SNP and the independence movement?
I encourage the Secretary of State to visit the Roslin Institute, just outside Edinburgh. It is most famous, of course, for the cloning of Dolly the sheep, and it is one of the world’s leading agri-tech centres. Although it is in Scotland, it is extremely important that it is regarded as a UK asset, and I hope that she will promote it in that way.
The Minister and I have a shared interest in Yemen, and I am sure he will welcome the fact that next week, the International Development Committee is holding a focused inquiry into the current situation in Yemen, particularly the issue of malnutrition. More generally, can the Minister give us confidence that contingency plans are in place for communication with British citizens in the Gulf if the situation escalates further?
I associate myself with the tributes to Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He was a giant of the Scottish legal profession, Lord Chancellor in two Governments, and a strong voice for Scotland and the Union in the other place. I benefited immensely from his wise counsel during my time in the Scotland Office. My thoughts are with his wife and family at this time. The Leader of the House will be aware that in the Government’s recent Green Paper it was suggested that terrestrial television—free-to-view television—might be switched off in 2034. That would be a hugely detrimental move for many people across the UK, particularly elderly people and people living in rural areas who do not have the best internet access. It would mean that everybody would have to pay for the internet in order to receive television services. Will he have a word with the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), as he takes office, and ensure that his Administration rule out that possibility?
I recognise the Foreign Secretary’s personal commitment to Sudan, and I am very pleased that she is shining a spotlight on El Obeid. However, although I recognise how difficult it is to work closely with our Gulf allies on the situation in Iran while at the same time having to condemn them for their activities behind the scenes in Sudan, surely the lesson of El Fasher is that unless we take a robust approach with those Gulf allies, we will not be able to prevent another El Fasher in El Obeid.
Without wishing to disappoint colleagues who have excellent local agricultural shows, the Driffield show is the biggest and best one-day show in the country, and this month it will celebrate its 150th edition. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all those involved in the Driffield Agricultural Society, both now and in the past, and may we have a debate in Government time on food security and the importance of the rural economy?
The Father of the House got the timing bang on without my having to put a time limit on him, but I will now put a five-minute limit on speeches.
I will have no choice but to reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.
Order. I will implement a three-minute time limit after the next speaker.
We now come to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, and for informing the right hon. Member to whom he has referred. The document entitled “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with this matter. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The guidance states that a “failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.” A party political activity is not a purely private visit, and I hope that by stating this very clearly from the Chair, it will reduce the frequency of such discourtesies in future.
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Let us not dwell on the secrets of the barmen. However, he will know that this is not a matter for the Chair, even though this occupant of the Chair might have a keen interest. I am sure we all wish Richard well for his retirement.
T7. The current heatwave shows no signs of abating, and during such times the demand for water increases. The water companies are already imposing restrictions on the supply of water, so what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the water supply and when will she consider nationwide restrictions?
The flagrant breaches of the ceasefire that have taken place clearly demonstrate that Iran has no interest in anything other than dominating the region. The Minister may call in the chargé d’affaires, and he may call for action, but we want to see some action from the UK Government. Will he undertake to expel those people who are involved in action in the UK that threatens Iranian citizens living in the UK who are not part of this regime? Will he take action to ensure that the so-called foreign diplomats in the Iranian embassy are kicked out, to demonstrate that we are not going to tolerate this?
Of course, we do not know whether the Leader of the House will become Prime Minister in a few days’ time, but we do know that either he will continue in his current role or someone will replace him. On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I ask that we get early warning of what time we will receive when we return after the summer recess. The Leader of the House has suggested that our Committee will get a slot on the day we return. If that does happen, we already have potential offers out to bidders for both the Tuesday and the Thursday. I turn to the business in Westminster Hall. Next week, on Tuesday 14 July, we will have a debate on isolation and hidden deprivation in coastal communities. On Thursday 16 July there will be a debate on the impact of the national policy planning policy framework changes, followed by a debate on capital funding for Changing Places toilets. On Tuesday 1 September, when we return from recess, we will have a debate on the provision of face-to-face banking services in rural areas. On Thursday 3 September there will be a debate on vaccination rates in England, followed by a further debate, the subject of which is yet to be confirmed. On Tuesday 8 September there will be a debate on the safety of the Jewish community. On Thursday 10 September there will be a debate on reform of the vascular sector, followed by a debate on the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society. Finally, on Tuesday 15 September we will have a debate on building safety remediation of residential buildings. As you can tell, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are getting on with the job of allocating the time that we have available to us. The Leader of the House will probably be aware, there is currently a scandal around local authority social rented properties and housing association properties being let on Airbnb. I have been a strong campaigner for more social housing to be built in this country, but it is clearly important that the people who have the tenancies actually live in those properties and use them. If tenants do not use them, they should be vacated and used for people on the waiting list who desperately need them. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to make a statement in the House next week on what the Government will do to expose this scandal and ensure that the tenants who are supposed to be in these properties actually live there? If they are not living there, the properties should be released for those who desperately need them.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on securing this debate and on her tremendous work in this area, both in this House and as an emergency doctor in the NHS. I want to begin not with statistics, but with something that happened to me. Last year, at about 9 o’clock one evening, I stood up to go to watch a film with my family, but I suddenly felt faint and nauseous. A home blood pressure machine showed that my reading was over 200. I went to A&E and was seen, and a CT scan was arranged. I then had to sit on a chair in what was essentially a public waiting room, where I stayed for the entire day. I had my scans and blood tests there—everything was based in that room. It was only the next evening that I managed to get a bed on an acute unit, so I spent 24 hours in effectively what we would call a corridor. The next day I had an MRI scan and then went to see a neurologist and a stroke team. Let me be absolutely clear: I do not blame the hospital or the staff. They were professional and compassionate throughout. But they are working under chronic pressure in a system that simply does not have the space or the beds to care for patients as they would wish. The first official NHS England data on corridor care published last month showed that in the Royal Bolton hospital, an average of 13 patients a day were treated in corridor spaces in May. I welcome the honesty of the trust’s chief nursing officer, who said that even one patient cared for in this way is far too many, and I commend the trust’s commitment to eliminate the practice ahead of the national timescale. Bolton is not an outlier; it reflects a national emergency across the United Kingdom. About 2,200 patients experienced corridor care on any day in the month of May, while many hundreds were treated in unsuitable spaces. Nearly 148,000 patients waited 12 hours or more in A&E in that month—the worst record in May. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine warns that the official figure may still understate the true scale. This is not just undignified; it is deadly. The Royal College estimates that in 2025 alone, over 15,800 excess deaths were associated with long waits in emergency departments. The Uncorked—Understanding escalation area and corridor care in UK emergency departments—study found that corridor care leads to longer hospital stays and a greater risk of death. There are many reasons for the delay, and many of them have been mentioned. Bed occupancy is running at 93%, far above the safe level of 85%, while some 13,000 beds are occupied by patients who are medically fit to leave but cannot be discharged for want of social and community care. I know that the Government have spent a lot of money on the NHS, such as ending the doctors’ dispute, but will they make a full commitment to ensure that corridor care does not occur in our country and that no patient in Bolton and Walkden, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, spends a day of acute illness on a chair in a waiting room? The staff of our NHS deserve better, as do our constituents.
