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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. ICBs are part of the accountability outcomes framework, so they will be monitored in the usual way, and any expenditure by the ICB—and, indeed, by the Department—is recorded in the departmental accounts. Question put and agreed to. Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20 Performance assessments of integrated care boards Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The clause transfers the requirement to conduct annual assessments of integrated care boards from NHS England to the Secretary of State and focuses the assessment on the statutory functions of the organisations. To do that, it removes a prescriptive list of duties to be assessed that was inserted by the Health and Care Act 2022. ICBs are essential to delivering our health mission. They are responsible not only for arranging healthcare services, but for planning how those services will focus more on prevention, digital innovation and delivery in the community. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State should hold ICBs to account and undertake a meaningful assessment of their performance. Currently, NHS England assesses the performance of ICBs annually, reviewing how well they have performed against a list of duties prescribed by the current legislation. The process for those assessments is set out in guidance each year and is driven by both publicly available performance data and local insight. The results are published online and form part of the ongoing performance conversation between NHS England and each ICB. Although NHS England can choose to assess more than those statutory duties as part of that process, the duties form a static list of requirements that are already expected as part of the ICBs’ statutory functions. Having such a list may inadvertently skew attention away from other priorities in the 10-year health plan and our mission. As we reform the NHS, the ICB performance assessment will need to adapt to the evolving role of ICBs as strategic commissioners and reflect new models of commissioning. The list of duties will therefore become too prescriptive to provide the accountability intended. The clause allows a more nimble and flexible approach, ensuring meaningful assessment of ICB performance.
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise as a former Minister in this role. I do not want to mislead him, so I will come back to him in writing on both those points, if that is acceptable. He tempts me to be more prescriptive than I think we intend to be at this point, but I will ensure that he gets a proper answer to both questions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Of course ICBs will know how they are going to be assessed; that will be in guidance in the usual way. In the last two years, in planning terms, we have brought forward all that work for the system—including on the finances—in order that the system works more efficiently, and we will continue to seek to do that. The hon. Member, as she has several times in the Committee, returned to the question of variation. When there is devolution and local systems are different, there will be a degree of variation, as I have said. In performance management terms, where there is unwarranted variation, we will seek justification and understanding of that. Sometimes, there is variation for geographical reasons. There may also be historical structural reasons in a local system, or temporary reasons why performance is variable. We would look at that as part of that general work. Question put and agreed to. Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 21 Membership of integrated care boards
I absolutely recognise that this is an area of huge interest to hon. Members across the piece. I assure colleagues that officials and I have been working with representatives of the Local Government Association and mayors throughout the development of the Bill and the future architecture, and we will continue to do so. We will continue to have discussions and to make sure we get this right, because it is complex and complicated. Given that we are all politicians, we understand. Many of us have been councillors and local representatives, and have spent a lot of our time—sadly, for officials—knocking on doors, going out and persuading individuals to vote for these people. We understand that it is quite personal and we want to get it right. If I may, I will not take any interventions so that I can address the amendments and our approach to ICB membership. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, ICBs are commissioners. This is a fundamental shift, which I will come on to, and it is different from the 2022 work. I now want to outline the board membership set out in clause 21, but I think we will be discussing this for some time. Lord Darzi’s review found inconsistency in the roles being undertaken by ICBs and concluded that the health and care system would work better if each organisation had greater clarity and focus on its particular role. That is our starting point, and we set out to do that in the 10-year health plan. In future, all ICBs will discharge their common statutory duties through best-practice approaches, getting better at allocating their budgets to meet the population’s needs and securing the best outcomes. The new focus for ICBs is strategic commissioning. All ICBs will, in future, operate at a minimum efficient scale, with a population of around 1.5 million people covering multiple partner local authorities. Effective partnership working is core to strategic commissioning and is aided, rather than diminished, by replacing ambiguity in roles with clarity and focus. That is why we are altering the membership requirements for ICBs. We are adding a requirement for strategic authority mayors, or a nominated representative, to be appointed to ICBs operating within their footprint. Strategic authorities will increasingly become key bodies for growth and prosperity in their localities. Mayors, or their nominated representatives, will highlight opportunities to improve health outcomes through a joined-up approach to their other devolved responsibilities, such as transport, housing and employment. Although we recognise that the coverage of mayors and strategic authorities varies across the country, we will provide guidance to ensure that no area is disadvantaged, regardless of how advanced its local devolution arrangements are. In all cases, ICBs will have an obligation to ensure that their boards have a suitable membership to discharge those functions properly. Given the larger geographical footprint of ICBs in the future, we are also removing the requirement for ICBs to have at least one member jointly nominated by local authorities. At present, local authorities collaborate with ICBs by sitting on health and wellbeing boards