What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The SNP’s anti-nuclear position has already cost Scotland 5,000 jobs, as the Minister told Westminster Hall this month and has confirmed again this morning. What steps are the Government taking to bring the Scottish Government, industry and trade unions together so that new nuclear in Scotland finally gets the serious hearing that it deserves?
In Buckinghamshire, we do not yet have a local plan. Right now, we are seeing speculative application after speculative application going in. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that removing ward councillors’ right to call those applications in not only undermines accountability, but makes our green belt even more vulnerable?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the performance of HCRG Care Group in the south-west. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for having secured this debate about the performance of HCRG in the south-west, and Wiltshire in particular. Over recent months, a growing number of constituents, carers and healthcare professionals have contacted me. I want to open by thanking the staff who have stuck their heads above the parapet and asked their elected representatives to put HCRG’s performance on the Minister’s radar. Some of those staff are sitting in the Gallery, and I thank them for coming. The communities served by the HCRG contract are diverse: Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire. Each has its own challenges, demographics and patterns of service use. The issue is not whether one area matters more than another; it is whether local circumstances are properly understood. District nurses covering rural Wiltshire face challenges very different from those of nurses working in more urban areas, yet many of the staff who contacted me feel that those differences have not been properly recognised. Wiltshire is a large, rural county, where patients can live miles from healthcare facilities. Community nursing teams often spend significant amounts of the day travelling between appointments. Aggregate figures for a large contract area tell part of the story, but they can also obscure local pressures and problems. A successful service model is one that understands those differences and responds to them. I am afraid that I have concluded that HCRG does not understand those differences. When responsibility for community health services was awarded to HCRG in October 2024, patients were promised more joined-up care, easier access to services and simpler overall experiences.
The hon. Member is absolutely right. There is serious concern about what was promised and what has been delivered. The central part of that vision and delivery was the single point of access. As he has highlighted, that is an attractive idea on paper but the reality is completely different. Constituents repeatedly tell me about the long waits on phones, missed callbacks, referrals that are difficult to track and urgent cases not reaching the right team quickly enough.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and will come to that point. The biggest concern for staff is patient safety, which they have clearly highlighted to us. One Chippenham resident told me they waited an hour to get through to the single point of access, only to be told to expect a callback, which did not arrive until the following day. A constituent from Calne described spending a week making calls, leaving messages and sending emails simply to secure a podiatry appointment. I understand that, in the end, he was so desperate that he just went into the offices, but not everyone can do that. I appreciate that the integrated care board, the commissioner, has the single point of access under surveillance. But as I will return to later, being under surveillance is just not enough for our residents. Many of the concerns raised with me have come not only from patients but from staff. I have heard concerns about growing caseloads, vacancies, the loss of experienced staff and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) mentioned, the reduction of administrative support. One nurse reported that what had previously been 10 visits per day had increased to approximately 15. Another described seeing 14 patients during a shift that overran by 90 minutes. Staff speak of chronic understaffing, excessive workloads, and concerns about the impact that the pressures are having on patients and the workforce.
The hon. Member is quite right. We are seeing promises not being delivered; whether that is because HCRG is a private service or because of the management of the system is not for me to say. I hope that the Minister will be able to look into the matter. I personally spend a lot of time in the NHS—not out of choice, but as a patient and a carer for my husband. The frontline staff are fabulous. They go above and beyond to support the patient, regardless of whether that patient happens to be their MP. But as their MP, I do find that the staff tend to approach me in confidence to say that they fear using the formal channels for feedback. Patients and staff working across the community-based healthcare system are raising the same issues with me: delays, difficulty navigating the referral pathway and concerns about whether requests always reach the right clinical team. I think Ministers have a responsibility to take those concerns as seriously as the Members sitting next to me. Patient safety is my chief concern since HCRG took over. One community nurse described families contacting nursing teams because a loved one approaching the end of life was experiencing severe pain despite being told that help would be available. The nurse reported instances of when no referral appeared to have reached the community nursing team at all. Visits were eventually arranged, but the patient spent several hours without adequate pain relief. A former community nurse separately described trying to obtain additional medication for palliative patients and not being able to get it. Nobody approaching the end of their life should spend hours in avoidable pain because the system is inadequate. I have also heard concerns about delayed wound care, time-critical medication and urgent catheter issues. One district nurse described attending a patient whose leg wounds had leaked through his dressing. His daughter had contacted the service twice over the weekend without receiving assistance. By the time the nurse arrived, the patient had resorted to wrapping plastic bags around his legs—and I understand that the same problem occurred the following weekend. The concerns I have received are not limited to community nursing. A physiotherapist working in Chippenham hospital described concerns about the introduction of the new referral system. According to the information, staff noticed that referrals were dropping dramatically under the new system. But when those delayed referrals were eventually identified and processed, clinicians faced a sudden influx of cases, including urgent post-operative patients. We are talking about knee replacements not being seen in a timely manner, in which case they will end up being re-done. That is a cost for no reason. Clinicians describe patients waiting around eight weeks after knee replacement surgeries, despite the treatment being expected much sooner. The concerns raised are not simply about waiting times, but about the possibility of avoidable deterioration and long-term impacts on recovery. They are not simply administrative inconveniences; they are potentially about patient safety. I want to touch briefly on wheelchair services. I understand that Wiltshire currently has one wheelchair technician, although it had originally been intended to have four. One constituent from Calne told me that she was supplied with an unsuitable wheelchair without being properly measured. She raised concerns about the difficulty, her safety and the fact that she could not get on to the bus. Despite repeated attempts over months to resolve the matter, she is getting nowhere. Another constituent reported from Chippenham that their replacement battery and updated seating did not arrive, which meant that they were unable to get to college. When repair and maintenance services are not functioning as they should, the consequences for the patient are immediate and profound. Something that particularly troubled me was a comment made to me by some patients who were no longer bothering to complain because they had become accustomed to the delays and difficulties. Sometimes, the absence of formal complaints reflects a loss of confidence rather than anything else. That is particularly concerning when we think about older patients, disabled patients and those already struggling to navigate a complex health system. The people who find it the hardest to access services are often the people least likely to make their voices heard. That is why scrutiny and transparency matter. When constituents raise concerns about HCRG services, they expect clear, simple answers. Who is responsible? We have an ICBC contract oversight group that reports to the ICBC collaborative oversight forum. We have the BSW community delivery group, which oversees transformation across the system. We have joint contract oversight groups, quality boards and safeguarding groups that all scrutinise performance, but many of the same organisations sit across multiple levels of that oversight. The integrated care board, the local authority commissions and the HCRG itself are involved throughout that governance structure. The organisations commissioning the contract and managing the contract are also scrutinising the contract—all of them seem to be on the same table. Frankly, even we elected representatives struggle to work out who is accountable. When everyone is involved in the oversight, it can be remarkably difficult to identify who is responsible for acting when problems emerge. There is a risk that organisations end up marking their own homework, with concerns passing between governance groups rather than being subject to genuinely independent challenge. Patients deserve a system in which responsibility is visible, understandable and transparent from the outset. Where persistent concerns are being raised about access to care, referral pathways and patient safety, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the Care Quality Commission should take a closer look. We should not worry about independent scrutiny; we should welcome it, because it will lead to improvements. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed two specific points. First, will she ask BSW’s ICB and the HCRG to publish some comparable pre-transformation and post-transformation performance data that includes call waiting times, callback performance, referral processing times, complaints and patient outcome, broken down where possible to a local level? In that way, patients and parliamentarians will be able to see whether the promised improvements have actually been delivered a year and a half into the contract, despite the fact that the group had six months before the contract started to provide for the transition. Secondly, will the Minister engage with the Care Quality Commission about a case for further independent scrutiny of HCRG’s Wiltshire services and clarify what further regulatory action may be available if the persistent concerns about access, referrals and patient safety continue, as was referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes? Patients do not really care how many committees or meetings are called; they want answers. Their concern is whether they are getting the care they need, when they need it.
Does the Minister agree that the complexity of the oversight system, with the same people in every single one of its groups, does not help staff or patients to feel that there is genuine, independent scrutiny of what is happening? We are getting the same answers from the same people.
At the risk of delaying her, will the Minister give way on that point?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for setting out her case so well. As their starting point, the Government need to be clear about what problem and which causes of that problem they are trying to solve. The vast majority of this House would agree that we need more house building, ideally with a particular focus on affordable and social housing, but there are many reasons why we are not hitting the Government’s housing targets, and they should not be lazily reduced to blaming the planning system or planning committees. The solutions that the Government seek to deal with that house building shortage should be based on evidence, not ideology. I fear that sometimes ideology dominates. Removing local scrutiny in the way that has been described will not address the underlying causes of delay, which include capacity constraints in planning departments and the wider construction supply chain. We need a planning system that is simpler, more effective and capable of delivering homes that are well built, warm and cheap to heat, and that is accountable to local people and their representatives. In South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse district councils, the two district councils that cover my Oxfordshire constituency, the planning committees work well and there is no evidence that they are slowing development down. Some 95% of planning applications are decided by officers already. The majority of applications debated by the planning committees are also passed, but having complex and more contentious planning decisions made in public aids transparency and scrutiny over how planning policies are being applied. Vale of White Horse council has an excellent record on planning appeals: only 4.3% of appeals were allowed over the past two years, demonstrating that the decisions being made under the existing system are working well and are of a high quality. In my constituency, we have seen huge rates of housing growth over the past 15 years. The key frustration for local people is that the infrastructure has not kept pace. A lot of the time, the local councils are not the ones able to dictate what we need in respect of housing, new railway stations or health infrastructure. Significant infrastructure is not something over which they have direct control. Reducing the input of local communities and removing the ability of local ward councillors to call planning decisions to a committee could reduce the opportunity for those who understand our communities best to influence the infrastructure that developers provide alongside new homes. Over the past few years, there have been signs that house building is slowing down—the build rate of homes on some of the larger developments in my part of Oxfordshire has slowed—but the Government have misdiagnosed the cause of slower build rates. Planning committees are not the cause; there are wider economic causes and wider system causes. Developers will only build the homes that they are confident of selling. More expensive mortgages and potential buyers not feeling confident about investing in buying a home are significant factors. I had the pleasure of serving on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, alongside the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who is in this Chamber. We both have very fond memories of it—a very rewarding and fulfilling experience it was. Indeed, the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), also served on the Committee. It was on topics such as the one we are debating where there were common amendments among Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Green party Members. How often does that happen? If I were the Government, I would be very worried about uniting three such different parties. The wider philosophical problem that we are failing to address as a Parliament and as a country is the tension between national need versus local concern. We need to start approaching that question intelligently. It is yet another debate that has become polarised, with two tribes shouting at each other and not really engaging in dialogue. Maybe we need more Ministers coming to areas affected by significant planning issues—I am not talking about a little cul-de-sac of new houses, but maybe significant infrastructure projects. If Ministers were more willing to come to our constituencies, they could make their case directly and debate and could challenge local opponents.
I was amazed that the right hon. Lady did not mention that station campaign in her opening speech, but she has now rectified that omission. Ministers coming and engaging directly in that way could be part of a campaign of national persuasion to tackle the causes for resentment of development in a given area, but too often that is left to large corporate interests to do, which fuels mistrust. Indeed, in my constituency, the main advocate of what would be the second-biggest reservoir in the country is Thames Water, and of course that really does not help to persuade people of the case. It is one of the major reasons why there is significant local opposition. As a result, I agree with the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that these changes being made by the Government run the risk of further eroding trust in local politics and local democracy. That is in none of our interests.
The Minister saw for herself this summer the opportunities being developed around marine renewables in my constituency at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney. Next month we will hopefully get the report from the taskforce commissioned by other Government Departments. Will the Minister engage with that and ensure that we get marine energy across the line and, as a consequence, win a home-grown supply chain in Scotland for her reindustrialisation policies?
My constituent Darran is the father of Aidan Venison, who was only 19 when he was killed by a driver under the influence of drink and drugs who was not a first-time offender—he had already been banned from driving before, and on that occasion he was also uninsured. Aidan’s parents do not understand the leniency that might have been afforded to such a driver, or why they are still allowed to be on the roads. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sometimes sentences that are perceived as lenient add to the heartbreak of parents?
