5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The motion passed by the House requires the Government to provide details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson. There are no national security or international relations issue in doing so. Will the Minister tell the House now how much money Mandelson got and what the Government are doing to get it back?
The Minister said that he and the Government want to comply fully, transparently and as quickly as possible with the Humble Address. I think we can all agree that is exactly what they should be doing, but when things will be released is a vital question. The documents should be released as quickly as possible, as he says, but so far we have had no information except that it will happen when the time is right, effectively. Is that because the Minister does not know, or because he does not want to say? If he does not know, can he give us an example or an expectation of the timescale? If he does not want to say, can he tell us why not?
The latest Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders data reveals that EVs are losing market share. The president of Hyundai’s European arm has been quoted in The Telegraph as arguing that the ZEV mandate no longer makes sense and needs to be rethought. Without change, he said, the policy could cause manufacturers to become loss-making and prompt some to stop selling both internal combustion engine and electric cars in the United Kingdom. When will the Government understand that people just do not want EVs, and no amount of taxpayer-funded bribes to try to make them do so are going to work?
Ministers do not want to listen to Hyundai, so let us try Stellantis. It has announced €22.2 billion of charges as it scales back its electric vehicle production, and its CEO has stated: “What we are announcing…is an important strategic reset of our business model...to put our customer preferences back at the centre of what we do”. We are all sent here to represent our constituents, so why will the Government not listen to consumers, set the car market free and adopt the Conservative plan to scrap the ZEV mandate?
Pharmacy First was undoubtedly game changing. When I visit pharmacies around my constituency, many of them are keen to expand Pharmacy First and to offer more lines. However, I can give an example similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) gave. The people at Wendover Pharmacy took me through their books, and on many of the services that they offer, they either barely make any money or make a loss. The Minister said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) that pricing was set with the sector, so clearly something is going wrong, because the experience of Wendover Pharmacy is quite different.
The Prime Minister said that the Cabinet Secretary’s integrity should not be questioned and then immediately briefed out that he was going to be sacked, having given him the responsibility of overseeing the handing over of documents that could be detrimental to a Prime Minister so desperate to save his political life that he has already thrown his closest advisers—communications and chief of staff—under a bus. How can we know that there is no link between the very integrity the Prime Minister highlighted and the desire to remove the Cabinet Secretary from a role in which he might be at risk of removing this Prime Minister?
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the WhatsApps, the Minister seemed to suggest that it was not an orderly process. First, is there to be any reprimand for the Health Secretary? Secondly, will the WhatsApps between all Ministers and Peter Mandelson be released, because the Humble Address referred specifically to electronic communications?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the withholding of Pharmacy First payments to pharmacies.
It is a regret that I have had to summon the Minister here to answer questions, and surprise, surprise—
I of course withdraw that remark, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for summoning the Minister on my behalf. It seems to have had the desired effect, because the outstanding parliamentary questions have, strangely enough, been answered this morning. I hope to get some clarity as this is really important. The issue has been explained simply by the chair of the National Pharmacy Association: “The work was done. Patients were treated. The NHS benefited. Yet payments are being withheld on a technicality.” What makes that worse is that many pharmacies do not even realise that some of the money is missing. He goes on: “Statements appear ‘successful’, yet Pharmacy First payments are absent. Contractors are only discovering the issue long after the window has closed, when it’s already too late.” Will the Minister tell the House how many pharmacies the Government think are impacted? What is the total value of the outstanding payments? What steps are the Government taking to rectify this, and would they consider a late payment mechanism to help solve the issue? There is a wider concern. Payments are administered by the NHS Business Services Authority. The chair of the NPA labelled the behaviour of NHSBSA “outrageous”. That already follows repeat concerns about NHSBSA’s performance, including multiple serious delays in NHS pension processing and several urgent questions on the Floor of the House. Does the Minister still retain confidence in NHSBSA? Given the ongoing concerns from multiple fields, will he commission a review of the operational performance of the entire NHSBSA? Community pharmacies are already under intense pressure from this Government, with tax rises on employment and business rates and with increases in costs, and now they appear not to be being paid for work already done. I hope the Minister will act quickly to put this right.