I declare my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group for volunteer rescue services. I inform the House that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for coastal communities, we are holding a joint evidence session for CROs next week, so that they can come and tell their stories to parliamentarians. When I spoke to my CROs in Stornoway and across the Western Isles, their message was one that I hope has been received by the Minister: pause the consultation, listen to CROs and hear about the vital role that they play as a fourth blue light service. The role is about not just coastal rescue, but delivering carers and emergency workers to the elderly in time of need. Can I also have an assurance that he will keep CROs fully informed about the process and come back before Parliament goes into recess to ensure that we are fully informed?
I make a habit of agreeing with my hon. Friend, and I particularly agree with her on that point. When I speak with youth workers, they are clear that they do not want to reinvent the wheel. Youth work works; we just need more of it to be ringfenced and have dedicated funding. We are about to have a youth hub opened in my area as part of the youth guarantee, which is fantastic news. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to MBN Arts and Mike Ness? Last Thursday, they put on a summer exhibition for younger neurodivergent, to help them with their educational and creative pathways and into a brighter future.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a GMB member. I recently met coastguard rescue officers in my office, and they told me how they respond in all conditions and at all hours. They drop everything to save life, and providing that public service often leaves them out of pocket. Can I ask the Minister to consider all options, including carving out an exemption when it comes to HMRC? Can I take this opportunity to encourage all CROs to join the GMB union, so that it can care for their needs, particularly given the recent concerning allegations in a national newspaper about the MCA, which I believe is not being straight with the Government? Can I also ask the Minister to thank the coastguard rescue officers in Bournemouth East for all they are doing to save life?
My hon. Friend is giving a superb speech, and it is an honour to listen to it. I was at Bournemouth War Memorial Homes on Friday helping to open the new bungalows for our veterans, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) had toured when he was in post as a Minister. I was speaking with the veterans there, and they are under no illusions. They are aware of the threat posed by Russia. In talking with constituents, however, I understand their concern that we have been on a rollercoaster as a country since 2008 at a minimum. There is a feeling that because our psyche is somewhat low and that, spiritually, we feel somewhat deflated, to talk about the threat from Russia is to add to that feeling, but actually, as a constituent said to me on the doorstep, “It is fine to talk about the fear and talk about the plan. Talk about how you will meet the fear, and then we will come with you.”
I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing the debate. I was proud to join him, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and Field Marshal Lord Richards of Herstmonceux in creating the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. We are discussing a topic that we all agree on: the threat that faces the country and the necessity for us to rearm. I had hoped that the tone of the debate would have been slightly less political. I feel like we have had a little bit of amnesia as to how we have got to where we are. I do not intend to focus on that too much, but I am sure that others will make the point about the decline in the size of the Army over the past 14 years, the decline in the size of the Air Force, and about the frigate fleet—we talk about the frigate gap—and what happened to frigate and destroyer construction. We should remember that the threat has not just arrived. There was not a meaningful increase in defence spending after the annexation of Crimea, and there was not a meaningful increase after Putin violated Minsk I or Minsk II. Indeed, there was not a significant increase in defence spending after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That context is really important.
