Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Notwithstanding the important points raised by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), about robust safeguards in the testing of new treatments, the United States has legislated for a right to try for those who have got to the point at which they have little other option left. Will the Government look to that model to ensure that brain tumour patients can have the right to try innovative new treatments?
Will the Minister for Housing and Planning review the 2,500 square metre threshold for edge of town centre and out of town centre planning applications and conduct an assessment of their impact on the high street, particularly through the lens of supermarkets setting up things like key cutting and shoe repair kiosks, which decimate our high streets, as has recently happened in Princes Risborough?
I am particularly keen to speak in this debate, having had a constituent write to me powerfully on behalf of a close relative with a brain tumour. That constituent rightly highlighted that we must and can do better, not just on research and on improving access to innovative treatments, but in supporting those with brain tumours and their families while they are going through any such treatments. I pay tribute to the petitioners, many of whom are in the Public Gallery, and to fantastic charities and organisations, including Brain Cancer Justice and many others, for their work. I also pay tribute particularly to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) who, through her passion and determination, has done so much to raise awareness of this issue in this House and beyond. More importantly, she has not just spoken about that passion, but turned it into a reality for many people. We need to focus on access to innovative treatments when all else has not worked, and on the need for research and progress—something we call for in this debate—but also to do more in real time to support those with brain tumours. I have several questions for the Minister. What progress have the Government made on implementing each measure in the Rare Cancers Act? On behalf of my constituent who wrote and posed questions, I ask the following. What Government investment is committed year by year to research into brain cancer and its treatments, particularly brain cancers of paediatric patients and young people? How many clinical trials relating to brain cancer are expected to start in the UK this year? What assessment have the Government made of the adequacy of incentives to industry in the 2021 legislation for clinical trials in this area, for research and for participation in the orphan drugs regime? In this place, and in life, there is a time to act, and I believe that this is that time. We have huge potential and huge talent in this country. Let us help to focus that on saving more lives and giving more precious time to more people.
I welcome the Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), the former Defence Secretary, and his reaffirmation of the Government’s commitment to all the recommendations in the strategic defence review. Given that reaffirmation, how many of those 62 recommendations currently have the necessary funding fully agreed and committed to by the Treasury?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this important debate, and to other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to it. I also pay tribute to Brain Cancer Justice and to all the people—over 109,000 in total—who signed this petition to ensure that we have had the opportunity to debate this important issue here today. At its heart, this debate has been about the patients, families and loved ones whose lives have been irreparably changed by a brain tumour diagnosis. For many families, of course, that diagnosis arrives suddenly, although too often it is also delayed.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing Holly’s story, which sadly, is far too frequent. I remember from my time in clinical practice that those subtle signs were sadly sometimes missed. We need to do much more to ensure that our clinicians are aware of them so that they can make an early diagnosis. Of course, when those diagnoses arrive, it is inevitably devastating. It turns lives upside down in an instant. Parents are told that their child has a condition with few treatment options, husbands and wives are forced to confront an uncertain future and children become carers. Families who should be planning birthdays, holidays and life milestones instead find themselves navigating endless hospital corridors, scans and treatments. Behind every statistic is a person and behind every policy discussion is a family desperately hoping for more time. Today, I want to particularly recognise the courage of those families whose stories have been shared, often while living through the most unimaginable grief, so that others might one day have a better chance. I also want to pay tribute to the remarkable charities, researchers, clinicians and campaigners who have worked tirelessly to keep this issue on the national agenda: organisations such as the Brain Tumour Charity, Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, Brain Tumour Research, Cancer Research UK and countless others that have not only supported patients and families, but have driven forward research, awareness and innovation.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are countless charities that have done a huge amount of work, and what they are doing is making a tangible difference to people’s lives. Sadly, brain tumours remain one of the most challenging forms of cancer. In many instances, outcomes are no better than when I worked as a doctor in neurosurgery almost a decade and a half ago. The less survivable cancers taskforce has highlighted that one-year survival rates for less survivable cancers, which include brain cancers, remain significantly lower than the average across all cancers. Despite advances in medicine, outcomes for many patients have not improved at the pace that we would all wish to see. That is why the concerns raised by the petitioners are so important. Quite rightly, the petition calls for greater investment in research, wider access to whole-genome sequencing and stronger support for innovative treatments. Those are priorities that cannot be ignored any longer. However, before I turn to those challenges, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the progress that has been made. