5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I was recently in Washington DC. On several occasions, our American counterparts raised concerns about the future of the EU-UK relationship and realignment. What discussions has the Paymaster General had with his US counterparts, as well as with EU counterparts?
I thank the Leader of the House for his recent reply to my letter offering my support for the “regulating for growth” Bill, which was announced in the King’s Speech. However, while he was effusive in his gratitude for my interest in the Bill, he definitely ignored my question about its timetabling in the House. The Bill is vital for the marine autonomy sector, based in my constituency. The sector is very keen to hear when the Bill will come forward. Given the comments of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), about how light Government business is at the moment, may I urge the Leader of the House to think about starting the process before the summer, so that scrutiny can be carried out by businesses, and by people like me, ready for the September sitting?
12. What recent progress he has made on implementing the Humble Address agreed by this House on 4 February 2026.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Can he explain why his Department was apparently willing to appoint Mandelson as ambassador, and provide him with access to classified briefings, without conducting any security vetting, given that his close links with Russia and China were already public knowledge before his appointment?
I am concerned about the Bill’s impact on families, which the Minister has touched upon, and I am worried that positive, healthy interactions within a family could potentially fall in scope of the Bill. It is good to hear that she does not think the Bill will cover such interactions, but it is written quite broadly and I am sure that we will have further conversations about that. If a child wants to transition and to participate in the Pathways clinical trial, but their parents do not consent, will that be an abusive conversion practice under this legislation?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the intensification of fighting in Sudan and diplomatic efforts to press the warring parties into a ceasefire.
The world’s worst humanitarian crisis is now threatening to sink into even more harrowing depths. The disregard for human life and the violence in El Obeid is shocking, and the major new offensive simply must not happen. The attacks and destruction of civilian infrastructure and supply lines that we have already seen are beyond all our comprehension. Words alone, whether from the UK or the United Nations Security Council, will not stop the fighting. The Minister needs to explain how words are going to turn into action. Will it be made clear that, if there is destruction or obstruction of lifesaving British aid, there will be consequences for the perpetrators? What new measures will the Government bring to go after the leadership of these warring parties and the organisations that are fuelling and funding the violence? This is like no other war, and the brutal and dehumanising nature of this violence and conflict cannot be ignored, so what are the Government doing to end this cycle of endless killing? What has the UK recently contributed to the US efforts to press the warring parties into a ceasefire? Has the UK been contributing to the Sudan Quintet’s civilian dialogue process? What more can the UK do to support evidence collection of the atrocities, and then move the process on to widespread prosecutions? The UK will soon assume the presidency of the financial taskforce that has to look at the illicit funding that is driving this war. What can the Minister say about that process and what the United Kingdom will do? I also expect the Minister to respond to the concerns outlined on Tuesday at the International Development Committee that the British Government allegedly failed to act on intelligence and policy proposals put forward by third parties regarding impending mass atrocities in El Fasher. How does the Minister reconcile that account with the way in which the conflict has been handled by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office since the Government took responsibility in July 2024? For Britain’s national security, we need action to end this war and support a transition to peaceful civilian rule. We do not want to see more destabilisation spanning all the way from the Sahel to the middle east. We cannot have more threats to our security and to regional security in the Red sea, or more Iranian or Russian influence, and we cannot see ungoverned spaces where terrorist groups plot to destabilise and undermine our security and that of our allies.
I have been contacted by a constituent in Biggin Hill who is deeply concerned that schools are not made aware when individuals who have been charged with child sexual offences are living in close proximity to the school. I appreciate that we have to balance safeguarding with legal and privacy issues, but surely making the schools aware makes sense. Can we have a debate in this place on community safeguarding?
It gives me huge pleasure to call my constituency neighbour, the shadow Minister Mims Davies.
I am in awe of the hon. Member for running the marathon and, of course, for raising funds for PANS and PANDAS.
Albie is a superstar, as is his mum! I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Minister and welcome him to the Dispatch Box.
