5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I dare not think how many years of my constituents’ lives have been given over to points failures and signal failures, and the confusion that follows, on the line between Waterloo and the south coast. What can Ministers do about it?
T2. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s decision to discontinue hourly payments to volunteer rescue coastguards threatens the safety of Burnham-on-Sea in my constituency and coastal communities around the country. It is inevitable that fewer people will be able to volunteer to assist the coastguard if they cannot be reimbursed for time lost off work. The Minister will be aware that this decision follows a recent Court of Appeal case, so what steps will he take to ensure that the judgment does not lead to a reduction in the number of willing volunteers who keep our coast safe for residents and tourists?
It is utterly shameful that this Government are presiding over the imposition of VAT on drugs donated for compassionate use. The Minister referred to the previous Government. VAT was not put on those drugs under the previous Government, but it is being put on them under this Government. Was it the Health Secretary who signed this off when he was in the Treasury?
It is a pleasure to speak opposite the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), with whom I have worked extensively over many years on international development, thereby demonstrating one of Jo’s core beliefs: more in common. The hon. Lady spoke so movingly about Jo and encapsulated perfectly the essence of who she was and what a politician should be: decent, principled, clear and determined. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who secured this debate, in her place. She exhibits all of Jo’s brilliant qualities in fighting for the causes to which she is devoted, such as assisted dying, on which I am proud to work alongside her. The whole House recognises that on this very divisive issue, she showed incredible decency and probity in the way in which she pursued it. I cannot quite believe that we are commemorating a whole decade since Jo’s life was brutally cut short. Ten years on, it is just as painful to comprehend. Jo was both my colleague and my friend. We were different in our politics and backgrounds, but on the issues that we were both passionate about, we moved in lockstep. Like the Minister, I remember exactly where I was when the horrific event took place. Our paths first crossed when Jo and I marched together against injustice in Darfur through the centre of London. Subsequently, I met her in Sudan, in Darfur, in 2006 on two separate visits, one of which included the then Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron. Jo was a huge presence all those years ago, and I remember her also for her trademark scarves. I marvelled at the way she discharged her role at Oxfam in Sudan, supporting women and children and helping to secure water for the thousands of refugees living in camps. I still wear the green wristband she gave me then, as a reminder of the desperate plight of people caught up in what President Bush rightly described as a genocide. And yet today, 20 years later, Sudan is still in crisis, with ethnic cleansing practised with impunity. Whereas 20 years ago the international community, through the United Nations and the African Union, put military forces on the ground to stop it, sadly today unbridled barbarism continues in plain sight, and the international community is doing nothing to stop it. I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for leading a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall later today. Shortly after her election in 2015, Jo asked me whether we could team up to run a new all-party group called friends of Syria. Without hesitation, I agreed. Syria was ablaze. She knew that I took a great interest in the Syrian refugee crisis from the Back Benches, watching with despair as the situation got worse and worse, as the Minister described so well. Jo was determined to use her experience and expertise to champion the dispossessed, and felt we might be well paired to campaign together. As she said in her maiden speech back in 2015, “we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.] We would do well to reflect on her words and especially her character—fearless determination, unintimidated by tribal political pressures, putting the greater good above personal ambition and placing policy above party. Jo and I worked closely together for a year until she was murdered. I loved every minute of it. We had a rather useful good cop, bad cop routine. Unusually for me, I found myself as the good cop. Needless to say, Jo relished the bad cop role, especially when confronting the villains of the piece, and believe me when I say that she took no prisoners. On one occasion, we were taking tea with the Russian ambassador to remonstrate about the appalling crimes committed in Aleppo in Syria. The ambassador had recently complained to the Foreign Office that in the House, I had compared Russia’s bombing of Aleppo to the Nazi bombing of Guernica during the Spanish civil war. During the meeting, Jo did most of the hard-ball talking, and at the end of it she had triumphantly reduced a seasoned diplomat to incoherence, laying bare his inability to defend the indefensible. I very much doubt he will ever forget that meeting. Today, we need more people like Jo. The climate 10 years after her murder is even more febrile and more divided. We have all seen the shocking examples of that recently, and we must not forget that in the end, Jo was a tragic victim of those divisions. Her murder sent shockwaves through us all, yet lessons have not been learned, and a few years later, the wonderful Sir David Amess paid the same price. We must also not forget the MPs who were murdered before: Airey Neave in 1979; Robert Bradford in 1981; Anthony Berry in 1984; and my beloved friend and colleague Ian Gow, on Monday 30 July 1990, as he left his home at the Dog House in Hankham near Eastbourne to serve his constituents. All were murdered by terrorists while serving their constituents. Today we are witnessing more and more the consequences of polarisation, wrought by fear and cynical exploitation. Divisions are growing and principled politicians are declining, yet this debate underlines that in these dark days there is more that unites us, and so much of the work we do in this place is not characterised by division. Jo would have been appalled by Boris Johnson’s decision first to vaporise the Department for International Development, and secondly to slash the development budget. I suspect she would have been even more incandescent to learn that a Labour Government had gone even further, and I have no doubt in my mind that were she alive today, she would have fought tooth and nail to stop it from happening. Unfortunately, very few people have put their heads above the parapet, for reasons that we all understand—fear of missing out on promotions, of facing demotions, or of generally rocking the boat. Politics is a fragile business.
Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. International development is the other side of the defence coin. The two work together, and the role of soft power is enormously important in preventing conflict and war. I see that the Leader of the House is with us today, and I hope very much that he will restore the old custom that once a year there should be a debate on international development in the House, in Government time. When I next have a chance to speak during business questions, I shall perhaps ask him whether he will consider that. The passage of time will never erase Jo’s memory and legacy, and her profound impact on those who had the pleasure of knowing, loving and working with her. I am looking forward to hearing contributions from many hon. Members, as we all take comfort in the memory of a truly wonderful human being.
With the leave of the House, let me say that this has been an interesting, important and at times very moving debate commemorating the life, causes and work of our great friend—and hon. Friend—Jo Cox, as we think about how we take forward her work and her inspiration. There have been many great speeches, with some very consistent warnings, themes and concerns, as well as important agendas that all of us should be pursuing. I will start, if I may, with the speech by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). She reminded us that, as well as a politician and a figure in public life, her sister was a mother of a brilliant family—she was a daughter, sister and a mother. We remember today how much that family has suffered, and how much they have contributed to our country as her legacy. It was so good to hear the hon. Lady’s news about Jo’s children, Cuillin and Lejla. The hon. Lady made a superb speech, which really placed this debate in the position in which it needed to be. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) underlined the importance of the work tackling loneliness. My constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) brought Brummie good sense to the debate. We always enjoy her contributions in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield. She set out the importance of friendship and family, and above all the importance of political courage. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) spoke eloquently about Jo’s leadership on the huge value of building united communities. The right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) made an uplifting speech. I have no doubt it will be carefully parsed with particular interest by his Whips Office. He spoke up for “more in common”, emphasising that it does not mean we all have to agree, but that it is important we know how to disagree in the appropriate manner. He made the point, far better than me, that although the media focus on our divisions in this place, there is an awful lot of harmony, agreement and close working together, which does indeed get things done. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) emphasised the importance of confronting reckless and inflammatory language, and those who enable it to be spread. That most important point recurred a number of times during the debate. The hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) called for more people like Jo, and she made a lovely speech. The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) emphasised the importance of simple courtesy and much more, both in the House and in politics outside it. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) made an important speech about the need to focus on online safety and on tackling loneliness. I thank her and others for their very nice comments about our friend and colleague Sir David Amess. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who has made such a contribution to cross-party work on international development, made a most important point that the sheer personal cost of coming into politics and Parliament today, particularly for women, has risen hugely. As parliamentarians, to protect future generations and ensure their interest, commitment and ambition, we, too, need to focus on that in our time. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) entertained the House with her drinking stories. [Laughter.] We are all relieved to see that she managed to get home in the taxi kindly arranged by the right hon. Member for Ilford North.
The House will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. The hon. Member for Brent East spoke about her work doing battle on the radio show of the excellent Iain Dale, the highly respected broadcaster, against the evil side of social media. We should all thank her for that. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), in a most important contribution, spoke about the excellent work on projects she had done with the Jo Cox Foundation. She told us of the appalling abuse she has faced which, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I condemn in the strongest possible terms today from the Dispatch Box. Across the House, we salute her bravery. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) talked about the Jo Cox Foundation, the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme, the agenda for change and the need for all of us to stand against targeted abuse, threats and hatred. She reminded the House of the horrific level of threats faced by candidates in the 2024 general election, giving the House the independent figures that have been collated. Collectively, we must ensure that that is never allowed to happen again. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked compellingly about the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, its impact in her constituency, and the importance of continuing to build on that locally. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) revealed the diversity of political views, at least at one time, in the Arthur family—something the Mitchell family would recognise. He said that there had not been much push-back in this place on the international development cuts. I invite him to join me and others across the House in campaigning to change that, in the certain knowledge that Jo Cox would have thoroughly approved of our taking up that cause with very great vigour. She would have been delighted that we had done so. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) entertained the House with stories of her and Jo’s pregnancies, their work together as mums, and her efforts to make the House more friendly to mums and children. I must tell the House that back in 1988 it was me and the then Member for Chelmsford, Simon Burns, who finally persuaded the House authorities to allow two high chairs to be placed in the cafeteria downstairs—what was then called the Strangers cafeteria —so that we could bring our children in for tea once a week on a Tuesday. Finally, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) talked about the force of Jo’s legacy because of the example she set and the way in which she conducted herself. The hon. Lady made the interesting point that we are both more connected and more disconnected than ever before. She talked of the hurt so often caused by keyboard warriors who behave in a way that they never would if they were held to account. It is my pleasure to add my voice, on behalf of the Opposition, to the important points and to the spirit of unity and community that have characterised this excellent debate.