I agree with the right hon. Member, but I am not sure whether his point is relevant to the one I was making about the broad context of defence procurement. There has been great cross-party consensus on what we are doing with Ukraine, and we should ensure that that continues. I also want to comment on the defence nuclear enterprise. Under the DIP, we will be spending £45 billion over the forthcoming period on the incredibly important nuclear deterrent. It is right that we do that, but that amounts to 25% of the defence budget. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is in his place. The other week, I was reading his arguments at the time of the coalition Government, urging them to press ahead with the renewal of Trident, which they did not do. That cost us many years and has cost us many billions of pounds that we could be spending today on conventional forces. It means that we have tired Trident submarines heading out to sea beyond when they should be doing so, and we have crews on extended patrols of 150, 200 or 250 days. That is the cost of the decisions made at that time. I want to talk a little about ensuring that we do not fall into Russia’s trap. Of course, there is a significant threat from Russia, which is both conventional and hybrid—
The hon. Gentleman did not give many interventions to Labour Members. If it is relevant, I will be happy to take it.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice. If he gives me time, he may find that comes later in my speech. We should not allow Russia to make us talk ourselves into a place of weakness. As the then Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff put it to the Defence Committee, “If the British Army was asked to fight tonight, it would fight tonight.” Our readiness is not where we would want it to be, but that is not the same as saying that Britain is defenceless. I am not trying to be complacent; I am just making the point that we have excellent armed services and excellent people in uniform, and we should not talk as if those things do not exist. What we are saying is that we need more. In Ukraine, we have watched a country that is considerably smaller than our own, with far fewer resources, resist Russian aggression with extraordinary determination. We have to remember that Russia’s greatest weapon these days tends to be psychological. It wants us to believe that it cannot be beaten, that resistance is useless and that despite four years of attritional warfare and 1.4 million casualties, it somehow remains an unstoppable European military power that could overwhelm Britain and her allies, but it is not.
My hon. Friend makes the point well. Indeed, in a recent interview my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) talked about how the recent attacks on Iran had destroyed a huge propaganda apparatus, which had contributed to 3% of total nationalist propaganda for Scottish separation from the United Kingdom. It is an important point. Following on from that, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak made the important point about strength being a foundation of deterrence. We are trying to deter war, not just by having capable armed forces but by having industrial capacity, well-stocked armouries, cutting-edge technology and a properly funded plan—because the stronger we are, the less likely conflict becomes. Every capability we field, every production line we expand and every drone we manufacture add to our deterrence, and that is incredibly important. At the beginning of the debate we talked about the credibility of getting to where we need to be. To be straightforward, it is my belief that we need to reach 3% of GDP by 2030. That is the minimum needed for us to show that we are committed to our plans and to our NATO allies in having the capabilities that we need. In fairness to the Government, they have made significant progress and we will be at 2.7% in 2027-28, which is the highest defence spend in three decades. The defence budget will also be 27% higher in real terms than it was at the start of the Parliament. Those are significant commitments that need to be recognised, but unfortunately, I am worried that they do not meet the strategic moment that we are at. The pace at which Russia might reconstitute, the lessons that are emerging from Ukraine over technology, the threats in the far east to our allies and our interests, and the demands placed upon us by NATO to meet certain targets mean that we have to move faster than the Government currently say. A spending review published in 2027 could, in theory, postpone most of the increase until the final year of the period. That would technically fulfil the commitment, but it would not reflect the urgency of the moment. There is a significant difference between spending 2.8% in 2028, 2.9% in 2029 and 3% in 2030, and remaining broadly flat and trying to make a leap—if we can prove that we can do that—at the end of that spending period. The Government deserve credit for changing the direction of travel from what it was in the past, but events have accelerated and so we need to accelerate our rearmament beyond those plans. There is no shortage of priorities, and the DIP was a significant document, as colleagues have described. I share their concerns about some of the autonomy in the Royal Navy. It is unlikely that we will have the new ships designed, tested and deployed within 10 years, and there will have to be service life extensions for the Type 45s. I worry about the lack or absence of—
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, eventually, we will have to look at the Type 31 hull as a possibility. Maybe the Minister will comment on contingency plans if continuous capability sustainment does not develop as it should. On the lack of commitments around ballistic missile defence, we are now an outlier in Europe in terms of air defences. Many countries in Europe—Spain, Germany, France, and so on—have Patriot or SAMP/T—
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for introducing this really important debate on national youth strategy and youth enrichment. I truly welcome it because, as a former teacher and deputy headteacher, I saw the transformative impact that youth work, enrichment activities, sport, volunteering, the arts and outdoor education can have on a young person’s confidence, aspirations and life chances, but I also saw the consequences when those opportunities were decimated. We have a growing number of young people who feel safe only in their bedrooms on digital devices. That has to change. For too long, young people have paid the price for over a decade of austerity. Local authority spending on youth services in England and Wales has fallen by 74% in real terms since 2010, while the number of local authority-run youth centres has fallen from 931 to 379. Investing in young people is smart economic policy, too. I know that education never stops at the school gates. Young people learn resilience through volunteering, teamwork through sport and confidence through challenge. That is why I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment through the national youth strategy to ensure that every young person has somewhere to go. Backed by more than £500 million, it includes investment in youth spaces, a new enrichment entitlement and an ambition to halve the enrichment gap by 2035. I particularly welcome the Government’s recognition of opportunities that should not be based on family income, geography or background. I grew up in an area called Ashmore Park, and we had a youth club on my doorstep. I spent many an evening there—I will stop the conversation there. It was one of 30 local youth centres that were lost over 15 years, and we felt that hole in the community. But recently and despite those challenges, there are organisations in Wolverhampton and Willenhall that are delivering the vision that we set out in the strategy. I must mention the Wolves Foundation in conjunction with Wolverhampton city council. A couple of weeks ago I went to one of their community space sport activities, had a go at basketball, shot a few hoops—I do not know whether that is the right phrase—and had a brilliant time. More importantly, so did the 50 other young people with the free activities in Heath Town. We are opening up the same in Tennyson Road, in Low Hill and the Scotlands as well. I must mention the Loft youth club at the Hive in New Invention. Across Wolverhampton, the Way Youth Zone has become a shining example of what investment in young people can really achieve. I will finish by thanking the Duke of Edinburgh’s award and all the staff and volunteers that take part to give young people a brilliant opportunity to really find themselves, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield for securing this important debate.