Order. It was not my intervention, but that of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Jardine, and I thank you for allowing male Members to remove their jackets—although that was before you saw the shirt the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) is wearing. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for proposing the debate, which is particularly relevant for those of us who represent coastal communities across the country or are near coastal communities. Tilbury and London Gateway are both within very short driving distance for many of my constituents in Basildon and Billericay, and both employ hundreds of them. Across the country, we all rely on ports such as Immingham, which I visited recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), and Felixstowe, which I have also visited in recent months. It was great to hear the hon. Members for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) refer to the port of Southampton, one of our larger ports, which supports tens of thousands of jobs, provides around £2.5 billion a year to the national economy and is a major hub for British cruise ships. Ports can be important economic indicators, as we saw in the recent Office for National Statistics statistical bulletin, which showed a concerning decrease in ships visiting major UK ports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham mentioned, total freight tonnage was down 3% in the three months at the start of the year compared with the year before. It is concerning, and rather illustrative of the Government’s struggles to grow the economy, to see tonnage falling in that fashion. It is not tonnage alone; last October, the Port of Aberdeen chief executive officer said that oil and gas activity at the port was down 10% at that point in 2025, and a staggering 25% on the previous summer, despite offshore activity typically peaking due to projects and maintenance work. Sadly, the economic vandalism of the Energy Secretary is destroying our oil industry and has had a knock-on effect. That demonstrates why we need to think about this issue more broadly than just in relation to ports. Ports do not merely play a critical role in their local economies, although they do that; they are indicators of our broader economy. They are of national and indeed international importance. This debate illuminates how ports are connected to other parts of the economy. What we can do to help them prosper, for both freight and passengers, is of utmost importance. As an island nation with 95% of our physical imports and exports passing through them, our ports have always been fundamental to our everyday lives and to our global success. As the 2018 review of port connectivity noted, port connectivity at its most basic level is about the equality of access to and from ports via predominantly land-based transport networks. Yet in everyday terms, that could encompass a range of issues that have significant consequences, as hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber have mentioned, including issues around specific road and rail schemes, with impacts extending from electricity generation all the way to the food on our shelves. That very interconnectedness with our economy and the everyday lives of our people shows why, in Britain’s past, present and future, ports have and will play such a key role in improving the flow of goods and people through our country. Our national history highlights a country that has always understood the need to improve its infrastructure and make it easier to connect our ports with the rest of the country. Much more remains to be done. In considering what that means, the first port of call must be ensuring the effective use of our roads. As the UK Major Ports group has said, our major ports see more than 60% of the freight they handle moved in and out via road haulage. Similarly, the BPA noted that in 2019, road haulage was around 70% of the major throughput of ports. These substantial figures demonstrate the need to reduce bottlenecks and to maintain road quality around our ports. That is why the conversation about ports and port communities is inextricably tied to our national resilience. Where the Government are making improvements, such as those at the lower Thames crossing, or the A666 and M27 upgrades started under the last Government, they should obviously be welcomed. They will directly enhance the ability of passengers and hauliers to access our port network. However, I also issue a challenge to the Government to do more to improve the experience and reduce the costs, wherever possible, for those who seek to connect to our ports, as hon. Members have already mentioned today. We must also ensure that we work closely with our international partners. There are real concerns about the upcoming school holidays. Clearly there is a need for discussions with the French about the entry and exit system. We are in the preposterous position where a facility in Dover has been built, but it cannot be activated until the technology is working for the kiosks there—which are specifically the responsibility, as the Minister knows, of the French police. I hope that the Government will be clear that more accountability is needed. The president of Airports Council International Europe has said that politicians should “stop pretending...that EES is working just fine. It is not.” That is true at both our airports and our ports. Furthermore, the Government can improve the connectedness of ports as much as they like—but when they introduce policies such as the emissions trading scheme, which saddles people in areas like the Isle of Wight with greater costs, it is inevitable that connectivity will be hurt as well. That is why we will always judge the Government by what they are doing to help or hinder our ports and port connectivity, not merely by their rhetoric. However, as Members across the Chamber have already noted, roads and the impact of the costs imposed are not the only factors affecting the connectivity of our ports. Several, including the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), were right to note the significance of rail. Take Felixstowe, near my constituency, where 58 trains arrive or depart each day across three dedicated rail terminals, serving 15 international destinations and moving more containers by rail than at any other port in Britain. That enormous logistical exercise demonstrates the importance of supporting our rail freight sector. I will not relitigate the substantial debate in Committee on the Railways Bill, given that there were 509 separate mentions of rail freight in Committee alone. Nevertheless, it is worth acknowledging that many Conservative Members, and indeed many Members from parties across the House, are concerned about the protections in that legislation. My colleagues and I are concerned that Great British Railways retains too much power to run roughshod over private business, particularly given the concerns about rail freight, which rightly has a target to grow. To see improved connectivity at ports, we need the Government to support those private companies in growing their services. In addition, the Government must be open to projects that increase rail freight capacity, such as those at Ely and Horley junctions. I also agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage about London Gateway. Ultimately, it is crucial to remember that our ports have repeatedly been hubs of innovation. The containerisation of the 20th century transformed our ability to transfer goods across the world, and ports have often been a driving force behind increased road and rail capacity in other parts of the country as well. However, improving port connectivity can only be achieved with an absolute focus on increasing economic growth—a phrase the current Government often use, but do not as often practise. We are seeing changes in the Government; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned a possible move for the Minister here today, although I hope that that is not the case, particularly for the Minister himself. Regardless, I hope that the Government will consider how they can achieve growth in our ports and support them in helping to grow the UK economy.