Since coming to power, the Labour party has increased the bus fare cap by 50% from £2 to £3. But one area that has not seen that rise is Greater Manchester where the last Conservative Government gave over £1 billion to support its mass transit system, expressly including keeping a £2 bus fare cap. In The Telegraph this week, we read that Andy Burnham is now openly briefing—no doubt with the right hon. Lady’s support, when he becomes Prime Minister after kicking out her current boss—that he would restore a national £2 bus fare cap. Does she agree with the current Prime Minister or the man she is trying to make the next Prime Minister on the Conservatives’ £2 cap?
Given the right hon. Lady’s clearly close working relationship with the Greater Manchester Mayor, does she agree with the decision of the Prime Minister—sorry, Mayor Burnham—reported in The Sun to spend £35,000 of taxpayers’ money repainting a train because he literally had nothing to announce and needed “something”? How closely does this expensive paint job with nothing behind it resemble Labour’s ideas for mass transit?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today an honourable man has resigned, on a matter of principle, from a Government in disarray. The former Defence Secretary, as he now is, has resigned over the Government’s continuous failure to publish the defence investment plan or even to fund it. In his letter to the Prime Minister he said, “your DIP financial settlement—which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week—falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time…it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030”. That is four years from now. We have a war in Ukraine, continued instability in the middle east and a Department in total limbo. The man with day-to-day responsibility for overseeing the nation’s defence has just quit. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you been given any indication that the Government will come to the House before we rise at the conclusion of business today and make a statement on this chaotic situation and who is now in charge of the Ministry of Defence? Similarly, have you been given any indication as to when the Government will now finally, at last, publish the defence investment plan, which is essential for the security of this country? As the first duty of the Government, above all others, is the defence of the realm, they must surely come to the House in the next few hours and explain how this dreadful situation will somehow be rectified.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate, and Members from across the House for their thoughtful and heartfelt contributions. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) has actually been to Sudan, which is a rarity in this place. I have not been to Sudan, but I have known the horrors of war. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for securing the debate because, jostling for attention with other terrible conflicts across the world, Sudan is often forgotten, despite the catastrophic situation there; indeed, it is experiencing the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. More than 150,000 people have been killed, nearly 15 million have been displaced, 33 million need humanitarian support, and 40% of Sudan’s population faces severe food insecurity. Yet, the warring parties continue. The Rapid Support Forces and the Sudan armed forces constrain aid deliveries to those most in need. They continue to commit massacres on scales that beggar belief. Appalling acts of sexual violence are being perpetrated daily against women and girls. Of course, among those barbarous acts, worshippers are being abused, minorities targeted and places of prayer levelled. The religious freedoms of the 2019 draft constitution have collided with the reality of war. The warring parties have attacked religious sites. In particular, the RSF appears to prize places of worship because of their strong walls: fighters take churches and mosques, often threatening and killing clerics and pastors to do so, and then violently clear the area of civilians. In turn, the SAF bombards those places of worship, targeting the RSF and other rebel groups. The destruction of religious sites is a terrible thing, but worshippers pay the highest price when good and evil collide. We have seen that far too many times: the drone attack on the El Fasher mosque that killed more than 70 people; the airstrike, days before Christmas, on a church in Al Ezba in 2024, which killed 11, including eight children; and the visit without notice of SAF fighters, accompanied by police officers and religious extremists, to demolish the Pentecostal church in El Haj Yousif. It is not only places of worship that are being targeted. Practices that have been prohibited post al-Bashir are being carried out with impunity. Religious discrimination is reportedly rife. Vulnerable minorities are being forced to convert. Many are denied work, food or education until they abandon their faith. Hudud laws are being used to target minorities, yet the Sudanese authorities are in no state to prevent or prosecute public floggings, which had been outlawed.