May I ask the Leader of the House for his help? I have recently learned that the £10 million day case unit in Hinckley is potentially in jeopardy and might get cancelled. This follows a series of delays by the NHS and the local council and, unbelievably, a last-minute plea by the Lib Dem borough council leader to look again at the project, which led to further delays. The planning application did go through, but costs have gone up. Inevitably, the use of the unit has now changed, and it is in real peril. I have already written to the Health Secretary about this issue as a matter of urgency. May I ask the Leader of the House’s office to chase that up as well, so that this gets looked at and, hopefully, we can keep the unit going?
On a recent visit to St Richard’s Catholic college in my constituency, students told me that they face paying an astonishing extra £400 a year in bus fares. How can the Minister justify to those students and others in my constituency the cutting of our bus service funding by £2.5 million?
I welcome the report and I reiterate the thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity. The right. hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report done by the Andersons Centre, on behalf of CropLife UK, which indicates that alignment could wipe out £810 million-worth of farm profits in year one alone and see production of wheat down by 16%, apples down by 7% and potatoes down by 6%, possibly costing 9,000 agricultural jobs. With that in mind, does he agree that it is paramount for the Minister responsible for EU negotiations to come before our Committee, either in public or in private, at the earliest opportunity?
In response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), the Leader of the House seemed to suggest that the Government are not undergoing a rebrand from “His Majesty’s Government” to “UK Government”. However, in response to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the Paymaster General clearly stated: “A strategic decision has been made to adopt ‘UK Government’ as the primary identity for all public-facing communications.” This is a clear slight on the monarch, so can I ask once again for a debate on the Floor of the House about the Government’s decision to downgrade the King?
Last year, 9.7% of vehicles sold in the UK were Chinese-manufactured electric vehicles—a near doubling of the market share that they had the year before, which stood at 4.9%. What assessment has the Secretary of State’s Department made of the threat that this may pose to national security and to our industrial resilience, and does she share my concerns?
Heritage buildings are much loved by many members of the community. They underpin our identity. Indeed, many of them are places of worship, including the fantastic St John’s church in Bromsgrove, the spire of which has just had a £500,000 renovation. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Friends of St John’s, particularly Jo Slade, who was a driving force behind the project? Will the Leader of the House press his colleagues in government, particularly in the Treasury, to ensure that the Government always do everything they can to maximise support for these important and much-loved buildings?
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on being persistent and finally securing this very important debate. Few phrases in modern Britain ring as hollow as “world-class connectivity”. Speaking plainly, rural mobile phone connectivity in this country is not merely patchy or inconsistent; in some places, it is so poor that the advertised service bears no resemblance to reality. There are areas in which actual service levels are hundreds of times worse than advertised—that is not a rounding error, or the result of momentary network congestion. It is a difference between promise and performance that is so vast that it would be comic if it were not so economically corrosive. Take Worcestershire, for example. It is a rural county, with lots of villages, small towns and industrious small businesses. There are farms and villages where the coverage map glows reassuringly in bright corporate colours, but the lived reality is far too often just a single bar if you stand at the upstairs window, facing north and holding your phone aloft like some kind of digital divining rod. We have already heard about how the River Severn Partnership in Worcestershire was a beneficiary of this. Quite innovatively, local councils stuck gadgets on the bin lorries that went up and down every single road, particularly the rural roads, and realised what we probably all suspect: how terrible the service is. In parts of Worcestershire, the mobile phone signal is around 900 times worse than the mobile phone operators claim. We could forgive the odd dropped call. After all, rural topography presents challenges—there are hills, and trees are inconveniently organic. What cannot be forgiven, though, is the persistent gulf between what is claimed and what is delivered. It is the same with broadband; we hear broadband providers advertise speeds of up to 80 megabits per second, but the reality of what many of my constituents experience is very different. Those advertised figures are in the realm of fiction. This is not just anecdotal grumbling from the shires; a survey by the National Farmers Union has painted a sobering picture, with 21% of respondents reporting