5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
A parent cannot consent to their child engaging in sexual activity and soon they will not be able to consent to their child having a social media account, so why does the Secretary of State think that a parent should consent to drugs being administered to their child to supress their puberty and alter their sexual development?
3. What steps her Department is taking to support apprenticeships for young people.
There is no correlation between what the Minister says and what is happening on the ground. In Broadland and Fakenham, in the last year the number of apprenticeships has dropped by 20%. It has not gone up; it has gone from 150, down to 120. If the Minister thinks that more apprenticeships are a good idea, why does he not sign up for 100,000 new ones, and support the Conservative new deal for young people?
Despite all the safeguards and precautions that the Secretary of State has listed, we must be clear about what this trial actually does: it proposes to give puberty blockers to children as young as 11 that may well make them sterile for life, all to treat something that the Secretary of State also says is likely to get better by itself. I accept that this trial may well create clinical evidence, but at what price? How can this damage to children ever be justified?
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) rightly highlights the scourge of antisemitism on our campuses. Against that backdrop, is it not extraordinary that the Government have chosen to deny students access to the Office for Students free speech complaint scheme while extending it to everybody but students, which I raised with the ministerial team on 20 April? The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education—the body to which students are directed instead—is nothing but a legal dead-end for students who are subject to discrimination because of their beliefs. What message does it send to Jewish students facing intimidation and harassment that their complaints are treated differently from those of academics and visiting speakers? Will the Government introduce meaningful sanctions, including funding consequences, for universities that repeatedly fail to protect them?
The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his statement an £18 billion investment from Japan. What he did not mention was that earlier this year, the Government turned down a £17.5 billion investment from oil and gas companies when they decided not to end the energy profits levy. He also mentioned Russian sanctions, but did not mention that they have not sanctioned Russian-derived oil products nor Russian liquefied natural gas. Can he not see that this Government’s policies on the North sea oil and gas sector are bad for national security and that whoever is leading the Government next must end the ban on new licences, end the EPL and get Jackdaw and Rosebank permitted?
The Deputy Prime Minister was right to say that Iran must never be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, but history teaches us that the Iranian regime ignored the deal that was in place—the joint comprehensive plan of action. Can he be clear with the House about what the Government are doing to make any future deal meaningful and prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring the level of enriched uranium that would make a nuclear weapon?
I recently met Alex Miles, managing director of Yorkshire Learning Providers, and heard a worrying tale that differs greatly from what the Minister has told the House today. I heard that established apprenticeship standards are being defunded and that new product foundation apprenticeships that no employer in Yorkshire has asked for are being rolled out. Yorkshire Learning Providers has no partisan points to make; it just wants to ensure that young people can get into work with an apprenticeship standard that works for them and for employers. Does the Minister accept that the Government are not getting this right and that he needs to look at this again?
Thank you very much, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will seek to speak relatively briefly. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) set out the case behind this petition eloquently, reasonably and with passion. Every year in the UK, 48 babies are born with SMA, with 60% of those having the most severe form: SMA type 1. I was moved to speak in this debate not only as a former Health Minister, but particularly after hearing from my constituent Charlotte. She told me about her son Harvey, who sadly passed away at just shy of seven months old. She very movingly set out her experience to me, and has kindly allowed me to share it with the Chamber today. I pay tribute to Charlotte and her family for their courage and willingness to share something so personal not just with me as their Member of Parliament, but with hon. Members and more widely. I hope hon. Members will bear with me; I want to quote Charlotte fully, because what she relates is extremely important: “On 15th March 2017 I gave birth to my first child. A beautiful blonde haired, blue eyed boy—Harvey. He was perfect. He was also unbeknown to us born with SMA Type 1. As first time parents, having navigated the difficult journey of IVF, we were like rabbits in the headlights and had no idea anything was wrong—but in hindsight the signs were there quite early on. It was only through the concern of a Health Visitor when Harvey was 10 weeks old did the journey to his diagnosis begin. She had sadly come across another baby with SMA 1 earlier in her 30-year career and recognised the signs. What Harvey went through to be diagnosed via multiple tests and what we went through as his parents was traumatic. Three weeks later we were then told by a room full of medical professionals that he had SMA Type 1 and at the very best he would live to two years old. I will never forget that meeting, or the box of tissues that were slipped through the door just in case we needed one. I will never forget the walk out of Leicester Royal Infirmary that day, the day our ‘happy bubble’ burst & our lives changed forever. Nor will I ever forget the subsequent times when we had to go back to LRI when Harvey had stopped breathing and I resuscitated him, or to be trained in how to feed him via a nasal feeding tube. In 2017, treatments were still at trial stage. We as Harvey’s parents decided not to treat Harvey with drugs that hadn’t been approved by NICE, nor did we want to put him through anymore trauma. An unimaginable decision to make, but we decided to focus on him and his needs as they changed whilst making memories together. Harvey died on 14th October 2017, he was a day shy of being 7 months old.” Charlotte told me that she and others in her situation were told that change was coming—that there would be an advancement in treatment, and that gene therapy and better diagnosis were on the way. As the hon. Member for Sunderland Central set out, those treatments do exist. There are three effective treatments for SMA in the UK, but as with so many health conditions, and as I saw during my tenure as a Health Minister, all too often, speed of diagnosis is everything. The disease needs to be caught early, hence the benefits of newborn screening. I pay tribute to the former Health Secretary for bringing forward the ISE to October of this year, and I am grateful to him for that, but as the hon. Member for Sunderland Central set out, only 72% of babies in England will be included, so a large proportion—160,000—will not be screened. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has now left, highlighted the divergence in access across different parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as did the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. Until and unless the National Screening Committee makes recommendations on routine screening, many of those babies will miss out. I have seen how systems within the NHS work, often for good reasons—safety and rigour—but sadly that suggests that routine screening will not happen until 2030 or 2031. That is an awfully long time to wait and an awful lot of newborns who will be left unscreened and therefore potentially vulnerable to SMA. In conclusion, and in paying tribute to Charlotte and her family, I have a question for the Minister, whom I know and have stood opposite on many occasions, both in government and now in opposition. I know that she cares, takes her brief extremely seriously and is a very diligent and caring Minister. My question to her, in Charlotte and Harvey’s name, is very simple: what steps can the Government take to speed up the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test for all newborns in this country?