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has established the brain tumour research consortium, which has brought together dozens of organisations to co-ordinate research and is backed by up to £25.5 million of investment. The recently enacted Rare Cancers Act 2026 represents another significant step forward, and I want to commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his work in bringing that legislation on to the statute book. The establishment of the national speciality lead and a dedicated cancer registry service have the potential to improve co-ordination and data collection and strengthen research. The national cancer plan has recognised rare cancers as a priority area and committed to expanding successful models such as the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission. Those developments are of course all welcome. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we supported the Rare Cancers Act throughout its passage through Parliament because we recognise that patients with rare cancers deserve the same urgency, focus and ambition as those with more common conditions. However, the reality is that legislation alone does not save lives; the real test is the effectiveness of its implementation. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could update us on what progress has been made in establishing the new structures required under the Rare Cancers Act. In particular, has the national specialty lead been appointed? When will the rare cancer registry become fully operational? How will success be measured? Patients and families deserve to know when they will begin to see tangible benefits from the legislation that Parliament has passed. The petition also raised important questions about research participation and access to innovation. The Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission highlighted that fewer than 5% of eligible adult brain tumour patients were able to access whole-genome sequencing because of limitations in tissue sampling and biobanking capacity, which is deeply concerning. Genome sequencing has enormous potential to improve the understanding of tumour biology, identify personalised treatment pathways and increase participation in clinical trials. However, opportunities remain unevenly distributed across the country. The Brain Tumour Charity has also highlighted significant variations in infrastructure and staffing across neuro-oncology centres.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that when someone is facing a devastating crisis, but has to travel excessive distances to get the treatment they deserve, there is something wrong with the system. If we are serious about accelerating research, we must ensure that every patient has a fair opportunity to participate in it. That requires investment not only in laboratories and technology, but in a workforce that supports research and clinical innovation. What specific action are the Government taking to address those disparities and ensure that advances in research can benefit patients regardless of where they live? The petition also reflects a wider frustration felt by many families facing brain cancer. When conventional options are exhausted, patients understandably look to emerging treatments and clinical trials with hope. Such hope is entirely understandable, but at the same time we must maintain rigorous standards of safety and evidence. The challenge for us as policymakers is not choosing between innovation and safety; it is ensuring that innovation can be assessed, trialled and adopted as quickly as possible, when the evidence supports it. That is why clinical research capacity and trial recruitment matter so much, and it is why access to cutting-edge treatments must remain a key priority. On that point, the Government have committed to increase spending on branded medicines, and they have set out ambitious objectives for expanding participation in commercial clinical trials. Of course those ambitions are welcome, but they must be matched by delivery. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that increasing spending on branded medicines will carry significant costs over the coming years, so can the Minister explain how the Government intend to fund those commitments? Patients need confidence that the announcements we hear today will be translated into treatments tomorrow. Similarly, while we welcome the publication of the national cancer plan earlier this year, questions remain about its implementation. The shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), supported the ambitions set out within the plan. However, he quite rightly called for clear, funded milestones, and those questions remain unanswered. When will the Government publish measurable targets for rare cancers, and how will progress be reported? For all the challenges that we have discussed today, it is important that we recognise the reasons for hope. Medical research continues to achieve what once seems impossible. Just a few years ago, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma was regarded as one of the most devastating childhood brain cancers, with very few children surviving beyond two years. However, through participation in innovative clinical trials, a young boy from Belgium named Lucas Jemeljanova experienced something quite extraordinary. Having been diagnosed at six, he entered the trial and, over time, scans showed a shrinking tumour, which eventually disappeared altogether. Lucas is now 13, and he is considered cured. With every breakthrough that provides a scientific curiosity, the challenge before us as a Government, as an Opposition and as clinicians and researchers is to ensure that those breakthroughs happen more quickly and often, so that they can reach patients quicker. That is what the families behind this petition are seeking, and they deserve no less.
Last week, the former Defence Secretary said that the Prime Minister was unable and the Chancellor unwilling to fund the resources needed to tackle the threats facing our nation. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and if not, why not?
Outrageously, today the Government have stripped Epping Forest district council of the sole local right to determine major planning applications. That means that my constituents will have major planning decisions taken by central Government and not by our local council. Epping Forest district is largely green belt, and we are already under threat from speculative housing applications, farmland being sacrificed for solar plants and the Labour Government arbitrarily reclassifying green belt as so-called grey belt. Will the Secretary of State step in and reverse this awful planning policy decision, which is a complete affront to local democracy?