and local integrated care partnerships. The multitude of plans, committees and measures have resulted in confusion, siloed working and, too often, inaction. I think many of us would recognise that in our own areas. I emphasise that we want to ensure a strong voice for local government in the work of the NHS. Our preferred approach is for local authorities to work with the NHS through health and wellbeing boards, co-commissioning and local authority health scrutiny. Those are likely to be more fruitful forums in which to resolve issues, agree joint approaches and tackle the needs of a local area. As ICBs become more focused on effective commissioning, it is right that we remove any potential conflicts of interest. That is why the 10-year health plan and the Bill propose removing the requirement for one member jointly nominated by primary medical care providers and one member jointly nominated by NHS trusts and foundation trusts. The clause will provide ICBs with memberships that are best equipped to fulfil their commissioning responsibilities and role in health planning. On amendment 45, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I assure her that the Government fully appreciate the importance of general practice and primary care more broadly, and the role that they play in informing ICB decisions. However, as I have said, health and wellbeing boards should be the key forum for resolving local issues and making planning decisions for their neighbourhoods. GPs are well placed to contribute to those discussions and also vital to them. We expect health and wellbeing boards to ensure that they involve relevant stakeholders, including GP practices and primary healthcare providers, in their work. There is an opportunity for health and wellbeing boards to play a much more proactive and important role in the local economy. To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester, we absolutely recognise that place is important in those arrangements. Although I agree that the experience of primary care is important, I hope that I have reassured the Committee that having a member nominated by primary care on the board of an ICB is not necessary. A similar argument applies to amendment 46, which would require a local government representative on the ICB. I should start by saying that I wholeheartedly recognise the important role that local authorities play in the health and care system. As we have discussed, their work in social care and public health, and their influence on the wider determinants of health such as housing and employment, mean that they have a fundamental role in supporting the delivery of our ambitions to improve the health and wellbeing of the population and implement the three shifts identified in our 10-year health plan. Rather than one local authority attempting to represent the interests of many on an ICB board, however, we think that it is more effective for local government to use health and wellbeing boards to address local barriers to joint working and support the development of neighbourhood health plans, which will shape the commissioning plans of the ICBs. I assure the Committee that we expect ICBs to work effectively with every one of their partner local authorities in the local authority footprint to deliver the neighbourhood health service and progress the integration of health and care services at that level. I should stress that our changes are not designed to weaken democratic accountability in the NHS. ICBs are NHS statutory bodies that are governed by a unitary board that is jointly responsible for ensuring that the ICB discharges its legal duties. Given that specific role, the ICB board is not the forum in which democratic leaders hold the NHS to account; rather, that is conducted through the local authority health scrutiny functions and Parliament. Again, this is a good opportunity for those health scrutiny functions to be much more robust and proactive at local authority level. Amendment 46 also proposes retaining provider representatives on the ICB board. As I said earlier, we think that an ICB should have a core focus on commissioning, so it is right to remove the requirement to have providers on them. That will also support the avoidance of potential conflicts of interest. We debated these issues many times—the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston referred to it—in this Committee Room, or one very similar to it that was not quite as hot, during the passage of the Bill that became the Health and Care Act 2022. These are difficult and complex issues. I mean no disrespect to him—he had a difficult job to do at the time—but the architecture has not worked. It is confusing, and I do not know any area that particularly thinks it has worked. We think that clarifying the roles will make the system much more effective. I think we agree that adding requirements for strategic authority mayors to make nominations to their ICB boards is a good thing. It will be an effective tool to harness the benefits of joint planning between an ICB and strategic commissioners and strategic authorities, who will have increasingly significant roles in shaping their areas. I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments, and I commend clause 21 to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Order. I call the Leader of the House.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The Minister is in his place and may wish to respond.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal democrat spokesperson.
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Work and Pensions Committee. Debbie Abrahams will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement; these should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning.
Last month, my constituent Kyle Pusey was recognised with Cannock Chase district council’s youth endeavour award for his years of outstanding volunteering at Norton Canes library. Kyle is known for being polite, hard-working and always willing to go the extra mile. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Kyle on this well-deserved achievement, and could we have a debate on the positive difference he and many other young people make to communities up and down our country?
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and particularly the decision to remove products where there is no domestic production. That will make a real difference to specialist manufacturers in Calder Valley, but they are understandably worried about what the tariffs will mean for their businesses. Will the Minister clarify whether galvanised wire products, which I have written to the Secretary of State about, are covered by the exemption? Companies in my constituency such as Siddall & Hilton, which makes specialist fencing, cannot get UK-produced supply and therefore get inputs from the EU, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.