I place on record that, as a veteran myself, it was a huge privilege to serve on the Select Committee that considered this important legislation. I will concentrate my remarks on new clauses 4, 9 and 11. At first glance, they may appear to concern different matters, yet, in reality, they are united by the common principle that Parliament should ensure that those who serve this country are treated fairly, and that the law recognises the unique obligations we place on them. We quite rightly celebrate the professionalism of our armed forces. We ask them to defend our interests overseas, deter our adversaries, and, when necessary, place themselves between danger and the rest of us. It is right that the first duty of any Government is the defence of our realm. It therefore follows that the first duty of Parliament towards those who discharge that responsibility is to ensure that they are treated with fairness, dignity and respect. That means understanding that military service is not simply another profession, but a vocation that places demands on individuals and their families that most of our fellow citizens will never be asked to bear. I begin with new clause 4. I have long believed that when an individual commits to service in the armed forces, the nation enters a contract with them that carries practical consequences. We ask our service personnel to accept postings away from home, to move their families at short notice, to spend long periods separated from loved ones, and, in some cases, to place themselves in danger on our behalf. When we speak of supporting the armed forces, we cannot confine our attention solely to those in uniform; we must also consider the spouses and children who support them. New clause 4, tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), addresses a concern that many Members across this House have heard repeatedly from serving personnel and veterans alike: that the financial burden imposed on families seeking indefinite leave to remain after years of loyal service to this country is too much. There is a straightforward question before us. If an individual has given years of service to our nation, why should their family then face significant financial barriers simply to secure their future here? They have worn our uniform, accepted unlimited liability in defence of our national interests, and contributed directly to our security. In those circumstances it cannot be right, having honoured their commitment to our country, that we appear reluctant to honour our commitment to them. The armed forces covenant, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, rests on the principle that those who serve should suffer no disadvantage as a result of that service. It is difficult to reconcile that principle with a situation in which a family that has supported a service member throughout years of deployments and postings, is then confronted with substantial costs in order to remain together in the country for which that service was given. New clause 4 is not a radical proposition; it is a relatively modest measure that simply recognises commitment and rewards service. Crucially, it sends a clear signal that Parliament values not only those who wear the uniform but the families who stand behind them. Over the past two decades, there has been a considerable concern about the extent to which human rights litigation has affected military operations overseas. Parliament has recognised those concerns in previous legislation relating to overseas operations. That issue is not a novel one, but part of a continuing debate about how best to reconcile operational effectiveness, accountability and fairness. The argument for new clauses 9 and 11 is, at its heart, a simple one. A soldier deployed on operations is not situated in the same circumstances as a civilian living in peacetime; the realities of combat are fundamentally different. Those of us who have had the privilege to spend time with serving personnel quickly come to appreciate that military operations are conducted in conditions of danger, ambiguity and enormous pressure. Decisions are often made in moments, not months. Commanders and soldiers do not enjoy the luxury of hindsight that is available to lawyers examining events years later from the cold comfort of a courtroom.