I thank the Minister for the brief sight of her statement and for her apology. Let me start by setting out a principle that I believe rightly commands support across this House: we must protect people from harm. Violence, abuse and coercion are wrong—unequivocally so—and they are also already illegal under our current framework. The offences and the powers exist, and many of the examples the Minister used are already, rightly, illegal. This is a challenging area, so we must be careful that bad laws do not get on to the statute book. The duty before us is to consider whether any new legislation is necessary, proportionate and workable. There is a fundamental question about the current evidence base underpinning this proposal, so in any change, the Government must demonstrate why existing criminal law is insufficient and how a new offence would materially improve outcomes. If a non-abusive conversion practice is not a crime, why would we write it into a new law? Is the Minister reassured that a mother helping their child with their feelings when growing up is not accidentally being criminalised? What are we doing when it comes to invasion of young lives and how we support children and parents through any childhood issues? We must be honest about the risk of unintended consequences for families and parents. It is right to highlight the real concern that broadly drafted provisions, particularly in relation to gender identity, could have a chilling effect on those acting in good faith and stop our young people having the time and space to find out who they are and are comfortable being. Parents, teachers, clinicians and therapists must be able to support, guide and, where appropriate, challenge. That is not harm; that is safeguarding. Gender-related distress is complex and requires careful, sensitive and roundly exploratory engagement. If this Bill has the effect—intended or not—of creating an affirmation-only culture, we risk failing the very young people we are trying to protect. We have already seen the catastrophic impact where professionals have felt unable to raise legitimate concerns, most notably on the grooming gang scandal, and we must never sacrifice safeguarding for ideology. Let me turn to questions for the Minister—these are real ones; as the Minister laid out, this is difficult. Will she confirm that the pre-legislative scrutiny will be by a Joint Committee of both Houses? Given the legal, ethical and societal complexity of this issue, will the Government ensure that vital scrutiny is broad and rigorous? Will the Government undertake their own full public consultation, in addition to any evidence-gathering process carried out by the scrutiny committee? This issue affects families, clinicians, faith groups and individuals across the country, and their voices must be heard directly. Can the Government guarantee that exploratory therapy will be explicitly protected in the Bill, alongside appropriate support for those who detransition? Cases such as that of Keira Bell have highlighted the importance of ensuring that individuals can reflect on and, where necessary, reassess any earlier decisions. Professionals must not be deterred from providing that support. Will the Minister explain how the Bill will recognise the principle of informed consent for adults engaging in exploratory therapy in relation to gender distress? Consenting adults must remain free to discuss, question and explore their experiences without fear of criminal sanction. How will the proposed legislation interact with existing safeguarding guidance, particularly in schools, children’s homes and social services? Those working on the front line in safeguarding need clarity, not confusion, and must be able to act in the best interests of the child without fear that fulfilling their duties could expose them to legal risk. We currently have a lack of clarity in that area regarding consent in the new puberty blockers trial, so this area is already unclear. Puberty blockers are in reality a form of conversion therapy. How will they be separated from this process? Will the Minister point out any abusive conversion practices that she has directly identified that are not already criminal offences, and spell out directly the current problem she is seeking to fix? Will she clarify and be specific about the current legal gap, and say what she sees as the true gaps in the law and what is currently legal? Can she guarantee that a young person who is simply same-sex attracted will not be encouraged to go down a pathway that will actively lead them away from their sexuality and being the gay person they are, as they need to be helped to be happy and comfortable with that? Those questions go to the heart of the Bill. We have seen well-meaning legislation such as hate crime offences have a chilling effect on free speech. Conservative Members believe in pragmatic evidence-based policymaking and in strong safeguards. In conclusion, we firmly stand against abuse and coercion. We must ensure that this Labour Government are seeking to prevent harm, and that they do not create any new harm.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is always wonderful to see you in the Chair. Where to start? I always love this debate. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to it. It is always a privilege to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) opened the debate very strongly in her typical style. I hope that at Windrush Square she and those commemorating have a wonderful time. I concur with her comments on the story of us. As we have heard from Members across the House this afternoon, celebrating the immense contribution of the Windrush generation is so important—the men and women who answered Britain’s call in the years after the second world war and helped to rebuild a nation truly in need. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and I are politically very different, and we approach things very differently, but in humanity we are so united. It is always wonderful to hear her speak. I loved her reflections on the Queen’s English. That was exactly what my mum said to me—I think it may be a parental stock phrase—around minding my p’s and q’s. Perhaps we were all told that. As I said, this generation answered the call, united by shared British values, as the hon. Member for Brent East rightly pointed out. They brought with them not only their labour but their resilience, their values and their determination to contribute to this country. It was, of course, not the first call answered by the Caribbean nations. On 3 September 1939, the first message received by the British Government following the declaration of war with Germany was a reassuring one: “Barbados is with you.” That short message was backed up by thousands of Caribbean men and women who served to defeat the greatest threat to freedom we have ever seen. Following the war, the Windrush contribution to British society was profound, as we have heard, and continues to be far-reaching. That should be celebrated. In our economy, the Windrush generation filled vital roles—we all know them—in our public services, the NHS, public transport and industry, truly becoming the backbone of post-war recovery. In politics, as we have heard, they and their descendants have truly enriched democracy with new voices, perspectives and, crucially, leadership. In sport, goodness knows what we would do without the Windrush generation, representing Britain on the world stage with distinction and inspiring generations through their excellence and perseverance. And in culture, as we have heard this afternoon, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), they have transformed British life—from music and literature to food, language and art—giving modern Britain its vibrant, diverse character. Alongside that story of contribution, we must also acknowledge a painful truth, as we heard about briefly this afternoon: the reality of the racism experienced by many in the original Windrush generation was real, harsh and deeply unjust.