The RSF have slaughtered children and used rape as a weapon of war. As we return to our constituencies, we should reflect on how we would act if this were happening in them—to our mothers, our sisters, our partners and our children. The UN Security Council says that there will be no impunity for those committing war crimes. But forgive my scepticism, because people are committing war crimes in Sudan, Gaza and elsewhere with impunity. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a serious man, what steps the UK Government are taking to make the argument to our allies forcefully and with conviction that we must seriously strengthen the scope and enforcement of international law, so that we can truly say that there is no impunity?
The Barnett formula, introduced in 1978, is often misunderstood, but it has delivered hugely for the constituents of Paisley and Renfrewshire South. In fact, since this Government were elected, the Barnett formula has seen the highest uplift in funding for the Scottish Government in the history of devolution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Barnett formula is a vital mechanism to ensure that my constituents receive their fair share of public sector funding? Will he reassure them that it is here to stay?
For years, my constituent Donna Louise Armstrong has worked tirelessly to serve the veteran community locally and nationally, both as our area co-ordinator for Poppyscotland and as vice-chair of the Homeless Veterans Project, which she helped to establish in 2019. She is very often seen at events in my constituency in her Paddington Bear outfit, raising funds for homeless veterans. Donna recently received recognition for her outstanding work in the King’s honours. As we approach Armed Forces Day, will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Donna on her British Empire Medal for services to veterans and the wider Renfrewshire community, and thank her for her immense contribution to the lives of so many veterans?
T4. I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for asking the Ethics and Integrity Commission to review lobbying, disclosure and access to Government. Does he agree that given that The Guardian has reported that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) lobbied for changes in cryptocurrency policy that would massively benefit Reform’s biggest donor and, in fact, his £5 million personal benefactor, any look at strengthening the rules should include a look at lobbying cases involving the Bank of England?
indicated assent.
The single most effective action to protect El Obeid civilians and avoid a repeat of El Fasher would be for the UAE to withdraw its clearly evidenced backing for the RSF and demand that civilians are protected. What more can the Minister do to persuade the UAE? If that fails, what can we do on the gold trade and illicit finance, in addition to sanctions, to ensure that anyone involved in arming the conflict does not materially benefit?
Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the fantastic parliamentary staff in Westminster and in constituencies across the UK who keep MPs’ offices running? They are employed by 650 separate offices, rather than by Parliament itself. That leaves them without consistent terms and, in some cases, proper support. The GMB, the largest union in Parliament—for the record, it is my union—is working to fix that through its “One Parliament, One Employer” campaign. Will he join me in encouraging Members to back its proposal?
I know from my experience setting up Bournemouth town centre citizens’ panel just how effective those forums are for deep dives into complex issues and for building consensus, so can the Minister tell me what recent progress has been made on the work of the people’s panel for digital ID?
15. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.
Following the agreement at the May 2025 summit to establish a UK-EU youth experience scheme, can the Minister update the House on the progress of negotiations on the scheme and confirm that it remains a Government priority?
Brexit has created a number of serious barriers to the ability of UK artists to tour in Europe. Has the Minister had a chance to look at the recently published Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on this issue, which proposes a number of practical measures to remove those barriers, and will he work with CMS Ministers to act on its recommendations?
I beg to move, That this House has considered ports and port connectivity. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. As an island nation, our prosperity has always been closely linked to the strength of our ports. Towns have flourished where ports have thrived, and declined where harbours have silted up and trade has moved on. That is true of Falmouth, the port town that I represent. Falmouth has a very distinctive story. It is a vibrant place that has always turned its face outwards to the sea. The packet ships carried trade and parcels all around the world from the late 1600s, but by the mid-19th century, the packet trade had collapsed, outpaced by steam ships. Yet Falmouth adapted, partly thanks to our geography, which has always been our strength. Positioned at the western end of the channel, Falmouth is home to the third deepest natural harbour in the world, and the deepest in western Europe. That strategic advantage has given our town enduring significance, not just commercially but militarily. In 1942, HMS Campbeltown set sail from Falmouth to Saint-Nazaire, in an operation that destroyed the only dry dock on the Atlantic coast capable of servicing the German battleship Tirpitz. Today, Falmouth continues to play an important role in supporting our national defence, as do many ports, and it has the potential to do even more in future, including through supporting work at Devonport in Plymouth. Naval and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels are regularly serviced in Falmouth docks. As I have said in the House before, Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, which are so vital to our defence capability, frequently call at and live in Falmouth. I still recall watching RFA Argus depart in 2014 to deploy off Africa as a hospital ship during the Ebola epidemic. At the same time, the port has diversified. It now welcomes cruise liners, contributing to the local economy and tourism while maintaining its long-standing expertise in ship repair and refit for commercial vessels and defence. We also have an active harbour trust port and world-class firms that build super-yachts. Crucially, Falmouth is also looking ahead. With its deep-water harbour and marine capabilities, it is extremely well placed to support the emerging floating offshore wind sector in the Celtic sea. A&P, now Balaena, is redeveloping the docks to service floating offshore wind turbines. We have a cluster of innovative marine engineering businesses in the surrounding areas, which are designing anchors, floating platforms and many other things to do with floating offshore wind that grew out of the mining industry.