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of the road safety strategy, we should consider graduated driving licences, which have been introduced in Northern Ireland? He talked about the risks of dangerous driving, and he mentioned drink and drugs, but youth is also a danger, because if kids get into a car and start to speed, it can end up being a tragic situation. Does he agree that England, Wales and Scotland should have the same rights as Northern Ireland?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. These regulations are a very welcome step forward. The Liberal Democrats have long pushed for greater use of the UK’s sanction regime to target those whose actions are actively undermining human rights, by targeting the most vulnerable and perpetrating war crimes. It is important and right that the regulations more fully provide for a response to egregious violations of international humanitarian law. That is particularly so at a time when millions around the world are facing humanitarian crises; yet while brave humanitarians are doing their best to provide life-saving assistance, other actors are actively undermining, obstructing or preventing those efforts. The Liberal Democrats support the regulations and will back them, but in setting out our support for them, it is also vital to note that, while they are an important step forward, they are not the final step. They furnish the Government with the framework needed to stand up for human rights and international humanitarian law around the world. They are a powerful tool that allows the UK to take targeted measures to stand up for the most vulnerable people around the world. What matters now is the Government’s willingness to use the tool given to them by the House to stand up for the values they have articulated and to take on, with our support, those powerful forces who believe that they can act with impunity. The Government must have the courage of their convictions and, in the light of these regulations, they must evaluate without fear or favour the actions of all those, friend or foe, who are fuelling and carrying out violence, displacement, famine and human rights abuses around the world. The regulations open the door to further sanctions and greater accountability. The Government must grasp that opportunity, and Members across the House must demand it.
Would the right hon. Member back a national security exemption for regulations such as those he cited whereby, if what is being developed is clearly for our national security, health and safety and other regulations fall away to enable us to get that into the field quickly?
The hon. Member seems to be extolling the benefits of building houses, so can he explain why the Reform party in Tunbridge Wells is campaigning to restrict house building?
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), and I want to pick up his last theme, which was the defence of our country. Specifically, I want to talk about our readiness to fight a war. The Defence Secretary said just last week that we had to be ready within 1,000 days to fight a war against Russia, so this is really about preparing for the war that is in front of us, rather than for a war. I want to make a slight digression and pick up on something the Chancellor said today. He said: “In today’s Budget, I am fully funding the defence investment plan”. I want to compare the figures in today’s Red Book with the figures laid by the previous Chancellor when the DIP announcements were made on 30 June. For 2027, in the DIP, we see a total budget for the MOD of £73.8 billion. In today’s Red Book we see a figure of £72.8 billion, so there is a gap of £1 billion. It is the same for 2028-29. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard me, but perhaps the Chancellor would like to clarify his statement, because it does not seem that he is fully funding the DIP, according to the figures that were laid before Parliament. Going back to readiness, the defence investment plan is, by its very nature, about capital projects. Over the past decade in the MOD, capital expenditure has gone up by about 130%, which is obviously very welcome, but day-to-day expenditure has flatlined in real terms. Looking at the Red Book today, and the RDEL for the MOD in 2027-28, we see that day-to-day expenditure in the MOD is actually being cut by 2%. Day-to-day expenditure in the MOD means spare parts, maintenance, munitions, training and operations. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament, and we are currently running an inquiry into the state of the British military. What we are hearing is sobering stuff. We have no submarines that are at sea, which is in part a maintenance problem. We have aircraft that we are unable to disperse around different airfields because we do not have sufficient levels of stocks. We have the Navy cutting training courses for tank commanders. We have not run a submarine course for submarine commanders for many years. We have to send them to other nations to train them. This cut in resource expenditure, in day-to-day expenditure in the MOD, is having a real effect on our ability to be ready for war now, and that has a direct effect on our ability to deter Russia by 2030, which is exactly what the Government tell us we need to be doing. I always apply the Granny Martin test to these things, which is to look at what people do rather than what they say. The Government seem to be saying that we need to be ready to fight a war by 2030. We have had a whole slew of announcements, with the Defence Secretary and the Security Minister saying that we need to stockpile food. I think we get it: it is a dangerous world and we need to be ready for war by 2030. But then why do we have a defence investment plan in which two thirds of the capital expenditure is after 2030, and that will deliver projects well into the 2030s? If we really need to be ready for war by 2030, we need to focus on readiness. That means taking some of that MOD capital expenditure and putting it in the day-to-day budget, because that means we can train our forces, maintain our equipment, and have stocks, spares and munitions. Without that, our forces will wither, the training of our people will decline, morale will decline, and we will simply not be able to get ships out to sea or planes in the air. Last week the APPG ran a session on the RAF, and we heard that for just £50 million we could build hardened shelters on our airbases. At the moment, we have exquisitely expensive planes that are sitting out in the open on the airbases. Do these people watch the news? Do they see what the Ukrainians are doing to Russian airframes? For relatively small amounts of money, we could get ready for the war that the Government say we face. That is what we should be focusing on, rather than projects that deliver after 2030.
Does the hon. Member think it is right that people in Gloucestershire feel somewhat left out of the devolution agenda? We have been placed on the pause list for local government reorganisation, even though there is local consensus, and we are the only place in the whole of the west and south-west region without a devolution deal, even though there is a consensus on that as well. I say that in the knowledge that a Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), is from the west of England, and—as I understand it, based on what I hear from local councillors—Gloucestershire would like to have the same as her region. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Gloucestershire could reasonably feel a bit left out and miffed by what is going on?
