5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Railways Bill (First sitting)

   Do you think they have the balance right here? How do we drive value for money for taxpayers given those very significant constraints on competition? Richard Brown: Yes, I do. I think the balance is right. Putting everything together into GBR makes it the single directing mind. It will be up to GBR and its integrated business leaders to strike the balance and deliver better value for money. There is a lot of duplication and friction in the current system, which I think is one of the things that Keith Williams was highlighting in his review. The accountabilities are very strong with this Bill. GBR is accountable to the Secretary of State, but is also regulated and overseen by the ORR and the passengers’ council, and has a responsibility to mayoral authorities. First and foremost—I think this featured in the previous discussion—the integrated business units and their CEOs, or whatever they are called, will be accountable to their local towns, communities and passengers. There are strong pressures and forces created with this Bill to actually deliver value for money for taxpayers, as well as for passengers. Keith Williams: Can I add one thing, there? Even in my time on the review, one of the things that started was bringing track and train together again. That allowed cost simplification, but it also enabled GBR to get a full picture of the revenue and costs of running the railway, which previously did not exist. It was surprising to me, on the review, that getting the costs together was an enormous exercise and a bit of guesswork, because the costs were in so many different areas.

   Hansard source
2. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Railways Bill (First sitting)

   Q Thank you all for coming in person or, Emma, for joining online. I am going to focus on clause 18 of the Bill, which is on the general duties of Ministers, GBR and the ORR. In particular, I will jump straight to clause 18(2), which sets out the functions and how they should operate those functions. Paragraph (c) states that one such function is “to promote high standards of railway service performance”, itself defined in clause 18(3): “‘railway service performance’ includes, in particular, performance in securing each of the following in relation to railway services— (a) reliability…and (b) the avoidance or mitigation of passenger overcrowding.” My question about that definition of service performance, which is very narrow, is for everyone, but I will start with you, Emma. Are you concerned that the focus is primarily on reliability and overcrowding? What about comfort, heating, wi-fi, food, frequency, cost and all the other good stuff—and disability access? Emma Vogelmann: I completely agree that accessibility really needs to be explicit in the requirements set out in the Bill. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make sure that we are not making the same mistakes of the past in having accessibility not explicitly enforceable and not having it in the Bill as much as possible. Disabled passengers already experience accessibility being deprioritised in the name of efficiency and other considerations. We absolutely agree that it needs to be considered. Ben Plowden: I certainly echo that point from Emma about accessibility. The broader point is that in the absence of any duty on GBR to grow passenger demand over time, which we might come back to, one can imagine a scenario in which, in meeting those two specific duties on passenger service standards, GBR might be incentivised to improve reliability on a route by reducing service frequency and then to deal with the crowding duty by pricing people off the network.

   Hansard source
3. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Railways Bill (First sitting)

   That would be rational. Ben Plowden: It would be perfectly rational, and I understand from media reports that that may indeed be what is happening on the west coast main line. It seems to us that you either need to broaden the number of things that GBR must take into account in terms of passenger service standards and/or introduce a growth duty, which would help deal with some of the other issues. Michael Roberts: I believe that the impulse should be to try to improve the passenger experience in the round, including all the things that you mentioned, such as accessibility, as Emma said. My personal view is that the place for that to be expressed in detail, potentially through targetry, is through a combination of the long-term rail strategy and the business plans over five years.

   Hansard source
4. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Railways Bill (First sitting)

   Neither of which we have seen. Michael Roberts: Correct, and I think the Committee would want the reassurance of understanding what content covering this aspect will be in those documents, as it considers whether the Bill is appropriately written. Alex Robertson: I agree with a lot of what has been said, particularly the point that accessibility must be a top priority of the railway in the future. How you achieve that is the question we are looking at now. As Michael said, the business plan, the long-term rail strategy and GBR’s duty to consult us and others on those, and to do so transparently, are where you will make sure that the railway focuses on the things that are most important to passengers.

   Hansard source
5. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Railways Bill (First sitting)

   Q The second issue I wish to draw out is the fair treatment of other fare providers. At the moment, a number of independent retailers have very good tech that facilitates passengers using the railway. In the new environment, Great British Railways will be the holder of the data—the holder of the ring—but it is also intending, perfectly reasonably, to be part of the game as well: it will have a retail operation, so it will be directly competing in that retail market. This issue has been considered in other state-owned organisations, such as SNCF, where it was recognised that there was a structural conflict of interest; as a result, the retail side of SNCF is a stand-alone, independent organisation. The Government have chosen not to do that. Do you not think that that is surprising? Would it be beneficial to have GBR retail carved off as a stand-alone? Ben Plowden: The Government’s own documentation acknowledges the benefit that independent ticket retailers have brought to customers in terms of competition, ease of buying tickets and so on. The Government intend managerially to separate GBR’s ticketing and retail operation from its commercial and operational arm. It seems to us that if the Government are not willing to set up a stand-alone ticketing operation, as SNCF has done, it is important to hold GBR to the same standards as the independent operators in terms of how it does fares and ticketing. It will be required to comply with ORR guidance on ticket retailing, but that is simply about how it engages with the other retailers. Clearly, it should operate on the same terms as the independent retailers, and there should be independent regulatory oversight to make sure that GBR does not use its position as the core ticketing provider essentially to crowd out the other suppliers.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Railways Bill (First sitting)

   Q What if the Government refuse to carve it off, as has been done in other international examples? The Bill does not require a level playing field. Would you support improving the Bill by expressly stating that GBR must provide a level playing field on data and access for all retailers? Ben Plowden: We would. In particular, it should be subject to the code of practice on retailing that the ORR issues, rather than simply guidance on how it deals with its relationships with the other retailers.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Railways Bill (First sitting)

   Does anyone else on the panel disagree with that assertion? Michael Roberts indicated dissent.