Obviously, I agree. Places such as Cornwall will be fundamental to growth in renewable energy, particularly with the critical minerals strategy. The industrial strategy zones will be so important to unlock that potential. I am grateful to the many hon. Members from across the House who supported my application for this debate—representing ports from Newport to Immingham, Liverpool to Southampton and Port Talbot. It reflects a shared understanding across all our constituencies that supporting our ports and ensuring that they are well connected is vital to our national prosperity. Last year, ports employment in Great Britain stood at over 31,000 people, while the wider shipping industry contributed an estimated £16 billion to the economy in 2023. However, the true importance of our ports goes far beyond those headline figures. They are critical assets supporting key national infrastructure, including energy security, defence and lifeline ferries. Ports handle 95% of the physical goods entering and leaving our country, underpinning our trade and resilience. Almost all the UK’s automotive trade passes through them, along with half our food and feed. Even smaller ports play a key part in the supply chain, exporting recycled material to keep lorries off roads, and importing and exporting materials for construction. Additionally, the impact of ports extends far beyond the quayside, reaching into the surrounding hinterlands, and acting as anchors for communities, businesses and industries across entire regions. That is crucial in coastal areas, which often suffer from high levels of deprivation. For every job directly created in a port, seven more are supported through the supply chain. The coastal-inland divide is a persistent challenge that port investment can help to address. Recent research by More in Common, supported by the British Ports Association, has shown that coastal communities and especially the young people in them see that potential. There is a genuine strand of pride among residents in such communities, with four in 10 saying that their area has economic opportunities that are not being made the most of. Young people—over half of them—were likeliest to see that untapped potential. Sixty per cent of people say that their area could become an economic hub for manufacturing, shipping and clean energy. In that, they are even more positive than the nation as a whole, where 55% of people find that prospect realistic. Ports cannot reach their potential if they are not well connected, yet at present, the responsibility for funding road and rail links often falls to port developers. That can act as a significant disincentive to investment and puts British gateways at a competitive disadvantage internationally. Many of our busiest ports, including Dover and Harwich, rely heavily on road transport to move freight. That brings with it challenges in terms of congestion, bottlenecks and pressure on local infrastructure. Historically, three quarters of port freight has travelled by road, with only a small proportion of it moving by rail. That is why I really welcome the Railways Bill, which introduces a duty on the Secretary of State to promote rail freight and set a statutory growth target. That is crucial not only for decarbonising transport but for supporting sustainable economic growth. A single freight train can remove up to 129 lorries from our roads, with clear benefits for the environment and local communities. However, we are not yet making full use of that potential. As of February 2022, around 58 ports in Great Britain had a rail connection, but 20 of those connections were inactive. In Falmouth, there is a short stretch of track linking the docks station directly to the port, but it has not been used for 20 years. With the rebirth of the critical minerals industry in Cornwall—mainly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and around—backed by a £50 million Government strategy, there will be big demand for freight transport, which could be met by rail. That is why I have been campaigning to reopen that line and working with local partners to make that real. Restoring that rail connection would strengthen Cornwall’s economy and benefit local people. We have funding for an initial feasibility study. However, a business case for a rail link would cost about £150,000, which is a massive outlay, especially when there are no obvious funding streams to provide support for that interim stage.