When these things take place, it is abhorrent to the whole House. Laws mean nothing when the state lacks even the most basic capacities to enforce them. Among this chaos, bad actors are thriving. We have long known that Russia deploys mercenaries in Sudan in return for a free hand to smuggle gold and a Red sea port for Putin. There are reports that the Houthis are using the chaos in Sudan to smuggle weapons to their terrorist forces in Yemen. In keeping with the topic of this debate, Iran is using its links to Islamist paramilitaries to perpetrate Sudanese civilians’ suffering. For example, the Al-Baraa Bin Malik Brigade is a Sudanese Islamist militia that has contributed tens of thousands of fighters to the civil war. The US has placed sanctions on the BBMB, but the United Kingdom has not. BBMB fighters have reportedly been involved in arbitrary arrests, torture and summary executions. The BBMB has benefited from training and weapons provided by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the same organisation that the Minister’s party, when in opposition, promised to proscribe. The Government are almost two years into their time in office, and only this week did they publish the text of the legislation that will make that happen. With that in mind, will the Minister tell us whether he has considered following the US’s lead and sanctioning the BBMB or even proscribing it? How do the Government plan to use the global human rights sanction regime created by the previous Conservative Government to crack down on religiously inspired Iranian agitation in Sudan? Indeed, does the Minister see a wider role for the human rights sanctions regime in cracking down on abuses of freedom of religion or belief in Sudan? Will the Minister tell us how the Government are pursuing accountability for the religious abuses we have heard about today? How are they gathering evidence of those abuses? Since Sudan was last raised in this House, what have they done to support the collection of evidence of war crimes, so that those responsible can be held to account? How is the UK using international courts to pursue those responsible for such atrocities? On the big picture, I know that the House is united in wanting to see the immediate end to hostilities in Sudan. We are all aware that pressing the warring parties into a ceasefire, and hopefully an eventual sustainable peace, will require combining our efforts with those of our international allies. How is the Minister using the UK’s role as the penholder for Sudan at the UN Security Council to ensure that humanitarian aid is reaching those in desperate need? How is he using that role to tighten the screws on the warring parties, pressing them into a ceasefire and ending this barbaric conflict? Finally, when did the Minister last engage with his US counterparts on their peace efforts in Sudan, and what specifically is the UK contributing to those efforts? Has he, or any of his colleagues, had discussions with other members of the Sudan Quad about their push for peace? How is the UK supporting the Quad in achieving the goals we hold in common: securing a humanitarian truce followed by a permanent ceasefire, securing a commitment to protect civilians and supporting an inclusive Sudanese transition to establish a civilian-led Government in Sudan? The war in Sudan is a stain on the world’s conscience. The freedom of religion or belief abuses being carried out are utterly barbaric. Britain must exert every ounce of influence and leverage to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately, to secure lasting peace and to hold to account those responsible for the crimes being committed in the name of, and against, religion.
T6. The Secretary of State will be aware of the provision in the national planning policy framework that if a proposed development is within 800 metres of a train station, it is a presumed yes from the planning inspector’s point of view. However, that creates a planning loophole in my Spelthorne constituency because Kempton Park station is the first one outside the Oyster zone, so no matter how many houses are built there, no one will use the station because they will all go one stop up the line to Hampton to travel much more cheaply. As a result of that loophole, Barratt Redrow is planning to put in a planning application to flatten Kempton Park racecourse and put 2,000 homes on it. Will the Secretary of State look at the planning loophole in the NPPF to ensure that it is not abused? How would she feel if she were indirectly responsible for the destruction of an internationally famous, iconic racecourse?
I am sorry to say that I did not know the hon. Lady’s sister, but she sounds like a remarkable woman. I am one of two sisters, and I recognise very much from growing up the sort of family structure that the hon. Lady describes. What a testament it is to Jo as a person that, having grown up in such a family and known what the opposite of loneliness is—what companionship and family are—she thought first of people who did not enjoy that. That is a real testament to the person she was.
7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of timetable changes on passengers using Berwick-upon-Tweed station.
In a survey I conducted in the Borders about Network Rail’s new timetable changes, more than 70% of residents said they were now less likely to use Berwick-upon-Tweed station as a result. The timetable changes mean fewer direct services to London, with many passengers having to change trains. This is having a significant impact on elderly train users and disabled train users. Does the Minister agree that, if his plan for Great British Railways is to be a success, frequent and reliable services from Berwick-upon-Tweed station to London need to be reinstated?
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business, please?