   Hansard source
8. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·James Wild

   Topical Questions

   The Iranian regime is killing protesters in their thousands, and the communication blackout is enabling abuses to happen away from public view. The Minister said yesterday: “They must restore internet access.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 48.] What are the Government doing with partners, so that we can hear the voices of those freedom fighters?

   Hansard source
9. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate and his characteristically well-informed speech. His passion and knowledge as a GP bring a real benefit to this Chamber. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) on her appointment as the Government’s adviser on violence against women and girls, and her excellent and impassioned speech. I am sure her ideas will be of great benefit to the Department and the Government as a whole. This is a necessary debate, but it is also uncomfortable. The figures before us describe not merely a system under strain, but a system that is unfortunately failing too many women and children. If we are serious about change, we must be honest about responsibility and delivery. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for the experience she brought to her speech. Her discussion of honour-based violence, alongside the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), was very prescient. I also thank the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for telling us about her experiences. We were all interested to hear more about the IRIS system she mentioned in her constituency. As ever, I welcome the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) giving us a perspective from Northern Ireland. Sir John, despite the fact that you have not spoken in this debate, it is worth noting your campaign on Holly’s law, which would implement a mandatory register of abuse against domestic animals, because that abuse is often a precursor to or goes alongside the abuse of humans. Thank you for your work on that. Abuse happens across this country, and none of us is untouched by it. In my Farnham and Bordon constituency, I think of the horrendous case of Alan Jermey, who strangled his partner Kirsty Wilson to death and set her alight as their two small children slept upstairs. Cases like that bring this issue home to all of us. The Minister will know that the NHS has more contact with victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse than any other public service, which puts it in a unique position to intervene early. It also gives it a responsibility to deliver. The Department has set out ambitious plans around alcohol harm, neighbourhood health services and better access to support, and those ambitions are welcome, but ambition must be judged against outcomes. Unfortunately, there is a growing gap nationally between ministerial intent, which is welcome, and the frontline reality. The Office for National Statistics found that 6% of women aged 16 and over were victims of domestic abuse, and the police recorded more than 1.35 million domestic abuse-related crimes and incidents last year. The consequences are often fatal. There were 108 domestic homicide victims that year, 83 of whom were women. Among adult female homicide victims, six in 10 deaths were the result of domestic homicide, almost all at the hands of a male partner or ex-partner. Domestic abuse is also a significant driver of suicide, as we have heard: between 2020 and 2024, 98 suspected suicides, including of children, followed domestic abuse. This is not a marginal issue; it is systemic. The Government’s freedom from violence and abuse strategy is welcome but its impact will be undermined by persistent failures in delivery. Training remains inconsistent, referral pathways are unclear and staff lack the time and capacity to act. The evidence is clear. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in June 2025, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse looked at domestic abuse-related death reviews published in 2024 and found that 89% contained at least one recommendation for healthcare professionals or the wider health system. Time and again, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, opportunities for intervention within the NHS were missed. Yet, at precisely the moment when that learning must be embedded, the Government are reorganising the NHS, abolishing NHS England and cutting integrated care board budgets. Standing Together has warned that these changes risk weakening domestic abuse and sexual violence protection work at the local level, including in training, co-ordination and follow through. A system that is being restructured, distracted and under financial pressure cannot deliver the prevention we all want. In Surrey, the police receive around 19 domestic abuse calls every day—domestic abuse is now more prevalent than shoplifting—so these systematic failures play out in real time in our communities. I want to briefly speak about a young woman who lived in my constituency, Skye Nicholls, who died in 2023 at the age of just 22 after nearly two years of coercive control and abuse by her ex-partner. I have spoken to her family and friends, who are campaigning for mandatory psychological injury assessments following a police report of domestic abuse. One of them told me that, too often, the focus remains on visible injuries while psychological abuse is underestimated or dismissed, even though its effects often last far longer than physical harm. For family and friends, mental health support is frequently fragmented or absent, despite them often being the first to spot the warning signs. Prevention does not begin at the point of crisis; it begins with early, trauma-informed intervention. NICE guidance clearly sets out how NHS staff should respond to domestic abuse, but guidance alone does not save lives. Women’s Aid’s 2025 report found that just over half of referrals into community-based domestic abuse services were rejected—nearly a quarter because services could not even contact the victim. When support is reduced to just phone lines and signposting, women unfortunately fall through the cracks. Detection is really important. Accident and emergency is where the physical signs of this abuse are seen but, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, primary care is often the first point of contact. We must use the expertise of GPs and other primary care services and give them the time to effectively identify, intervene and support those victims. The NHS cannot act alone. The justice system must also command public confidence, which is why the early release scheme for serious offenders, including rapists and murderers, is so damaging. It sends entirely the wrong signal to victims and undermines trust in the institutions meant to protect them. We as the Conservatives will continue to oppose that policy. Under the previous Conservative Government, we introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, recognised children as victims in their own right, published violence against women and girls strategies, and invested significantly in victims’ services, mental health and suicide prevention, but we are honest enough to say that legislation alone is not enough. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has shown that only 6% of police-recorded domestic abuse cases result in a conviction, and only one in five victims feel confident reporting abuse. That demands competence and delivery, not the constant structural upheaval we are going to see in both the justice and health systems. We made good strides in this area and I genuinely believe that the current Ministers in the Department are doing their level best to move it forwards. I think we all agree that there is much more to do, but where the Government are making those strides, we as the Conservatives will support them full-throatedly. I close with three questions to the Minister. First, I welcome the Government’s announcement of a 5% funding uplift, but given rising costs and national insurance increases, how much of that is a real-terms increase and how much will go directly to frontline services for victims? Secondly, when will mandatory safeguarding and domestic abuse training for all NHS staff formally begin? What will its roll-out look like and when will the entire workforce have completed it? Finally, what assessment has the Department made of the case for mandatory psychological injury assessments following a police report of domestic abuse, to ensure that victims receive early, trauma-informed support? We will not prevent violence against women by abolishing institutions, cutting local capacity and releasing dangerous men early. We will prevent it by enforcing the law, backing the frontline and putting victims, not systems, first.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