I believe the hon. Lady to be my friend as well. I completely agree with standing up to that abhorrent behaviour and to those seeking to divide us. It is right that we reflect on the discrimination that many of the Windrush generation felt around housing, employment and daily life—barriers that no one in a fair society should endure. That is true now as much as then. Any injustices that are lingering need to be understood and dealt with. The hon. Member for Brent East rightly said that the experience of racism should belong to the past. We must never forget it, but we should also recognise that, as a country, we have changed fundamentally. As the Sewell report made clear, Britain is not a racist country, and that ought to be celebrated as an immense achievement, giving us renewed commitment, as the hon. Member said, to continue to tackle inequalities and ensure that they do not remain. There is a balance to be struck. In confronting injustice, we should also recognise how far Britain has come, so that people do not drag us back to the past. The overt racism that shaped the early experiences of the Windrush generation is unthinkable in today’s society—although we must recognise that some people may still experience it. The Conservatives truly and simply believe in treating people as individuals, not categories. Perhaps that is why we have been led by four women, and two people with ethnic minority backgrounds, and I am incredibly proud of that. That brings us to a broader truth about modern Britain: the Leader of the Opposition has argued that our country stands as a successful multiracial democracy, where people from different backgrounds rightly can and should be able to live together under our shared laws, values and institutions with respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield reflected on learning to be British, but we still love her accent—she did not hear that because she is not listening, but there we go. Our diversity is real, but so too is our unity. As the shield of Jo Cox on the Chamber wall behind me says—10 years on—there is so much more that unites us than divides us, and we truly have more in common. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brent East, who is my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. We must push and highlight the importance of women having voices and the vote, as we head to 2029 and the anniversary of universal suffrage. We cannot stand by and let any of that be eroded in this country or beyond. Our public bodies and institutions must have a common commitment to fairness and opportunity, so that we can preserve all that lies within that ideal. The Windrush generation shows that people from different backgrounds can come together, contribute, and fully and roundly succeed, by not retreating into separate identities—that is the danger—but building something that is truly shared and celebrated. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly loved hearing about the work of Baroness Benjamin—I think we all look up to the Baroness. In fact, coming to work in this place and finding out that she worked here too was pretty cool, which slightly shows my age—I don’t think I should keep going down that route! Today, we truly honour the Windrush generation’s great legacy. We do so with gratitude and we celebrate their success. It is a national success that is worth sharing this year and into the future.
The Minister has submitted in answers to written questions that there will be no substantive vote in this House on UK association to Erasmus+, even though the Government plan to tie us into a multi-year programme without saying what it will cost after the first year. The Defence Secretary resigned because the Chancellor will not provide the funding we need for our defence, but apparently money is no object when it comes to this programme. Will the Minister finally tell us the Government’s own central estimate for the programme, or must the public rely on press reports of an £8 billion bill?