The Business Secretary said on the weekend that a lot of time and effort had gone into the defence investment plan, but when pushed he said that he had not read it. The former Defence Secretary and former Minister for the Armed Forces have read it, and they resigned. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said that he had read it in full. Why did he decide not to resign when his two colleagues in the Department did resign?
The former Defence Secretary knew what was in the defence investment plan, thought it was inadequate and resigned as a result. I am sure the Minister would not be so shameless and disrespectful to the House as to spend an hour defending that plan if he himself had not seen it in full, so I have a very easy question for him: has he seen the defence investment plan in full, yes or no?
Have you seen it?
I congratulate the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance), Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), on securing this important debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, I once read that nothing you wear is more important than your smile, because it is your smile, and the laughter that comes with it, that brings joy and happiness to the world. In that spirit, I start by acknowledging some progress that this Government have made. The previous Conservative Government began establishing dental schools in Norwich and Portsmouth, to bring the next generation of dentists, hygienists and dental therapists to local people. We started fixing the roots of dental education, and I am pleased that this Government have continued that, allocating 25 training places to each of those schools. That is of course good news. As the Minister will know, it has been a long-standing campaign of mine to get a dental school in Lincoln. Excellent progress has been made so far, with the hub-and-spoke model to help rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) described. The team at the University of Lincoln are just waiting for the final sign off from the General Dental Council and the Privy Council. I am hoping that there will soon be places for Lincolnshire in the plans for dental education. To help bolster NHS dentistry, in 2024 the Conservative Government consulted on proposals to require dental graduates to work in the NHS for three years after qualifying. This Government’s 10-year plan committed to that policy, but I think we are waiting for a consultation to set out the proposals in greater detail. Can the Minister tell us whether it is still the Government’s intention to introduce tie-ins to NHS dentistry for dental graduates and when the proposals will be in place? As the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), said, the previous Conservative Government committed to expanding dentistry training places by 40% over 15 years, and, despite population growth, there are still more dentists per 100,000 people than there were in 2009. This Government’s workforce plan should lay out how many dentists, hygienists and therapists we need to recruit, and how the Government are going to do it. Unfortunately, that workforce plan was due last year, before being delayed until spring ’26. It is now summer ’26. In response to a recent question, the Minister said that it was due imminently, which I am sure is quicker than “soon” and much quicker than “in due course”. If the Minister has time to define “imminently”, I would be most grateful. It is not all about numbers. As the Minister himself has said, the issue is not the number of dentists, but the paucity of dentists who are doing NHS work. There is a case for making the NHS more attractive to dentists in the first place, as we know that dentists are disincentivised from working in the NHS. The main problem with that, as many have identified, is the contract created under the previous Labour Government in 2006. This has been a problem for some time; when I moved to Lincolnshire in the early 2000s, I remember travelling back to Redcar to see my wonderful NHS dentist, Mr Dixon, until he retired. There are several issues with the units of dental activity model in the contract. First, the units fluctuate bizarrely between practices, creating inequities in payment. Secondly, the UDA does not really equate with the real-time cost of delivering complex care. Thirdly, the UDA does not always cover the costs of care, meaning that dentists may be asked to provide some NHS care at a loss. The Conservatives started to change those issues by raising the minimum UDA payment and giving care commissioners the tools they needed to address UDA rates locally to better support delivery of care for patients. The former Secretary of State said that he would sort it by meeting the BDA on day one, and I believe that he did in fact meet the BDA straightaway, but there seems to have been little progress since. In April, the Minister promised that a consultation on fundamental contract reform would launch before the summer, but we are now in June—can the Minister say when that will be ready? Does he expect to reform the dental contract in this Parliament, as he promised? The Government are focusing a lot of resources on abolishing NHS England and have cut ICB budgets by 50%. Are they so focused on restructuring that promises to patients are not getting delivered? Speaking of delivery, the Government promised 700,000 urgent dental appointments and commissioned 1 million. In March, however, they admitted that just 100,000 additional urgent appointments had been taken up. I am aware of some dentists who are staffing appointments on call, on an in-case basis, so how many unattended appointments did the Government pay for? The Minister has now broadened his definition of urgent, but is he confident that we will have the urgent need met, and that it will not be crowded out by his broader definition? We have heard much about children’s teeth. In 2015, 42,209 children were admitted to