    In meaningful consultations, the Government set out what they are minded to do and set out a model. This consultation does not define social media or set out an enforcement model. It does not say anything about how age verification should be done. If they do not set out their model and what they intend to do, how at the end of the consultation will they have a practical guide or model to implement? They will not. If we are to follow this up with another consultation, I fear that parents and grandparents in Beverley and Holderness will be deeply disappointed with the dithering and delay displayed by the Secretary of State today.

    Hansard source
11. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    The Minister mentions the United States’ wishes, and he appears to be presenting the case that the United States remains in the position that it was in previously, despite what President Trump said last night. The Deputy Prime Minister said in February: “If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward”. Last night, President Trump said that he did not like the deal. Is it still going forward, or is the Minister suggesting that President Trump did not mean what he said last night?

    Hansard source
12. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Does my right hon. Friend, like me, feel some sympathy for the Minister? He has rested his whole case on the support of the United States of America. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the Bill would not go ahead if the American President did not support it. We all remember the great mystery about who shot J.R., but there is no mystery about who shot the Minister’s fox—it was the President of the United States last night, and the Minister’s whole case has crumbled.

    Hansard source
13. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    The hon. Gentleman is talking about the costs of the deal. Can he just set them out for the House? I do not think anyone has done so in today’s debate so far, and he is speaking with such expertise. It would be great to hear from him exactly what this deal is costing.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I fear the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. The only public statement by the Chinese Government on this subject was on 29 May last year when they welcomed the Chagos deal.

    Hansard source
15. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Chinese Embassy

    In the light of what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you see this as short question and I hope that I get a short answer. Does the Minister know if the security services have any concerns at all about the proposed new Chinese super-embassy—yes or no?

    Hansard source
16. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    This evening, the Minister is trying to convince us to vote for this Chagos deal. The President of the United States says that the Government are handing over the island “FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER”, so can he give us some reasons?

    Hansard source
17. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I asked the Minister what the reasons were for the Government signing away the Chagos islands. He could not give any reasons. The President of the United States says that the Government are giving the islands away “for no reason whatsoever”, so can my right hon. Friend give us any reason to sign off this deal today?

    Hansard source
18. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (Second sitting)

    Q A brief question from me: in this morning’s session my colleague Ms Smith highlighted 19—and counting—different documents, plans and strategies that are referred to here. This Committee has not had any sight of drafts of them yet and I am conscious that nor will you, but they will be fundamental to how this works or does not work in practice. Recognising that you have not seen the documents, what assessment would you make of the Bill’s provisions on how, for example, the access and use and the infrastructure capacity policies will be produced? How should they be produced to properly reflect both the needs of an effective railway and the multiple groups with a stake in this? How can they be framed to ensure that GBR, which will essentially be a monopoly provider with a weakened regulator, is meaningfully held to account for what it puts in those policies? Maggie Simpson: My members and I are working collaboratively with Network Rail colleagues and DFT colleagues to try to ensure that those policies and plans are going to be written in the right way. It is fair to say there is a lot of work still to be done, particularly on capacity allocation. On track access charges we feel a little more comfortable with the Bill provisions and that we will get there, but on capacity allocation there is a huge amount of work yet to be done. Some of that work is practical stuff around the interplay between capacity plans on different routes, regions and sections of network, which could be quite big or quite small, and how we wind a freight train through what could be 10 or 20 different infrastructure capacity plans. There is a lot of work to do. There are great people working on this, so let us hope that they get there. In terms of how GBR is held to account, that is a macro question for this Committee across a lot of different aspects. There are lots of powers in the Bill that you will have seen going in both directions between GBR, the Secretary of State, the regulator and so on. Our focus is on that appeals function, which I have already spoken about.