I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. What does this trial do? Put simply, it takes physically healthy children with normal pubertal development and subjects them to powerful drugs that may weaken their bones, affect their ability to think, damage sexual function and make them unable to have children of their own. Serious stuff—and for what? To treat a diagnosis of gender incongruence that will probably resolve without treatment. Let us look at this carefully. Gender incongruence is a subjective condition; it is how someone says they feel. There are no lab markers and no scans. That, of course, is not necessarily unusual. In fact, it is common in mental health conditions. Gender incongruence is often self-resolving; it gets better on its own. Again, this is not unusual in paediatrics. It is really common for children to be admitted to hospital for supported care for things like gastroenteritis and respiratory viruses. Puberty blockers are powerful drugs. This is a powerful treatment with significant long-term consequences. Again, this is not new to paediatrics. Some chemotherapy, for example, has substantial short and long-term consequences. But what is unusual and, I think, toxic is the combination of all three. Medicine is about balancing risk. Where else would we give powerful drugs with potentially serious long-term consequences for a subjective condition that is likely to get better on its own? I understand that this trial has been approved, but time and again we have seen and heard how fear and hostility can distort priorities. We have seen tragedy occur when fears of accusations of racism limited mental health treatment. We have seen profound suffering when fear of accusations of Islamophobia limited inquiries into the grooming gangs. The healthcare of children distressed about their gender is another topic where there have been attempts to shut down debate with threats and accusations of transphobia. Such attempts were reported in relation to the Tavistock. When considering treatments for life, with lifelong implications, we have a duty to be careful and sensible, so I ask the Secretary of State: why are this Government funding a trial that will cause harm to physically healthy children? These children may be 11 years old, at Tanner stage 2. Some of them are primary school children with only minimal signs of puberty. This is far too young. The MHRA warned in February that the youngest patients are at greatest risk; they may end up on puberty blockers for a much longer period, and face a higher risk to fertility, because sperm and eggs have not yet fully developed at Tanner stage 2. I am reminded of this point in the judgment in Bell v. Tavistock: “There is no age appropriate way to explain to many of these children what losing their fertility or full sexual function may mean to them in later years.” Yet as the Secretary of State confirmed, the children must consent or assent to being in the trial. Why did the Government not heed the MHRA’s recommendation of a minimum age of 14 years? This Labour Government think that 14 is too young to watch social media. Why do they think 11 is old enough for this trial? What is the goal of the treatment? In the trial, the outcome is a short to medium-term effect on quality of life and body satisfaction. Does the Secretary of State believe this is proportionate to the risks of these medications? Is there any evidence suggesting that puberty blockers are safer than they were thought to be in 2024, when the Government banned them, following the expert advice from the Commission on Human Medicines? Some have suggested that the drugs help adults to pass as the opposite sex. Is the long-term damage really worth it for the cosmetic benefit of a few? And it is just a few, because we know that the vast majority will be better without any treatment. The Secretary of State said that “when it comes to eligibility, we are talking about a very small subset of a very small group.” Even if we were to accept the premise that a very small number might benefit from treatment, how could the clinicians identify which those children might be? A study of clinical outcomes from kids treated at the Tavistock is due to be completed next year. That could help, so why is the Secretary of State not waiting until that report is completed before conducting an experiment on an unnecessarily broad group of children? Has evidence come to light since the Cass review that helps clinicians confidently work out which 11-year-olds will become adults with gender dysphoria and which will not? The Secretary of State has said that the criteria will stop short-term harm, and that should mean that long-term harm will not occur or go unnoticed, but history is littered with examples of things that do not cause short-term harm but do cause long-term damage. He also suggested that the trial will resolve the dispute, but sadly, I do not think that will be the case, because, first, a single trial rarely resolves a dispute; and, secondly, the comparison group, who are not getting the puberty blockers, are not randomised and are an intrinsically different population. This is bound to be highlighted once the result is published. In medicine, we have a founding principle: primum non nocere—first, do no harm. I ask the Health Secretary to please cancel this trial before vulnerable children suffer unnecessary, irreversible harm on his watch.
I briefly declare an interest: the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews. I applaud my hon. Friend for the robust way in which he is introducing the debate. Does he agree that, given global events, our Jewish constituents are justified in feeling uneasy, and that we must absolutely ensure that we do not import those conflicts on to the streets of our country?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On this hot afternoon, the Committee will be pleased to hear that, having debated a lot of the detail underlying the Minister’s proposals in Committee for the Renters’ Rights Act, the Opposition will not be seeking to trot out lengthy speeches or a long list of questions—although I hear that one or two Back Benchers may have come with 90 minutes of material prepared. In Committee, we debated at great length the proportionality of the measures that are now fleshed out in more detail in this set of proposals, not least because, while there are some egregious examples of poor landlords, the private rented sector still enjoys the highest resident or tenant satisfaction of any form of housing tenure. It remains the view of the Opposition that some of the measures set out in the 2025 Act go well beyond what is proportionate to the experience of the vast majority of private tenants. This is a sector that is absolutely critical to providing housing, especially for younger people who are looking for more flexible housing options as they develop their working lives. The Minister has set out a little bit of his thinking. I think it would be helpful if he could touch briefly, in summing up, on how the Government propose to ensure that that level of proportionality will be maintained when this scheme translates from a set of legislative proposals into reality. In particular, could he address how we will ensure that the costs to landlords—and indeed the costs that would thereby be passed on to tenants—remain within reasonable limits? How do the Government propose to ensure that the cost of any financial awards arising from these measures is met? Will that be a cost taken out of, in effect, the collective fees paid by landlords, or by tenants through their rent, or through some other arrangement? It would be helpful if the Minister could touch on the points made about the reliance on local authorities using powers that they have gained under the Renters’ Rights Act to carry out enforcement where breaches are identified. One point that we raised in Committee was that local authorities already struggle to carry out enforcement on issues such as trading standards and environmental offences, partly because of resourcing and partly because of the burden of proof. We were not satisfied at that stage that the proposal for levying significant fines would result in a significant additional level of resource to carry out that work. We drew attention to the experience in Wales, where a slightly different version of the same system operates and where those concerns remain live issues for local authorities charged with this responsibility. In summary, while we all agree with the principle of making effective and practical redress available to people who are tenants in the private rented sector, we do not want to see an overly complex and costly bureaucracy that does not make it straightforward for people to seek the redress that they need and deserve.