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, and to that of its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, which have been broadly in the spirit that I and the people and Government of Gibraltar would have hoped for: reasonable, fair scrutiny with broad support. It is important to emphasise that, because it sends a strong signal that complements the strong support of the democratically elected Parliament of Gibraltar for the draft UK-EU agreement. I will respond to specific points as I go, but will start by paying a tribute to all those involved in the process over many years: His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar—the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, the Attorney General and all their officials and teams—and our teams in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, particularly the senior officials who did sterling work in taking us through the detailed process. The treaty is a big one, with many associated administrative and practical arrangements. I know there have at times been frustrations about the length of the process and the detail, but it was important to get it right. This is about the future of Gibraltar and our relationship with the EU, Gibraltar and Spain. I also pay tribute to our friends in the EU and Spain for the constructive spirit they have shown throughout the discussions and negotiations. We have come to a conclusion that is beneficial for people, which is what we all sought to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a party political point but an important one: in the end, this was about people and businesses, their lives and their ability to move, to trade and to get on, without the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Gibraltar was not included in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement that was negotiated by the previous Government following the UK’s departure from the EU. That meant serious uncertainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why we have worked together to find a practical and lasting solution that protects Gibraltar’s economy and way of life for the long term, while crucially safeguarding our sovereignty. We had previously reached the provisional and political agreements, and have been involved in the detailed process for some time. We have now achieved an agreement that ensures the free circulation of people and goods between Gibraltar and the EU by removing the physical barriers on the border between Gibraltar and Spain. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that, not least because of what the people of Gibraltar went through for so many years. That will mean jobs, investment and stability, not just for Gibraltar but—it is important to emphasise—for the whole region. That involves EU Schengen area rules relating to border checks being applied in Gibraltar and a customs union being established between the EU and Gibraltar. That will bring certainty to the territory. Let me turn first to some of the questions about scrutiny; I will answer the questions from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), in detail in due course. The CRaG Act 2010 gives statutory form to long-standing constitutional conventions on the scrutiny of treaties and is the process we are legally obliged to follow to ratify treaties. Despite the very particular approach of the CRaG system, transparency has been at the heart of our approach. I gently rebuff some of shadow Minister’s comments, because we published the draft text of the agreement on 26 February, and I gave an oral statement to the House on the same day. We have had this debate today and I have appeared before Committees and answered many questions. We have attempted at all stages to be transparent and open. I have offered private briefings to shadow ministerial colleagues and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).
I will come back to the timeline in due course. It is quite right that throughout the process Parliament has provided scrutiny, as it has been doing in this debate, which is very welcome.
Indeed; that is a fair point, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making it. We did appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we have endured scrutiny in the media and from businesses and others—and quite rightly so. On my visit to Gibraltar, I met with the leader of the opposition, businesses and others, who had legitimate and reasonable questions to ask. We have done our best to answer those transparently and in good faith. What matters most at this point is providing clarity and certainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why I am pleased to say that the UK and EU will provisionally apply the agreement from 15 July—next week. This is an important milestone for Gibraltar. The UK and the EU, along with Gibraltar and Spain, are committed to fully ratifying the treaty as soon as possible, and we are all working at pace to achieve that. My understanding is that the process in the European Parliament will take place this autumn, up to December. We will be operating under a similar timeline, in accordance with the discussions we are having with the relevant Committees and others regarding the CRaG process. Once signed, the treaty will be provided immediately to the UK Parliament, and I will make the appropriate statements to signify that moment. We will then have the CRaG process and ratification. I hope that satisfies Members who asked about the timeline, but I will go into a little more detail later. Much of the legislative and operational work to bring the agreement into force is being led by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and they have made very strong progress in a short space of time. They have already put in place their main primary legislation and are working tirelessly on the many practical steps needed to apply the agreement. I am pleased to say that there is very strong co-operation between the Spanish and Gibraltarian authorities across areas of shared implementation, including the physical infrastructure works required at Gibraltar’s airport. We stand ready to assist in whatever way we can, and have done so throughout the process. It is important to emphasise, as many Members have, that negotiations on sovereignty were never on the table during the treaty negotiations, and that was not in doubt. The agreement is about technical arrangements that govern Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU. I appreciate the compliments paid by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), and others about article 2 of the treaty, which makes it clear that the agreement in no way affects our sovereignty position on Gibraltar and cannot be used to challenge it. As I set out both in opposition and now in government, we remain committed to the Gibraltar double lock, which means we would never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, and we would never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar was not content. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is protected in the treaty for the long term. If it had not been, we would not have agreed it. Many Members raised important points about the military base. Safeguarding the operational autonomy of the UK’s military facilities has been a red line for the UK Government throughout our discussions. The agreement protects that autonomy and allows our facilities to continue their vital contribution to regional security and prosperity. The Ministry of Defence has been closely involved in the negotiations at every stage. We have the full backing of the Defence Secretary and defence teams on this agreement. I am glad that that was confirmed by colleagues’ experiences of engaging with the Commander British Forces in Gibraltar. The agreement also removes immigration checks at Gibraltar’s land border with Spain. That is crucial for the nearly 15,000 people who cross the border every day for work, and for protecting Gibraltar’s economy. To unlock the benefits of a fluid border, travellers arriving at the airport will undergo dual immigration controls. Under this system, visitors have the benefit of crossing freely into Spain without checks. Time spent in Gibraltar will therefore count towards the EU’s 90/180 days requirement. The Government of Gibraltar have assessed that the significant impact of an open border outweighs any challenges that might result from it. Because Gibraltar automatically already applies a period for UK residents coming into Gibraltar, it has been pointed out that, practically, this means very little. It does not, of course, affect the residents of Gibraltar itself. The agreement delivers a solution that the Government of Gibraltar want, and the Chief Minister has been very clear on that. The treaty has a series of benefits for wider relationships. The shadow Minister rightly pointed out the welcome announcement regarding non-co-operative jurisdictions from our friends in Spain. That is important to Gibraltar and is a testament to how things have moved forward. We have seen tangible and positive developments in our relationship with our friends in Spain across a whole series of issues that matter to people here in the UK, including our co-operation in business, security and trade. That is welcome. The treaty is, of course, one of the crucial aspects of the reset in our relationship with the European Union. This agreement is good for Gibraltar and for the United Kingdom, and it is good for all the people, including our people. Right hon. and hon. Members have accurately reflected the work and statecraft that has gone into it and the practical benefits it will deliver. This marks a turning point. Before I conclude, let me respond to some of the specific points that have been made. I have answered the questions about the timing of the CRaG process, but Members will appreciate that bringing a treaty of this complexity into effect has required a set of interlocking processes. We are not the sole guardians of the process; there are processes in Gibraltar, Spain and the European Union, and the treaty can be signed only once those processes—including the EU’s translation of the text into 23 other official languages—have concluded and been aligned. Rather than delaying the publication until that point, we chose to bring forward the draft treaty so that Members could scrutinise it and see the detail. I assure Members that the text published in February remains substantively unchanged. The intervening period has been used for legal verification, technical checks and the preparation of authentic language versions. That is one of the reasons why the final treaty will be published and signed imminently. The provisional application will take place from 15 July, and we will then make the appropriate statements in this House and start the CRaG process, in line with discussions with the secretariat of the European Affairs Committee regarding the practical arrangements.