    Hansard source
19. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Gentlemen, do you have anything to add? Steve Montgomery: I do not think we have much more to add, other than that, given the way the Bill is written at the moment, how can you be comfortable with what is in the Bill when you cannot see what is in the licence conditions that are going to be set out? As it stands, clause 63 at the moment can override everything. We would need to see how, when you word the Bill in a certain way, and then the licence, we can get more comfortable with it when they write it up in the access conditions. John Thomas: The licence is a bit of a worry for me, because of all the indications, as we have been discussing, of ORR’s weakened powers. For example, it will not be able to enforce business performance in future. It will be able to advise the Secretary of State, who can then decide whether to take enforcement action or whatever action she deems necessary. That is a far cry from the current licence, which is a much stronger Network Rail network licence. We have not seen it yet, so we cannot really comment, but all the indications are that it would be a much weaker licence for GBR than under Network Rail. As Maggie said, there has been good communication with DFT and Network Rail on the access and use policy, for example, but what are the checks and balances on GBR to create something that is fair and non-discriminatory? As one example, the charging framework is really good. It is based on the current framework of cost directly incurred plus a mark-up; it says—this is a point of detail—that if the operator can bear it, it needs to revert back to whether the market can bear it. On the whole, the provisions are good, but there are different ways of calculating charges even based on those principles. My worry is this: what is the incentive on GBR not to increase charges to price people off the network in order to support its own services? As long as there is good engagement and GBR, in the future, and Network Rail and DFT now, listen to us, that is all we can do at this point in time.

    Hansard source
20. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (Second sitting)

    Q One of these questions will hopefully allow for a yes-or-no answer; the other might be just a date. First, we have heard a lot from witnesses about how much is in the Bill, but also how much is not, and how it is reliant on the building blocks. Will the Minister commit to publish a draft of the licence before the Bill leaves the Commons so that it can be considered by MPs? Keir Mather: Yes.

    Hansard source
21. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Thank you. Secondly, one of the most important things for passengers is the cost of rail travel, so when will passengers under this Bill and this plan see fares not just frozen but reduced? Keir Mather: We think there are benefits from consolidation in terms of building a more efficient railway, which we are confident will be able to build a more efficient system for passengers. We hope that that will reduce costs. The Secretary of State also has power through the Bill to set guardrails on fares, which are a really important part of the system. Unfortunately, I have not brought my crystal ball with me today on the exact time when fares may increase or decrease.

    Hansard source
22. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Finally, it has been indicated that GBR’s ticket functions, website and app will be subject to the code of practice, and in theory enforced by the ORR, backing this up. Ben Plowden highlighted that in his evidence, and others mentioned it. Is it the case that GBR’s ticket functions will be subject to the code of practice in full? Keir Mather: It is my understanding that GBR’s functions and operational work when it comes to ticketing will be subject to the code of practice, yes.

    Hansard source
23. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (First sitting)

    Q I have a couple of quick questions, following on from some of the comments that you have just made. Do you think that a 30-year strategy, or whatever, is a realistic proposition, given that the Government can change every five years—it may be more than that, but there is the potential for that—and a new Secretary of State may want to draft their own strategy, which may be completely different from the previous Government’s? That is a factor of politics. By adopting the approach taken here, do you think we bring that political risk even more starkly into this space than it is currently? Richard Brown: Unless you have a long-term strategy, you will always be condemned to short-term decision making. If you are running a business, you might have a 10, 15, 20 or even 30-year strategy, and you will need to change and adapt that according to circumstances at the time. What I think is very important—Mr Williams has highlighted it—is that the railway assets are long-life. The trains have 30, 35 or 40-year lives, and the signalling and track last even longer. If you do not have that long-term strategy for investment and the sorts of things that you are planning to buy, taking account of new technologies, you are condemned to short-term decision making, which, to an unfortunate extent, is too often where we have been.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (First sitting)

    Q Thank you. Mr Brown, I think it was you who mentioned the integrated business units and accountability, and you also mentioned communities and passengers. How will the Bill provide direct accountability to individual communities? How will it ensure that those integrated business units are directly and meaningfully accountable to individual passengers or an area, and that the director or MD of a particular integrated business unit is directly accountable to them rather than upwards to the chief executive of GBR? Richard Brown: In terms of governance, they have to be accountable to the chief executive of GBR, who has to be accountable to the Secretary of State. You could say that one of the complexities of the Bill is that there are a number of accountabilities. If you are running a regional or local railway, such as Southeastern trains in Kent, particularly given GBR’s responsibility to consult with and take account of local transport plans, you cannot avoid developing a relationship with the towns, communities and mayoral authorities on your route, as well as the passenger groups. If you do not, GBR will move you on to another job, or even get rid of you. I have run business units like that within British Rail and in privatisation, and I think the local focus is a really important feature. That is why I am really encouraged by what is happening: as each franchise comes to its end, where it can be merged with the local route management of Network Rail, it is being done very quickly. That can happen across the piece when GBR is fully up and running.