I start in the same way that the Minister did, by thanking all the Clerks and parliamentary staff who made the Bill come together. They have kept things on track, and it has been impressive to watch. Given the strength of the political headwinds we are navigating at present, and with little sign of them abating in the months ahead, I want to take a step back from the heat of the moment and reflect on what has been achieved through the passage of this Bill. I hope that those on the Government Benches will recognise that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have approached this legislation as a critical friend, scrutinising its provisions carefully, seeking improvements where they are needed and holding the Government to account where challenge was warranted. It is in that same constructive spirit that I make my brief remarks this evening, but before I do, I must pay tribute to the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is no longer in his place. He declared from the outset of the Bill that no one would drone on more about drones, and he was true to his word. As a fellow former regular Royal Marine, I can say with some fondness that his bootneck persistence had a material impact on how this House discusses the changing character of warfare. His resignation speech made clear that we have rather more in common than perhaps either side would care to admit. He may no longer sit at the Ministry of Defence table, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he will return in the not-too-distant future, and I look forward to working with him for the good of our country when he does. The Bill contains a number of welcome reforms. The extension of the armed forces covenant duty into Whitehall strengthens the principle that supports our service personnel, veterans and their families. That should be felt across the whole of government, building on the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in enshrining the covenant into law. I commend Ministers for carrying on that work. The reforms to the service justice system give victims greater confidence in the process. There are positive steps on accommodation and welfare, though as many hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned today, we will need to see the defence investment plan before we can properly understand how those pledges will be funded. These are set to be meaningful improvements, if they are in the defence investment plan and funded in the way we discussed in Committee, and they deserve recognition. I hope that Ministers will continue to consider what more can be done for veterans. We ask a great deal of those who have served, and our responsibility to them does not end when they leave uniform. It is precisely that responsibility which leads me— tangentially, Madam Deputy Speaker—to raise the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Many of those who served on Operation Banner are in my constituency, home of the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines. They remain in limbo as the Government seek to repeal the protections granted by the previous Governments, and the process itself is becoming the punishment. On that, the former Armed Forces Minister and I are in complete agreement, and I know that many other hon. and right hon. Members across this House are in agreement, too. He said plainly that this legislation is “unfit for purpose”, and I hope his colleagues on the Government Benches will reflect carefully on those words and have the courage to challenge and ensure that this legislation is either amended significantly or thrown out. I wish to reiterate the clear message from the Leader of the Opposition that with the international order deteriorating at pace, we do not have time for cheap politics. The defence of our nation and the security of our countrymen and women are at stake, and we must make the difficult decisions necessary to give our armed forces what they need to keep us safe. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that we would lend our 117 votes to pass welfare reforms, so that the savings could be redirected to the defence budget. That offer stands; anything less would be a catastrophic dereliction of duty. The Prime Minister has rejected that offer—
Order. I do not intend to apply a time limit to contributions. Members will note that the clocks in Westminster Hall are not functioning. If someone speaks for longer than might be reasonable, I will call them to order. I call Ed Argar, who I am sure will not do that.
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question is far too long. I call the Secretary of State.
Looking out to 2028-29, there is a £2 billion gap between what the Government say they will be spending on SEND and what the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that SEND spending will be in that period. That will risk children across Worcestershire being forced to fit into a box that does not fit their needs. What steps will the Government take to address that?
Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the serious topic of the impact of steel tariffs on companies and jobs across the country. The Deputy Prime Minister gave me a rather evasive answer—I suspect because he did not expect to be addressing the House of Commons today. He did say that the Prime Minister would be raising the issue at the G7, so can he update the House on what was discussed with regard to steel tariffs? Will he take the opportunity once again to try to answer the question as to what steps the Government are taking to avoid this economic disaster, which will occur in less than two weeks?
14. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle antisemitism on university campuses.
The fact is that antisemitism and anti-Jewish hatred is rife in campuses across our country. The Secretary of State is right that it is up to vice-chancellors and principals to ensure that Jewish students feel safe on campus, but the sad reality is that a recent survey shows that only 3% of Jewish students feel safe to report antisemitism. Will the Secretary of State take prompt action to ensure that vice-chancellors do their job so that those committing antisemitic attacks are expelled from universities, and indeed if they are foreign students, they should also be deported?
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I thank Ministers for briefing me over the weekend on this tragic event. I also thank all the emergency services, railway staff and volunteers in Bedfordshire who worked so tirelessly and professionally in response to the collision in my constituency. I send my condolences to the family of Shaun Burton, the train driver who tragically lost his life, and wish those who were injured a full and speedy recovery. Some of my constituents still need to travel, particularly to London. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give my constituents who rely on Flitwick and Harlington stations—which, as she knows, are closed at the moment—that the contingency timetables and rail replacement capacity will be sufficient in the days ahead? Has any consideration been given to the possibility that trains on the east coast main line could make additional stops at Arlesey in Bedfordshire to increase capacity during this recovery period?
The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the meeting between the Prime Minister and Sanae Takaichi, the Prime Minister of Japan, with reference to £18 billion of investment coming into the country. Some of that will no doubt be for the global combat air programme, for which a funding deal needs to be in place by the end of this month—next week. Last week, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Procurement mentioned that that funding deal has been agreed. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm how much that deal is worth and whether it is a multi-year deal, or whether it is a three-month interim deal that runs out at the end of September?