My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the man who was critically injured in the dreadful knife attack in Belfast on Monday evening. The bravery shown by members of the public who stepped in to help was nothing short of extraordinary. May I wish all those taking part in the common ridings and festivals across the Scottish Borders a successful and enjoyable season? Communities are gathering to celebrate traditions that have been passed down through generations. Last week, I was in Hawick for the Hawick common riding. I pay tribute to the Hawick cornet, Jordan Nuttall and his lass, Alix Martin, for the dignified way in which they carried out their duties. Tomorrow, I will be in Selkirk for its common riding. I hope that the standard bearer, Sam Coltherd, has a successful and enjoyable day. These celebrations are a reminder of the strength of local identity, community spirit and public service that continue to define our part of Scotland. On matters of wider public concern, can the leader of the House find time for a debate on standards in public life and accountability in Government, particularly in the light of the continuing questions surrounding the Scottish National party and the Peter Murrell scandal? Following Peter Murrell’s conviction for embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds, many people across Scotland remain deeply concerned that significant questions remain unanswered, particularly given reports that public money may have been involved. The Scottish Conservatives, led by Russell Findlay, have rightly called for a full and independent inquiry into what happened and who knew what. The Scottish public deserve answers. They deserve to know how such substantial sums of money could disappear over such a prolonged period without detection. They deserve to know what oversight and governance arrangements were in place within the SNP, and why those arrangements appear to have failed so comprehensively. They deserve to know what role senior figures in the party played during the period and what information was available to them. There are also serious questions about the handling and timing of the wider investigation and about decisions taken throughout the process. Why did it take so long for these matters to come to light? Why were concerns not identified earlier? Why have so many questions continued to go unanswered despite years of scrutiny and investigation? At a time when public confidence in politics is already fragile, the perception that there is one rule for those in positions of power and another for everyone else is profoundly damaging. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not optional. The public have a right to know that those who seek elected office are subject to proper scrutiny and that serious failings will be investigated openly and thoroughly. Will the Leader of the House therefore consider providing Government time for a debate on transparency and accountability in public institutions, and in doing so support calls for all outstanding questions surrounding the scandal to be properly examined? While the media and the Labour party are busy poring over every twist and turn of the by-election in Makerfield, the election that may tell us far more about the future direction of Scottish politics is the one taking place next week in Aberdeen South. There, the contest is now clearly a straight fight between the SNP and the Scottish Conservative candidate Douglas Lumsden. As public confidence in the SNP continues to be undermined by scandal and mismanagement, there is a growing recognition that only the Scottish Conservatives can defeat the SNP and send a message to both of Scotland’s Governments that the jobs of thousands of workers in Aberdeen’s vital oil and gas sector must be protected. The people of Scotland deserve a politics that is open, accountable and focused on delivering results, rather than being distracted by scandal. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the importance of transparency in public life, and of ensuring that the many unanswered questions surrounding the affair are not simply brushed aside but receive the scrutiny and answers that the Scottish and the British public rightly deserve?
T7. Coastguard rescue officers are brave men and women who work on the frontline to save lives, keep our coastline safe and, at times, arrive on the scene of small boat crossings. It is therefore shameful that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has decided to strip them of the small payment they receive and rehire them as unpaid volunteers. Will the Minister meet me, my constituent Martin Groom and other brave frontline CROs to discuss a way forward and save the coastguard as we know it from collapse?
Last night, the Secretary of State claimed that the arrival of the class 701s at South Western Railway was an example of what a nationalised railway could do. As she well knows, those trains were ordered back in 2017 by a private company from a private company, using private finance. Her only involvement was some garish vinyl wrap and to turn up and claim the credit, all while ordering Avanti West Coast and, now, Govia Thameslink to cut services to the public. She told us that nationalisation would be “more than a paint job” and that passengers would come first. Why has she done the exact opposite?
The Minister refers to yesterday’s vote. Last night, he and his Secretary of State ordered Labour Members to vote against the protection of rail discounts for veterans and their families. He told us that the Government have “no plans” to cancel veterans’ railcards. At the last general election, Labour had no plans for a family farm tax or to raise our taxes—in fact, they had no plan for how to govern the country. Surely that is all the more reason to protect veterans in the Railways Bill, so why will the Secretary of State and the Minister not stand up for our brave veterans?
The Minister is responding to this urgent question because the Government have decided to charge VAT on donated medicines used for compassionate EAM schemes. The Minister says, “Well, that is not our fault—the scheme has been around for 30 years”. That may be true, but they have decided to apply the rules for the first time. Why have the Government decided to impose VAT now?
Passengers on Great Northern services to and from King’s Lynn are fed up with repeated weekend closures. Given that the Secretary of State now oversees the track and those trains, does she agree that discounts should be offered when rail replacement buses are in operation?
It has been announced to great fanfare that East West Rail will be the main transport connection from Cambridgeshire to Bedfordshire, as well as in the other direction to get to the new Universal park. However. if the Government cannot get the bit of East West Rail that has been built operational—we know that that is all down to a row with the unions—what hope does anyone in Cambridgeshire or Bedfordshire, or anyone wanting to go to Universal, have of being able to travel there by rail?