    Hansard source
25. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (First sitting)

    Q I want to pick a little further at the accessibility point, particularly on step-free access. By way of example, last week I got a letter from the Minister—neither of the two excellent Ministers in the Committee—saying that Sileby station in my constituency, which can be reached only by very steep steps, along with 40% of other stations in the current programme, was being cut from works to improve accessibility on the grounds of funding pressures. The reality is that there will always be tensions between what is desired and what is affordable—that is in the nature of government. Building on what you have already said, how can those tensions be resolved to meet the duties envisaged in the Bill and the aspirations that all parties in this place have for improved accessibility, while recognising that there will always be a funding tension in anything the Government do? I was a Health Minister and wrestled with such issues when deciding what to put in primary legislation, in secondary legislation and in statutory guidance. I would argue they have greater weight than, for example, a business plan, which is vaguer, less enforceable and less tangible than each of those other layers. You have to strike a balance of proportionality. Where do you think the specific obligations on accessibility would best sit in that hierarchy, from primary legislation in the Bill, which is right up at the top and cast in stone, to a business plan, which is much less enforceable, vaguer and can be changed? Alex Robertson: That is a good question. You have set out the challenge and the dilemma that is true for this aspect of public services, as it is for many others. I will try to answer it in this way: wherever you put it, it must allow for the consideration of the ambition to significantly—it must be significantly—improve the service that disabled passengers receive, with decisions about funding. If you separate those two, you will get into a position where you have set a target, but it is not realistic and has no plan behind it. You have to do that and, as I have said before, do it in a way that involves disabled passengers in the decision making. Whatever the scale of the ambition, it is perfectly possible to spend good public money inefficiently and ineffectively, and not on doing what is in the best interests of disabled passengers. It is about doing it right, as well as the amount you do. Emma Vogelmann: From Transport for All’s perspective, as has been picked up by many others, unless accessibility is enforceable, it is treated as an optional and a nice to have: “We will get to it when we get to it, or when there is a surplus of money,” which of course there rarely is. We have seen initiatives to make changes in the name of affordability; I am thinking particularly about the proposals to close ticket offices at stations in England a couple of years ago. That was very much an economic argument about staff not being confined to the ticket office, but in practice, for disabled people that meant that the network would become increasingly unusable and a completely unviable mode of transport for some. I agree with what was said about needing a balance between ambition and the reality of how far those ambitions can go, but we need to be ambitious. We need to make sure that we are not accepting a slower rate of change because it is more economically secure. Ben Plowden: Going back to a point I made before, I think the Bill should set the strategic intent that accessibility should increase over time, not just that it should be taken into consideration by GBR and the Secretary of State. The Bill should also set out how that increase is delivered. To Alex’s point, that could be done in a number of different ways, such as through service provision, infrastructure investment and so on, that would then be set out in the subordinate documents such as guidance, the licence and the business plan. The intent in the Bill would clearly be that, over time—in a way and at a rate to be determined by those other processes—accessibility would increase, not just be taken into consideration, Michael Roberts: You have exposed exactly the difficulties in trying to navigate through all these challenges and priorities. At the risk of motherhood and apple pie, I think co-creation with the disabled community is extremely important in trying to find a way of managing these different priorities that carries the confidence that that is being done with the full consideration of the needs of the disabled travelling public. I also think legislators ought to think, “What are the mistakes that we want to try to avoid next time around?” and then think about what levers can address those mistakes. It is extraordinary that the industry is spending over £1.5 billion building a new station at Old Oak Common, and there is no level boarding for the Elizabeth line, which is the busiest railway in the UK. I am not sure that legislation is going to fix that—that is as much about the quality of decision making within the industry—but thinking about what good looks like and then working back and thinking, “Right. What are the ways in which we can best promote that?” seems like a good way of trying to think around the problem.