hospital to have dental extractions due to decayed teeth; by 2024, that had fallen to 30,567—a drop, but still far too many. In 2025, however, that number rose to nearly 34,000. The previous Government introduced a Big Brush Club in south-west England, and I note that was the only region to have a reduced number of admissions in the year 2024-25 for decay extraction. What has the Minister made of that programme? How does the Government’s programme differ from the Big Brush programme? Children need their teeth brushing during the holidays, at weekends and in the evenings—how is the Minister working on ensuring that parents deliver on their responsibilities then? It is indeed their responsibility to ensure that their children brush their teeth twice a day. The Government’s 10-year plan rightly focuses on prevention, and one important preventive measure is the fluoridation of the water supply. The Government’s “Water fluoridation: health monitoring” report in 2026 found that children living in areas with a fluoridation scheme had a 20% lower incidence of tooth extractions. Will the Minister say what he is doing to explore expanding water fluoridation to help eliminate tooth decay? Dentistry is important, because good oral health is not just about our teeth, mouth and gums. Research published in The Lancet reports a growing body of evidence suggesting that oral health is closely associated with conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and Alzheimer’s. One’s dentist may also identify symptoms of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, Sjögren’s syndrome, nutritional deficits, Crohn’s disease and oral cancers. Delivering on NHS dentistry is important for our wider health too, but so far it feels as though the Government have been all smiles but little action when it comes to making NHS dentistry work for everyone. I hope that the Minister and his new Secretary of State will not seek to blame others, but instead recognise that they now have the levers in their hands—indeed, they have had them in their hands for nearly two years now—and use them to address these concerns, and quickly.
In his excoriating resignation letter, the genuinely hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) made it clear that he was leaving not just because he considered the DIP to be underfunded but, more particularly, because it planned to spend the money on the wrong things, preparing to fight the last war and not the war to come. He was right, wasn’t he?
I warmly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment, and wish him the best of luck—he will certainly need it. I congratulate all involved in the successful operation in the channel. The reputation of our troops is peerless, and that operation followed similar operations by our allies France, Germany and the US. May I press the Secretary of State on the point raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which he did not address? That surprised me slightly because, as an Op Banner veteran, he must have a view on that. Will he now ensure, in his new office, that that dreadful measure is cancelled, and bring comfort to those who are threatened by it?
The Mount Vernon hospital in my constituency has a cancer centre, both for trials and for treatment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the key asks that we all have of Government is to improve the international join-up so that the people doing this research can tap into the expertise of the clinicians treating patients in other countries, who in turn can learn from the expertise in the UK? Too often, because these tumours are very rare, identifying effective treatments and effective numbers for trials can be difficult for one single hospital or clinical institution.
The Government came to office promising to support our high streets with a permanently lower regime of business rates, but the Department’s answers to written questions indicate that the Government expect a 22% rise in the business rate take over this Parliament. Can the Minister tell the House whether the 100,000 job losses in hospitality since the Government took office, or the 74,000 job losses in retail since the Government took office, have been impacted by the rise in business rates, or are they solely down to the Chancellor’s massive hike in national insurance?
I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for raising this issue, which is part of a wider issue that many hon. Members will have heard about from constituents. Through legislation passed by the Conservative Government, with Labour Members’ support, and the legislation that is being consulted on, what concrete steps do the Government intend to take to prevent rip-off fees, and unfair arrangements that shuffle costs on to private tenants—or council tax payers, in the case of social housing tenants—so that people can have confidence that the homes that they need will be provided, and will be fit for the future?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the urgent question on the defence investment plan, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said that the Government are committed to all 62 recommendations laid out in the strategic defence review. In a later response to a right hon. Member, he described those recommendations as being “supported” by the Government. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the word “committed” carries a specific financial meaning in our civil service, so can the Minister use this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position? If not, can you advise me on how to get an appropriate answer?
Further to the Minister’s answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), will he take the opportunity of the new NPPF to make it absolutely clear that if someone wilfully ignores—not inadvertently, but deliberately and wilfully—the need for planning consent, they will not subsequently get retrospective permission?