I am conscious that in between there will be a recess. I will ensure that that does not affect this House’s ability to have the proper period to scrutinise under the CRaG process. That may be what the shadow Minister was going to ask.
I do envisage the treaty coming forward, but I want to ensure that we do not start the clock and then Members feel they do not have a chance to scrutinise it over the recess. The minute that the treaty is signed, it will be provided—within appropriate transmission times—to both Houses. We will ensure that we are in close contact with the Committees and that we have an agreement on the CRaG process, and we will make the appropriate statements. Sir John, you will know that the timing of statements and debates in the House is a matter for the usual channels between the Government and the Opposition, but I do not want to shy away from scrutiny, and that is why I welcome this debate. We will not try to curtail the CRaG process in any way. In practical terms, this treaty will have had far more pre-scrutiny and Committee scrutiny in this House than many other international treaties. I hope that provides some assurance to colleagues. Members asked a number of other questions. I have covered the questions about article 2 and sovereignty. I was asked about future scenarios that might emerge with respect to the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar. It is important to emphasise that the Gibraltar Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the UK to ratify the treaty, subject to the existence of a concordat assuring that the UK can exercise its powers in the treaty only with the consent of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and that the people of Gibraltar have the right to determine in a referendum whether the treaty should be terminated in the future. Obviously, we hope to never get to that scenario, but it is important that we have those safeguards in place. To answer the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked, I quote from my letter to the Chief Minister on 2 March: “It is therefore politically inconceivable that in any normal circumstances, should a democratically elected Government in Gibraltar or indeed the Gibraltarian people determine that this agreement does not serve their interests, His Majesty’s Government would not take action.” I hope that provides assurance, as it is certainly the tenor of my discussions with the Chief Minister and, indeed, of the discussions he has had in the Gibraltar Parliament. I have touched on the questions about the 90-in-180-day rule, but for the record, under the agreement, non-resident British nationals can visit Gibraltar for up to 90 days, as is the case today—there is no change in that—but, as visitors will be free to enter Spain without checks, time spent in Gibraltar will count towards the 90-in-180-day requirement of the EU. Importantly, immigration into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. The agreement provides a unique solution, a fluid border, and puts different procedures and processes in place. On the military base, there are lots of details, but I was asked a specific question, so I want to be clear that UK military personnel entering Gibraltar will not be subject to Schengen checks under the proposed arrangements. That will enable our facilities to continue their vital operations without interference or interruption. The posting of UK military personnel serving in Gibraltar and their families will not depend on Schengen border checks; as is the case now, the UK will decide who will serve in Gibraltar. We also have important agreements on goods entering the base. As colleagues will understand, we do not disclose sensitive operational details, but we have agreed special arrangements to ensure the functioning of the new arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. The practical checks that take place at the airport are not dissimilar to the juxtaposed controls at St Pancras and elsewhere. We tried to come up with a practical solution to the new arrangement, and it is one that has the full agreement of the Government of Gibraltar. Everyone arriving at the airport will undergo Gibraltar immigration controls carried out by Gibraltar officials, followed by Schengen entry checks carried out by Spanish officials on behalf of the EU. On completion of those checks, individuals will be able to enter both Gibraltar and the Schengen area. As I said, that set-up is similar—it is not exactly the same—to how we make the arrangements work practically at St Pancras. Of course, 18,000 people use Eurostar every day, and we have heard about the 15,000 people crossing the border in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar and the different authorities are working closely on a whole series of practical and physical arrangements for how things will work—I will not go into the detail of all the different maps, plans and architect’s drawings that we scrutinised in great detail. As was rightly pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, another benefit of the agreement is that, subject to commercial interest, new flight routes into Gibraltar from other areas within the Schengen area could open up. Again, this will provide an economic boost and benefit. I pay particular tribute to the Deputy Chief Minister, who has taken a keen role in relation to the airport and its functioning over the years; it has been at the heart of the agreement throughout. On customs checks and the business impacts, I recognise the points made by Members about the questions they have been asked by businesses. The UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar are confident that overall, the economic benefits of the agreement will massively outweigh any issues with changes. Obviously, there will be implementation periods for the taxation arrangements, which are for Gibraltar to decide on; for example, there will be a period coming up to the VAT rate changes. On customs checks for businesses, to allow for free flow across the Gibraltar-Spain border, goods in Gibraltar must meet EU standards. Over half of all goods in Gibraltar arrive from the EU and already meet those standards, as do many others that arrive from outside the EU. They are going to be pre-cleared away from the land border by relevant customs officials. The Government of Gibraltar fully support that new model, which brings in the benefits of an open border and protects Gibraltar’s economy. Points were made about security. I think there is a steadfast commitment on both sides to work together, with practical arrangements between law enforcement agencies. None of us wants anything going on in Gibraltar or indeed over the border in Spain that will put anyone at risk. We all know the types of threats, which we share. That is at the heart of the wider discussions we are having with the EU about how we better align on law enforcement and security and defence. I want to conclude by thanking everybody for their scrutiny, which has been hugely important. I thank the all-party group for its consistent engagement over many years, and I thank friends in the Gallery for their engagement. I really do think this is a milestone moment in finalising something that was left undone by Brexit. The agreement will have practical benefits for the people of Gibraltar, for the people of the whole region, for the United Kingdom, and for the UK and the EU. There are wins across the board in the agreement. I very much hope that Members will engage with the CRaG process as it goes forward. I will keep the House fully informed, as appropriate, the minute the treaty is signed and deposited. With that, I thank Members for their contributions.