broadband speeds under 10 megabits per second in 2026. This is at a time when a single video could devour bandwidth instantly. What my constituents want is the ability to consume data and make voice calls at the same time. I cannot stress enough how sick and tired I am of hearing from mobile phone companies that everyone is just consuming data. As the traditional telephone service is switched off, constituents—particularly those living in rural areas—are increasingly reliant on the ability to make voice calls. The lived reality for a business in rural Worcestershire attempting to submit mandatory forms online to a regulator or placing an order, is that they must drive to the nearest town to do so. Businesses cannot reliably place orders or process card payments. As banks close in our towns and villages, people are shifting or being pushed towards more online digital services, so it is crucial that we have the mobile connectivity to back that up. If I may say so, there is also a little bit of cultural condescension at work. Rural Britain is far too frequently romanticised as a place of bucolic tranquillity; it is that, but it demands parity with urban Britain at the same time. What does that mean? It means that we want a reliable mobile phone signal, so that we can drive down the road on a short journey without it cutting out, and if we need to receive a call from a loved one, a relative or perhaps a GP, we can have certainty that that call will come through. Coverage maps have been drawn with a particularly optimistic crayon, and the problem with advertised speeds being hundreds of times better than reality is not merely technical; it also erodes trust. Quite often, those conditions are laboratory conditions that do not bear any resemblance to reality, so I invite the mobile phone companies to come and do a very thorough inspection across Bromsgrove and the villages.
My hon. Friend is spot on. Constituents, particularly older residents, have contacted me because they have missed out on crucial calls from GPs and other supporting services that they require. It is about the safety and wellbeing of our constituents as much as it is about connectivity and the economy. In the limited time that I have, I have a few points that I implore the Government to focus on. First, transparency must improve. That means bolstering regulatory requirements for the mobile phone companies to advertise speeds that are realistic, not theoretical and based on laboratory conditions. Secondly, it is not just about population coverage, but geographic coverage, which must carry greater regulatory weight. Britain is not composed solely of cities. Land matters, and the people who steward it and rely on these mobile phone connections matter. That means that the Government should give serious consideration to rural roaming. Finally, infrastructure sharing should be pursued with seriousness to ensure that mobile phone coverage across the country, but particularly across Bromsgrove and the villages, is as robust as it can be.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not have to do that, but I know many people who do.
Earlier this week, the Health Secretary released the WhatsApp messages and emails that he had exchanged with Lord Mandelson. Can the Minister update the House on what instruction has been given to Cabinet Ministers to follow—or not follow—the initiative by the Health Secretary?
I thank the Leader of the House for mentioning the stabbing at Kingsbury high school. The good news is that the two children who were stabbed are in a stable condition, and the suspect has now been charged with multiple charges, including attempted murder. The police investigation is clearly ongoing, and we cannot comment on it any further. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for stepping into the breach at very short notice when the previous debate that the Backbench Business Committee had allocated for Thursday 26 February was withdrawn. As the Leader of the House has mentioned, estimates day debates are coming up on 4 March. We are open for business for applications by a week tomorrow; we will then decide which debates will be allocated time. When we return, the business in Westminster Hall will be as follows. On 24 February, there will be a debate on Government support for healthcare systems in Gaza. On Thursday 26 February, there will be a debate on Eating Disorder Awareness Week 2026, followed by a debate on the impact of VAT on independent faith schools. On 3 March, there will be a debate on strengthening community cohesion. On 5 March, there will be a debate on the importance of local museums, followed by a debate on World Book Day. When we return on 23 February, it will be the third anniversary of the hunger strike by Vahid Beheshti outside the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He has had terrible privations as a result of this hunger strike, and no Foreign Office Minister in either the previous Government or the current Government has even had the courtesy to visit him. Given the circumstances in Iran, with more than 30,000 civilians being murdered by the tyrannical regime, Vahid has been calling for the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for the last three years. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to at least meet Vahid so that he can convey his reasons for carrying out this hunger strike?
