Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
I call the shadow Minister, Greg Smith. I believe it is your birthday. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] Happy birthday!
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Small Charity Sector
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for introducing this immensely important debate. The UK’s charity sector is facing mounting challenges. Just like many small businesses, charities across the country have seen a sharp increase in their running costs, driven by persistent inflation and, unfortunately, unhelpful economic policies from the Treasury. The increase in the national living wage, the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions and changes to business rates have placed considerable pressures on organisations that do so much for our constituents in need. For a sector that contributes £20 billion in economic value to the country each year, that should concern us all. As we have heard, these organisations are more innovative and grassroots-led, and ultimately they are generally supported by the public. If small and medium-sized charities continue to close at the current rate, it will impact our communities and place further strain on already stretched public services.
- Hansard source
Small Charity Sector
The hon. Member has made her point clearly, and I am very sympathetic to the argument she puts across. In my constituency, I have seen the impact of these economic policies and the tough environment for small and medium-sized charities such as Wyggestons and Trinity Almshouses, which provides sheltered accommodation and residential care. It believes that the Charity Commission could also be doing more to support these groups. Meanwhile, other charity-funded local care providers, such as Rainbows hospice for children and young people and LOROS, have made it clear that the economic climate is making their future more uncertain. These organisations are incredibly important to my constituents, and it would be an absolute travesty to see them reduce their services or close altogether. The Government need to think about creating a carve-out for the charity sector, so that it does not have to pay astronomical employment costs—something that Conservative Members argued for during the national insurance debate. That would be a sensible move to protect jobs and sustain local services, and it would command broad public support. To conclude, charities are at the heart of our communities. They reduce pressure on public services and command widespread public support, yet we in this place are not doing enough to support and protect them. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the arguments that the CSJ and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green have eloquently presented. My plea to the Government is to create a carve-out for the wider sector to ensure that running costs do not drive many charities, including those in my constituency, to close.
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
The Chancellor claimed to be cutting debt, but she will know that paragraph 5.9 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” says that “Public sector net borrowing is forecast to increase” public sector net debt “in each year, by an average of £92 billion”. To avoid misleading the House, will she correct the record?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
The Chancellor stands there and says that living standards are up and the economy is growing, but people can see the reality in their everyday lives: unemployment up month on month and energy bills higher than when Labour came to power. The latest figures in fact show that per person, our economy is shrinking, yet she stands there and says she has “the right economic plan for our country”. Does she have any idea how that sounds to people out there who are working harder than ever, with less and less left over at the end of every month?
- Hansard source
Small Charity Sector
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who for 34 years has made such an enormous contribution in this place. When he set up the Centre for Social Justice, he was determined to look at the deeper causes of social problems in our country. It has been instrumental in doing so. I agree with him that the annual attempt to champion and reward all those charities doing so much throughout the country is really important. I also draw attention to the previously mentioned “Supercharging Philanthropy” report. It looked across six hubs around the country, undertook serious engagement and came forward with 39 recommendations across 90-odd pages. It is a serious attempt to look at how we can underpin more support for small local charities that exist across our constituencies, and how we can bring back some of the things that have happened before around community-matched funding challenges. There is an enormous pool of surplus wealth that many are seeking to invest in activities and actions in communities that make a real difference. The Government could do well to look at the options that exist and those 39 recommendations and see what can be brought forward. I want to make a specific point about several charities in my constituency, many of whom I have engaged with—and one or two of which I am a patron of. In particular Rise:61—of which I am not a patron—is embedded in a distinct community of Bemerton: Bemerton Heath. It is run by Robin Imeson, who has basically devoted his life so far to youth work in that community. He lives there and runs bike clubs, drop-ins and creative clubs with his team. He also runs football and drama workshops. They have been absolutely foundational to the lives of hundreds of young people on that estate. I ask the Minister to reflect that, in the context of the Pride in Place work that is going to happen in Bemerton, she could ensure that the role of small charities is put front and centre of the options that neighbourhood plans and boards have. It is important that those people who really understand what is going on in a community are allowed to be meaningful beneficiaries, over 10 years, of the investment the Government are making, and that everything is done to hear their voices. Often they are taken out of the main conversation, so I welcome the opportunity today to talk of Rise:61 and of the enormous contribution they make to my constituency in many ways and forms.