In my constituency, the Shipston Area Flood Action Group has led a natural flood management project, working together with local landowners to slow the flow of the River Stour upstream. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater investment in natural flood management, so that communities are protected before flooding occurs while also helping to restore nature?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by the introduction of a national scheme of delegation, which gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers and allows planning decisions to bypass local planning committees. We opposed this approach throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and sought to protect the existing powers of committees. Faster planning decisions should come from having properly resourced planning departments and giving councils the freedom to set planning fees that truly reflect the cost of their job—not by shutting communities out of decisions about their local areas. On Saturday, a national scheme of delegation will come into force. Every council in England must rewrite its constitution to match it, and none has been given a say on whether to do so. As many Members have said, planning is where most people first meet democracy, and it is one of the most important reasons why they vote for a councillor in the first place. Household applications, minor commercial applications, schemes of up to nine homes and a range of technical decisions must now go to officers. For other applications, a committee can step in only where it raises a significant issue and an officer and nominated member agree; a councillor cannot refer an application alone. The ward member’s call-in has gone, and so has the route by which enough objections would bring an application to committee. Nine houses next to someone’s home are not a minor matter, and councillors will still be blamed for it. When something is built that nobody wants, residents will ask their councillor why, and the honest answer will be that they had no control over it whatever. The Government’s case is that committees slow things down, but the reality is that this country does not have a big permissions problem in the first place; councillors already approve nine in 10 applications.
I very much agree, and I will come on to that. Removing local scrutiny, as this scheme does, touches none of the problems I have mentioned. Where delay is real, it lies in planning departments running with about 80% of the staff they need, one in five major applications being decided on time, and fees that the Government accept do not cover the cost of the work. The Liberal Democrats made that point throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) tabled 78 amendments in Committee and more than 50 on Report, including some to try to protect planning committees. Unfortunately, the Government accepted none of those amendments. The Government have decided that residents are just a nuisance to be overcome. Through these measures, which come on top of years of reduced neighbourhood control, they have killed one bird with a thousand stones. It is not as if local people had much say over things beforehand. The Liberal Democrats regret the lack of any attempt to build consent. This is just storing up problems and resentment for the future, as Members have said. I ask the Minister: will the Government let a ward member bring an application to committee on behalf of residents as the locally elected official? Will they look again at the standard method—the flawed formula—that sets local targets? Will they commit to telling us in plain terms whether this change is doing what it is supposed to by 2028 at the latest? Finally, national fees are planned at an estimated 90% cost recovery. Will the Government commit to full cost recovery so that planning departments are properly resourced? We need to rediscover the principle of consent.
I am a Member who represents a part of the United Kingdom where government is devolved. Despite the good intentions of this Government, the money that goes north sometimes goes into the tube and what comes out the other end is sometimes rather different, particularly on housing. Is that something the Treasury Committee could look at one day, to see whether what is delivered was the intention of His Majesty’s Government?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this debate. Sheffield is an excellent place to ground this debate because it has two great examples of the origin stories of many of our universities. The University of Sheffield is a civic university in the truest sense. When it sought its charter in 1904, steelworkers, factory workers and other local people raised over £50,000 in penny donations to support it. Sheffield Hallam traces its roots to the School of Design, which was founded in 1843 to train designers for the city’s industry, and became a university in 1992. One red brick, one post ’92: both serve the city and both embody the idea of universities as anchors of their community. That idea is now at risk. Later today the Chancellor delivers his first Budget; every signal is that universities should expect very little from it. We cannot continue to ignore the stark choice before us when it comes to university policy. Either we carry on with a managed decline—courses cut, talent lost, places left behind—or we can choose transformation with universities as engines of learning throughout life, as innovation hubs driving economic growth and as civic institutions embedded in the places they serve. The Liberal Democrats would choose transformation, and I hope the Government will do the same. At the moment, too many universities are fighting for survival. More than a third of English providers were in deficit last year. The Department’s own costing study found that universities lose about £3,000 on every home undergraduate they teach. Research is worse: universities now recover only two thirds of research costs. According to the Russell Group, universities put in £6.3 billion of their own money into research last year. For many years now, the funding gap has been filled by international students, but that income is now also falling away. Visa applications in August—the peak month—were down by 17% on a year ago. Of course, education as a great British export is about much more than money, but the business model that has saved the Government from spending more on home students and research is being undermined. The Government have said that they intend, in the Finance Bill that will follow today’s Budget, to legislate for a £925 levy on every international student. Only a tiny sliver of that money will go to the maintenance grants put forward as a justification for it. This crisis does not simply affect an ivory tower elite who sit apart from our communities: in many towns and cities, the university is one of the largest employers and the source of the next generation of teachers, nurses, engineers and members of many other professions. Such universities produce graduates who are likely to stay and work locally and serve the students who are often least able to move away to study. When a nursing course or engineering department closes in such a place, it does not relocate; it disappears from the region. With it goes a route into a profession for everyone who cannot simply up sticks and leave. Post-’92 universities carry a burden that their older neighbours do not. For no other reason than institutional history, they are tied into the teachers’ pension scheme, for which employer contributions reached 28.7% last year—roughly double what many older universities pay, and about £8,000 extra a year for a typical member of staff. In July the Government ruled out any help, but part of solving this crisis in the sector must include working towards a single, fairer pensions framework. There is also the question of what happens when one of these institutions does not survive. The Office for Students told the Education Committee that 24 institutions could exit the market within a year. The Committee recommended a special administration regime so that a failing university could keep teaching while its future was resolved, but the Government have said that they are “not currently persuaded” because legislating would be too complex. I would say that that is an argument for starting now, not for doing nothing. Further education colleges have had a special regime since 2019, and having no regime has its own risks. With no orderly way to fail, many simply assume that the Government will step in. Sir Philip Augar has said that a handful of universities are already getting secret bail-outs. When I asked Ministers about that, I was told that emergency support is not provided, but also that officials meet universities and their banks regularly in confidence. Discussing potential rescues behind closed doors gives us all the moral hazard and none of the transparency. Liberal Democrats see universities as essential national infrastructure, not cost centres to be squeezed. That means a new settlement: in the short term, reform the levy before it reaches the statute book; reprofile student loan fee payments to ease the cash flow; offer low-interest loans for restructuring; and remove the VAT penalty that stops universities from sharing back-office services, so that they merge finance and HR rather than cut teaching. We need to fund the breadth of subjects in every region and make sure that public research grants actually cover the 80% of costs that they are supposed to. But this needs to come alongside obligations on universities. The money alone will not fix the problem. After 2030, the number of 18-year-olds will fall by 17%, yet 82% of the growth in priority occupations in the industrial strategy sectors will require a higher education qualification. Put those two facts together, and a model built around school leavers simply will not work in the long term. Many of those who will fill the jobs in that growth are already in work and will need to retrain as technology reshapes what they do. Universities need to open up to adults through modular lifelong learning, which we suggest needs to be through lifelong skills grants, not simply loans. Universities also need to work hand in hand with further education colleges, with credits that transfer between them, and they need to turn British research into businesses that stay in Britain.