I welcome this morning’s announcement. The platforms are not now off the hook: the Online Safety Act 2023 operates until the age of 18, which is the age to which the Children Act 1989 requires protection to be in place. On the announcement, what is the net effect of exempting messaging services but blocking communication from strangers, if a messaging service allows anybody who knows a person’s phone number to add them to a large messaging group?
On 1 July, the Trade Minister is slapping a 50% tariff on steel from many of our allies, much of which goes into the aerospace and defence supply chain. That will affect the cost of the defence investment plan. Will the Minister urgently review those tariffs and their impact on our defence spending? I am sure he will agree that he wants to get the most bang for his money when funding defence.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we do not refer to Ministers by their name. Could he perhaps make sure that his question finishes briefly?
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order, and I understand that he also notified the Minister that he intended to raise it. As he will know, it is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that Government Front Benchers have heard him, and if the Minister wishes to respond, he can of course do so through a further point of order.
Order. Before I call the next speaker, it may be helpful if I point out that all we are really arguing about this evening is the revival of the Bill, not whether it is a good Bill. Obviously, however, Members will want to set some context.
I call the shadow Minister.
This is a really important topic and a really important announcement about children’s health, safety and wellbeing, and I wish the Government well as they navigate some very thorny topics in bringing it into effect. Can the Secretary of State give any indication as to what accountability will look like for the platforms that will be tasked with enforcing this?
The Minister will know that we have been stalling on signing the full international contract for the global combat air programme since last year, and in April we signed the interim funding contract for Edgewing, which was £686 million. That runs out in just two weeks’ time. Yesterday the Prime Minister met Sanae Takaichi, the Japanese Prime Minister, Japan being one of the partners in GCAP. Can he confirm that he has signed the full international contract, and can he guarantee that funding will be in place before the money runs out at the end of June?
I congratulate the new Defence Secretary on his battlefield promotion. He will remember from his time in command that the best way to prove himself to his new team is to take them out tomorrow morning and thrash and phys, so I look forward to that. On the DIP, it was widely reported last week that the funding settlement is £10 billion of cash, plus £3.5 billion from, I assume, the in-year cuts announced back in April. What confidence does the Defence Secretary have that in the next two weeks—the length of the stay of execution that he has been given—he will be able to make that plan work better than the previous Defence Secretary, who ended up resigning over it, could in nine months? What will happen if the defence chiefs dig their heels in? Will the Defence Secretary end up publishing the DIP as it was before he took over? Can he guarantee that he will manage to change it sufficiently so that it satisfies all the parties involved?
I am grateful for today’s Adjournment debate on the proposed carbon capture and storage project Peak Cluster, and the implications it could have for communities, landowners, farmers and the countryside across Cheshire and neighbouring counties. The proposed pipeline route cuts through my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency, and so directly impacts constituents in the wards of Christleton and Huntington, Bunbury, Tattenhall and Tarporley. I have been inundated with correspondence from local people raising significant concerns. I have launched a local survey to gather views, and have received hundreds of responses, which are overwhelmingly in opposition to the project. I will share those concerns to ensure that the voices of people in Chester South and Eddisbury are heard, and will set out why I oppose the Peak Cluster pipeline project. Let me take a moment to explain what this debate is not about. I am not opposed to reducing emissions, investing in and developing new technology to decarbonise and protect our environment, or making British industry and energy-intensive sectors such as cement and lime production more carbon efficient. However, there is a right and a wrong way to do that, and this must not be done to the detriment of communities across Cheshire, the British taxpayer, who will ultimately foot the bill, or our countryside and rural landscape, which are central to Cheshire’s identity. Nor should it be to the detriment of the sectors, particularly agriculture, that we rely on in our local economy. I will touch on these matters in explaining why the project is the wrong choice for Cheshire. First, it would be useful for me to lay out some of the facts and figures around the project, so that the House better understands what we are talking about. The Peak Cluster project is a proposed carbon capture and storage scheme that is designed to capture carbon dioxide emissions from cement and lime works across Derbyshire and Staffordshire. Carbon dioxide would be captured at industrial sites, compressed, and transported through around 200 km of pipeline running through parts of Cheshire and neighbouring counties, before being sent offshore for permanent storage in depleted gas fields beneath the Irish sea. On a very simple level, that is what this project is about, and theoretically it sounds positive. Carbon capture and storage will have a part to play in the decarbonisation of industries. Some argue that the project will save the cement and lime production industry, and ultimately help to make the UK greener. Those are noble causes with which I can agree in principle. However, for too long, we have taken a theoretical, hypothetical and ideological approach to reducing emissions, at the cost of energy security, economic growth and the bills that people pay. Through this debate, I will demonstrate that the costs of the project significantly outweigh the benefits. A project on such an enormous scale and of such consequence must not move forward while fundamental questions remain unanswered. Let me turn to the economics of the project. Peak Cluster was established several years ago and