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
Undoubtedly, every Government deals with different challenges, and I note that the Chancellor did not mention the challenge of covid in the last period of government. When I was in the Treasury, I did everything I could to support businesses with bounce back loans, and to support our public services, but clearly, covid significantly scarred the economy. When the Chancellor last stood at the Dispatch Box, the “Economic and fiscal outlook” said that growth this year would be 1.4%. It is now 1.1% and flat over the period. The big strategic choice that this Chancellor faces, as the world is different in her tenure in office, is whether she will grip welfare spending at a time of grave insecurity in the world, because an open promise to raise defence spending some time over a five-year period will not cut it for this country’s best interests.
- Hansard source
Small Charity Sector
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We Scots are often portrayed as parsimonious—or, to put it another way, as tight as two coats of paint. It is a myth largely down to comedian and singer Sir Harry Lauder, who, to raise money for wounded great war veterans after the death of his son in 1917, portrayed on stage a canny Scot who regarded every penny as a prisoner. Lauder raised £1 million for charity—an astronomical sum. How ironic that such generosity birthed the legend of the tightwad Scot. Today, in straitened times, our generosity continues, with an estimated £1.2 billion donated in 2023 and 76% of Scots reporting some sort of charity donation. Another myth that persists is that deprivation and poverty are issues only in urban areas—not so. My constituency is rural and gorgeous, but people cannot eat the scenery. Rural isolation, loneliness and poverty are sadly all too real amidst the splendour of the Galloway hills. Loneliness and social isolation are profound challenges across Dumfries and Galloway. Our scattered communities, limited public transport and persistent digital exclusion—we have many notspots—leave many individuals cut off from social contact. However, the people of Dumfries and Galloway are resilient self-starters and we have a plethora of charities fighting to make lives better. Take our telephone and in-person befriending service, A Listening Ear, which is having a real impact, delivering community-led preventive solutions to mental ill health. Its modest budget provides a big bang for a small buck. Prostate Buddies is reaching out to men, urging them to get checked for what is too often a silent killer, and offering advice and support so that more men can get treatment sooner. There are dozens of similar such initiatives, often volunteer-led, that could benefit from greater support from Government. Take The Usual Place café, which is right next to my constituency office—I am a frequent flyer there. That charity takes young people with a range of mental and physical issues and teaches them catering skills, which massively boosts their chances of finding paid employment. Even with a thriving café and external catering business, The Usual Place has struggled financially, not least since the Government increased employer national insurance contributions. Small charities do mighty work, especially in rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway. May I make a plea for them to have a seat as the Government draw up the policy table? Sir Harry Lauder sang “Stop Yer Tickling, Jock.” Perhaps we should update that to “Start Yer Listening, Minister.”
- Hansard source
Support for Ukraine
1. What diplomatic steps she is taking to support Ukraine to determine its future.
- Hansard source
Support for Ukraine
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, we salute the fortitude and bravery of the Ukrainian people. As we see conflicts open up elsewhere in the world, particularly the current situation in the middle east, how do we ensure that Ukraine continues to receive all the support it needs to determine its own future, and that the future of the Ukrainian people does not slip down the agenda, leading to another frozen conflict?