I think everybody will have heard that the Minister has again refused to give any indication as to what he thinks would be an acceptable bill. The Government used the cover of the Prime Minister’s resignation on Monday to sneak out a written ministerial statement to say that the Turing scheme was being cancelled —a good day to bury bad news. Turing reached 43,000 UK students and provided opportunities in 153 countries for £105 million. Six of the 10 most popular destinations were outside Europe. Erasmus+ will send about half as many UK students abroad as it will bring in, and for more than five times the cost. Given all that, and the Minister’s unwillingness to indicate what the long-term budget will be, how can he possibly be confident that this programme provides five times the value of the scheme that it apparently replaces?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on securing this important debate. As the Member representing Immingham, the UK’s largest port by tonnage, and whose constituency includes part of Grimsby—although not the dock estate—I know at first hand that ports are the lifeblood of our coastal communities and the driving force of our national economy. Immingham and the Humber ports are owned by Associated British Ports and have freeport status. On his visit a few weeks ago, I know the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), was impressed by its size and the part it plays in the local economy. Around 85% by weight of international freight traded with the UK moves by sea. Nowhere is that reality more evident than in the Humber, the UK’s No. 1 gateway for trade by volume, handling around 17% of all UK port traffic, facilitating over £60 billion of trade and supporting 90,000 regional jobs. However, the national figures show a worrying trend: between January and March 2026, total freight tonnage through major ports decreased by 3%. If we want to justify and unlock further investment in port connectivity, we must see stronger economic growth. The constraint on our growth is not a lack of private capital or market demand. ABP has invested £1 billion across the UK over the last five years, and has billions more ready to deploy. Significant private investment is happening at scale right now in my constituency: in Immingham, the new £200 million Immingham eastern ro-ro terminal is under construction and, at nearby Stallingborough, the 227-acre Helm development is being built out. The pace and scale of those developments depend entirely on connectivity. While road links are vital—Stallingborough is a brilliant case study of how early local authority road investment successfully unlocked private capital—our future system-wide growth relies on energy and rail infrastructure. First, energy connectivity is critical. Delays in grid capacity and connection timings are harming investment across the UK. Green energy, hydrogen and carbon capture projects cannot proceed without timely access to power. I hope the Minister can outline what steps are being taken to accelerate progress on that. Secondly, we must address transport links—particularly since, with the new rail Bill, the Government make much of the fact that they will be taking direct control. Rail freight handles about 10% of port throughput nationally. While Immingham connects directly into national supply chains, rail constraints are limiting our ultimate geographic advantage. We must improve capacity, gauge clearance and network resilience across the northern networks if we are to increase economic growth in our port areas. It is critical to increase rail freight capacity serving ports alongside improving road links. Turning to the highway network, the M180 becomes the A180 at Barnetby, and the last few miles into Immingham are overcrowded and rely on an ancient concrete road, which causes great problems for both traffic and the local community. I will have to move on quickly, Ms Jardine, and skip a couple of pages of my speech, but I note that hon. Members are passionate about their coastal communities. We must do all we can to ensure that the economic growth that they can deliver is indeed delivered. Only with investment from both the private and public sectors can that be achieved.
As the Leader of the House and Members from across the House will be aware, when charities and voluntary groups arrange drop-in sessions in Parliament, we Members receive emails from constituents urging us to attend and support them. Yesterday, I attended the Leukaemia UK event in the House, and as is often the case, the main request of those attending was for early diagnosis. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a Health Minister to come to the House and give those people some reassurance about earlier diagnosis of this terrible disease?
Hundreds of my constituents work at Scunthorpe steel, so I am obviously supportive of any action that the Government take that will protect those jobs. I also welcome the adjustments that the Minister has announced, and I agree that it is preposterous that defence contracts do not ensure that we use British steel. Surely doing that is one of the benefits of not being tied to EU procurement rules. Does he agree that it is in the Government’s gift to ensure that the industry benefits from reduced energy costs? What will the Government do to ensure that the Scunthorpe works benefit from lower energy costs in the very near future?
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a variant of it. I thank you for speaking up on behalf of all Members from across the House. At Deputy Prime Minister’s questions last week, I raised the point that an asylum centre had been put in my constituency with just hours’ notice, and yet Shropshire council, the unitary authority, had been given at least five days’ notice, or even weeks.
The Leader of the House has many skills, as we all know, but many Members will not know that footballing skills are among them. In this world cup season, I suggest to him that playing fields have an important role in the football narrative of many boys and girls, and others playing football now, including for England. Is he aware of the campaign by the Shropshire Football Association, which has supported football since 1877, to protect where we play in Shropshire? We should ensure that our playing fields are protected, not built on. We understand that we have to build more houses, but that needs to be done on the right scale, and in the right place. Does he share my concern about the Government’s plan to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee?
T7. During Armed Forces Week, it is such a pleasure to see so many members of the armed forces around the Palace of Westminster, and in particular to see so many members of the senior service in the Public Gallery. When they came in, I thought it might be a coup d’état and that I just had not had the memo, but then I realised that in this place people do not wear uniforms for a coup.On 1 June, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister whether officials and the security services were going to go through Lord Mandelson’s time in office with a fine-toothed comb to make sure that he had not been subject to leverage. He reassured me:“I can confirm…that officials are conducting that review of documentation.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 866.]Could he give us an update on that review, and reassure the House that it will not be shuffled under the carpet?
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. When the Minister came here with the statement the other day, I asked him about Thames Covers, a boat fitters in my constituency which relies on stainless steel tubing, and got lots of warm words about, “We’re going to go away and consult.” I listened to his statement today and read it in great detail. Will stainless steel tubing now not be hit by an additional 50% price, which is what its suppliers are telling it? I am seeing Thames Covers tomorrow at 2.15 pm. I would love to be able to give the business a definitive answer.