Of course. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate, and I am grateful to all those who contributed to what is an important conversation. We heard some brilliant contributions that highlighted just how important it is to support young people across the country. This generation is the most connected but most isolated one, and our national youth strategy aims to tackle that and the challenges associated with it. Members made a number of points on spaces, places and funding, which I will address throughout my contribution. A specific point put to me was around the importance of providing streamlined funding, particularly access to both revenue and capital funding. The Government have merged some funding regimes, and I am happy to write to Members with more details. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) not only made important points but paid tribute to their work experience students. I add my thanks to those students for their contributions. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) put two specific points to me, including one about GoWild Outdoors in his constituency and the changes to school sport. I understand the concerns about the decision to replace the existing PE and sport premium for primary schools; however, despite sustained investment through that premium for more than a decade, fewer than half of children get the 60 active minutes a day recommended by the chief medical officer, and persistent inequalities remain for girls and people from disadvantaged communities. That is simply not good enough. The Government are determined to close those gaps in participation, which is why we have committed more than £1 billion in funding for PE and school sport over the next three years. That includes £580 million for a new PE and school sport partnerships network to replace the PE and sport premium, alongside investment in improvements to school sport facilities and transitional support for primaries. That change includes secondary and primary, and capital and revenue funding. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that further, if it would be helpful. He also asked about the overnight levy. That policy is led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury have significant interest in it, and I work closely with my ministerial colleagues. The consultation on that is yet to be published, but I will happily write to him on that point in due course. I will now take the opportunity to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. Over the last seven decades, the award has changed the lives of countless young people; I saw that in action and at first hand when I visited Barnsley academy in Kendray in my constituency. We know the transformative power the award can have on young people: learning new skills, developing confidence and making friends are just a few of the benefits of completing the DofE award. I am delighted to be attending the parliamentary reception for the 70th anniversary next week; it is great to see that some representatives join us today. I thank the teachers, volunteers and all those who have worked hard to achieve the award across the country. Just a few months ago, I visited Centrepoint just outside of the centre of Barnsley, which is working with homeless young people on their Duke of Edinburgh’s awards. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) referenced, more than six million hours of volunteering is phenomenal, and just one of the contributions made by the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. As the Minister with responsibility for youth, I am proud of the conversations that the Government have had and continue to have with young people. Last month, I signed the power of youth charter to demonstrate our commitment to youth empowerment. That sends the clear message that we are listening and will act, and illustrates the importance that we place on youth voice, which was raised by a number of Members. We always said that our youth strategy would be not about young people, but made with and by young people. We wanted to know what mattered, and we listened. The voices of young people are right at the heart of the decisions that we made. The Government’s landmark national youth strategy is ambitious, long term and cross cutting. “Youth Matters” radically transforms how we work, to give every young person somewhere to go, someone who cares and a community that they feel part of. We have been clear about what that means: by 2035, we want to halve the participation gap in enriching activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and for half a million people to have access to a trusted adult outside their home. We have the ambition to halve the participation gap because we do not believe that a young person’s background should determine the opportunities that they get. We are fiercely committed to breaking down barriers, and are working across Government and with partners to make that a reality.