- Hansard source
Small Charity Sector
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. Few others—indeed, perhaps no one else in this place—have done more over the last 20 years to champion the causes of social justice, a field in which many of our small charities operate. Over the last five years, the charity sector has faced unprecedented pressure, with donations falling and volunteer numbers still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Rising costs driven by the autumn Budget, increased national insurance contributions and post-pandemic expenditure outstripping income have placed a strain on small charities, limiting their ability to support local communities. These organisations remain consistently underfunded and frequently overlooked, and the current funding model is proving unsustainable for too many. Small and medium-sized charities with incomes under £1 million account for 97% of all charity closures in the past decade. Financially, the current system works against small charities, favouring large, well-established organisations with the capacity to navigate complex processes and absorb financial shocks. Too many smaller charities are excluded from the core unrestricted and multi-year funding that would give them the stability and ability to plan ahead. Instead, they are often trapped in cycles of short-term grants, burdensome applications and reporting requirements that, for them, are often disproportionate to some of the modest sums available. Meanwhile, 88% of charitable income in England and Wales goes to just 5% of registered charities, leaving the remaining 95%—the small charities that form the backbone of the sector—far more vulnerable to declines in public giving. Without a shift in Government focus towards these organisations and the vital role they play in their communities, that gap will only continue to widen. Small and medium-sized charities are often better placed than large national charities to know their communities and to deliver lasting change in people’s lives. A number of charities on the Isle of Wight do just that. For example, Aspire is a community hub that runs food pantries, suicide prevention programmes and the award-winning “Living Well and Early Help” service. More recently, it has opened accommodation in Ryde for women who would otherwise face being homeless. We also have the award-winning Tidal Family Support centre and PATCH—the People’s Approach to Cancer Help—which helps people with the costs of accessing health appointments across the Solent on the mainland. Community Action Isle of Wight and the Bay Youth Project do important youth intervention work in Sandown, Lake and Shanklin. Such smaller charities are often more agile in responding to the needs of their communities, typically spending a lower proportion of their income on fundraising and lobbying so it can go directly to delivering on their charitable objectives. Many funders value that closeness, preferring to support organisations that have deep, long-standing relationships with the people they serve. Charities often focus on meeting immediate needs, allowing them to respond quickly to people in their local communities, yet many corporate donors feel it is harder to justify supporting smaller charities, partly because they have fewer resources to showcase their work. Some national charity brands are, of course, used by local charities, such as Age UK Isle of Wight—and Age UK is in many constituencies and areas across the country. There is often a misunderstanding that they benefit from central donations, but very often they are in fact small, local charities, entirely reliant on local fundraising—notwithstanding the benefit of that brand association with an excellent national charity such as Age UK. Smaller charities are often so absorbed in day-to-day delivery that they lack the capacity to analyse evidence and present impact in the way that funders increasingly expect, which leaves them at a disadvantage when bidding for support. Smaller charities can also lack meaningful avenues to feed their experience into national policy, with few mechanisms in place for Government to learn from their frontline insight. Their limited national influence, stemming from the absence of large public affairs teams, stands in stark contrast to the growing professionalisation of major charities—which in itself is of course a good thing. I am pleased to have been appointed as a commissioner to the Centre for Social Justice’s midlife mission, looking at how to support people approaching midlife and beyond to thrive in the labour market. The CSJ aims to bring together more than 1,000 small charities to give voice to and inform the work that they are doing. I now address the Minister directly. Last year, the Government announced the creation of the Office for the Impact Economy, intended to help Whitehall to identify, source and build partnerships to scale the social impact of public investment and expand opportunities across the country. Since that announcement, however, there has been no public update on how that initiative is being implemented, or how the associated funding is being used. I ask the Minister this: first, to what extent does she recognise match funding as a core tool for leveraging public funds, and what steps are being taken to expand its use across Government? Secondly, what mechanisms does the Department have in place to ensure that small and medium-sized charities can engage meaningfully in tenders, grant applications and policy consultations, and that the administrative burden of doing so does not exclude them? Finally, will the Minister establish a £585 million evidence fund, as recommended by the CSJ, paid for through one year of unclaimed gift aid, enabling small charities to demonstrate impact and to compete more effectively for contracts and grants?
- Hansard source
Palestinian Authority’s School Curriculum
6. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the compliance of the Palestinian Authority’s school curriculum with the UK- Palestinian memorandum of understanding.
- Hansard source
Palestinian Authority’s School Curriculum
The Palestinian Authority have given the British Government repeated assurances that textbooks are being reformed, which one would have thought would be a minimum requirement for the recognition of a Palestinian state. However, in my office, I have an Arabic-language textbook, currently in use on the west bank, that describes Arab fighters using “explosive belts” to “turn their bodies into fire burning the Zionist tank”. That is accompanied by an image of a gunman shooting Jews riding a tank. The book is aimed at 14-year-olds. Is the Minister aware that this is going on, and does he have any faith that the Palestinian Authority can change their ways?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T4. It has been 31 days since I wrote to the Secretary of State calling on her to reimburse the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead for costs—some £350,000—incurred during three state visits last year. While this may be a rounding error to the Government, it is not to the ratepayers of Windsor. We are proud to host such visits, but these are properly national costs. Will the Secretary of State do the right thing and sort this, please?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
The OBR’s forecast has again downgraded oil and gas revenue. From March to November last year, it was downgraded by over 41%, and from November to March this year, it has been downgraded by another 20%. By 2030, we are now expecting only £100 million in tax returns from the oil and gas industry, which used to return billions of pounds every year, because production is falling and investment is going abroad. When the Chancellor meets oil and gas companies tomorrow—I hope she has a great meeting—they will tell her that they need the energy profits levy to be taken away, because it is costing jobs, investment and energy security. Will she listen to those companies or will she keep ignoring the sector?