became a limited company following significant investment in 2025. We are told that around £60 million has already been committed to bringing the project to its current stage, including substantial support from the National Wealth Fund, contributions from cement and lime producers, and investment from overseas infrastructure interests; yet we are also told that delivering the project could ultimately require investment in the region of £5 billion. That is a seriously significant amount of capital. As we know from previous national infrastructure projects, that will almost certainly not be the final total bill. It will grow. The cost will spiral, and ultimately the timeline will extend—and who will pay for this? It will be the taxpayer who ultimately foots the bill. At a time when every area of public expenditure is rightly subject to scrutiny, when energy bills are already soaring, and when public finances remain under pressure, we should be asking hard questions about whether this represents the best and most effective route to decarbonisation. I would argue that it does not. The business model appears heavily dependent on carbon pricing mechanisms and Government policy. Indeed, the fundamental incentive for producers to pay for carbon capture and storage rests upon the existence of carbon costs, which make emitting carbon dioxide increasingly expensive. That raises a number of important questions that I hope the Minister can help with in his remarks. What assumptions have been made about future carbon prices? Is the project economically viable at today’s carbon price, or does it depend upon the hope that the price will rise significantly over time? What assessment has been made of the risks, should future Governments alter or repeal elements of the emissions trading framework? Perhaps most importantly, what is the total potential expenditure for taxpayers? My constituents deserve a clear and straightforward answer on that point because, ultimately, what does Cheshire gain from this project? The carbon dioxide is not being captured in Cheshire; the cement and lime works are not located in Cheshire; and the principal industrial benefits are not accruing to Cheshire. No jobs will be created and no industry will be brought to Cheshire, yet Cheshire’s communities, farmers, landowners and countryside are expected to accommodate a substantial amount of infrastructure required to make the project possible. That understandably raises questions about fairness and whether the balance between costs and benefits has been properly considered. It will be for the Secretary of State, ultimately, to make the final decision on this project, and I hope that when he does, he will consider closely the impacts for Cheshire. Peak Cluster’s supporters argue that the project will help preserve the UK’s cement and lime industries, safeguard industrial jobs and contribute towards our net zero ambitions. Those are serious objectives and deserve to be taken as such. Of course, Cheshire is a patriotic county, and we would not be selfishly against the national interest; however, I do not think the project is clearly in the national interest. There is a broader strategic question: even if we accept the need to decarbonise cement production, and I do, are we investing in the right solution?
The point that I am getting to in my speech is that, yes, there are things that are in the national interest, but is this really the best use of investment to get the most effective outcome? The question is whether spending £5 billion on a pipeline really is the best way to safeguard the future of this industry and to improve the environment. Peak Cluster’s central proposition is that we should continue producing cement broadly as we do today, and then capture, compress, transport and store the resulting emissions. That requires capture facilities, compression stations, hundreds of kilometres of pipeline, offshore storage infrastructure and—by the project’s own admission—significant public and private investment. Yet across the United Kingdom and internationally, alternative low-carbon cement technologies are advancing rapidly. One notable example can be found just a short distance from my constituency in Wrexham, where Material Evolution has developed an ultra-low carbon cement manufacturing process, which uses industrial by-products and innovative production techniques to avoid many of the emissions associated with traditional cement production. The company states that its process can reduce emissions by up to 85%, compared with conventional Portland cement processes. Importantly, this is not simply a laboratory experiment, but a commercial-scale operation already supplying the construction industry. Some supporters of Peak Cluster make a fair point when they argue that some emerging technologies remain limited in scale and cannot yet meet all future demand. That may well be true today, but the issue for the Minister, and for us in this House, is not simply what works today, but what will work over the next 20, 30 and 40 years. Carbon capture seeks to manage emissions after they have been produced. These emerging technologies seek to avoid producing the emissions in the first place. That distinction matters. We should not be rushing to a solution, because surely prevention is better than cure. That means supporting emerging low-carbon cement technologies, building on the expertise of local engineering firms that can look for innovative solutions, and expanding access to reliable, low-carbon energy through technologies such as small modular reactors. We should be encouraging a range of solutions that can deliver lower emissions, stronger industry and greater energy resilience for the future. Before committing to a project of this scale, the Government should demonstrate that they have properly assessed alternative low-carbon cement technologies, and have compared their costs and benefits with those of the carbon capture and storage infrastructure proposed by Peak Cluster. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that. Another theme that emerges time and again in correspondence with residents is their frustration, not simply with the project but with the process surrounding it. Many constituents feel that decisions are being made before local communities have had a meaningful opportunity to engage. Infrastructure projects on this scale can succeed only when communities have confidence that they are being listened to, and that their concerns have the potential to influence outcomes. Consultation is not just about informing; it is about listening and taking on board what is said.