    Hansard source
26. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to speak in this important debate on the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and for his opening remarks. We have heard many powerful contributions from across the Chamber. Today’s debate once again reinforces what everyone here and the public know: the water industry needs fundamental reform—work that the Conservatives started. Because of the Conservatives, 100% of storm overflows are now monitored, compared with just 7% in 2010, when the last Labour Government left office. We now know the scale of the problem and can start holding water companies to account more transparently and, importantly, with an evidence base for incidents such as illegal sewage spills. Our landmark Environment Act 2021 delivered our plan for cutting plastic pollution and holding water companies to account. We had our ambitious plan for water, and strong action on water companies that were illegally dumping sewage into our waters. The last Government brought in measures to ban executives from receiving bonuses where water companies are found to have committed serious pollution incidents. That is why it was so disappointing to see the current Government simply recycling and repackaging some of those measures, while leaving out major improvements, such as the water restoration fund, when they introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act. Existing measures to allow Ofwat to change the conditions of water company licences in the Environment Act 2021 were already sufficient to ban bonuses for executives where that was deemed necessary. Although the Opposition supported and constructively scrutinised the Water (Special Measures) Act, that primary legislation, despite the measures it included, was not necessary to enforce a ban on bonuses in the first place. During its passage, we tabled many sensible amendments, including ones to ringfence funding from enforcement fines to a dedicated water restoration fund, to guarantee that companies fixed locally the environmental damage they caused; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its remuneration and governance rules, on which MPs would have been given a vote; to reduce consumers’ bills if their companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies did not leverage too much debt. Sadly, the Government failed to support those amendments, and very much missed an opportunity to increase accountability through them. I am sure the Minister, for whom I have great affection and respect, will reassure us that the Government have set out all their plans to improve accountability in the water industry in the water reform White Paper published today—although I have to say that that is nearly six months after the water commission published its final report, which the Minister said the Government would respond to promptly. We need only look at the example of Thames Water, which we have heard about a bit today, and which is still in a precarious financial situation, to see that we really cannot afford to delay wholesale reform much longer. It has been wrung dry of capital, and it has failed to invest to expand its supply and clean up sewage spills. Alarmingly, the interim financial report showed that between the end of March and the end of September 2025 its debt, as a percentage of company equity, increased by £833 million—a 5% increase. All of that is only heightened by the fact that Thames Water has had £123 million pounds of enforcement fines because of Ofwat’s findings last May. His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear: we do not want to see Thames Water fold, because although water supply would continue, there would be a serious risk of higher bills for consumers and the issues facing the company would not be solved. Strangely, the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company, and both they and Reform seem happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky high. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government are taking action to help find a market-based solution for the Thames Water rescue deal? When it comes to water supply, we need only look at recent events in the south-east, which we have heard about today, to see directly how urgently customers need changes to regulation. In recent days and weeks, we have heard powerful testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and other colleagues. Communities across Sussex and Kent have faced terrible impacts, with tens of thousands of homes left without water supply, medical procedures cancelled, some hospital appointments moved online, schools and libraries shut, hospitality businesses having to close their doors, and farmers and horse owners fearing they will not have enough water for their livestock. On the subject of animals, water companies have been saying that they have no duty to provide water for them. As a medic, Dr Allin-Khan, you will be very familiar with the fluid requirements of a person, but to put it in perspective, the average 500 kg horse needs 25 litres of water a day, and a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres a day. That is a hell of a lot of water that the companies are not providing when we have outages, creating animal welfare issues and pressing local communities. Farmers, animal owners and local communities have had to step in, roll their sleeves up and help each other out—it should not be like that. Given the clear need for wholesale reform and accountability for water delivery and quality, can the Minister provide any clarity today as to when we will actually see tangible, beneficial changes to the quality, but also quantity, of fresh water supplied to households, medical establishments, schools and businesses? One aspect the Government have articulated is that the regulatory system will see reform, with some of the current bodies abolished and merged into one. The Opposition accept that that is necessary to improve the current state of the water industry, but can the Minister confirm that the Government are working at pace to provide a new regulatory structure that genuinely improves regulation and delivery; to provide clarity as to how that regulator will be organised to efficiently deliver its responsibilities; and, as we have heard from colleagues, to ensure that standards that are currently working better—such as in the Drinking Water Inspectorate—are not worsened by regulatory reform? His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have always maintained that we will support serious efforts to continue the last Government’s work in holding water companies accountable and improving our water sector. Ministers have said that they will not tolerate any attempts to work around the ban on bonuses and will instruct Ofwat to enforce fines and other penalties if it finds the rules have been broken. Ofwat has said it is considering updating its company reporting requirements for next year’s performance-related executive pay assessment to ensure that there is greater transparency around exactly what renumeration companies receive and, as we have heard today, why they are receiving that payment. The Opposition fully support the Government in seeking to enforce the law and ensuring that executives do not receive unfair bonuses where water companies have been found to commit criminal breaches and are not delivering a good service. We would also support genuine efforts by the Government to hold water companies to account and build on the work of the last Conservative Government to improve water quality. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline exactly how the Government will ensure existing laws are properly enforced. I am sorry to say that, so far, the meaningful reform that they have promised, and that is rightly expected, has under-delivered when it comes to the change that we need. Their response to the Cunliffe review, although slow in coming, is now their biggest opportunity to make sure they get this right. We need not just words, but action, and sensible measures that the whole House can get behind.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    ADHD Diagnosis