- Hansard source
Jimmy Lai
7. What recent discussions she has had with her Chinese counterparts on the release of Jimmy Lai.
- Hansard source
Jimmy Lai
Jimmy Lai now faces a jail term described by Ministers as an effective life sentence. It is clear that his life sentence directly reflects this Government’s weak policy on China, so will the Minister tell us what clear steps she and the Prime Minister are taking, and—more importantly—what sanctions she and the Prime Minister will put on the Chinese, to ensure that Jimmy Lai is released, and that his case is not forgotten?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
For all the Chancellor’s words about forecasts, reality bites when the real unemployment figures are examined. The figure today is 5.2%, the highest since the pandemic, and youth unemployment is at a considerable high. Instead of relying on forecasts that are never, ever right, should we not be asking how many more people need to lose their jobs, and how many more young people need to go without one, before the Chancellor accepts that it is her policies that are not working?
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not have asked for a better birthday treat than to debate this issue with the Minister and with everyone else who has shown such a huge interest in the Bill this afternoon. When the Bill first came before the House, the Conservatives were clear that we support the innovation that underpins sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation matters enormously to this country: for families, for trade, for connectivity and for our standing as a global hub. The challenge has never been whether to decarbonise aviation, but how we do so without damaging competitiveness or pricing ordinary passengers out of flying. From the very beginning, we set a clear test. If the British public are underwriting a revenue certainty mechanism, whether directly or through levies that will inevitably feed into ticket prices, the economic benefit must remain here in the United Kingdom. That was not an afterthought. It was not something we discovered halfway through the Bill’s passage; it was one of the central arguments we advanced from day one. Throughout Committee and on Report, I pressed Ministers on how the contracts would work in practice. How would domestic production be prioritised? How would we prevent a scenario where fuel was largely produced overseas, given minimal processing here and then rebadged as British simply to qualify for support? Without clarity, that risk was real. My noble Friend Lord Grayling brought that concern into sharp focus in the other place. His amendment made the principle explicit: if sustainable aviation fuel is to receive support under a revenue certainty contract, it must genuinely be British. He made the point clearly: we cannot design a system that can be gamed. We cannot allow mostly complete fuel to be shipped here, polished up a bit, and then presented as a domestic product. That would not be an industrial strategy; it would be box-ticking with a Union Jack on it. What has happened since? The Government tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4, restricting revenue certainty contracts to UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel. That principle was not explicit in the Bill, as introduced. It is explicit now and I genuinely welcome that. That change, however, did not appear out of thin air. It followed sustained pressure from those of us on the Conservative Benches here and in the other place. It was Conservatives who identified the gap, made the case and tabled the original amendments. I am grateful that the Government have now listened and moved. Of course, the detail matters. The definition of “UK-produced” refers to any part of the process of converting feedstock into fuel taking place in the United Kingdom. That must not become a loophole wide enough to taxi an A380 through. The intention is clear: real production, real value added and real jobs here. We will ensure that the practical application reflects that intention. There is also a broader point to the amendments, which speaks to capability. The United Kingdom has genuine strengths in synthetic fuel and e-SAF. We have companies demonstrating 100% synthetic flight, developed right here in the United Kingdom. We have world-class engineers and researchers. We have the technical expertise to lead. What we should not have are British passengers ultimately bearing the costs while overseas producers capture the opportunity. Now is not the time to relitigate the plus or minus £1.50 on fares argument we had in previous stages, but for the record I say that the Opposition are watching closely. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are assured that the non-HEFA—non-hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—requirements contained in the mandate will be met by industry at no more than the same cost to the passenger?