A lot of the interventions that I have suggested on the university side are cost-neutral and would involve restructuring. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government update their impact analysis to reflect this year’s fall in international recruitment and publish the effect by region and type of institution of the international student levy before the Finance Bill is debated? Secondly, will they think again about special administration before rather than after a university fails? Thirdly, will the Government commit to working with the sector to end the pensions penalty on post-’92 universities? Universities did not get to this position overnight and they will not recover overnight, but today’s Budget is a chance to stop the managed decline and start the transformation. I hope the Chancellor takes it.
I welcome much of what the Chancellor has shared today, but I believe that the Budget falls short in several areas. In Epsom and Ewell, hard-working people are being stretched in all directions. One constituent has shared how, even though she is earning more than ever before, she just cannot keep up with the increasing costs of everyday life. That is not a unique experience. Rising costs are making essentials feel like luxuries, and working hard simply is not enough. Food prices are mounting, and energy bills are spiralling. The Chancellor offers a few pennies off a jar of marmalade, which will save households only £21 a year. While Paddington Bear will appreciate the cost of sandwiches going down, that marmalade relief will not help my constituents. We need to bring costs down. No one should have to worry about the cost of energy because of the whims of Westminster or geopolitical instability. I welcome the £100 cash payment for homes in council tax bands A to D, but if energy bills keep rising, it will only offset the escalation in price. Today, the Government’s tax band checker crashed as people checked to see if they were eligible. That just shows how desperate people are. Instead of offering a one-off reprieve, why not offer a sustainable solution, such as an essential energy guarantee that would save the average family £100 a year, every year? Epsom and Ewell is home to many hard-working businesses—independent restaurants such as Bamboo Basket and family-run shops such as Fudge & Sons. When I speak to local businesses, one word repeatedly comes up again and again: uncertainty. Only one in six small businesses anticipate growth in the next 12 months. That is a dire assessment, and Labour has only added pressure with its previous jobs tax and national insurance hikes. I welcome the slashing of the endless form filling and pointless paperwork and the introduction of founders’ relief, and I am glad that the Chancellor has finally listened to Liberal Democrat calls to support business and reward entrepreneurial ambition, but more must be done. Businesses deserve a fair deal. I welcome the efforts to ease business rates, but they do not go far enough. Dawn, the director of Word on the Street bookshop in Ashtead, told me that she fears the changes will not help. Her business is a microbusiness; it has a turnover of less than £1 million, a balance sheet of less than £500,000 and fewer than 10 staff, but her current business rates are more than £6,000. To pay that, she must sell around 1,300 books a year. The current system continues to punish high street businesses and, due to the high rateable value in Surrey, businesses will not benefit from the new exemption. The Government must overhaul business rates now. Hospitality is on its knees, and the Government have failed to throw businesses a lifeline. Every week, I am told that the cost of doing business is suffocating. Fiona, the landlady at the Marquis of Granby, was forced to increase the price of a pint from £6.50 to £7.15 just in the last year, and now there is a rise in beer duty. Green & Bean coffee shop in Epsom told me that it did not have any hope for this Budget, and quite frankly it was right. Hospitality is not just about pubs, cafés and restaurants; it is a vital entry point into the world of work, giving young people, including NEETs, a chance to gain skills, earn a wage and build a future. When hospitality businesses close, we lose jobs, local growth and the heart of our high streets. We cannot let that happen. High energy costs put real pressure on small businesses. It seems that big industry gets a discount today, but the high streets get the bill, and Fatima’s Hair Boutique in Epsom is no exception. Hairdressing is energy intensive, and Fatima needs hot water, salon machines and heating. In summer, her salon’s energy bills are around £390 a month; in the winter, they average a staggering £600 a month. The Government have announced that electricity bills will be cut by up to 25% for more than 10,000 businesses through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but will the Chancellor confirm whether high street businesses are included in that scheme? Small businesses need a cut in their energy bills, not a trim around the edges. Epsom and Ewell is a strong net contributor to the Exchequer and is home to major businesses such as Aviva, Wates and Slitherine, but that success depends on strong rail infrastructure, and I did not hear anything about that in the Budget today. Cuts to train frequency post-covid are having a huge impact on local businesses. Growth relies on people being able to get to work and contribute to the economy. We must restore train services in Epsom and Ewell to at least four an hour—an investment that would pay dividends back to the Treasury. I have been in Parliament for just over two years, and in that time I have seen three Health Secretaries come through. What I have not seen is the Government deliver on fully funding the new hospital programme. St Helier is being held together by patchwork repairs, and now we are seeing the result of that chronic under-investment—pipework so old that Legionella and Pseudomonas have been found in the water in St Helier’s maternity ward. My constituents deserve better. The Government must stop dragging their feet and speed up the construction of the new specialist emergency care hospital. I welcome today’s abolition of the cliff edge on carer’s allowance, but the details are less welcome. It will not take effect for four years, and it will act as a 100% tax rate for working carers. The Chancellor did not acknowledge the crisis in primary care—GP waiting times are through the roof, while dental deserts are the default. It is not good enough. There was also no mention of funding for the national cancer plan. We need action to save lives and increase cancer survival rates. Treatment must begin within 62 days of diagnosis. The Chancellor resigned as Defence Secretary because, in his own words, the plan fell “well short of what is required for defence”. That was an honourable decision, but now that he holds the purse strings, he has failed to set out a clear route for defence spending with the urgency that is needed. With the general public being told to stockpile, it appears that Britain’s kitchens are going to be better resourced than our armed forces. As such, although I welcome much of what has been announced today, for many of my constituents this Budget has not been bold enough. We need real guarantees that support constituents and businesses, because life should not be this hard.