The issues surrounding Lord Mandelson and Lord Doyle and their proximity to paedophiles are now intertwined. On 2 January 2026, I tabled a written question, asking the Cabinet Office to publish the findings of the internal investigation that took place prior to the granting of the peerage for Lord Doyle. That investigation was carried out by former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, but also by his deputy Jill Cuthbertson, who is now interim chief of staff. An investigation is currently under way, but there has already been an investigation. Given that this issue has already been investigated, will the Government commit to publishing the findings of that investigation?
The town of Huntingdon in my constituency has a rich cultural and historical heritage and is the birthplace of Oliver Cromwell—one of my predecessors in this House. It is the former home of the diarist Samuel Pepys, it is the first place in the UK where chocolate ice cream appeared on these shores, and it is also the birthplace of the sandwich—something very close to my heart. Because of this cultural heritage, we are putting the town forward to be the town of culture in 2028. I thank Paul Sweeney and the business improvement district team in Huntingdon for their hard work in putting forward a bid, not only to celebrate our cultural heritage but to build a legacy going forward. Will the Leader of the House join me in championing Huntingdon as the very best opportunity for Huntingdonshire to cement a town of culture for 2028?
10. What steps her Department is taking to help improve rural transport connections.
In my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency, villages like Little Budworth have no bus services at all, and are miles from any public transport. Even where a school bus exists, families tell me that if a child misses that single service, there is simply no alternative. In villages like Milton Green, families are forced to rely on infrequent and unreliable rural buses to get children as young as 11 to school—buses that often simply do not turn up. Parents have asked me a simple question: why can they not pay for spare seats on dedicated school buses that are already running? Will the Minister work with me and local councils to deliver a more flexible, common-sense approach for rural families?
With World Book Day coming up on Thursday 5 March, I have launched a short story competition for primary school pupils across Chester South and Eddisbury, encouraging them to go all-in and use their imagination through reading and creative writing. At a time when children are spending more and more time on phones and screens, fostering a love of books, storytelling and creativity is more important than ever, so will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging children across Chester South and Eddisbury to take part in that competition and in encouraging everyone to get involved in celebrating World Book Day?
I thank my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. From Tilston to Tattenhall and from Acton to Audlem, poor mobile connectivity is all too common across Chester South and Eddisbury, but the House need not take my word for it. Earlier this year, I launched a mobile connectivity survey, and I take this opportunity to thank the 544 residents who took the time to complete it. It is vital to get the real experiences of people living and working in Chester South and Eddisbury, because, as we have heard from other Members today, the level of coverage that Ofcom and the mobile network operators claim, all too often does not reflect reality. Ofcom gives statistics based on modelling, not on-the-ground evidence. It does not differentiate between 4G and 5G coverage and, crucially, it does not test network capacity. In my mobile survey, I asked constituents on a scale of 1 to 10—where 1 is very poor and 10 is excellent—to rate different aspects of their mobile service. The average score for both the signal to make and receive calls, and the average reliability for calls was just 3 out of 10. The ability to stream or download larger files scored even lower, and many shared their experiences of poor levels of signal and data making it impossible to even download messages or emails. I asked whether constituents could get a usable phone signal in the main areas of their home. Of the 544 respondents, almost 300 said they could not. It is worth pausing to reflect on that. More than half my constituents surveyed cannot get a usable mobile phone signal in their own home. That is simply unacceptable in 21st-century Britain, and the consequences are very real. We know that since the pandemic, more people are working from home, making reliable connectivity vital. According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly 10 million people in the UK are hybrid workers, with a further 5 million working exclusively from home. It is now a fundamental part of our modern economy. If the Government are serious about economic growth, addressing poor mobile connectivity, particularly in rural areas, must be part of that plan. The impact is not only economic, but social. Digital isolation compounds physical isolation. Not being able to rely on a mobile connection to contact friends, family or support services can have serious negative impacts on mental health. There is also a safety dimension to this issue. As more services become digital by default, rural residents are increasingly disadvantaged, unable to reliably take calls from doctors, carers or other essential providers. Constituents have raised concerns about being unable to make calls in emergencies, particularly in more remote rural areas. That is not simply inconvenient; it is dangerous. What my constituents need is meaningful action. I urge the Minister to consider the views of people across Chester South and Eddisbury who completed my mobile survey, and to share in the Government’s response what steps are currently being taken to work with providers, particularly in the rural context, to address the unacceptable gaps in coverage. We need reliable mobile connectivity for work, for school, to make doctor’s appointments and to connect with friends. I will continue to push the Government, so that all villages—including Audlem, Wybunbury, Wrenbury, Malpas, Tattenhall, Tilston, Farndon, Christleton and so many more—get the connection that they rightly expect and deserve.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wrote to the Chancellor on behalf of a constituent on 10 December last year; I followed that up on 6 January and 20 January, but on each occasion I received no substantive reply. It was only when I tabled a written question that Ministers finally informed me that my correspondence had been passed to HM Revenue and Customs. They told me three weeks ago that they would reply by 11 February, yet they have not done so, nor have they written to me. It has been more than two months since I first raised the matter with the Chancellor. I have no answer for my constituent. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what further avenues there are to ensure that this Government treat Members of this House properly?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Humble Address agreed by this House on 4 February 2026, including on progress made, timescales for compliance and the Government’s approach to any material it proposes to withhold or delay.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker— I could not have put it better myself.