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind birthday wishes. We do support the SAF mandate. We do support the decarbonisation of air travel, as well as other means of travel, but it has to be done in a way that is economically viable not just to the industry but to all of us who ultimately pay to fly—or to go on a train or a ship, or whatever it might be—through the fares we pay. That is why the Opposition have been so laser-focused on the direct impacts on fare payers, as well as on the wider industry. The wider point, to return to the Lords amendments we are debating, is to ensure that the economic value of decarbonisation, which the British state is mandating through the legislation we pass in this Parliament, actually benefits British producers, British researchers, British engineers, and the incredible array of innovators and talent we have here in this country. With these amendments, the Bill is closer to meeting the test we established at the beginning of the first debate: that the sustainable aviation fuel policy the Government are pushing should reduce emissions while reinforcing the UK’s industrial base, safeguarding competitiveness and supporting high-skilled employment across the country. Indeed, our position remains clear: environmental responsibility, along with economic realism. That will be what protects competitiveness. We will continue to scrutinise the framework carefully as it develops, but on the fundamental point that British passengers’ money should back British production, the Government have adopted the Conservative position. Perhaps if they listen to us a little more often, they might find the turbulence a great deal lighter.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is correct that we did not pass the legislation during our time in government. No Government can do everything during their time in power. As we are having a fair debate here, will he at least accept that an enormous amount of work was done by the previous Government, which led to this Government being able to bring forward this Bill so quickly in the first Session of this Parliament?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
Business has been crushed by the taxes brought in by this Chancellor. Just a year ago, in a fairly gloomy forecast by the OBR, it was suggesting 1.8% GDP growth over the forecast period. That has now been reduced to 1.5%. If the central mission of this Chancellor—and supposedly this Government—is economic growth, how can she stand there today and say it is working, when it has been marked by the OBR that she is going in exactly the wrong direction, making all our constituents poorer? Can she please explain that to the House?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
If lifting the two-child benefit cap is such a moral imperative for this Labour Government, could the Chancellor advise the House why only 20 months ago, a commitment to do so was entirely absent from the Labour party manifesto and why, 19 days after that election, Labour withdrew the Whip from seven of its MPs for the apparent crime of voting for that moral imperative?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
Does the Chancellor now accept that there is a correlation between increasing national insurance contributions on employers and higher unemployment, or does she still believe that those two things are not connected in any way?
- Hansard source
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate. We have heard many powerful contributions from across the Chamber. As the Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, I recognise the importance of biodiversity and protecting our environment. Epping Forest, the heart and lungs of north-east London and our part of Essex, hosts 55,000 ancient and veteran trees, and has a wonderful mix of ancient woodland, open grassland plains, heathland and wetland habitats. It hosts 10 bat species, nine native reptile and amphibian species, over 1,500 fungal species and 28 butterfly species. However, it is sadly affected by actions, including fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour, that can significantly impact wildlife and nature. I urge the Minister to work closely with the Home Office to help to tackle, deter and prevent such rural and semi-rural crimes. Epping Forest is not immune to the Government’s intrusion into the green belt with centralised housing planning and excessive solar development, which harm our biodiversity, food security, and the communities that depend on it for leisure, sports and access to local environments. This is not the answer. The Government must work to build on brownfield first and protect nature and biodiversity. The previous Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 established legally binding targets, including on increasing species abundance so that by 2042 it is far greater than in 2022, and at least 10% greater than in 2032, and on restoring or creating more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by 2050. It also set the framework for local nature recovery strategies, seeking to agree priorities for nature’s recovery, map the most valuable existing natural areas, and create or improve habitats and meet wider environmental goals. All local authorities should have published their strategy before the end of last year, but some have not. Will the Minister update us on when all the strategies will be published? Our Conservative environmental improvement plan built on that Act. It committed to protect 30% of our land and sea by 2030, supporting the COP15 global target to protect 30% of global land and ocean that we agreed. We also announced the species survival fund—£25 million of funding specifically to protect our rarest species, from red squirrels to water voles. In farming, we provided the innovative farming in protected landscapes funding, which helps biodiversity and nature restoration. The previous Conservative Government laid the foundations. The current Government must continue that work in earnest. The recent Government report “Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security” highlights the danger of inaction and raises serious questions about the UK’s preparedness if action is not taken or is not successful. I hope that Ministers will take the report very seriously and consider how some of the Government’s actions, such as the family farm tax, have pressured food production and supply. Habitat loss and ecosystem collapse are also threatening countries and their resilience across the world. It is extreme folly for the UK Labour Government to surrender the Chagos islands to Mauritius and charge UK taxpayers £35 billion in the process, for the British Indian Ocean Territory is home to one of the most pristine marine ecosystems on Earth. Mauritius does not have the record to maintain these high conservation standards. In the 2024 environmental performance index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, 83rd for marine habitat protection and 131st for marine protection stringency. Quite apart from the adverse defence implications, I am deeply concerned by the Labour Government’s wilful blindness to the fact that Mauritius does not have the record to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems. The Government report highlights how ecosystem degradation can threaten UK national security, and we know that biodiversity and food security depend crucially on strong biosecurity. Just last week, foot and mouth disease was confirmed in Cyprus. The Government must be vigilant and not hesitate to take action. We need to act at many levels, in the UK and internationally, to protect our ecosystems for the sake of national and international security.