It is a pleasure to serve the Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I declare an interest as a registered social landlord. The Liberal Democrats come at this from a somewhat different starting point than the official Opposition, in that we supported the Renters’ Rights Act and we strongly supported the introduction of a database of landlords as a source of really important basic information that tenants should be able to have. We have been consistent in supporting the concept of what is in front of us. The system that has been devised, however, is nothing short of a fiasco and will undermine the whole purpose of the database. As well as being harmful—or challenging, to say the very least—to landlords and damaging to their business operations, it will frustrate tenants if landlords need to spend that amount of time updating the register one property at a time. Let us imagine that someone is an institutional landlord with 4,000 dwellings. If only one can be entered at a time, it will take weeks and months, by which time the database will be completely out of date for tenants looking at it. The problems of the database will affect not only landlords, but tenants. We desperately need more build-to-rent landlords to build more rented accommodation. There is a debate going on about the Renters’ Rights Act and whether landlords have withdrawn from the market. I do not intend to get into that debate in detail—the Joseph Rowntree Foundation takes a different view and says that there is a certain amount of churn—but one thing is absolutely clear: the Act is challenging the sector to a huge degree and causing a great deal of change and churn. The last thing that it needs right now is a database that, for our biggest landlords, is completely impossible to complete in any economic or efficient way. I am grateful to Real Estate:UK for its briefing, and I make no apologies for reading out parts of what it has told me. For example, it says that “a single employee working through a 5,000-home portfolio would need 2,500 hours or around 312.5 working days” to upload. That has to be done every year. It continues: “Without any fee discount or integrative information provision process, a BTR landlord with a 5,000-unit portfolio can expect to spend c.£378,000 a year on registering their properties.” Furthermore, it says: “To comply both with selective licensing and the Service, a BTR landlord can expect to pay over £4,000,000 across a 5,000-home portfolio.” As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington, pointed out, the costs are above what was expected at the time of Act’s passage. It is surely not beyond the wit of Government to produce a database where someone can make multiple uploads and does not need to upload one at a time, and a database that is more efficient than the one we have at the moment where someone cannot even copy data across from one property to the next—even if they have 250 properties that are exactly the same, they have to enter each one individually without copying across any of the data. If the official Opposition press the measure to a Division, which they clearly will, we Liberal Democrats will also vote against it. It is bad for the Renters’ Rights Act, bad for tenants, bad for landlords and bad for the build-to-rent sector that we need to support our housing market.
As always, the Minister is being very generous with his time. He has answered a number of the points raised—I will give him that—but if institutional landlords are paying millions of pounds in fees, the least they should expect is to have a database that works. I welcome the Minister saying that he is continuing to look at the issue, but could he go a smidgen further and commit, on the record, that the Government will ensure that bulk uploads can be achieved? That is the huge failure of the system.
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s opening remarks, and join others in sending our best wishes to the Clerk of the House as he retires. When I met the Prime Minister for social care cross-party talks in July, we talked about supporting family carers better, so I welcome the abolition of the cliff edge on carer’s allowance, which has caused so much misery, but the details are less welcome. It will not take effect for four years, and when it does, the Government will claw back £1 for every extra £1 a carer earns—a 100% tax rate for working carers. That cannot be right, so will he meet me to discuss our plans to fix carer’s allowance, which would make work pay for family carers?
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. I hope the invitation will extend to the Conservatives, who want to join in real cross-party talks to solve this long-standing issue. Turning to the economy, the Prime Minister is right to say that Britain’s best future lies back at the heart of Europe. He is also right to say that we need to build consensus within the British public to make that happen. But instead of making everyone wait for Labour’s next manifesto, will the Prime Minister start now to show the economic benefits of a closer trading relationship with Europe by joining a customs union, joining the single market, boosting growth and using the dividends of that growth to help with the cost of living by cutting people’s taxes?
It is always a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I am glad she committed to looking at the devil in the detail of this Budget, because when one looks at the fine print there are quite a few things for her Committee to scrutinise. In particular, I hope that she will look at the very disappointing growth forecasts, because I think this Budget will be defined more by Labour’s red lines on Europe and the Conservatives’ Brexit red tape than by faster growth. At the root of so much of what has gone wrong in our country—the cost of living crisis, higher taxes, broken public services, empty high streets, and the lack of jobs and opportunity—is the lack of economic growth. Our economy is being held back. British business is being held back. It is being held back above all by the terrible damage of the Conservatives’ Brexit deal: a deal, let us never forget, that was backed by the leader of Reform and voted for by Labour—a deal that put up pointless new barriers to trade, tied up British firms in extra costs and red tape, and pushed up prices on our supermarket shelves.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am always happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman in the Tea Room. As I was saying, our economy is being held back by Brexit, so the biggest single thing the Government could do to fix our economy is to fix our trading relationship with Europe and take us back into the single market and a customs union, giving us the growth and the money to cut people’s taxes. [Interruption.]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unless and until a Government have the courage to do just what I have outlined, I am afraid that any Budget will only be tinkering around the edges, because it will not provide the growth our country so desperately needs. The Prime Minister, to be fair, has rightly talked about the economic damage caused by Brexit, but in answer to my questions he still refuses to drop Labour’s red lines set down by Keir Starmer more than five years ago. The world has changed so much since then and it is long past time that Labour policy changed with the world. I welcome the Prime Minister talking more openly this week about the need to move forward on Europe, but can I say to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister that it is just too urgent to wait until the next Parliament? Today’s Budget shows why. I remember when 2% growth was nothing special. When we were in government that was the average, but since we left the EU, it has been less than half that—less than 1% growth a year. Today’s forecasts show things starting slowly to move in the right direction, but they still show growth well below 2% every year for the next five years. What used to be average growth now feels like a pipe dream, so we need a real growth plan with Europe at its heart: a plan