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. As a fellow Cheshire MP, he will understand how important this is to all our constituents. Their views must be heard loud and clear. I am holding a public meeting with Peak Cluster this Friday, so that its representatives can hear directly my constituents’ concerns. I want to recognise the fact that Peak Cluster has engaged with me and local stakeholders. While people have strong views on this issue, I was disappointed to hear concerns shared by the company relating to some abrasive behaviour directed towards its staff. That is clearly unacceptable, and I urge people to engage in respectful debate. I believe that there is a strong case for greater public engagement before any final decisions are taken. Confidence in this project will come not from technical documents, but from meaningful dialogue with the residents, farmers and landowners who are most affected. Turning to the environmental and agricultural concerns, Peak Cluster has emphasised that the project aims to deliver biodiversity net gain. Representatives have explained that more trees would be planted than removed, and that habitats would be restored following construction. Those commitments are welcome. However, the reality is that the project will leave a negative footprint on Cheshire, no matter what efforts are made to mitigate it. Ancient and historic woodland cannot be recreated overnight. The hedgerows that have lined Cheshire’s fields for generations cannot be replaced overnight. Prime agricultural land used for grazing or arable farming will be affected. Many responses to my survey have questioned whether sufficient weight is being given to the environmental value of the countryside through which the proposed route may pass. It seems to me that tearing up the Cheshire countryside is not an environmentally sound response to an environmental problem. Alongside concerns about the natural environment, many constituents have also raised questions about safety. They have pointed to incidents involving carbon dioxide pipelines overseas, and asked what lessons have been learned from those experiences. I recognise that the United Kingdom operates under a robust regulatory framework, and that direct comparisons with incidents elsewhere are not always appropriate. Nevertheless, these concerns are understandable. In a letter to me, the Minister said that the Health and Safety Executive has carried out a public consultation on proposals to extend major hazard legislation to that sector, to strengthen further the regulatory framework. Can he provide more detail on that? I now wish to focus on farmers and landowners. Cheshire relies heavily on the agricultural sector for its economy, and if this project is to go ahead, it is essential that it listens to the voices of farmers. I have spoken to the National Farmers’ Union, and drawing on those conversations, and well as its consultation, it is clear that serious concerns remain unanswered. For example, consideration must be given to the lifespan of the project, and to whether its benefits truly justify the potential damage to productive agricultural land. Farmers have asked for firm assurances that the pipeline will carry only carbon dioxide, with no future shift to other gases such as hydrogen. They have asked how the agreed 1.2-metre pipe depth will be monitored over time to ensure that it does not rise and compromise farming operations or safety. They have asked for clarity on how biodiversity net gain will be delivered, including whether any additional land required will be secured voluntarily through fair negotiation with landowners. Can the Minister guarantee today that there will be no compulsory purchase of land to deliver this project? Ultimately, at a time when our farmers and rural businesses are under significant pressure, there must be measures to protect their livelihoods and not add further strain, safeguarding day-to-day operations and addressing practical realities such as the movement of cattle between grazing and milking. Those questions need to be answered, as do many more regarding environmental, ecological and agricultural concerns. It is not just farmers who will be affected, but angling clubs, fisheries and many others. If the Secretary of State is to have the final decision on this project, it is important that the Minister can assure my constituents that a fair hearing will be given to their concerns, because too often the rural voice is ignored. We can all agree across the House that reducing carbon emissions is a noble cause, but at what expense? A £5 billion price tag that will no doubt increase, huge disruption across Cheshire, economic cost with no benefit for our communities, and our landscape, beautiful countryside and prime agricultural land damaged and depleted from its original state. The arguments, in my opinion and that of my constituents, and people across Cheshire, speak clearly that this project is not suitable, practical, cost-effective or forward thinking, and I firmly oppose it. No one disputes the need to reduce emissions, or the importance of supporting British industry. No one disputes the need to find practical ways to decarbonise sectors such as cement and lime production. But surely we have a duty to ask whether a £5 billion project requiring hundreds of kilometres of pipeline across our countryside, backed by significant public support and carrying profound implications for farmers, landowners and local communities, is