Thank you for granting this urgent question, without which hon. Members would not have had a chance to question Ministers before recess. Obviously, the House will rise for recess having received very little in the way of information, so it is very important that we hear from the Minister today so that we can try to have some confidence in the process. Simply put, the purpose of our question today is to try to elicit from the Government a commitment to give the House a timetable, and to confirm—as I think the Minister may have done—that they intend to comply fully with the language in the Humble Address. I say that because press briefings from Government sources this week have suggested that the Government might try to reinterpret the address in some way. For the avoidance of doubt, were that to happen, the Government would have to return to this House for another vote. Last week, the Prime Minister told us that the process would have integrity because it was being led by the Cabinet Secretary, and that any criticism or denigration of the Cabinet Secretary would not be right. This week, the political forces in No. 10 have been briefing that Sir Chris Wormald is to be replaced—what a turnaround! Will the Minister reassure the House that any change in the Cabinet Secretary will not delay disclosure or publication of the documents that the House has required? I have several further questions that I will put quickly to the Minister. First, have the Government completed their scoping exercise, and if not, by when do they intend to do so? Secondly, where the Government propose to release material to the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than directly to the House, will they provide public updates to the House that this has been done? Thirdly, in respect of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, will the Government tell us the precise legal mechanism being relied on, and will they commit to publish those documents in full when the police no longer request them to be withheld? Fourthly, will Ministers publish a Keeling schedule-style register of withheld or delayed documents, setting out the category, the reason for non-disclosure and the expected release date for each? There are strong precedents for this. Fifthly, at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister told me he would write to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) about the Palantir contract. He has not yet done so. Please will he confirm that he will this week? Lastly, and separately, will the Minister commit to publishing all documentation relating to the nomination of Matthew Doyle as a peer? That is now a matter of acute public interest. [Interruption.] I will sit down, Mr Speaker. The Minister will appreciate that confidence in this Government’s integrity is very low. I hope he will comply in full.
Does the Prime Minister share with me the concern that while some ambassadors retiring in disgrace get tens of thousands of pounds in pay-offs, many other civil servants are failing to get the retirement that they are due and are expected to turn to their old Departments for bridging loans? This is clearly a scandal. Will he put all his effort behind making sure that those who have served with integrity are treated with the dignity that they deserve?
As the Minister is getting into the detail of the funding package, will she accept two broad points? First, the overall number of police officers in England has fallen on Labour’s watch. Secondly, because of cost pressures on police forces from other decisions taken by her Government, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has said that there is a £500 million shortfall in the allocation of funding from this Government to police forces.