More than two thirds of driving test centres have a maximum 24-week waiting time, and the average waiting time for a test is 22.3 weeks—a month longer than in July ’24. For all the Government’s talk of recruiting new examiners, the instructor recruitment conversion rate is just 4%. When will the Government stop talking about taking action and actually get a grip of the driving test wait time crisis?
14. What steps her Department is taking to improve transport services in Epping Forest constituency.
My constituents face many transport issues. We Central line users endure delays, overcrowding and graffiti. Meanwhile, residents in Waltham Abbey have no access to the tube at all and have been left with a limited bus network since Transport for London withdrew services. Young people are unable to get to the next stage in their education, and residents are struggling to get into London. I pay tribute to the campaign to bring back red buses to Waltham Abbey. Please can the Government press the Mayor of London, TfL and Essex county council to work together to give the people of Waltham Abbey and beyond the transport services they desperately need?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing this debate, which I know is extremely personal to both of them. I also congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on her speech. It is quite common in this place for people to say that an hon. Lady or hon. Gentleman has given an extremely powerful speech, but that was an extremely powerful speech. I was moved by it, and I am in great admiration of her courage and the frankness with which she speaks in this House about her illness. I was fortunate enough to be at a roundtable earlier in the week with the New Statesman about the cancer plan, with the hon. Member for Wokingham and others. I found it very insightful and thought-provoking, like the contributions we have heard in the Chamber today. As has been said, for many people, primary breast cancer never comes back after treatment, and treatment for primary breast cancer has significantly improved. But sometimes the cancer cells spread to other parts of the body—commonly the bones, lungs, liver, brain or skin—which is called secondary or metastatic breast cancer. As we have heard, the best estimate we have is that there are around 61,000 people living with secondary breast cancer in the United Kingdom, but that statistic is uncertain and the data is unclear. One point in the cancer plan was that the Government would collect the data on secondary breast cancer from 2026. We are almost halfway through 2026, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on how that is going and when we will see that data. Also, how frequently does she expect it to be published—will it be published monthly, quarterly, every half year or every year? What are her plans for that? There needs to be definition in order to do that, so I wonder if she has settled on that too. Another point in the cancer plan is the desire to improve screening. Again, I commend the hon. Member for West Lancashire on her work on the cancer plan, but there are women in Lincolnshire waiting five weeks and more for referral to their appointment when they discover a breast lump, and we know that the longer it takes for diagnosis, the more likely metastasis is to occur. Could the Minister give more detail on the promise to expand screening? What does it look like? What workforce will be necessary and when will that be in place? What mammography machines or ultrasound machines might be needed? Are they to be bought and installed, and how quickly does she expect that to happen? For those who need genetic testing, what plans does she have to expand the availability of genetic testing, and what will the timescale be? The cancer plan, which I am glad is very ambitious—it should be—will work only if it is delivered. It was published just over four months ago, but it is not clear what progress is being made or that the work is continuing at the necessary pace to deliver the ambitions we all want to see achieved. One thing slowing progress is the reorganisation of integrated care boards in response to the cutting of their budgets by 50%, and the Health Bill’s abolition of NHS England. The people who would be organising and planning are organising and planning something else. Some of them are leaving, so we are losing expertise, while others are being made redundant—or leaving before they are made redundant. That is disrupting the planning of our health services. Will the Minister comment on that? As has been said, there has not been the same progress for treatment of lobular breast cancer as for other forms of breast cancer. The previous Conservative Government committed £20 million to the Moon Shot project, to research ways of advancing treatment of that particular form of cancer, which needs more attention than it has had of late. Will the Minister tell us whether this Government are committed to providing that money for that research? Hospices provide amazing services for people towards the end of their lives, but, as we have heard in other debates in this Chamber, they are struggling. They have a lot of staff because theirs is a very person-delivered service, and they accrue extra national insurance costs from employing all those members of staff. I appreciate that the Government have put a lot of money into hospices, but that is capital money to enable them to redecorate, build extra bits, provide extra equipment. That is lovely, but it does not help if there are no staff to run the service and provide the care that the patients so desperately need. What discussions has the Minister had about the effects of national insurance contributions on hospices? Has she considered an exemption? What are her plans to help to support the hospice movement? The hon. Member for West Lancashire referred to what happens when a patient has run out of options. As a doctor, I am always told that a doctor never runs out of treatments. Palliative treatment is treatment, so even when they run out of treatments, they are still providing a treatment. However, what happens when we run out of treatment that is active or likely to be successful in prolonging life or curing disease? It is important that research is supported and able to continue. I look forward to the Minister’s words on what the Government are doing to support research so that new drugs can come online. During the pandemic, we saw how quickly vaccines were brought through the pathway. What is gumming things up now? How do we speed it up so that people can get the necessary drugs more quickly? What happens in the grey zone, when a drug is going into trial and is sort of but not quite available yet? We have compassionate use schemes, about which I asked an urgent question in the main Chamber this morning. Such schemes are used when individuals have reached the end of the treatment options and perhaps do not qualify for any of the trials that are currently available—in paediatrics, that could mean that they are a few days out of the age bracket—or perhaps the trials are full. Those schemes are also used when a patient received the drug in a