I appreciate the hon. Member’s position and have previously spoken to her about new clause 4, which I tabled. The Government have been in power for two years, and nothing has yet been done on delivering their pledge. Why should Labour Members not vote for new clause 4, given that it will deliver their manifesto pledge?
That sounds very much like a European defence force. In what way would that differ from the concept of a European army?
I wish to speak to new clause 4, tabled in my name. I thank all those across the House who signed my amendment. Some 10% of MPs in the House supported the amendment. Although that is not exceptional, it is certainly unusual, and I wish to put on record my thanks to all those who put their name to it—particularly those on the Labour Benches.
I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying. I am not putting the Minister under scrutiny here; I am merely highlighting the invidious position that he finds himself in and the situation as we find it. I spoke to the hon. and gallant Member, the Minister, earlier today, so he knows full well that I am going to say this. I very much want to put this front and centre as an issue that needs to be resolved, and to put some heat and light on it to encourage the progress that we are yet to see. The only reason to oppose this new clause is purely political, as the Government choose to play games with people’s lives rather than support our armed forces community and uphold the armed forces covenant. Earlier this year, that same armed forces community was surveyed by the Army Families Federation on the armed forces pathway to settlement in the UK, in response to the 2025 “Restoring Control over the Immigration System” White Paper. It had 1,424 qualifying responses and more comments on reducing the cost of indefinite leave to remain than any other topic. One of those responses stated: “the current level of fees for ILR—and the subsequent cost of citizenship—places a significant financial burden on Armed Forces families. Given the service and sacrifices made by Armed Forces personnel, and the vital role their families play in supporting them, these costs are prohibitively high for many. As a result, families who are committed to remaining in the UK long-term face unnecessary financial hardship simply to secure their lawful status and future.” Another said: “Speaking from experience it’s a struggle to get us and our kids to join our husbands here in the UK. We have to work 2 jobs in order to pay for the visa and travelling expenses. We have to bring our 3 kids over to the UK. Due to the expensive costs we have to apply for loans to cater for the expenses. With the high living standards and tight financial constraints, we have to save up for our ILR fee once our 5 years contract is done. It’s so hard to save, especially for us. Me and my 3 kids have to apply for ILR together as our visa expired the same date, so that’s a total of £12K we have to fork out to pay the fee. Can the home office look into this urgently? Thank you.” Another said: “I have supported my partner’s service to the UK while facing many of the same sacrifices required of military families. This includes frequent relocations, prolonged periods of separation, disrupted employment opportunities, and the emotional and practical challenges that come with military life. For Commonwealth families in particular, these sacrifices are made alongside the added uncertainty of immigration status. Charging ILR and citizenship fees places an unfair financial burden on spouses who have already contributed significantly to the stability and wellbeing of service personnel. Military spouses play a vital role in enabling service members to serve effectively, yet are required to pay substantial fees simply to remain in the country their families serve with loyalty and dedication”. This last one said: “the financial burden of applying for ILR and subsequently citizenship is not proportionate to Armed Forces pay, particularly in the context of the current cost-of-living crisis. Many serving personnel simply do not earn enough to comfortably meet these fees, even though they have complied fully with all rules and requirements. It is difficult to understand why those who have shown long-term commitment, loyalty and service to the United Kingdom must go through one of the longest and most expensive settlement routes, while others are supported through different schemes that include accommodation, financial assistance and fee exemptions. This creates a strong perception of unfairness among service members, who feel they are being penalised for following the rules.” That last one really sticks in the craw. We price our service personnel out of being able to afford to live here as veterans while dishing out ILR to others like confetti, who have done nothing to earn it. There is perhaps no better example of a genuine two-tier system. Before Labour Members go into the voting Lobby and swipe their pass on autopilot, I ask them to think about why they became MPs—specifically Labour MPs—because if the answer was to clamp down on immigration so hard, with the bar so high that we do not even let the children of people who have risked their lives in the service of this nation live here without fleecing them for thousands of pounds, they will get a slow handclap for achieving their political dreams. If, on the other hand, they have the moral courage to do the right thing, they should not go into the No Lobby. What is the worst that is going to happen? How whip-able do we think the parliamentary Labour party actually is right now, just a few hours after the Prime Minister has resigned? I ask Labour Members to have the moral courage to do the right thing, to vote in favour of new clause 4 and to deliver on the promise they made to service families when they stood for election. In a matter of days, they will find themselves jockeying for position in the leadership contest. People who are Whips today might not be Whips tomorrow. Nobody is going to lose the Whip as the Government collapse because they did not vote against this new clause. There may never be a more perfect set of circumstances in which to rebel: a Government with no authority trying to whip Labour MPs to vote against their own manifesto pledge and against the wishes of the Royal British Legion. I dare say there has never been safer, more fertile ground upon which to rebel. If Labour Members cannot vote in favour of the new clause, I beg them not to vote against it. When this issue was voted on three weeks ago, there were 102 abstentions. The Prime Minister has laid out the timetable for his departure. This Administration is in its death throes. How much do those on the Labour Benches feel they really owe the outgoing Administration? They should be asking what the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) would do, because I am not really asking the current Government any more. What is the point? Today, at the start of Armed Forces Week, I ask Labour Members to consider how they will vote tonight. Do they want to vote against service families, against the Royal British Legion campaign and against doing the right thing in order to prop up a Government who have a lifespan we can now measure in hours? This is now about whether the next Government back this change. I ask them to support new clause 4, not to vote against it. Ministers should think very carefully about what they want their legacy to be. They should have the moral courage to do the right thing tonight.