Yes, of course. There is so much more to do and so much that can be done, and we should have a co-ordinated strategy. That is so important for growth. I want to say a bit about the Transport Committee. Although this is fairly old, its 2013 report described ports as “national assets” that were essential to economic wellbeing, and called for three things: priority to be given to removing infrastructure constraints on port development; road and rail improvements to ports to be publicly funded; and Government assistance for ports navigating complex local transport improvement arrangements. Those recommendations have not been implemented. Port connectivity does not just refer to transport. Connectivity to the grid is an equally pressing challenge for ports across the UK. As the sector moves towards decarbonisation, there is a growing need to electrify operations. However, the UK’s connections queue has grown tenfold in five years, leaving more than 700 GW of projects waiting for grid access. The National Energy System Operator says that it has a plan for connections reform that is designed to clear the backlog, and it has reprioritised projects, which is very welcome. However, NESO has also alerted Ofgem that it cannot meet connection deadlines for all the projects. Many ports lack the grid capacity to support shore power, electric vehicle charging for ports and haulage fleets, as well as many other things. The BPA has warned that around 70% of UK ports are already at or near their capacity. Those national grid upgrades are critical to ensuring that ports can continue to decarbonise. Falmouth, for example, has plug-in power for ships, but the power supply is limited to smaller ships by grid capacity. The Government’s modern industrial strategy recognises ports as a “foundational” industry that underpins growth across key sectors. That is important for the clean energy sector, which depends heavily on port capacity infrastructure and capability to deliver offshore wind, for example. That needs to translate into tangible policy and investment. In our 2024 manifesto, my party committed £1.8 billion to invest in port infrastructure. Targeted funding has been allocated to individual ports. For example, Port Talbot secured Government investment through the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme. Up to £64 million went to Port Talbot in March this year, but delivery is not progressing at the pace or scale that we desperately need. A recent report from the Great South West and Celtic Sea Power showed that while ports have ambitious project plans, too many schemes are struggling to get investment. In many cases, projects do not align with the requirements of private investors or public funding bodies such as the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy. That is not because of a lack of policy ambition or capital, but because of a market failure arising from the mismatch between immediate capital investment decisions and uncertain long-term revenue streams.
There is a real issue of clunkiness in the co-ordination between different Departments to speed up the progress of getting these ports into use. That is one example of how we could work together so much better to ensure that Port Talbot is up to full speed as quickly as possible, which it really needs to be. The grant funding that is being deployed to support the offshore wind sector, such as the Crown Estate and the GBE supply chain accelerator funding, is focused on future users of infrastructure such as manufacturers and supply chains rather than ports. At present, the main dedicated support available to ports comes from the offshore wind growth fund, which is privately operated. That leaves a gap in public funding for the critical infrastructure needed to unlock projects. My port of Falmouth has very ambitious development plans to service—and potentially assemble—floating offshore wind, as well as on defence, commercial ship repair and cruises. It is a truly mixed port and a “no regrets” investment, but at a cost of about £120 million. It will be a struggle to fund that huge investment from shareholders alone. There is also the issue of how ports are owned. Some, like Falmouth, are privately owned, while some, like Falmouth harbour commissioners, are trustee-owned. Others, like Gorran Haven in my constituency, are charitable trusts, which often fall through the cracks of available funding. There is an argument—I am a Co-operative MP—that, as vital community assets, ports should be publicly or co-operatively owned, which I would like the Minister to consider. How do we get money into ports? What should we do? First, a joined-up approach across Government Departments is necessary. The Minister here today is from the Department for Transport, but ports sit between multiple Departments, including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Business and Trade, the Ministry of Defence and, of course, the Treasury, where the money will come from. It sometimes feels difficult to know who to go to, and ports fall through the cracks. Secondly, targeted funding for port infrastructure to support clean energy industries is essential. That would help to reduce up-front risk, improve return on investment and leverage private capital. For example, in the Celtic sea, Port Talbot has benefited from funding, and a new wind port will unlock an initial 4.5 GW of floating offshore wind. The Government’s investment in Port Talbot is also bolstered by Celtic freeport’s newly released five-year plan, which sets out how Milford Haven and Port Talbot will be used to attract major investment to the region. The freeport will deploy its money and work with all those public financial institutions to bridge the capital gap, but investment in other ports in the region is needed to make the deployment of FLOW feasible. A multi-port strategy in the Celtic sea would allow activity to be distributed across several specialised ports, minimising bottlenecks and providing flexibility. Different ports bring very different strengths—Falmouth and Plymouth are very different from Appledore and its shipbuilding—so a single port approach for FLOW in the Celtic sea just would not work. There is also regional disparity. Projects in the North sea have seen significantly more investment than those in the Celtic sea with investment from GB Energy, for example, and the North sea already has established supply chain and port capabilities. Thirdly, we must address the question of revenue certainty. Ports require firm commitments from developers before they can justify and secure the capital for the infrastructure upgrades that, for example, floating offshore wind demands, yet developers cannot make those commitments without the revenue certainty that a contract for difference provides. It feels like the two sides are both waiting to see who moves first, like a game of chicken. Compounding that is a fundamental timeline mismatch. Port upgrades take a long time—five years or more—whereas the lead time for a CfD process is much shorter. That results in a structural gap that leaves ports unable to be ready when projects need them, even when the commercial will exists on both sides. Breaking that deadlock requires direct Government intervention in the form of revenue support or underwriting to de-risk that early investment. Without that action, we risk ceding our emerging floating offshore wind industry to competitors such as France, which has invested £900 million in its port of Brest. By mobilising the National Wealth Fund, for example, to support strategic port infrastructure, the Government could absorb a meaningful share of the risk and give ports the confidence to proceed ahead of CfD awards, rather than waiting until it is too late. Some examples of that support could include forward contracts, capacity leasing arrangements and state underwritten procurement mechanisms to address strategic infrastructure bottlenecks, either as an anchor tenant—where the state acts as an anchor tenant through defence or strategic demand—or as an enabler, using that procurement and underwriting to support the development of infrastructure. Finally, we must prioritise connectivity in the round, which means investing in the road and rail links that serve our ports, recognising them as national assets deserving of strategic infrastructure funding. We should also recognise ports as critical national infrastructure and use special development orders to streamline planning and consenting for significant port infrastructure. There is an ongoing pilot project for the Falmouth docks expansion. There is a co-ordinated approach under the Marine Management Organisation, which is acting as a lead regulator in a fast-track licensing process, and that is working well. Prioritising connectivity also means accelerating grid connections, so that energy capacity keeps pace with the demands of decarbonisation, future fuels and the development of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. Ports new, old and rediscovered are the gateway to the rest of the world and gateway to the economic future of our country, as well as our coastal towns. They can be unlocked, but it will take focus and co-ordination. I, for one, really want to untap the potential that those young people living in our coastal towns see so clearly—and that they need to grab hold of for their future.