    It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for getting so many MPs here to talk about such an important topic. His tribute to Matty Lock was truly epic. The only thing I am sad about is that we could easily have filled a 90-minute debate. Perhaps he can take note of that for the next time that he applies for such a debate. Time is short, so I will skip to the most important questions. This debate is about ADHD diagnosis, and there is no disagreement among Members on both sides of the House about the challenges that we face. We have seen the numbers go up, so the question is: what are the Government prepared to do about it, and how can the House work to facilitate them in that? Before the general election, the previous Government worked with NHS England to establish the independent ADHD taskforce, with the aim of developing a data improvement plan. As we have heard, there have been two iterations of that. The Minister confirmed in a written ministerial answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on 17 November that the Government are considering those recommendations. Will the Government respond to the taskforce’s recommendations today? If not, when will they do so? If so, will they take on all the recommendations, or will they challenge some? I commend the Government on commissioning their own independent review into autism and ADHD. They are often linked and there can be co-morbidities, which are important to consider. As we have heard, there is no distinct timeline for that—summer is a long period of time—so I would be grateful if the Minister can set out exactly how the Government define “summer”. How will that intertwine with the work that the taskforce has already done? Will that work get superseded, or will the two pieces of work dovetail together? Finally, I want to talk about accountability and delivery. I understand that NHS England has identified reducing long waits for ADHD assessments as a priority in the medium-term planning framework. With NHS England set to be abolished, it is unclear how those priorities will be maintained and enforced. Will the Minister confirm that reducing the long waits for ADHD assessment will remain an explicit national priority for the NHS? How will the Government enforce that, given that NHS England is being taken away, and ensure consistency across integrated care boards? I welcome the acknowledgement in a recent written answer that data on ADHD waiting times at ICB level is currently not held centrally, but that there is an intention to publish it in 2026 or 2027. That transparency matters, so will the Minister confirm that the plans to publish ICB-level ADHD waiting time data will continue regardless of the structures of the NHS after the change? Will he provide an indicative timeline for the delivery? Is it 2026 or 2027? Will the Government publish more data about Right to Choose that shows what is and is not successful, and what is good practice and what can be improved? That is one of the ways to deal with the postcode lottery. At the heart of this debate is the fact that behind the numbers is a person, a child or a family seeking answers, support and stability. It is our duty in this House to hold the Government to account for delivering that for all across the nation.

    Hansard source
28. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    ADHD Diagnosis

    On that point, the Minister mentioned the taskforce. It did produce its report, with its recommendations, and the Government have not yet responded to those recommendations. Will the Minister give a timescale for when he is looking to do so?

    Hansard source
29. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    ADHD Diagnosis

    To clarify, if it is going to dovetail, is he suggesting that the recommendations will come out in the report in the summer, all in one lump, or will we see the recommendations of the taskforce come out before we see the full report of the newly commissioned work?

    Hansard source
30. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Chinese Embassy

    I am going to ask again: does this make the British public safer—yes or no?

    Hansard source
31. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Will the hon. Gentleman be supporting Lords amendment 1, given that he has just specified that the base needs to be used for military purposes? If that use becomes impossible, because the islands go under water, for example—which is a real risk—would he want to carry on paying for the deal?

    Hansard source
32. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure which amendments are being addressed. There are at least five on the amendment paper to be talked about. I just wondered if Russia is relevant to any of those amendments.

    Hansard source
33. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Chinese Embassy

    Will the Minister explain how, by giving China the embassy it wants, the Government are demonstrating that they are holding China responsible for—in his words—“unacceptable behaviour” that they will not stand for?