The Minister accepts that the new clause has been significantly redrafted to try to make it as watertight as possible. I appreciate what she says about primary and secondary legislation; it seems like a little bit of a convenient get-out-of-jail-free card for the Government. Can she confirm whether there is anything wrong with the new clause as it is drafted other than the change to primary legislation, and if there is not, what changes do the Government plan to push through a piece of secondary legislation in the very near future in order to implement the measures as drafted?
T10. My constituent, Joanna, has worked tirelessly to highlight the lack of a dedicated selective mutism pathway in West Sussex. Children are being left without the support they need, so will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that this gap in provision is finally addressed?
The Roman forts of Reculver and Richborough, linked by the Wantsum channel and the River Stour in east Kent, are ambitious to secure UNESCO world heritage site status. Those ambitions will be killed stone dead if the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero supports the building of a 90-foot-high converter station on the Minster marshes. Would the Minister have a word with that Department to make sure that does not happen?
Mr Speaker, you will recall that on 16 April I raised with the Leader of the House the failure of Capita to administer properly the civil service pension scheme. Ever courteous, he passed that information and my concerns to the Cabinet Office. The deputy director of the Government People Group responded on 30 April, saying: “The Second Permanent Secretary at HMRC…is personally leading a specialist Pensions Recovery Taskforce to restore service levels…we are now focused on a backlog of approximately 25,000 outstanding pension quotations.” In response to my concerns about Capita, she said: “Capita is a strategic supplier to the government” and it has “more than 80 contracts across the public sector.” She also said, “we are holding Capita to rigorous account through every available commercial lever.” May I gently ask the Leader of the House whether it is not now time for the Cabinet Secretary to come to the House to make a statement and face questions on this matter?
The hon. Gentleman referred to “reinventing the wheel”. There is no possible way that anybody can be really compensated for the loss of a child, a husband or a wife. However, those of us who still bear the scars of the thalidomide scandal are seeing the wheel reinvented again and again. Surely there has to be a system that allows compensation and allows the Government to act as the insurer of last resort and then to make claims against those who are actually culpable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Like others before me, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He is the driving force behind the all-party parliamentary group, which has done so much to highlight this terrible tragedy. I was struck by what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said about having been alerted to this as far back as 2010. In my case, it was not quite so far back; it was 2015, but that is still more than a decade ago. I spoke in this House about the case of my constituent Lesley, which illustrated how long it often took for victims of contaminated blood to discover that they indeed had been infected. I pointed out that in 1970, she and her future husband had been involved in a serious road traffic accident, and she had to receive no fewer than 44 pints of blood. For many years, she knew nothing about the fact that she had been infected, although over those years she had many visits to GPs and hospitals, with numerous symptoms of illness, and considerable pain and suffering. It was only in 2014 that she finally discovered that she had been infected with hepatitis C by NHS contaminated blood. Another example of a constituent who is in regular contact with me and my office is Stephen. He came to see me in August 2023. He was diagnosed as haemophiliac as an eight-year-old in the late 1960s. He thinks that he was infected with hepatitis C in 1974, which persisted for nearly 15 years before it eventually cleared from his system. He says that although it did not inhibit his professional life too badly, it had a deep impact on his personal life. He was married in 1986, and he was constantly having to have testing for fear every time that he had to have a transfusion that he might be being infected. He was told in quite firm terms not to have children, and he said that he was often too scared to have treatment. Once he had quite a bad leg injury, which led to complications, and his fear of treatment led to him being effectively disabled for a period of time. Stephen’s brother’s case was far worse, because he was one of about 400 chronic hepatitis C victims of this scandal. To this day, he can only effectively live on a day-to-day basis; he cannot plan because the complications of his infection mean that whether he will be able to do something will depend on how he is on the day in question. In Portcullis House on Tuesday, we benefited from briefings from a number of organisations that are concerned with this scandal. I will briefly touch on a couple. One was a campaign about a condition of which I was previously unaware, called thalassaemia. This rare blood disorder requires sufferers to have a transfusion every three to four weeks—a blood transfusion every month. These people are at a very high risk of having been infected, and many of them were. These regular blood transfusions deposit more iron into the major organs, which, coupled with the hepatitis C virus with which they had been infected, maximises the prospect of their developing cirrhosis and liver cancer. The drug interferon has been mentioned a couple of times already. I am old enough to remember when interferon was first regarded as a great breakthrough in the treatment of some cancers. Sadly, like so many medical interventions, it has side effects that can be harmful. Taken in combination with what these patients are also suffering from by way of infection and, in the case of thalassaemia sufferers, the build-up of iron, the interferon used in their cases also has complicating adverse effects. That was a point impressed on me at the briefing by the representative of the Terrence Higgins Trust, who pointed to the additional negative impact of treatment with interferon, which was for a significant time the only option available for HIV-positive