I totally appreciate my hon. Friend’s point. Under the previous Government, my area of Barnsley saw some of the worst cuts in the country, but despite that, the then Labour council invested in the youth zone and free transport for under-18s. I know that the challenges in Stoke will be similar to those in Barnsley, and of course there will be pockets of deprivation in London and other areas. We want to ensure that every young person, whatever their postcode, gets the support they need. Obviously, this is in the context of 73% cuts in England over the last so many years. That will not be reversed overnight, but we have an ambition to work towards reversing it. The strategy is backed by £500 million of DCMS funding. That will include funding for new builds, refurbishments and capital equipment, so that organisations can improve or expand their services. I have seen the impact of schemes like that, from the reopening of the Double Six Youth Club in Sheffield, to Eloquent Dance in Birmingham. The second ambition is increasing access to trusted adults—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) spoke about this—because we know how important it is for young people to have someone in their corner. As the Minister responsible for youth but also civil society and sport, I often hear about the fantastic work of youth workers, volunteers, sports coaches and many others. I have also seen that at first hand in places such as East Bierley Community Sports Association in Kirklees, which I visited a few weeks ago and which is just down the road from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. In the interest of time, I will not mention any more, but I have seen so many. However, as many as one in five young people still does not have a trusted adult outside the home to talk to. We want to change that. Our recent joint investment with the King’s Trust of £10 million will expand young people’s access to a trusted adult. That money will be matched with corporate and philanthropic investment, bringing the total to £20 million to build young people’s skills and tackle youth unemployment. We will follow that with £15 million, over the next three years, for youth workers, volunteers and others who work closely with young people. An additional £5 million will help organisations to spread good practice, improve data and build strong local partnerships. Expanding enrichment is a key aim of our strategy. Young people have told us that they want more in-person opportunities, whether that be through arts and culture, sports, volunteering, or being outdoors in nature. We know that those experiences are invaluable for wellbeing, belonging, school attendance and future employment opportunities. That is especially true for disadvantaged young people. Those who attend after-school clubs achieve, on average, a two-points-higher total score in their key stage 2 assessments in English, maths and science at the end of primary school. That is the value of enriching activities, and that is why the Government recently published the enrichment framework to give every school and college the tools to offer high-quality enrichment. That framework is for all pupils, to ensure that access is not limited because of who someone is or where they are from. Building on the enrichment framework, my Department will invest £22.5 million to support up to 400 schools to meet the benchmarks. That will help them to listen to the pupils in their school about what they really want, and to act on it. We will work with schools in some of the most deprived areas of England to ensure that where young people live is not a barrier anymore. We have also announced Every Child Can—an investment of £132.5 million of dormant assets funding to fund opportunities across the five key categories of enrichment. That includes ensuring that every school has access to a library. When talking about enrichment, I think of organisations in my own area, such as the Barnsley Youth Choir, which is giving hundreds of young people amazing experiences, opportunities and skills, Beat the Street, whereby primary schools get together and get kids more active, or our brilliant new Base71 Youth Zone. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), spoke about cross-Government work. We have a Young Futures ministerial group. Delivering for young people is a shared responsibility; we are not doing that alone. Across Government, we are working with incredible partners that are delivering on the ground and galvanising action—uniformed youth organisations, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award of course, and many others. We are working closely with local authorities and developing a network of up to 50 youth hubs. We have already opened eight pilot hubs, and the learnings will inform the remainder of the programme. That includes how we align with other Government initiatives such as the Young Futures panels and the Department for Work and Pensions youth hubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), who of course is the chair of the all-party group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), as well as others, spoke about strengthening the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a sufficient youth offer. We are already taking steps to address that. Our local outcomes framework outlines key priorities and accountability for local government. We will explore reviewing the statutory duty, but we must ensure that any change is properly funded in order to empower, not burden, local authorities. Every time a young person discovers their passions and pushes themselves outside their comfort zone, that has an impact far beyond the youth club or sports pitch. It is a step towards them becoming a more resilient, positive and connected adult, and it is a powerful reminder of our nation’s story—one that has produced world-famous musicians, actors, athletes, inventors and entrepreneurs. They all started as a young person who was told that they could reach their potential. This Government are ensuring that young people hear that same message again. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield and all other Members who contributed to the debate.
We must continue to highlight corridor care, as it puts a spotlight on the pressures facing the NHS. One of the first visits I made after being elected to this House was to William Harvey hospital in my constituency. During my visit I was shown around an A&E department where 19 patients were being treated in corridors, even in the summer months, when emergency departments are typically under less pressure. That was deeply concerning, and demonstrated how under the previous Conservative Government corridor care became increasingly normalised. I have previously spoken in the House about the incident at William Harvey hospital last September, when a coffee shop had to be converted into an emergency ward to accommodate A&E patients because it ran out of corridor. That was not an isolated incident, but part of a wider pattern caused by years of under-investment and rising demand. NHS staff continue to provide outstanding care in difficult circumstances, often without the capacity, workforce or facilities that they need. One lesson we must learn from the failures of the previous Conservative Government is that health infrastructure must keep pace with population growth. I recognise the need to build more homes to address the housing crisis that this Government inherited, but we must ensure sufficient capacity in GP surgeries, community health services and urgent care facilities. While schools and shops often come as part of a new housing development, healthcare infrastructure has too often been an afterthought. We need sufficient primary care capacity to prevent avoidable hospital visits and admissions that make corridor care more likely. Will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that, as new homes are built, health infrastructure planning and investment keep pace? I welcome the Government’s commitment to end corridor care by the end of this Parliament. We should never accept a situation in which hospital corridors become makeshift wards. No patient should receive treatment without privacy and dignity, and no member of staff should have to provide care in an environment that falls below the standards they strive to uphold. Our constituents rightly expect to be treated in safe, appropriate and dignified settings. I was pleased by the announcement a few months ago that East Kent hospitals NHS trust, which covers William Harvey hospital, will be part of the new intensive recovery programme. I am hopeful that such targeted support will help to tackle the significant challenges facing the trust, reducing waiting times, improving patient flow, and ensuring that people across east Kent receive the timely, high-quality care they deserve. I hope the programme will help to ease the pressures that have contributed to corridor care, and that the Minister will update the House on the new intensive recovery programmes. I also welcome the forthcoming opening of an upgraded same-day emergency care unit at William Harvey hospital, which I recently had the opportunity to visit. Funded through the trust’s use of part of a £29 million investment from the Labour Government, the unit will increase capacity and help to relieve pressure across the hospital, enabling more patients to receive timely assessment and treatment. I also welcome the recent announcement by the local ICB about the single neighbourhood provider. GP services in my constituency are proactively reaching out to frail patients, which will help to avoid them going to A&E. This Government have made important progress through additional investment, workforce expansion, improved discharge arrangements and targeted support for struggling trusts. Those steps should be welcomed, but there is more to do. If the Government are to fulfil their commitment to end corridor care, they must continue to pursue reform with urgency and determination—