I thank you, Ms Jardine, for chairing today, and I thank the Members who have come from all edges of the country and spoken so beautifully about their ports. Some themes have come out, and I thank the Minister for addressing pretty much all of them. The first is rail. The rail freight growth target is welcome, and we need to make sure it happens. It is also important to speed up those grid connections. We are all looking at about 10 years for connecting our ports to the grid, which is simply not good enough. Then there is planning, with ports being national infrastructure. I see planning moves even in my own port in Falmouth, and those are good innovations. My main plea is to look at how we unlock investment in our ports. We need to talk about the flexibility of public investment from the National Wealth Fund, how we build confidence in our ports, and the revenue that may be incoming from new green energy businesses and industries to unlock private investment and allow it to flood in. It is there—it wants to do it; it just needs the confidence. I thank all hon. Members for coming today. I hope that by the next election, our ports will all be up to speed, with things flowing in and out. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered ports and port connectivity.
13. What steps he is taking to prioritise UK businesses in Government procurement.
A&P Falmouth, now owned by Balaena, at Falmouth docks in my constituency, bid for a maintenance and repair contract for the Sir David Attenborough research vessel from UK Research and Innovation. Despite the company’s experience—the vessel was built at its sister yard, up in Teesside—and a strong bid, it narrowly missed out. The contract went to a Danish shipyard, under post-Brexit Conservative procurement rules. Despite not employing people in the UK, the Danish shipyard was marked up on social value criteria. A&P Falmouth would have employed local apprentices to do the work on the ship. Will the Minister confirm that under the procurement rules that we are introducing, British shipyards will be prioritised for British work?
As a previous chair of a local government pension scheme, I was really pleased to hear that the Government are going to bring catering, security, cleaning staff, porters and repair people back into Government Departments. Does the Minister agree that that is the right thing to do and is beneficial for those workers, particularly given the situation with their pensions and the other things that they should have had access to in the first place?
The UK Parliament’s school outreach worker for the south-west saw 20,000 children and 780 adult learners last year. In rural and coastal areas, that provision is absolutely vital. Some schools in my constituency cannot get to Parliament, and the ones that can are struggling to get places. Students from King Charles primary school have been in London since yesterday, but they could not come to Parliament because there was no space. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House found Government time for a debate on the impact that getting rid of the parliamentary school outreach team will have on rural and coastal areas, people with special education needs, minorities and people with disabilities.
I know the Minister is committed to supporting civil servants during relocation. I also know she is aware that there are employment inequalities in the civil service, in particular around promotion and pay. Will she say what more she is doing about this issue, and will she agree to meet me?
The situation in Sudan is outrageous. The atrocities are unbearable to hear about. On the international Development Committee we have heard about the most vile attacks on women and girls, and sexual violence. It must stop; we must do as much as we can as a Government to end it. What steps is the UK taking with its international partners to protect women and girls from the current offensive?
A teacher of Sudanese heritage in my constituency came to see me to tell me about the experience of her family. She said, “They had just enough time to grab their flip-flops and run for their lives. Having left all their property, they are now scattered in multiple countries across the region.” Her concern was that Sudan has never received the publicity or attention that it has deserved, and that that has been at the expense of the civilian population. Can I ask the Minister and the Government to put a proper spotlight on this conflict, and to use our weight and influence to prioritise the protection of the civilian population and the provision of humanitarian relief?