patients. I am indebted to the Haemophilia Society for briefing material that I hope will simply add to the excellent statement and laying of the groundwork in the opening speech so ably delivered by the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. The Haemophilia Society draws attention to one or two specific points that I would like to put before the House. We all acknowledge that the infected blood community has fought valiantly for the truth for decades. We also accept that the Government are clearly committed to compensation following the inquiry. The debate now focuses on how to deliver that commitment and how to make sure that people are compensated without further delay and that the compensation is truly fair. In this connection, I would like to make reference to a detailed opportunity I had virtually to participate in exchanges with senior people—in fact, the most senior people—at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority back in June last year. Again, that was at the initiative of the chairman of the APPG, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. My participation was online, but I was able, as was he, to discuss all these matters with the interim chairman at the time, Sir Robert Francis; the chief executive, David Foley; and other key officials. In particular, we were able to talk directly with members of IBCA’s cases team. I must say that I, for one, found them to be both compassionate and empathetic. I was very impressed with the calibre of people who are involved in this agency, and I am hopeful that if they are given the direction they need and the resources they require, they can succeed. I got the feeling that this is an organisation that really does want to help the people it has been set up to support, not an organisation that wants to be in any way obstructive. I hope everything can be done to encourage it. I know that it is operating in uncharted waters with a tragedy of this magnitude, but I hope it can succeed in overcoming the obstacles that have been causing the delays. More than two years have passed since the Government accepted the need for compensation, but the majority of eligible people are still waiting to begin their claims. That includes infected people not previously on a support scheme and affected people—namely, the partners and family members of those who are sadly no longer with us. We have heard concern from the community that progress has slowed while IBCA works out how to grapple with these categories of claims in a process that it calls test and learn. Every month of delay matters, because many infected and affected people are elderly or seriously ill. We would like to know from the Minister his latest assessment of the timescale by which IBCA will compensate each of the categories of claimant. IBCA’s latest figures show that just 30 affected people have been paid compensation so far. Over 14,000 affected people are waiting to start their claim. At what point does the Minister expect IBCA to truly start making a dent in those very large numbers? In particular, we would like to know what specific steps are being taken to accelerate compensation payments over the next 12 months. Finally, there is an issue to do with claims that relate to the estates of those who died before the scheme commenced. Those who survived until the scheme commencement are rightly entitled to financial loss compensation from the date of their infection right up to the national age of healthy life expectancy that they should have had. In contrast, those who died before the scheme started have their financial loss calculated only from the date of their infection until the date of their death, which may have been a lot earlier than the normal expectation of a term of life that would have been their lot had this catastrophe not befallen them. There can be no doubt that this creates a stark and unjust two-tier system. Those who died earlier will often have suffered the same or worse than those who died later, and the financial loss to their estate is clear, yet the Government’s position seems to be that those killed by their infections the soonest deserve less compensation and recognition than those who survived for longer. In many cases, this amounts to a very substantial reduction in compensation—potentially decades of lost earnings. Bereaved families should not receive lesser justice because their loved one died before the scheme was established. The result is that timing, not harm, is determining value, meaning that compensation depends on whether someone survived long enough to see the scheme introduced. As I said, this is about avoiding a two-tier compensation system. In conclusion, I would like the Minister to explain how it can be in accordance with natural justice for those who died earlier due to their infection to receive less compensation than those who died later from a similar infection. Will the Government commit to reviewing their position on estate claims, to ensure families are not disadvantaged because their relative died earlier?
All voters, including blind and visually impaired voters, should be able to vote independently and secretly. In its reports on elections in 2024 and 2025, the commission found that there have been improvements to the support available and that returning officers provided a range of accessibility equipment and support. The commission will publish a report on the May 2026 polls in the autumn, including consideration of accessibility. However, there is more to be done, and the commission has recommended improving awareness of the support available, including providing clear information on poll cards and in polling stations.
As I have said, the commission will review what happened in the May 2026 polls and make any further recommendations it feels necessary as a result. The hon. Lady makes two important points. It is important that equipment is available, and she will know that tactile devices have been found by the commission to have been available in every polling station. Her other important point is that people who are blind or partially sighted need to know about that, and communicating that information is crucial—she is absolutely right.
I will certainly make sure the commission hears what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will appreciate that judgments on these things are often for returning officers or for those managing individual polling stations, but he makes an important point about access. As I say, I will make sure the commission hears what he has said.