    Hansard source
34. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    There is no doubt that our justice system faces significant challenges. I have always acknowledged that, and during recent debates on a wide range of issues, from sentencing to prison capacity to probation to jury trials, there has been cross-party acknowledgement that for decades, under a number of Governments of different colours, not enough investment or political priority has been given to our justice system. That, however, should not and must not serve as an excuse for this Government to make changes to our justice system that damage it and fail to address the challenges before us. There are alterations that elements of the Ministry of Justice have always wanted to make. We should not let them use the excuse of the current challenges to finally slip them through the net. That is what we see happening in the Bill, in relation to the proposals on jury trials and, even more clearly, in relation to measures that are to the detriment of victims. I welcome elements of this Bill, and I will discuss some examples. The Minister mentioned the restriction zones and the domestic abuse markers, but these measures are overwhelmingly outweighed by the fact that at the heart of the Bill is a catastrophic blow to victims’ search for justice: it will let thousands of rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier. The Minister mentioned the independent sentencing review; I remind Members that it gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever to what victims and the public think of the proposals on sentencing. The report is an insult to victims and their families, as many have told me directly. During the Commons stages of the Bill, every party other than Labour joined the Conservatives in voting against these dangerous proposals, including the Liberal Democrats. In fact, a number of Labour MPs bravely abstained. It should be a matter of deep shame for Liberal Democrat Members that they have since joined Labour in voting to let rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier, especially as they have previously articulated why this is wrong. It is a complete betrayal of victims of serious crime and their families. This is likely to be my final opportunity to say that I am confident that Labour MPs will come to regret these elements of the Bill, and will find it difficult to explain themselves when victims see perpetrators of crimes such as rape, child sex offences and child grooming leave prison—sometimes having served only a third of their sentence—because of MPs’ support for these measures. I will do whatever I can to ensure that victims know who made those choices, although so many alternatives were available to them. However, I have to accept that this Government’s majority, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, has for now ended the campaign against this change, so we should consider the Lords amendments that are before the House today. As I know that the public greatly value constructive cross-party working, I will begin with an important issue on which we were able to secure Government support. Lords amendment 1 would ensure that when a police officer, prison officer or probation officer, including a former officer, is murdered because of their service, a whole life order is the starting point for sentencing. This proposal originated from the Opposition, and I am grateful to the Government for accepting the principle, following my meetings and campaigning with Paula and Neil Scott, whose son Lenny, a former prison officer, was murdered because he refused a bribe from an inmate. Parliament has long been clear that those putting themselves in direct danger by confronting and standing up to the most dangerous people in our society should have the greatest possible protection from our law: a whole life order. We had previously legislated to that effect through the introduction of a mandatory whole life order for those who murder police and prison officers who are undertaking their duties, but the case of Lenny Scott highlighted a gap in the law. Lenny was brutally murdered, years after his service as a prison officer, in revenge for handing in a phone that he found in a prison cell search. He had moved into a new phase of his life, and was enjoying work, the gym, and time with his children and the rest of his family, but he was shot in a car park late at night, simply for doing his job. Lenny’s mum told me that she knew something was wrong when Lenny did not come home that evening. She even went out in the middle of the night to look for him, only to have the police arrive at her door at 1 am with the devastating news. It has been a true privilege to work with Paula, and with Lenny’s dad, Neil. I extend my sincere thanks to Lord Timpson in the other place, and to the Minister, for taking the time to meet them both, and for agreeing to work with them further to see what else we might do to improve protections for our prison officers. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it was clear from the meeting what decent, moral people they are, which explains the sort of person that Lenny was. I am also very grateful to Lord Timpson for bringing fresh thinking to this area by including probation officers in the measure. They too must work closely with dangerous, violent offenders, and sometimes stand up to them to protect the public. They face the same dangers, so they should get the same protections. Although our wider focus must always be on preventing crime and protecting the public, it is right that clear gaps in the law should be addressed when they arise. The Opposition therefore support Lords amendment 1 in lieu of our amendment, and I know that Lenny’s parents, family and friends have been delighted to see its progress in the House. In my time working with victims on campaigns, I have learned the pitfalls of naming a law after an individual case—there are always others who might warrant the remembrance of their experiences in the naming of a law—but Lenny’s family have every right to call this measure “Lenny’s Law”. I will now consider amendments that attempt to deliver much-needed reform, but which are simply insufficient. Lords amendments 2 to 5 all concern the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council. Between them, they provide guidelines for specific scenarios in which the Lord Chancellor does not approve the Sentencing Council’s business plan; conditions for withdrawing consent to the Sentencing Council’s issuing of sentencing guidelines; and conditions for withholding consent to a request from the Sentencing Council to issue allocation guidelines, if it is necessary withhold that consent in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. We saw in the debacle of two-tier sentencing just how far the Sentencing Council has strayed, and these measures will not fundamentally correct that. The official Opposition have made it clear—I will restate it—that our firm policy position is that we would abolish the Sentencing Council, restore power to elected Ministers who are directly accountable to the public, and give Parliament a role when it comes to sentencing guidelines. The functions of the Sentencing Council in delivering consistency through sentencing are well recognised, and it is not our intention to do away with the functions that will be restored to the Lord Chancellor’s Office, but we believe it is for the Justice Secretary to be responsible for our sentencing guidelines, not a group of unelected individuals with no direct accountability to the public and limited accountability of any kind. Consultation with the public is not the same as accountability to the public, and we are clear that Parliament should have the power to act. Therefore, while these amendments are not a point of contention in the Bill’s progress and we will not divide the House on them, I raise them to point out that they would not be part of a Bill introduced by a Conservative Government, as we would abolish the Sentencing Council entirely and fully restore accountability.

    Hansard source
35. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    Does the hon. Lady accept that, as a result of the Bill, the vast majority of those offenders will only have to serve a third of their sentence, instead of half?

    Hansard source
36. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    Would any single one of the tool theft victims the hon. Lady is taking about agree that those offenders should serve only a third of their sentence?

    Hansard source
37. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    Since I cannot ask the Minister myself, I might ask the hon. Lady if she agrees that we also need clarity on whether deceased victims’ family members will have a right to transcripts?

    Hansard source
38. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation

    Pressure on the UK to join the expensive and dodgy-looking Gaza board of peace has been ramped up by President Trump’s messaging overnight. Will the Government politely decline to join the Gaza board of peace while reviewing their position on Chagos, given the US intervention overnight?

    Hansard source
39. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am very sorry about his throat. I suspect that he, like me, is keen for Greenlanders to have the right of self-determination. Time and again, we have sat through the speeches of Ministers who have harped on about the need to defend their right to a say in what happens to them. Will the hon. Gentleman compare and contrast that with the situation faced by the Chagossians, and explain why the Danes can put into law the right for their people to have a say in their future but we are about to rule it out for people to whom we owe a duty of care?

    Hansard source
40. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    If this is such a good deal, why does my right hon. Friend think that one of my local authorities is having to house hundreds of Chagossians who are fleeing to the UK to escape its consequences?

    Hansard source