that only our party has set out—an economic plan to make Britain richer, safer and stronger. Our plan would also tackle one of the great hidden tax injustices not just of this Budget, but of every Conservative and Labour Budget since 2021: frozen income tax thresholds. They are a stealth tax rise that has dragged millions of the lowest paid into paying income tax and millions of ordinary people—nurses, teachers, police officers—into the higher 40p tax band. Millions are paying higher taxes for the cost of Government economic failure. I have to say to the Chancellor that this Budget, which freezes the income tax allowance of people in work while raising the personal allowance for some pensioners, is not the answer. Income tax thresholds should rise for everyone—the fairest tax cut possible—letting people keep more of what they earn, rewarding hard work and giving individuals more power in our economy. That is a profoundly Liberal thing to do. If we grow the economy by trading more with Europe, we can afford to do that—a real plan to turn the economy around and cut taxes fairly. Our plan would also tackle one of the biggest headaches the Chancellor is facing in this Budget: the cost of Government borrowing. We clearly cannot go on spending £1 in every £12 just on interest payments on the national debt. That is money that should be going on schools, on hospitals, or back into people’s pockets. We just cannot go on with the Government borrowing money at interest rates of over 5%. Some of the cost is down to global factors, as the Chancellor talked about, and a lot of it is down to Donald Trump’s war with Iran, but there is no doubt that the bond markets would look more favourably on the UK if our growth prospects were better. Just as for growing the economy, the single biggest thing the Government could do to cut their own borrowing costs, and the interest rates faced by homeowners and businesses, would be to take up our growth plan, and join the single market and customs union. Just look at the alternative put forward by the terrible twins of British politics, the Conservatives and Reform. They are in a bidding war of unfunded fantasy promises. We have seen where that sort of fiscal irresponsibility ends; Liz Truss’s mini-Budget sent mortgage rates rising. Yet now we face the threat of a Tory-Reform Government doing it all over again. The British people simply cannot afford that. That brings me back to the cost of living. Why are so many bills going up again? Because Donald Trump chose to start his idiotic war with Iran, which has pushed up our energy bills and hiked diesel and petrol prices to painful levels. When that war began, the Conservatives and Reform were lining up to say that Britain should be backing President Trump. Just imagine if they had been in charge. We would have been dragged into fighting a war that no one wants and paying for it with even higher bills and higher taxes. Britain needs a Government who stand up for British interests, not one who make us ever more dependent on an unreliable, out-of-control American President. With Donald Trump pushing up petrol and diesel prices, the Chancellor’s freeze on fuel duty is welcome, but it is not enough. I urge him to look again at our emergency transport package, which would cut prices at the pumps by 12p a litre and bring down the cost of travel by bus, train and electric vehicle, too—a real breathing space for families and businesses. With energy bills forecast to rise by more than 25% in January, the Chancellor’s promise to break the link between gas prices and electricity bills cannot come soon enough, but he is right to reject the siren song from those on the Conservative and Reform Benches who want Britain to be even more dependent on dirty fossil fuels and their volatile prices. Once again, they are copying Donald Trump, and their energy plan would be a disaster for our environment, our economy and for everyone struggling with the cost of living. The right answer is to invest instead in clean home-grown renewable power, energy efficiency and battery storage, so that the prices we pay do not depend on Trump’s latest Truth Social post, but instead come down quickly as technology continues to slash the cost of renewable energy and of batteries. In a world where Trump is deserting Ukraine, praising Putin and selling out on European security, we must move far more quickly on defence. When the Defence Secretary says we must be ready for war within 1,000 days, our armed forces cannot wait years for the investment they desperately need now. The Chancellor’s announcement of some extra funding is welcome as far as it goes, but why has he not taken up our plan for defence bonds to invest £20 billion in Britain’s defence over the next two years? And since he has ruled out joining Canada’s defence bank, will he now take up our plan and push for a European rearmament bank that goes so much further than what he announced today? Instead of signing up to one country’s version, surely the right answer is to bring our allies together behind a shared vision of defence investment to protect our continent from Putin. The defence of our country needs serious answers like these, not fantasy pledges like the Conservatives’ “iron dome”, which they say is not an iron dome—except when it is. What a shambles! No wonder they left Britain’s armed forces in such a mess, something for which they have not yet apologised. It will not surprise the House to hear that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are delighted to hear talk of fiscal devolution. Taking money and power out of a few hands in Whitehall and giving it to communities to make their own decisions is something that we, as Liberals, have always championed. There is a right way to do devolution and a wrong way, so we will have three tests for the Government’s plan as it develops. First, does it give councils enough money to fulfil the responsibilities they are being given? Secondly, does it reach beyond mayors to councils and communities everywhere? Thirdly, is it fair, so that those areas that are already struggling do not find themselves with even less? Done properly, this could be the start of something really big; done badly, it is simply passing the buck. The same goes for welfare reform. Of course it needs to be done, but it needs to be done right: cutting the bill by helping people into work and giving people the care and support they need so that they can work, like fixing carer’s allowance to help people juggle care with work. I am glad that the Chancellor has listened to carers on the need to scrap the unfair cliff edge of carer’s allowance. As I said to the Prime Minister earlier, this cannot wait another four years, and we cannot see a 100% tax rate on working carers. I urge the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to look at our alternative plan instead, which we put forward to Liz Sayce when she did her review. I hope to bring it to the meeting that the Prime Minister has promised. Whether on carer’s allowance or other benefits, let us reform welfare right, so that the system helps people into work and then rewards them for working. The country needs this new Chancellor and Prime Minister to succeed, because the livelihoods of everyone in our country are at stake. The Liberal Democrats will work constructively with the Government wherever we can. We will oppose them when they get things wrong, of course, but we will also support them when they get things right and push them to go further when they are too timid. In that spirit, I say to the Chancellor that this Budget is far too timid. The Government have recognised the scale of the challenge, but like Keir Starmer before them, they still have not risen to it. They have not fixed the terrible damage that they did with their tax rises, from the family farm tax to the jobs tax. I urge them to be bolder—be bolder on energy and defence; be bolder on devolution, and get it right; be bolder on cutting income tax; and be bolder on Europe and growth—because after so many years of pain, so many years of being held back, the British people need real change, and fast.