truly the most effective route available. My constituents are not asking for special treatment, and they are not rejecting innovation or opposing environmental progress; they are asking for evidence that the project represents the best option. They are asking for transparency about the costs and risks, and for honesty about the impact on our countryside and rural economy. They are asking whether sufficient consideration has been given to emerging alternatives that may reduce emissions at source, rather than requiring the construction of major carbon transport infrastructure. Above all, they are asking that decisions that could affect their communities for generations are not taken before those questions have been properly answered. I therefore urge the Minister to address the concerns I have raised, and to provide reassurances not only to my constituents, but to all communities across Cheshire who feel that their voices must be heard.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening this incredibly important debate, and I thank the Petitions Committee for scheduling it today. I represent the communities of Rustington and East Preston, often described as the state pension capital of Britain. For them and for thousands of others across my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency, this debate is not about Treasury spreadsheets or tax theory, but about their day-to-day finances and whether they feel the system is treating them fairly. They have worked hard and paid in throughout their life and are now looking at a situation in which the state pension continues to rise while tax thresholds remain frozen. They are asking a simple question: why are more and more pensioners being drawn into paying tax? It is important to be clear about what sits behind that concern. The issue is not that pensioners have suddenly become wealthier; it is that frozen tax thresholds mean that the tax system reaches further into people’s incomes each year. That is why people feel so frustrated. They see their state pension increase on paper, only to find more of it being taken by the taxman. It affects more than pensioners—workers, families and businesses are feeling the effects of frozen thresholds, too, and across the country more people are paying more tax despite no change in the headline rates—but pensioners often feel it particularly acutely because many are living on fixed incomes and have less flexibility to absorb the additional costs. The Government regularly tell people that they have not increased income tax rates. However, pensioners, who are a savvy bunch, can see exactly what is happening. They do not need a Treasury briefing to understand where more of their income is being taxed each year. The Chancellor chose to extend the freeze in the personal allowance until 2031. That was a political choice. It means that more pensioners will continue to be drawn into the tax system year after year. Ministers cannot make that decision and then act surprised when pensioners ask questions about fairness. What concerns me most is the uncertainty. Last year’s Budget included an announcement that pensioners whose sole income is the state pension should not have to deal with small tax bills through the simple assessment process from 2027. Yet my constituents still do not know who will qualify, how the system will work, when the details will finally be published or how pensioners will be protected from unexpected tax demands. Those are reasonable questions, and people deserve answers. There is also a broader principle at stake. At the previous general election, the Conservatives set out a different approach: we argued that the tax-free allowance for pensioners should keep pace with the state pension, so that people could benefit from rises in the state pension without constantly worrying that frozen thresholds would erode those gains. Whether or not Members agree with that approach, at least it sought to address the underlying problem. The Government’s approach so far has been to extend the freeze, promise further details at some future point and ask pensioners to wait. My constituents deserve better. In Rustington, in East Preston and across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, pensioners want clarity, fairness and above all a Government who recognise the contribution that they have made throughout their working life. I am not here to write the Budget from Westminster Hall, but I am here to say very clearly that pensioners in my constituency should not find themselves paying more and more tax simply because thresholds remain frozen year after year. I hope that the Minister will provide some answers today.
I am delighted to hear about the increase in pensions. The Minister can tell us what they increased by, but can he perhaps tell us what they were reduced by with the taxation that they were then dragged into?
I welcome the right hon. and gallant Member to his place, and I thank the Royal Marines, the Navy and the National Crime Agency for their work over this weekend. It is very important that we see more initiatives on this basis. Will the Secretary of State give the House the very specific cost of maintaining and ultimately decommissioning this ship? He was not willing to tell us whether the seized oil will pay for that. The cost will run into the millions, so he will know the exact cost. That would let the House work out where the funding will come from.
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?