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate. He has been a committed champion of bus services and transport needs in his constituency, and I thank him for the constructive tone with which he has approached these subjects. Buses are at the heart of our vision for better and more integrated, reliable, affordable and accessible public transport. The Government have set out an ambitious plan to deliver better bus services, grow passenger numbers and ensure that communities that have too often been underserved can benefit from reliable public transport. Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to local bus services. That is particularly the case in rural areas such as West Dorset, where there can be additional challenges to running a good local bus service. The Bus Services Act 2025 puts decision making into the hands of local leaders across England, including in rural areas, so that they can determine how best to design their services for their communities and have greater control over routes and timetables. As the hon. Gentleman knows, since he was on the relevant Bill Committee, it expands the options available to local authorities, allowing each area to pursue the model of bus service delivery that best suits their needs while safeguarding the needs of passengers. The Act also tightens a requirement around the cancellation of vital bus routes, particularly those relied on by vulnerable and disadvantaged passengers. The Government are committed to monitoring the effectiveness of those measures, including the impact on rural services, with a review five years after their introduction. We will provide meaningful financial support to improve bus networks totalling more than £3 billion over the next three years. That includes nearly £700 million per year for local transport authorities through the local authority bus grant. That funding can be used to support the introduction of new routes; for more frequent services; for safer, better, more accessible bus stops; for new electric buses; and for improved real-time information so that passengers can travel with greater confidence. It could also be used to increase the provision of community transport, for instance. At the end of last year, we published individual multi-year settlements for local authorities under the local authority bus grant for the next three years. As the hon. Gentleman said, those allocations were determined by a new, revised formula. Gone are the days when it was a competitive funding bid—each local transport authority now receives funding. For the first time, the formula considered rurality to ensure that rural areas are not disadvantaged. Other parts of that formula include population size, levels of deprivation and the extent of current bus services. I hear what the hon. Gentleman was saying about not just protecting what is there, but going further and building back. He has my assurance that we will continue to look at that funding formula to make sure that it is the fairest possible way to distribute funding across the country. We have already allocated multi-year settlements for the next three years, so it would be after that period. I am pleased to confirm that Dorset council will receive slightly over £12 million through the local authority bus grant for the next three years. That is nearly £200,000 more per year than the allocation in 2025-26, or roughly a 5% increase. Under the local authority bus grant, local leaders will be able to invest in transport priorities that are right for their area, such as enhancing bus services in rural communities. Alongside the multi-year funding, this Government’s bus reforms are fundamentally about giving local leaders more powers and more choice over how to deliver services. That includes unlocking franchising as an option for all areas. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Different areas face different challenges because of their geography, population density and demographics. That is why work is under way to provide active support to local transport authorities that wish to explore franchising, particularly in rural areas. The work includes our bus reform and franchising pilot programme, which supports authorities with feasibility assessments for bus franchising. The programme is designed to test different types of franchising model to understand how they could be best implemented to deliver improved bus services for passengers in rural locations. Case studies, guidance and templates from the programme will be shared with other local transport authorities, ensuring that learning is captured and can support other areas considering franchising. These products could be particularly important for small towns and rural communities, including in West Dorset, where members of the community may rely on buses as their only realistic public transport option. We also know that in some areas, traditional stopping bus services may not be viable. We want to encourage local leaders to consider a range of options to deliver better services for passengers. That includes incorporating demand-responsive transport and community transport services into the local transport network. DRT has the potential to improve local transport in areas where demand is more dispersed over longer distances, which makes it harder to provide conventional fixed-route services that meet residents’ needs. Our franchising guidance outlines key considerations for LTAs exploring franchising regarding DRT, including how local bus services integrate with alternative models such as DRT. We have recently published guidance on best practice for local authorities to set up and deploy demand-responsive schemes, from planning and procurement through to launching and sustaining those services. Making bus fares more affordable is one of the Government’s transport priorities because that really matters to passengers. The Government continue to cap single bus fares at £3 on thousands of routes in England, outside London, until March 2027, helping millions of people access affordable travel and better opportunities. That cap can be particularly beneficial for rural passengers, helping to limit the cost of journeys where single fares can otherwise be significantly higher. The Chancellor went further in May, announcing more than £100 million additional funding for the bus sector, to help children travel free this summer, and to continue supporting services. Under the offer, children aged five to 15 will be able to travel free on participating local buses in England throughout August, helping families to get out and about for less, at a time of increased cost of living. Further details will be announced shortly. To pick up on the point about better integration, I draw Members’ attention to a fantastic read—“Better Connected”, the Government’s integrated national transport strategy. That looks at how to dovetail buses with trams, trains, micromobility and active travel. I highly encourage Members to take a look at that, because we recognise the challenges they have mentioned today.
That will be a commercial decision for First Bus about whether to invest in those services. The option remains for local leaders to consider whether they want to pursue franchising and take greater control over that issue. They could also lift the ban on establishing new municipal bus companies. There are options there. I will continue to work across Government to ensure we get grid connections for future deployment of electric buses. Funding from local authority bus grants and other sources can be used to purchase electric buses. In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for West Dorset for securing this debate, and to the other hon. Members for their interventions. Improving bus services, importantly in rural areas, is central to the Government’s mission to drive growth and opportunity across the country. We know there is more to do, but we are taking meaningful steps to ensure that wherever people live—in a city, rural area or small town—they have access to the reliable, accessible and affordable transport that they deserve. Question put and agreed to.