Q13. After months of terrible drought, the UK has endured a battering from two named storms in two days. Last week I hosted a flood summit in the South Cotswolds and heard from farmers how on-farm water storage would help to alleviate both drought and flooding. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the £15 million Government fund promised for on-farm water storage and on when farmers can expect to see the expansion of development rights?
It was slightly disappointing that the Budget made no commitment to restoring the mental health investment standard. There is an economic imperative in that as well. Millions of people are on waiting lists for mental healthcare, but if we could get them off waiting lists and back into work, that would help to grow the economy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should restore that mental health investment standard?
I was very pleased to see the Chancellor announce £5 billion more in the Budget for defence research and development, which—[Interruption.]
Does the hon. Member agree that the announcement of £5 billion more in the Budget for defence R&D through the British Business Bank could have profoundly positive implications for our national security and growth, as I have urged, if the Government scale it further from here?
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Residents in my constituency have experienced the devastating effects of flooding and live in fear of it happening again. Does she agree that it is extraordinary that when a local flood agency looks into these matters and identifies the steps that can be taken, it does not have the powers to compel other agencies and, in particular, the water companies to take appropriate measures to prevent these things from happening again in future?
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most disruptive changes for frontline staff and patients has been the loss of dedicated admin support in favour of the so-called single point of access—or SPA—that simply does not work? If HCRG is serious about improving services, restoring adequate admin support for clinical teams must surely be part of the solution. Time spent on admin by clinical staff is time spent away from patients.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) on securing this really important debate. I also commend him for his campaigning efforts on behalf of his constituents, especially the family of Keely Morgan, whom he referred to so powerfully in his speech. He was absolutely right that proper deterrents should be in place for offenders. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain that Keely’s family have been through following her tragic death, and the subsequent pain of navigating the justice system to address such serious failures of accountability and justice. Sadly, it is the same story for so many of our constituents up and down the country, including in one tragic case in my constituency, which I will touch on later. I would like to take the opportunity to commend all hon. Members across the House, who have spoken so powerfully about their constituents’ tragic cases. Ther e are far too many similar experiences. On behalf of too many grieving families and the victims themselves, we Liberal Democrats are fighting for changes to sentencing for causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving. We believe that the sentences handed to those who kill someone by dangerous driving should properly reflect the seriousness of their crimes. We supported much tougher maximum sentencing and longer disqualification periods in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and we have long been calling for an updated road safety strategy, which must be delivered as quickly as possible, following years of neglect of Britain’s roads by successive Governments. One shocking case relating to road safety in my constituency of North Cornwall involved the hit and run of a young man named Ryan Saltern. In 2019, Ryan was hit and killed late at night by a drunk driver who sped away from the scene, leaving Ryan alone in the middle of the road to die. Despite killing Ryan, fleeing the scene and hiding from the police for 36 hours, Ryan’s killer was spared prison entirely and was handed a four-month suspended sentence and a 12-month driving ban in a magistrates court. Because the Crown Prosecution Service could not prove that he had been driving dangerously, he was charged only with failing to stop and report a road accident—essentially the same charge as if he had clipped someone’s wing mirror and driven off without reporting it. As in the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), witnesses at the scene gave a “no comment” interview and experienced no consequences whatever. Imagine the heartbreak that that added to Ryan’s family. In response to Ryan’s tragic death, his parents, Mark and Helen, and his sister, Leanne, launched their Ryan’s law campaign. Their aim is to widen the causing death by dangerous driving offence by including a failure to stop, call 999 and render aid at the scene until the emergency services arrive as an aggravating factor. Their online petition garnered 167,000 signatures, and support for the change is extremely strong, both locally in Cornwall and across our country. Sadly, hundreds of families do not see justice served. During my first two years in this place as North Cornwall’s MP, I have been taken aback by the sheer dedication and perseverance of the Saltern family in campaigning on this vital issue. They have committed to ensure that no more families in Britain are left feeling badly let down and lost in the justice system after a road traffic collision. They are doing incredible work with RysHaven, which provides a safe, dedicated space where families grieving a loved one killed in a road accident can escape and process what happened. I have joined the Saltern family in meetings with various Roads Ministers at the Department for Transport, the most recent of which was last month. I also raised their case with the previous Solicitor General, and I have tried to champion their cause in a number of debates in this House to demand the change that they and so many other families are calling for. That is why I was pleased that the Government announced a new road safety strategy at the start of this year, given that previous road safety strategies successfully delivered good improvements in road safety. But almost one year on, we are still seeking clarity on when the strategy will be implemented and how the several consultations that have already taken place will feed into it.
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent contribution. I agree that there is a strong case to be made for graduated licences—the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) referred to international research showing the success of that scheme in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend talked about it too. Hopefully, the Minister was listening to that. I welcome the Minister to his place. From having served with him on the Home Affairs Committee, I know he is very diligent, and I hope he will at least speak to his colleagues in the Department for Transport to get an update on the timing of the road safety strategy, which Members are still waiting to hear about. At the heart of submissions to each consultation on that strategy was the actual impact of road traffic collisions on victims and their families. The human cost of inaction is staggering: each of the 1,500 fatalities on Britain’s roads last year left a grieving family who wanted justice to be properly carried out on behalf of the loved one they had lost. In August, the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, set out six clear recommendations in relation to road safety in her report on barriers to justice. She said: “Behind every road death or serious injury is a victim, a grieving family and lives changed forever. Yet too many victims told me they felt road crime was not treated with the seriousness it deserved”. Her formal recommendations set out areas for improvement, including implementing stronger national standards for investigating road collisions, trauma-informed training for police officers and staff, and sustainable funding for specialist traffic collision victim support services. I ask the Minister, when he winds up, to confirm whether he has read the Victims’ Commissioner’s report in full, and whether his Department is working cross-departmentally to implement its six recommendations. Will he also please provide clarity around the timeline for the road safety strategy, including when the Government will respond to the consultations held earlier this year? Finally, will he look into adopting a much more victim-centred approach in the new road safety strategy so that families like the Salterns and parents like Keely Morgan’s, as well as the countless families hon. Members have spoken about so powerfully today, can finally feel that their voice is being properly heard?