It is always a blessing to have you chairing a meeting, Mr Dowd. It is particularly a blessing today, as we would not have this debate were you not here, so thank you. I have been active on this subject for some time. I have been sanctioned by China because of the issues that we raised over modern-day slavery. I remind Members that it was the Centre for Social Justice, which I set up, that first published the paper “It Happens Here”. We were then able to get the Government to initiate the Modern Slavery Act—the first legislation of its kind in the world. We were all very proud of that Act, but sadly it really has no enforcement. Government and suppliers have no obligation to check. They are supposed to make a declaration, but we know that many of those declarations are in fact deliberately false—they know they will not be checked, and therefore they do not have to worry about it—so while the Act is great, it is rather toothless. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate and making such a good opening speech. I will not repeat all he said, although I agree with so much of it. In the limited time I have, I want to focus on certain issues. First, the reality is that slave labour is not only a massive punishment and a human rights abuse on a scale, like genocide, wider than anything else; it is also commercial. Countries such as China use slave labour as a way to undercut markets, compete unfairly and drive businesses out of business—particularly here in the UK, as we have experienced. One of the big issues is the net zero determination and what we wish to do to clean up the environment because the biggest providers of solar arrays, wind farms and the technology are, in fact, based in China. The big problem is that the Government have two conflicting requirements. Quite rightly, they want to get on with cleaning up the environment; but they also know that if they cannot buy from China without a clear set of supply chains that are without slave labour, that will cost more money. That impacts the pace and the way in which they can provide a cleaner atmosphere. We have to say that one thing is more important than the other, and that is the human rights of those people being abused in places such as China. At the end of the day, we cannot go to bed at night with any grace if we say that we put up more solar arrays and wind farms but those were supplied by factories where people may have died, been abused, or had their lives and families destroyed. We know that China, in the case of Xinjiang, is committing a well-established genocide on such a scale that children are now in forced education camps. Millions of adult males are in forced labour, many producing the polysilicon that goes into arrays made in and around Xinjiang. The women, unbelievably, are being forcibly sterilised. The birth rate in Xinjiang has gone off the edge of a cliff. China is going to eradicate an ethnic group; it is very much the policy of the Chinese Communist party to have Han Chinese in charge of China, and nobody else. It also makes money from the fact that people in slave labour, as I said earlier, are producing goods much more cheaply than anyone else can. Look at what we are not doing: we are not checking supply chains. On this issue, I have been in opposition to whatever Government have been in power—neither the last Government nor this one have made a big effort to check those company declarations. I have had responses from this and the previous Government saying that they were doing their best and trying hard. It is not good enough to do one’s best or try hard; the question is: what is the best? Look at what is happening in other places. I point to the USA’s Act, which basically outlawed all use of slave labour anywhere in supply chains and put the means in place to check that. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States creates a rebuttable presumption that goods produced wholly or partly in Xinjiang, and other places using slave labour, are made with forced labour unless importers can prove otherwise. That is how it is done—we tell importers, “You must now prove to us that you have avoided any slave labour in your products. Failure to do that has you banned and fined.” It is immediate. They do not simply sit there saying, “Well, other bits of Government are helping us”, because to be honest, the Government do not have the ability to check themselves. They do not have what it takes, but there are companies out there that do this regularly. I have met the representatives of one such company. Forensic companies such as Oritain, based in New Zealand, specialise in using forensic science to check where goods were made. From that, it knows the footprint and the likelihood of slave labour. It will immediately investigate a company’s declaration and can challenge it. If it challenges it, the US Government will ban and fine the company. That has led to a whole rerouting of supply chains across China for the US market. Sadly, it has also meant efforts have been redoubled to put slave labour products into markets such as the UK, because it is known that the UK is a soft option. When we look around the countryside of the east of England and elsewhere, we see a load of arrays. I would bet that the vast majority were made with slave labour because no checks were carried out. The reality is that we have to do more. The Modern Slavery Act 2015, which I greatly supported, has now become toothless. Section 54 needs to be upgraded. There needs to be a punishment. Government need the ability to prosecute immediately, and supply-chain checks must take place. I end with this. The reality is that the legislation is a mess. With colleagues on both sides of the House, I successfully tabled an amendment to the Great British Energy Act 2025, to ban the use of products made with slave labour. It was a classic rebellion, and we got it done. Yet when I checked, I saw that next to nothing had resulted from it. There is that offence in the legislation, but the Government have done nothing to call out any of the companies still selling those products. We put a similar obligation into the Health and Care Act 2022, but next to nothing has been done on that—no declarations and no speeches to Parliament about what the Government have done. We cannot go on addressing this issue in a piecemeal way: it has to be done across the board. That is why I support the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green in his call for the Modern Slavery Act to have teeth and for section 54 to be implemented. Any business that, having been checked properly, is found to have misdeclared itself and its supply chain should be punished—it should be banished from importing to the UK and face financial and even criminal penalties. That way, we will stop this practice.
Could we get a commitment today that the Government will look carefully at what countries that are well in advance of us, such as the United States and some European countries, are doing, to make sure that we urgently get on to resolving this issue, rather than delaying with another review and more debates? We know what needs to be done, and surely we can get on with it pretty quickly.
I think Members on both sides of the House are deeply appreciative of the work of civil servants right across the country. To pick up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), we have a real issue here. There are pensioners in my constituency who have dedicated their life to the civil service but are not in receipt of their pension from March. As a Member of Parliament who continuously writes to those administering the scheme to follow up these issues, I know that they do not have the courtesy to even respond and say what they are doing. Can the relevant Minister come to the House as a matter of urgency to make a statement on what is being done to support our civil servants who have retired?
The Minister has referred to the grooming gangs inquiry carried out by our friend, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), and early-day motion 380 makes a number of recommendations. Will the Minister engage with the hon. Member to ensure that his ideas and recommendations can be taken forward, because we do not want to have to wait until Baroness Casey’s report in three years’ time?
The landmark 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence by the United States takes place in the week commencing 29 June. I have applied for an Adjournment debate, but will the Leader of the House enable more Members to be able to participate in marking that historic event?