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
I want to raise the issue of the freezing of thresholds and its effect on the state pension. When the Chancellor froze thresholds in the Budget, she told Martin Lewis that some people would be pulled into paying tax, but would not have to pay small amounts of tax or do a tax return. The updated forecast now says that 600,000 pensioners will be drawn into paying tax this year, and that figure will rise to 1 million by the end of this Parliament. Could the Chancellor set out what the definition of “small amounts of tax” is, and what mechanism she will use to ensure that those pensioners do not have to do a tax return?
- Hansard source
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on these regulations, as anything that improves trust in medicines and vaccines is important. We need to increase the uptake of vaccines; it has fallen gradually and continues to fall, and we need to reverse that. I have a couple of technical questions. As the Minister said, the principle behind the amendment to regulation 3 of the 2012 regulations is to make prescribing pharmacists equivalent to doctors and dentists. However, regulation 3(8) currently refers to, “another doctor or dentist…of the same…practice.” Given that pharmacists will now also be included, should that be amended to “another doctor, dentist or pharmacist”, or “a doctor or dentist”? Regulation 5 redefines an “occupational health vaccinator” and refers to a list in part 4 of schedule 16 to the 2012 regulations. That significantly broadens the list to include individuals such as speech and language therapists who are not accustomed to dealing with injectable medications, but appears to exclude operating department practitioners, who, as the Minister will be aware of from his practice, are used to dealing with injectable medications. Could the Minister explain the reason for removing those practitioners from the list? Regulations 8 and 9 talk about the vaccine group direction. The patient group direction is essentially a group prescription, where a clinician signs off the circumstances in which medication—say, paracetamol —may be given by a non-prescriber. We had such a direction for the covid-19 vaccine during the pandemic. This vaccine group direction would be different, so why does the Minister feel that we need a different process to the patient group direction that is already available for vaccines, which are prescription medicines? Instead, those directions can be signed by someone who is not a clinician—such as a manager in the Department of Health or, in fact, a private company—and they do not need to have any clinical skills or qualifications at all. A clinician, or one of the people listed, must decide whether the conditions have been met, and they can then give the patient the medicine without having prescribed it. I want to ask a couple of questions on this issue. How does that improve trust, when we have a vaccine-sceptic population and lots of material on social media, some of which is not entirely accurate? How does allowing a prescription to be written by someone with no clinical experience help with trust and those rates? Is there a plan to contract out vaccine provision to the private sector, because that is what this provision allows for? Who is ultimately responsible? Is it the non-clinician who signs the vaccine group direction? Who is the clinician ultimately responsible for the decision to give the vaccine in the event that someone has an allergic reaction or an adverse reaction of some other type?
- Hansard source
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Before the Minister moves on, can I just ask him why ODPs appear to have been removed from the list?
- Hansard source
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Can the Minister confirm that the vaccine group direction—unlike a patient group direction, which ultimately needs to be signed by a clinician—would not need to be signed by a clinician, and can instead be signed by a senior manager either within a company or department?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
Given what is happening in the middle east at the moment, there is a concern that petrol and diesel prices will spiral upwards. If that happens, taxation revenue on fuel will do the same. Can the Chancellor commit today to keeping taxation revenue at its current level, thereby reducing tax on fuel to help ease any future cost pressure?