In his statement, the Minister urged the parties to comply with international law, but he will know that many are coming to the view that the UK’s compliance with international law is very often a cosmetic or paper-based exercise. The Srebrenica judgment established that a state breaches its obligations under the genocide convention not by failing to prevent a genocide but by not even trying to do so. The International Development Committee heard the other day that the UK was told but failed to act; the Minister is disputing that account. Can we please have an independent inquiry into whether it is true, so that the House can judge whether this country has complied with its obligations under the genocide convention?
I too am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for the flexibility they have shown so far, and I will come and see him on Monday. First, could he be a little clearer about how dynamic he will be on quotas? At first look to me and the businesses in my constituency that are concerned, some of the quotas look a bit tight. If there was a sudden spike in prices following the imposition, can he move quickly and, if so, how quickly, because obviously decisions are made with a long-term view? Secondly, he said that without these quotas the UK would become a dumping ground for cheap steel. We may well now become a dumping ground for cheap fabricated products, so what will he do on fabricated products alongside this? Thirdly, this means that the Government will collect millions of pounds from British businesses importing steel that will still import above the quota. What will happen to that money?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Home Office is due tonight to announce 12 new asylum seeker centres across the country, with no statement to the House or notification to Members here. This is a very, very important issue for our constituents. I seek your guidance on how we might encourage the Government to release this sort of information here first, so that we can scrutinise it on behalf of the people we represent.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was so inspired by the speech of the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) that I thought I would say a few words. I just want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward this debate and to say a personal thank you to the Windrush generation and their grandchildren for making me feel British when I first came here. We talk about what we have in common and what divides us, and what is great about the Windrush generation is that they came here, they contributed, they were proud to be British and they have brought so much enrichment to being British. When I came here as an immigrant, it was my West Indian friends who taught me how to be British, and who showed pride in being British and pride in the flag. My first coronation party was a Jamaican-inspired coronation party, and that is the best kind of party to have. As the hon. Member mentioned, there were none of those transparent bags; it was classy and wonderful, and I had the best time. I think my being proud of being British came from the kindness shown to me when I first came here as an immigrant. I just want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for having this debate and the Windrush generation and their grandchildren for their incredible contribution to this country.
T5. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister to launch an inquiry into the Peter Murrell scandal, because the SNP Government in Scotland refuse to do so. The High Court judge said that Murrell’s crimes were “not particularly sophisticated”, demolishing any suggestion that he somehow deceived everyone in the SNP. The people of Scotland deserve to know what John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon knew and when they knew it, so will the Government set up an inquiry so that we can get to the truth of this matter?
Asbestos is widespread in public infrastructure. Asbestos-related diseases are the No. 1 cause of occupational death, with 5,000 a year —I lost my own father nearly 10 years ago. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), now the Minister for Social Security and Disability, said just four years ago that the UK needed to move faster to align to standards in the EU that are now significantly higher. I raise this matter because I would like the UK to improve its asbestos resilience, which is critical if we are to save lives.
Public inquiries undoubtedly provide a significant mechanism to bring redress to enduring wrongs in the British state, but the cost of them and the lack of governance over them can mean that sometimes they cost extraordinary amounts of money. What conclusions is the Paymaster General coming to on how the Government ensure that money is spent well and that these public inquiries report in a timely fashion?
A wheelchair-using constituent has contacted me after a major manufacturer and dealership refused to apply the VAT relief available to eligible disabled people purchasing adapted vehicles. There seems to be a perception in parts of the industry that the rules are complex and that dealerships bear a risk if that relief is applied incorrectly, which may be discouraging legitimately disabled people from getting the vehicles they deserve. Could we have a statement on this issue from the relevant Minister to clarify how the rules should work, so that my disabled constituents can acquire the vehicles they need?
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business, perhaps including the business relating to the item just raised under the point of order?