trial, but the trial is finished and negotiations about the drug are ongoing. In some cases, the drug companies will provide those drugs to patients for free to help them. Unfortunately, towards the end of last year, the Government decided to charge VAT on the deemed value of such drugs. That means the companies have to pay sometimes quite significant charges to give those drugs to patients. One large pharmaceutical company has pulled out of the compassionate use scheme, which means that its drugs are not available for the people who need them—that issue was raised by my hon. Friend Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). The enforcement of that tax by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has been paused for review, but the liabilities remain. We therefore have a situation in which some drug companies are pulling out and others are considering their position. People with secondary breast cancer, and those with other cancers and serious illnesses, cannot wait for the autumn Budget. They need the Government to make a decision to sort this problem out now. Only last month, the Government decided that they would take VAT off rides at Alton Towers. That is great, but if they can do that, they can sort this issue out as well, and they need to get on with it. Will the Minister raise the matter with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and in the Treasury to see what she can do to help people who have no option other than these new and special drugs to keep their hope alive? In summary, the cancer plan is ambitious, which is great—it has some great targets that I hope can be achieved—but we need to see delivery. I am looking to the Minister for the detail on how the plan will be delivered.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the effect of VAT on the availability of medicines through compassionate use schemes.
I declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician. One of the worst moments as a paediatrician is when all treatments have failed and there is no suitable clinical trial. At that point, in those dark moments, compassionate use schemes can be a glimmer of hope, and new unlicensed medicines with clinical potential have been provided free to the patient, and free to the NHS. Last year, however, the Government started charging VAT on the deemed value of those drugs, meaning that companies had to pay tax to give the drugs away. When hearing that “every meeting” with Labour MPs was about “who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?” few would have imagined that that would include potentially lifesaving, charitably given drugs for sick adults and dying children. Following lobbying by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), the Government have paused enforcement while they review the situation, but they have said that liabilities remain, and they are taking too long. Bayer has now withdrawn from the scheme, and others could follow. Patients are at risk. Does the Minister recognise that that makes trials in the UK less attractive, and that HMRC’s pause is not enough? How much money do the Government expect to raise with this VAT? How did the Government find time to reduce VAT on fairground rides at Alton Towers, but not to sort out this problem? How many patients have missed out so far? Does the Minister recognise that this delay could cost lives, and who was the Minister who signed this off? Was it the Health Secretary when he was a Minister in the Treasury? I understand that the Government say this situation is not new, and that it may apply to a law dating back over 30 years. I gently point out, however, that the application is new, and that the levers to change it—and change it quickly—lie in this Government’s hands. Patients need them to act swiftly.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I have not been informed that the Government wish to make a statement on this matter or on the timetable for the publication of the defence investment plan, but those on the Government Front Bench will have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. Those on the Government Front Bench will have heard her point. This is not a matter for the Chair, but I suggest she consults the Table Office to explore the other mechanisms through which she can pursue the matter further.
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, on Thursday 18 June there will be a statement from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, followed by a statement from the Justice Committee, on their reports. Until yesterday we understood that there would be Government business on 18 June. We will instead have a debate on the infected blood compensation scheme, and we are asking colleagues who are on the waiting list whether they would like to take up the additional debate. If we are allocated Thursday 25 June, there will be a statement from the Work and Pensions Committee, followed by a debate on Windrush Day, followed by a debate on PANS and PANDAS—that is the short title. These will take place in the Chamber. Turning to Westminster Hall, next Tuesday there will be a debate on community hospitals. Next Thursday there will be a debate on safeguarding human rights in supply chains, followed by a debate on public toilet provision for people living with a stoma. On Tuesday 23 June there will be a debate on fly-tipping in residential areas and the associated impacts, and on Thursday 25 June there will be a statement from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, followed by a debate on ports and port connectivity and a further debate to be announced. As the Leader of the House has announced that estimates day debates are coming up, I should remind the House that tomorrow is the last day to submit applications, and the Backbench Business Committee will be considering those applications next Tuesday. Obviously, it is key that people who want to submit applications do so speedily, and we intend to offer as many debates as we possibly can. Pakistan’s illegal occupation of part of the Kashmir valley has been going on since 1947, and many MPs in this House have supported that position. However, the Joint Awami Action Committee, which operates in the illegally occupied part of Kashmir, has recently been demonstrating for basic rights to food, electricity and healthcare. The Pakistani authorities have launched a severe crackdown; they report that at least 11 people have been killed and many others injured, but the protester groups report 20 to 30 deaths and over 200 injuries. I believe a number of British nationals have been injured during these protests. There have been arbitrary arrests, and Pakistani forces have fired live ammunition at peaceful protesters. I understand that 30 colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir have written to the Foreign Secretary to demand action. I echo that we want to see action from the Foreign Secretary, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office calling out Pakistan for taking this despicable action against peaceful protesters. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on this issue next week from the Foreign Secretary?