- Hansard source
SEND Provision: Local Authorities
The Minister is being generous with her time and I thank her for giving way. I want to reiterate the point about the families who have already gone through the system and who have fought for EHCPs, many of whom have had to go through tribunals and feel like they are having to do everything on their own. I come from a mental health background, and I am surprised that the system does not have what I would call a care co-ordinator to support families who are going through this difficult process. Families are genuinely scared that the Government’s proposed reforms will lead to a stripping away of support. In my constituency, where we are served by Surrey and Borders partnership NHS foundation trust, it takes a year and a half to get an autism diagnosis, and even longer if people need medication for ADHD. I have raised that in this place with Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care, but can the Minister reassure me that as part of the approach to SEND, she and her Department are looking at the interface between education and health? I understand what she says about the absence of a diagnosis not meaning that a child should not be supported—we could have another debate about that—but for many children a diagnosis is very important, and it needs to be timely and treatment needs to be quick and effective. Finally, before I test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I invite the Minister to come to Meath school, a special educational needs school in Ottershaw in my constituency? It is an amazing place and every time I go there I learn so much, so it would be great if she could come along and meet the fantastic kids and teachers there.
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
Order. We have three colleagues wishing to speak. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am, so that means short speeches, please.
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
Order. On that point, I call the Minister, because we are short of time.
- Hansard source
North Middlesex Hospital Accident and Emergency Services: Cancer Patients
I will call Kate Osamor to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may speak only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
The spring statement began well by outlining the desperate international situation and by praising our armed forces, but does the Chancellor agree that her remarks would have been all the more credible had she announced that the dither and delay that has plagued defence spending over the past 18 months would be brought to an end, and had she set a date for the publication of the much-delayed defence investment plan?
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
It is a pleasure as always, Dr Murrison. As well as congratulating the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), I would like to say in opening how much value I place on the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). In that part of the United Kingdom, we have had the opportunity over many years to learn a great deal about how cohesion can be done right and what happens when it goes wrong. It is particularly important to hear their voices in a debate on this subject. It is also important to hear from a range of Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who set out some quite particular insights on how the city of Birmingham has had to deal with many challenges. It is my privilege to represent an extremely diverse but thankfully very cohesive constituency. It is served by two local authorities, both of which are extremely proactive; they have interfaith networks and hold a huge variety of community events. In response to the situation when flags were being raised across high streets, which was clearly intended by many as an act of intimidation, they used those lamp posts and other public street furniture to display flags that celebrated the borough’s heritage and the heritage of the local community, in order to crowd out that space from those who sought to use it to divide the community. That shows a degree of local leadership that we all appreciate. The fact that we are having this debate in the context of housing, communities and local government demonstrates the breadth of council services. I reflect on my own time as a councillor, when the 9/11 incidents happened. Suddenly, the airspace of the United States was closed. Hillingdon council worked to provide accommodation for thousands of stranded travellers from across the world and to enable them to communicate with their family members to tell them that they were okay and that they had somewhere to stay for the night when all the hotels were full. It also worked very closely with the military, for example, to ensure that the logistics were laid on so that people were supported. As a number of Members have referred to, that kind of leadership came to the fore again during the covid era, when organisations such as H4All in Hillingdon and Harrow came out and ensured that people had food and medication delivered. We saw the work that was done by synagogues, mosques, churches and non-faith organisations to support each other not just in my community, but across the whole country. We know that cohesion is something that we can do well, and we know that its leadership often sits with local government. Indeed, when the last Labour Government promoted the roll-out of food banks, it was a recognition—as was the case in my community—that there was a level of need that statutory services were not always able to meet, which that particular community initiative was able to serve. That is why we saw the spread of those across the country to meet that specific need. We are having this debate at a time when there is a growing level of interest in issues around cohesion. Many will have heard the news coverage of the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, if not the speech itself, in which she set out a number of workstreams seeking to address many of the concerns that Members have described today. It seems to me that this is an area where there is a high degree of cross-party consensus; we know that we need to address these issues in order to strengthen our society. Let me briefly set out some of the Opposition’s principles around cohesion, some of which are quite focused on local government and some of which are much broader. It is striking that all Members who have contributed to this debate have spoken of the importance of our society and values and the principles of freedom and the rule of law. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr; this must not become a debate about attacking Islam. We are a country that is a plural and liberal democracy. In a community like mine, that means that women and girls have the freedom to wear a headscarf if they choose to, and the protection of the law from those who would seek to force that on them if they choose not to. Both those things are equally important.