I thank my hon. Friend for all the hard work and conscientious effort she has put in to get us to this point. This is not just a Government promise; this is a long-standing request by the LGBT community, and it is a significant gap in our 30-year journey to legislative equality. That journey has been underpinned by a need to prove that we are not people to be pitied, treated, cured or, dare I say, reformed, but people to be respected, and this legislation will do that. My hon. Friend is wise and experienced, and she knows that there will be pushback—the same old tropes and bigotry dressed up as plausible excuses and sympathetic concerns. Does she agree that the key to fighting that is to put the voices and experience of those who have been abused in this way at the front and centre—people like my friend, who had to flee his house, his family and his city to avoid being forcibly “treated and cured” of being gay? Does she agree it is the case not just that they need to be protected from that abuse, but that their voices and experiences should be heard?
As we approach the upcoming EU-UK summit, can I urge the Minister to make sure that restoring international trains at Ashford International is firmly on the agenda for discussions with our European neighbours? It would bring over half a million extra visitors to Sussex and Kent every year and £2.5 billion of economic growth. Everything we need is sitting there in pristine condition, ready to go—it is a no-brainer. Will the Minister support it?
I beg to move, That this House has considered Windrush Day 2026. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate. Windrush Day is on 22 June, the anniversary of the arrival of HMT Empire Windrush at Tilbury docks. The Windrush has become a symbol of a period in our history when many people came to the UK from the countries of the Commonwealth. I am grateful to Arthur Torrington, who co-founded the Windrush Foundation with his dear friend, the late Samuel Beaver King, for his work documenting the history of the Windrush. Later this week, everyone will be able to read Arthur’s new book, “Windrush Myths and Misconceptions”, which I highly recommend. The Windrush began its voyage in Port of Spain, Trinidad, on 20 May 1948. It made a number of stops in the Caribbean, including at Kingston in Jamaica. We do not know everything about the passengers on the Windrush, in part because the ship’s manifest records limited information, and in part because there were a number of service personnel on board who, for security reasons, were not recorded on the manifest. We know that there were at least 1,067 passengers on board, probably considerably more. The Commonwealth passengers on the Windrush travelled straightforwardly on British passports, knowing that they had the right to come to the UK, the place they called the mother country. The passengers were a diverse group with differing levels of income, different reasons for travelling, and a range of skills and occupations. Among them were 66 Polish refugees. Not all the passengers were coming to look for work. Some were visiting the UK as tourists, and at least one was coming to watch a relative who was competing in the 1948 London Olympics. Upon their arrival, around 230 of the passengers were provided with temporary accommodation in the Clapham Common deep shelter, from where some of them came to Brixton and found work and accommodation. That gives my constituency a proud and direct relationship with the Windrush, recognised in the naming of Windrush Square in the heart of Brixton. One of the passengers was Sam King, an RAF airman who had served during the second world war. He returned to the UK on the Windrush and regarded the voyage as historic. He made great efforts to ensure that it would not be forgotten, keeping in touch with his fellow passengers and, from 1968, bringing them together to commemorate anniversaries. Sam King became known as Mr Windrush, and started the tradition of Windrush Day, long before it became a national day recognised by the Government in 2018. Sam King achieved many things in his life, including working with Claudia Jones to found the Notting Hill carnival. We are immensely proud in my constituency that he became the first black mayor of Southwark. HMT Empire Windrush entered our narrative as a symbol for a whole cohort of people who came from the Commonwealth to live in the UK from approximately 1948 to 1971. They became known as the Windrush generation, and we have a debt of gratitude to them. They came here to contribute, founding businesses, working in our NHS and transport systems, helping to rebuild our country from the ruins of the second world war. They enriched our culture and national life through food, music and faith communities, and they helped to forge the identity of modern Britain. Members may have seen the “Windrush Untold Stories” exhibition that has been installed in the Portcullis House atrium for the whole of June. The exhibition features beautiful portraits of 18 individuals who are all either members of the Windrush generation or their descendants. They include: the Reverend Michael King, son of Sam King; the late Clovis Salmon, wheelmaker and documentary maker, who lived in my constituency; and Dawn Hill CBE, one of the founders of the Black Cultural Archives. Each portrait has a QR code, through which people can listen to the subject telling their story. I encourage anyone who has not yet done so to listen to the stories. They are moving, humbling and inspiring. They capture perfectly the courage, grit, determination and passion of the Windrush generation, alongside some of the pain that members of that generation endured. I pay tribute to Ros Griffiths, who initiated the “Windrush Untold Stories” exhibition; Amit Lennon, who took the photographs; and the Empathy Museum, which gathered the stories and produced the exhibition. I look forward to celebrating Windrush Day with Ros at the Big Caribbean Lunch on Windrush Square in my constituency this weekend. However, our celebration of the Windrush generation is not a sentimental thing. Despite their commitment and contribution, members of that generation faced terrible racism, hostility and