I will try to add something new to the excellent start to the debate by both the previous speakers, who showed a great command of the overall situation, by quoting my constituent Emma, who got in touch with me yesterday after learning that the debate would take place. I will briefly summarise her concerns, which she set out in the following way: “In the main, the point is that so many have been injured, left on NHS waiting lists, paying for prescriptions and transport to and from appointments. Not being able to work—or restricted working hours. Limited access to PIP…Very little support for those who had mortgages due to the benefit system not supporting mortgage costs” and “loss of pension contributions, as none of us is getting any younger.” This lady is exceptionally strong. Despite the injuries she suffered personally, she has been a rock and a leader for other mesh-injured women in or near my constituency. I hold her in the highest esteem; in fact, I salute her courage. What she has to say is, in a sense, an argument that has already been won. The Cumberlege report won that argument, and the Hughes report wanted to recommend what should happen next. I am delighted to see Henrietta Hughes in the Gallery—and seemingly acknowledging that I am right about that difference between the two reports. Let me briefly quote from Henrietta Hughes’s admirably concise list of 10 recommendations. Recommendation 1 was: “The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.” Recommendation 3 was: “The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme.” Recommendation 4 was: “The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress. These payments should start during 2025.” Recommendation 8 was: “Both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme should be administered by an independent body which commands the confidence of patients.” What is the point of an interim scheme? It is to recognise that there will be tremendous complexity in individual cases, but at least these mesh-injured ladies would get a minimum of help—I think £25,000 has been suggested—straightaway, while the more complex calculations can be done later. Yet despite that being the very point of an interim scheme—that we can do this quickly and work on the harder parts subsequently—we have seen no progress. What does that remind us of? It reminds me of the Post Office. It reminds me of the infected blood scandal. What do all those things have in common? A large number of people who have been injured in some way or another—either physically, or with their character or freedom damaged, often beyond repair—and who are owed very large sums of money by way of redress or compensation. We know what happens in the end: there is enough public protest to ensure that there is action. I hope that the level of public awareness is no less for this cause than it is for other, similar scandals because all the victims were women. That would be even more disgraceful than that this all happened in the first place.
I appreciate that the Minister does not have primary responsibility for this area, but it worries me that we are hearing an awful lot about process. What I fear is really going on is that Ministers have been told at the highest possible level, by the Chancellor or a Treasury Minister, that the money for redress will not be made available and they have to take that as their starting point. She may not be able to confirm this now, but I would like an answer as to whether a conversation of that sort has taken place.
That is nothing new. In every one of the last 29 years, people who are lucky enough to have a modest property in the New Forest and a mansion in the city have come to me to complain about how much more their modest property in the forest costs them in council tax. I have told them that the one is subsidising the other, but people who are not in that fortunate position—young families in my parliamentary constituency with only one property—are subsidising the north and the cities, and they cannot afford it.
No, no. The one thing that the Secretary of State got right when he was wagging his finger to my left was his implication about the Liberal Democrats. I was at the heart of that Administration. Danny Alexander was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and had to be restrained by George Osborne, so gung-ho was he about making greater cuts. Personally, I would have given him his head, but don’t let them escape!
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Labour Government have abolished the rural services delivery grant, a decision that has cost Somerset council £4.1 million and has cost other rural counties many millions of pounds—rural counties in which it is more expensive to provide services? Does he agree that this is Labour diverting money from rural areas that are desperately in need to Labour strongholds in the north?
Q2. Last year, Plymouth was named the national centre for marine autonomy and given a defence growth deal. However, the small and medium-sized enterprises in the unmanned surface vessel sector, many of which are based at Turnchapel Wharf in my constituency, are having their work held back because of out-of-date regulations from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Last week, I was told that draft regulations exist, but that they require primary legislation. Without those new regulations, many of the vital SMEs developing autonomous vessels that have dual commercial and defence use are at risk. Will the Prime Minister show some backbone and consider finding a slot for primary legislation as a matter of urgency, or at least consider adding this to the King’s Speech later this spring, assuming that he is still in charge of the legislative programme by then?
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the current process for local government reorganisation is that there has been no direction on how the funding will work out? We have some proposals on the table that would leave enormously vast rural communities in constituencies such as mine neighbouring towns and urban centres that will see this as an opportunity to get what they want. This settlement does not give those rural councils any confidence that they will get the money they need once local government reorganisation has taken place.