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
I do not think there is any argument against the points that the hon. Member raises, and they reflect things that I am sure we have all heard as constituency MPs. When I visited one of my local synagogues on Friday, the people there talked about the difficulties that some of the children in that community had faced at school with the rising tide of antisemitism that they had experienced. That is part of the bigger picture. We need to ensure that, as far as we can, we build a level of common understanding. When we talk about shared values, sometimes people are prone to say, “We have sharia law in some parts of the country,” or, “We have the Beth Din, which sits outside of the law.” Indeed, the canon law of the Catholic Church, which has been part of our Christian community for centuries, permitted marriage at the age of 14 up until that law was changed in 2019. Sometimes these misunderstandings are not simply about a view of Islam; they are about different communities and cultures. We need to ensure that everybody recognises that the rule of law and the freedoms that it brings apply to everybody in our country. All of our citizens are free to decide that in the event of a dispute about a business, they would like a sharia court to be involved in settling it. If two Jewish business people wish to use the Beth Din to settle the matter, they can do that as well. That does not remove, under any circumstances, the freedoms and the protections that the law of the land gives to everybody in our country. That must always be there as a clear recourse. I will touch on an issue that we covered a little yesterday in the debate about the Representation of the People Act 1983. The issue of electoral interference is one that sits with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but is of concern to Members across the House. I reflect on a session of the Home Affairs Committee that was chaired by the now Foreign Secretary, who asked our intelligence services what evidence there was of Russian interference in the Brexit debate, which was the issue at the time. The response was illuminating. The point our security services made was not that Russia, China or Iran is seeking a particular outcome in a political debate happening in the United Kingdom. What those sponsors of terror are seeking to achieve is division in the United Kingdom and a lack of coherence in our society. We must make sure that we are always vigilant and that our laws are updated regularly to take account of how we can resist that. Moving to more local matters, a lot of the debate has revolved around what makes a community. I know you represent a constituency with a diverse range of local settlements that are different to those in London, Dr Murrison. When we think of community, we think of thriving high streets and places that people can feel proud of. We think of a strong economy and of places where people can get and keep a job that supports their standard of living and their opportunity. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections, because those things have been hotly debated in Parliament. We see the impact of rising taxes in the hollowing-out of our high streets. We know that 89,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality and 74,000 in retail since October 2024. The relentless rise in unemployment under this Government is putting enormous strain on the cohesion of our communities.
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
I would not accept that point, I am afraid. We can recognise, not least by simply looking at the statistics, that resident satisfaction with local government services rose continuously throughout the period that Labour have described as “austerity”. Any incoming Government dealing with a colossal legacy of debt will have to find ways to live within its means. Unfortunately, we seem to be set on the path of another colossal legacy of debt. It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some points, and perhaps acknowledged the impact that her Government’s policies are having on the ability of businesses and our residents to find good, remunerative work. The first point, which the Labour leader of Sheffield has been particularly exercised about recently, and which the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) will know is of local as well as national interest, is the asylum funding situation for local government, which remains a major source of concern and grievance. The Government are providing some funding to local authorities to help them to meet the very significant costs. Hillingdon is a good example. As a gateway authority to Heathrow airport, it has accommodated many thousands of unaccompanied children over the years, and, currently, very large numbers of Chagossians are fleeing to the United Kingdom from the consequences of the Government’s Chagos deal and huge numbers of people are being placed in temporary accommodation by the Home Office. Those numbers have been rising very sharply, very fast, and their processing means that the numbers turning up at the town hall have increased dramatically. That means that the pressure on local authority temporary accommodation budgets is rising relentlessly. The Government refuse to say how much funding they are providing to local authorities to meet that cost, which is understandably fuelling campaigns by some in our society to say that those costs are not fully met. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Councillor Tom Hunt that the Government need to address this consequence of their actions?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
Blairite policies told 50% of my generation to go to university. Looking back at those conversations, we see that rarely did anyone ever talk about who would pay for those students to go to university, or how the jobs market would then take on that amount of graduates. It is clear that the student finance system does not work, and the goalposts keep shifting with Government policies. I think there is a cross-party view that something needs to be done. Does the Chancellor view it as a serious issue, and what does she plan to do about it?
- Hansard source
Sudan: Humanitarian Situation
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will read the evidence from Samaritan’s Purse to the International Development Committee last week, which reiterated the issues on sexual violence. We also heard that in refugee camps, many people have to be naked because they have had no option but to sell their clothes to get food. I am sure she agrees that is completely and utterly unacceptable. In her last statement, she said that she was seeking to engage with the African Union and to bring it more into participation in bringing a resolution to the conflict. Has she made any progress in that regard?