hardship, from the signs in the windows of rental properties that read, “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish”, to the workplace racism, and eventually the Home Office scandal, which broke in 2018. The Windrush scandal saw the citizenship of those who had come here on British passports—whether before or after the British Nationality Act 1948—being denied their citizenship, often with utterly devastating consequences. Eight years on from the scandal coming to national attention in the media, there is still work to be done to secure justice for its victims. I pay tribute to the former Minister for Migration, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for the work she did to rebuild trust with many of the victims of the Windrush scandal. She reformed the compensation scheme and resourced the Windrush unit in the Home Office, resulting in an event that many would never have thought possible: the holding of a Windrush conference in the Home Office itself, which was attended by many elders of the Windrush generation and many victims of the scandal. But there is still considerable work to do. Research by JUSTICE and the University of Sussex has found that claimants to the compensation scheme received an average offer of £11,400 when they applied for compensation by themselves, but an average of £83,300 for the same cases once they had legal representation. Such disparity is completely unacceptable, and it must be addressed. There are still victims who do not trust the Home Office to administer the scheme, and who have not come forward to apply for the compensation to which they are entitled. There are still individual cases—including at least one that I have been made aware of in detail—in which people are being denied their status, based on an inaccurate understanding of history. We should not mark this year’s Windrush Day without reflecting on the fact that political parties in our country are now seeking to rewrite the definition of Britishness as being based on ancestry alone. They are trying to create a false and completely unacceptable distinction between native Brits and non-native citizens, focusing implicitly on whiteness. This is a divisive, abhorrent and, most importantly, completely inaccurate articulation of Britishness, and we must reject it with all our strength. In recent weeks, the stoking of racist hatred and division has resulted in long-term residents of Belfast being hounded out of their homes based on the colour of their skin, in a sickening echo of the “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish” signs that greeted many of the Windrush generation. It is making many black and brown Britons feel anxious and fearful in their own communities. It is shameful and it is wrong. We do not have different categories of British citizen; we just have citizens of many different backgrounds, all together. We are one United Kingdom, with more in common than divides us. People come to citizenship through a range of routes—some by birth, and some by naturalisation. We are diverse, but we are all equal in status. Our task as citizens is to live well together in our communities and have respect for each other, to contribute to our society in the ways that we can, and to build places in which all our children and grandchildren can thrive. I pay tribute to all those who work to preserve the history of the Windrush generation, to educate people about it and to campaign for justice. In particular, I want to mention Arthur Torrington and the Windrush Foundation; Bishop Desmond Jaddoo and the Windrush National Organisation; Garrick Prayogg and Justice for the Windrush Generations; Sir Patrick Vernon, who I was delighted to see knighted in the King’s birthday honours this month; Ros Griffiths; the Windrush Justice Clinic; the Black Cultural Archives in my constituency; and Dr Les Johnson and Denize Ledeatte at the Windrush Museum. I want to make a number of asks of the Minister. Will she take seriously the need for support for victims of the Windrush scandal who apply to the compensation scheme, and work with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that they have access to funded legal support? In the light of concerns that the scheme is not on an equal footing with others, such as the infected blood compensation scheme and the Post Office/Horizon scandal compensation scheme, will she work with the Home Office to commission an independent review and address any disparities? Will she raise with the Home Office the calls for the scheme to be made fully independent from the Department responsible for the scandal? Will the Minister start work to plan for the 80th anniversary of the arrival of HMT Empire Windrush in 2028 so that commemorative and celebratory events like the Big Caribbean Lunch can take place across the country? Will she consider calls to deepen our celebrations by having a Windrush Month or a national Windrush motion, to embed Windrush history further within our civic life? Will she provide support for recording and preserving the oral histories of members of the Windrush generation, as has been done for the “Windrush Untold Stories” exhibition? Those stories are powerful, and they have an important role to play in educating people about our shared history. As part of that work, will she support the campaign by Sir Patrick Vernon and others to raise the anchor of the HMT Empire Windrush from the Mediterranean seabed, so that this important symbol of resilience and hope can be restored and used as an opportunity to tell this story? Finally, in the light of the abhorrent narratives on immigration that are currently gaining currency in our politics, will she commit to do everything possible to ensure that the Government’s policies always reflect and celebrate our rich and complex identity as an island nation to which people from all over the world have always come to make their home, including through upcoming legislation on immigration? The story of the Windrush generation is remarkable in so many ways. Most importantly, however, it is part of the story of us. It is an integral and interwoven part of the history of our country and our identity as a nation, and we must never forget it.