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know the whole House will join me in thinking of the victims of the earthquakes in Venezuela, of which we have just had news, and of course the victims of the train crash in Bedford and the victims of what now have been deemed aggravated terrorism-related attacks in Edinburgh. It has been a difficult week, Mr Speaker, but on a brighter note, I am sure that all will want to join me in celebrating Armed Forces Week and thanking all the men and women across this country and abroad who serve His Majesty in the armed forces—a matter of particular interest, I remind the House, in Herefordshire. We weep for the Scotland football team, but perhaps less so for Peter Murrell, who began a five-year sentence this week for theft and embezzlement. The Scottish police asked him in 2024, “What does the SNP need over £19,000 of luxury pens for?” It is quite a good question. One might ask the same about a Jaguar I-PACE, a state-of-the-art motorhome, a men’s slouch pouch onesie, whatever that is—I am not looking for guidance from the Chair on this matter, Mr Speaker. The real question is not just whether Nicola Sturgeon knew or should have known of these thefts, including the sudden appearance of a £2,500 Lalique salt and pepper set on the kitchen table; it is about the culture and probity of a Scottish Government who still refuse to appoint a KC to lead an independent inquiry. While we are on the topic of vehicles, the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has publicly reserved the right to spend the £5 million donation definitely not related to politics from his Thailand-based crypto billionaire on Ferraris if he wishes. It appears that none of that money has been spent on personal security, from what he said, and he has now been referred to the Financial Conduct Authority, alongside the current investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. And so to the Government. I know the House will share my sadness at the tragic decision by the Leader of the House not to stand in the Labour leadership election, resulting in a coronation, alas, of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and, I am sad to say, the rather tawdry sight of Cabinet Ministers trailing their coats. Once again, we can only regret the decision of the Leader of the House not to throw his hat into the ring, but I simply ask, what is the Government’s policy on the defence investment plan? The Prime Minister wants to publish it now. His successor wants a delay, but a defence investment plan that may be reopened within weeks is not a plan; it is a hanging IOU with a NATO deadline attached. I turn now to a matter of the greatest sensitivity: the case of Lucy Letby, members of whose family are my constituents. It is essential to respect the independence of the judiciary in this matter. Nor, crucially, must we ever lose sight of the suffering of the families whose babies died or were gravely injured, but I believe there is also a proper public concern here as to the security of the verdict. Since the convictions, a number of serious and reputable people have raised concerns about the expert scientific and statistical evidence in this case—both the evidence presented to the jury and the evidence that the jury never saw. Those concerns come from neonatologists, pathologists, statisticians and, most recently, from Dame Sue Black, one of the country’s most distinguished forensic scientists. Like me, Dame Sue makes no claim as to whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty, but she has said in measured terms that she is “troubled” by the conviction and by the apparent lack of forensic evidence. When someone of her public scientific standing speaks in those terms, I do not think the issue she raises can be properly avoided. Her and other expert concerns raise profound questions as to the fairness of the trial and, indeed, the status of the evidential test used by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in considering whether to reopen it. I remind the House that there were no witnesses, no CCTV footage, no forensic evidence and no confession in this case. Everything therefore depended on the testimony of experts, but when it came to the defence, in the words of Dame Sue Black, “there were no medical or statistical experts put forward at all”. I would also highlight that Lucy Letby had had a prior complaint against the consultants in the hospital upheld after a detailed investigation and report, which found that there was absolutely nothing to prevent her from returning to work and that doctors had bullied and harassed her. That evidence, too, was never heard by the jury. The Thirlwall inquiry into the Countess of Chester hospital has yet to publish its final report, despite many delays, but yesterday’s Nottingham University hospitals report is a powerful reminder that in neonatal and maternity settings, grave harm can arise from not only individual malfeasance but systematic clinical failure. [Interruption.] If I may conclude, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is now considering the Letby case. May I ask—
I think it is unfortunate that I was not allowed to conclude in the terms that—
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Lewell. It is right that Ministers are ultimately responsible to the House for the performance of the health service and subjected to the scrutiny of Parliament for its execution, but there is an important distinction between accountability and operational control, which I fear the clause risks eroding in some cases. The national health service has over many years developed a structure that seeks to balance political accountability with operational independence, and that balance exists for a reason. Decisions on what services are commissioned, where they are delivered and how resources are allocated are not purely political judgments; they are complex, technical decisions that ought to be guided—primarily, in my view—by clinical evidence, patient need and professional expertise. Transferring commissioning functions directly to the Secretary of State, as the clause will do, risks drawing those operational decisions more directly into the political sphere, even if that would not happen in every case. The more that Ministers are involved in determining which services are commissioned nationally and which are not, the greater the risk that over time those decisions will be influenced by short-term considerations and short-term pressures rather than long-term patient outcomes. Even when no such influence is intended, the perception that that could occur will be damaging. As I said in discussions on previous clauses, the NHS depends heavily on public trust, and that trust rests in part on the belief that decisions are being made in the best interests of patients and on the basis of evidence, rather than political expediency. We should therefore be cautious about any measure that threatens to blur that line. Despite the Minister saying that the stated intent in the Bill is to decrease centralisation, the clause appears to move some parts of the system closer towards centralisation, rather than maintain that balance. I do not believe that the Committee should take that step without careful consideration of the potential consequences. There is also a practical dimension to this issue. Under the clause, the Secretary of State potentially assumes direct responsibility for any and all decisions currently exercised at arm’s length. That raises legitimate questions about capacity and focus. As I said previously, the health service, as we all know, is vast, complex and complicated, and decisions, especially about specialised commissions, are technical and require detailed expertise and understanding. What is not immediately clear from the clause is that such decisions are best taken by the Secretary of State rather than by bodies with dedicated expertise and a degree of operational independence. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, spoke about highly specialised services, where essentially there is a capacity issue and a need to be able to look at the demand as a whole. They both raised the danger that, if those commissioning decisions are taken at local level, those at that level may not have the expertise, the finances or indeed the capacity to truly understand those highly complex, low volume specific needs. I have some sympathy for the Minister, because the danger that we have seen in the NHS is that everything becomes more and more specialised and the ICBs push it away. I understand why the Government are proposing some of these changes, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must ensure that services continue to be commissioned by experts at the national level if they need to be; and that if they need to be commissioned by experts at ICB level or even more locally, it is done through the neighbourhood health schemes that the Government are pushing, which I support in principle. For those reasons, if the Committee is minded to support the shift in responsibility, I suggest that we put in place some robust safeguards to ensure we have transparency, consultation and evidence-based justifications for decisions. Without those safeguards, there is a risk that the centralisation of power on the one hand and the devolution of specialist services on the other will unintentionally make a system that is less transparent and less robust. That is why I support amendment 57 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. The powers in clause 12 need to be bounded by checks and balances, because these are not minor administrative changes, but a significant shift in responsibility. We must ensure that decisions to move service commissioning are made as transparently as possible. In those circumstances, it is entirely right that Parliament should be able to scrutinise those decisions. The amendment would achieve that. Subsection (4A) would require the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to prepare and publish a commissioning transition plan and to lay that before Parliament. Subsection (4B) would require the plan to set out, in detail, the services being changed and the reasons for the changes. It would also require clarity on which bodies will assume the responsibility and why they are considered capable of doing so. That level of transparency is essential if Parliament is to exercise meaningful oversight. Subsection (4C) would establish a formal consultation requirement, and subsection (4E) would require the Secretary of State to publish a response to that consultation, setting out how concerns have been addressed. That is vital, because there is no point having a consultation if the Government just ignore it. Finally, subsection (4F) would ensure that no regulations can be made until a defined period has elapsed after that response, thereby providing a time for proper parliamentary and public scrutiny. Those of us who sit on Select Committees, especially the Health and Social Care Committee, often receive responses to our recommendations from the Department that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) said in evidence, give the veneer of acceptance, but then no meaningful action is taken. The amendment would allow meaningful scrutiny and ensure that the Government actually respond to that request. Taken together, the provisions would ensure that decisions are not only made, but made openly, transparently and accountably to those who are elected in this place to represent our constituents.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill would have been the perfect time to align health commissioning services with local government structures and that the fact that these structures are being created totally without the new local government structures is not just an oversight, but a potential problem with the whole Bill? Does she also agree—I think that she was outlining this already, but I want to ensure that the Minister is clear on it—that the Government still have a chance to amend the Bill to ensure that the commissioning structures and commissioning areas outlined in the Bill neatly map out to the new local government areas? In relation to, for example, the current Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB, Hampshire is potentially being split up into a number of local government areas. I am against the way it is being split up, but if the Government are pressing ahead with it, this would have been the perfect opportunity to align commissioning with those areas. The problem is that we will now have a situation in which they do not match up, and the problems that my hon. Friend has outlined in her speech thus far will come to the fore.
I will start where the Liberal Democrat spokesman, left off, with new clause 52 on dental provision. I have a lot of sympathy for what she is trying to achieve with the new clause. In my own constituency, as far as I can tell, looking earlier today, not a single dental practice is taking new NHS patients for dentistry, whether that be children or adults, and that is extraordinarily concerning. Even more concerning—this somewhat relates to the changes that the Government are making in the clause through bringing the commissioning of dental services to ICBs—I have a fully equipped and fully functional dental surgery in Haslemere hospital in my constituency, but it has remained entirely unused for a number of years, because it sits within the hospital, which is run by the Royal Surrey NHS trust, but is commissioned by the ICB. That seems like an utter waste of resources. That is something that could be clarified through new clause 52 and, I hope, through the clauses tabled by the Government. On new clause 2, about GP practices, I am disappointed that the hon. Member for North Shropshire did not want to take my intervention because she will not be able to answer my questions, unless she intervenes on me now, which I hope she will. Again, I sympathise entirely with what she is trying to achieve. We want to ensure that people have timely access to their GPs. I am sure that, like me, she has constituents who cannot get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. They can wait numerous weeks, upwards of five or six weeks, for something that they should be seen about. A lot of questions are unanswered by new clause 2, however. I will not repeat the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I have some others. For example, the new clause states that the Government must “establish a scheme to provide every patient with the right to a GP appointment”. Although the hon. Lady clarified that that could be a telephone consultation, what is not clear is whether that is an appointment at the named GP practice at which the patient is registered, or is just with any GP, through something such as the NHS 111 service.