The Minister mentioned devolution and what a difference that would make in terms of the mayors’ role. We have an issue in Aldridge, which I am sure he is well aware of and well rehearsed on, in that the current Labour mayor has taken the funding away. Will the Minister reassure me that GBR will work with Mayor Parker and with me to make sure that we deliver a railway station in Aldridge?
Is it not the truth that the Government were given an idea from our days in government, and that it was a golden opportunity to reform the railways of this country? But what has actually happened? Ideology has gotten in the way, and it has gotten in the way of the passengers first and foremost. They are going to be the real losers in this.
The point I was making was that the concept of Great British Railways and bringing track and train closer together came during our time in government, when Grant Shapps was the Transport Secretary and I was a rail Minister.
I rise to speak to new clause 17 and amendment 46, both of which stand in my name. I want to focus my remarks on a very simple principle. If Parliament is creating Great British Railways—we can argue away about any timeline—and we are concentrating more responsibility and decision making within a single national body, it is only right that there is appropriate accountability and local democratic oversight alongside it. As the Bill stands, it falls short in this regard. New clause 17 does not seek to prevent decisions being made or create unnecessary bureaucracy. Rather, it ensures that where decisions relating to railway services or infrastructure have a significant impact on local communities and economies, Members of this House—elected to represent those communities—are consulted. Surely that it was local democracy and accountability is all about.
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. I have found of late that, far from being a lot cheaper, as is often lauded, some of the ticket prices to Birmingham are absolutely eye-watering. I call on the Government to take a serious look at that. Rather than just saying, “Fares are all cheaper”, the Government must look right across the board, because some of them are far from affordable. That is also why I support the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about a railcard for our veterans, which must be delivered. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) demonstrated, Members of Parliament are often the first port of call for constituents when problems arise with rail services or ticketing, or when communities are campaigning for investment. Whether it is constituents, businesses, community groups or local campaigners, they rightly expect their MP to be their voice and champion. Local knowledge matters. Surely those who are elected to represent our communities should have a role in the decisions that affect them. I know from my own constituency just how important that can be. As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned for the restoration of a railway station in Aldridge—I see he is smiling. I make no apology for championing that case, and I will not be giving up any time soon. Members will have heard me raise this time and again for very good reason, because for too long communities like mine have been left behind by the railways. We hear talk of new passenger services such as Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway running through our village without stopping—that would be a huge missed opportunity. If we are serious about unlocking the economic growth that the Black Country so desperately needs, connectivity is key. Throughout the debate, I have been interested by the contributions about the importance of putting passengers at the heart of our railway system. Of course, I agree with that, but surely it cannot be right that decisions with significant local impacts could be taken without speaking to the very Members elected to represent those communities. If we are to have Great British Railways, we should also have great British accountability. This is not an argument against the Government’s chosen direction, but greater centralisation must be accompanied by greater accountability. That seems a reasonable proposition, and one that I genuinely think Members right across the House would be able to support. On accountability, amendment 46 would ensure that directions issued to Great British Railways are shared with the Transport Committee. That, again, is entirely sensible, because just as local communities deserve to have a voice through their Members of Parliament, Parliament itself should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand, and if Ministers are to have significant powers over Great British Railways, surely it is right that the House and its Select Committees can see how those powers are being exercised. Ultimately, both my amendment and new clause are about striking the right balance between central direction and democratic accountability. Local communities deserve to have their voices heard, and Parliament should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. While I shall not press them to a vote, I really hope that the Minister will reflect on that, give the proposals serious consideration and respond to them when he wraps up the debate.
I am conscious that the Minister is winding up, and I promise I will not ask about Aldridge train station. I want to ask about accountability. The Minister has spoken a lot about the transfer of powers and about devolution; I tabled an amendment, which I have decided not to press, on the need for clearer accountability and transparency.
The shadow Secretary of State is willing to give way to a Back Bencher and listen to their perspective. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are far from offering passengers hope, particularly when they will not even answer questions from Back Benchers about simple constituency matters?