Employment Rights Bill
Happily, if the hon. Member will talk about how he will fix our NHS.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Employment Rights Bill
Well no, I cannot, because there is a cap—the very cap that the hon. Member’s party is seeking to remove. I try not to be uncharitable about the complete absence of business experience in the Cabinet, but that level of question, together with that impact, is just embarrassing. The Minister in her remarks—there was not much of an argument; it was really just a critique—blamed peers in the other place for the Government’s own failures. Notwithstanding how peers are doing the constitutional job we ask them to do, Lyndon B. Johnson said that the first rule of politics is to learn how to count. The Government lost the vote on its unemployment Bill last week by 24 votes, but 65 of their own peers did not want anything to do with the Bill—they did not turn up and did not vote. During the passage of the Bill, one Labour peer has even resigned his peerage and joined the exodus of wealth creators to the United Arab Emirates because of what he sees. The Resolution Foundation and the Tony Blair Institute have both criticised the Bill. By removing that £118,000 compensation cap, the Government are not protecting the vulnerable. If that is what they wish to do, there are other ways to do that, but ordinary workers will never benefit from that. It is a genuinely mad world; I do not understand why we are having this debate. This time last week, the Liberal Democrats agreed with me on this. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has been campaigning for the boss of South East Water to be fired, but without a cap his payout could be millions. Is that really what they want? What changed, other than the appearance of five new Liberal Democrat peers?
- Hansard source
Employment Rights Bill
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will leave that hanging there and hope that Labour Members will address it. In conclusion, I ask the Government at this eleventh hour to pull back from the brink and introduce a financial cap so that we can get this business done this week. They have no consent from business, and they sought no support for it in their manifesto. I have talked about youth unemployment and the level of redundancies. We Conservatives will get Britain working again. We will end the attacks on employers and repeal the job-killing measures in the Bill. For the sake of businesses, for the sake of the backlog and for the sake of Britain, the Government should accept the Lords amendment and drop their motion.
- Hansard source
Oil Refining Sector
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this timely debate about Lindsey oil refinery, which employed many of my constituents. The closure is a disaster for our Greater Lincolnshire area. It is, I believe, a direct result of green policies that are no longer logical. I am no climate change sceptic. I am prepared to have investment in green energy—we are world leaders in offshore wind in the Humber, are we not? We are doing our bit, but the Government are taking it to new heights. All ideologues are dangerous, but fanatical ideologues are the most dangerous of all, and that is what we have in our Secretary of State. We have these ludicrous targets; I commend the editorial in The Times today calling it “targetitis”. Originally, Theresa May arbitrarily set a limit of 2040. Where did that come from? Boris Johnson, in his bumptious, casual way, not considering the evidence, unilaterally cut it down to 2030. Where did that come from? All this is massively damaging. I would not mind if we were actually making a difference to global warming, but we are responsible for only 1% of global emissions. According to some estimates, our total global emissions are less than China’s annual accrual. We are making absolutely no difference! China holds us in contempt. It is doing to us what we did to it in the 19th century. China is totally ruthless.
- Hansard source
Oil Refining Sector
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is the son of a very distinguished councillor in my constituency.
- Hansard source
Oil Refining Sector
That may be a fair point. I said at the beginning of my speech that I am not a climate change sceptic. Everybody is prepared to do their bit. I have already mentioned wind farms, but what about solar energy? In Lincolnshire we are prepared to have solar energy on our farmland, but in my constituency 16,000 acres of the most productive land in the entire country—enough land to feed the city of Hull every single year—is put under solar farms, with panels manufactured in China, destroying our ability to feed ourselves. There has to be a balance, but at the moment we do not have one. We are importing so much from our dear friends in Norway that they are opening 250 exploration wells. This debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, is extremely timely. The closure of Lindsey oil refinery is a complete disaster. It employs many of our constituents and is vital for the whole of our industrial infrastructure. We need strong domestic refining capacity. The Secretary of State goes on about energy security all the time, but that would strengthen energy security at a time when we are already importing two thirds of our gas and increasing volumes of refined fuels. I would not mind these green policies, but we are not actually contributing to tackling global warming; we are simply exporting carbon emissions to other countries. It is complete madness. If we were sensible about this, and if it were possible to get some sort of global recognition of the problem, maybe we could start to tackle it. Relying on foreign refiners means exporting jobs and value overseas while leaving Britain more exposed to global price shocks and geopolitical risks. Expansion of the UK refining sector protects thousands of highly skilled, well-paid jobs. It also supports an entire region and supply chain in engineering, fabrication, logistics and maintenance. Those are precisely the jobs that sustain industrial communities and create apprenticeships for young people. Refining underpins every major industrial sector. Manufacturing, aviation, defence, logistics, agriculture and pharmaceuticals all depend on reliable supplies of fuels and petrochemicals. Allowing it to pass into decline would simply shift production to countries with weaker environmental standards. Lindsey oil refinery was a major economic anchor for our area. We know that it was put into administration. I share the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham: this is a national crisis in terms of national policy, which is wrong, and of local policy. The people of Greater Lincolnshire demand action from this Government, and they demand it now.
- Hansard source
Oil Refining Sector
The hon. Lady is giving a paean of praise for refineries, so why are the Government taxing them out of existence?
- Hansard source
Oil Refining Sector
On a point of order, Mr Western. You are a fellow member of the Panel of Chairs. Can we make it clear to our colleagues that it is normal courtesy for the Minister to allow the proposer of a motion some time to wind up, if only a minute? That did not happen on this occasion.
- Hansard source
National Plan to End Homelessness
I welcome this statement. We do need a massive house building programme, but I suspect the Government are going to have to strip away many more delays and controls if they are going to have any chance of meeting their own target. Does the Minister understand that there is a real lack of confidence in all this? The public see our own people on the streets without proper housing while people who enter the country illegally and migrants are held for months in comfortable hotels in idleness. If the Government were to be really robust and arrest, detain and deport those people, we could not only concentrate more resources on those genuinely in need, but actually save lives at sea.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I pay tribute to five dads from Ilkley—Will, Sam, Martyn, Joe and Dan—who last week walked the entire 82-mile Dales Way, raising over £11,000 for the maternity and neonatal teams at our fantastic Airedale hospital. Between them, they have faced numerous challenges as fathers and are giving back to the hospital through their efforts. Can we have a debate, in Government time, to show our support for dads during early parenthood, and to discuss mental health and wellbeing support and the role that fathers play in neonatal care?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T10. What would the Minister say to businesses such as the Rusty Tractor Farm Café in my constituency? It is already paying long-term staff above the minimum wage, and it is now faced with an inflated wage bill, as it has to increase the minimum wage for its young staff, and potentially inexperienced staff, while also increasing all other wages proportionately.
- Hansard source
National Plan to End Homelessness
The excellent team at Plymouth city council work tirelessly to tackle homelessness, but pressures on the private rented sector in the city, increased because of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, has hindered the supply of permanent move-on accommodation. We know that it does not all need to be social housing and that we need private rented homes as well. The council puts the sustained number of Plymouth households in temporary accommodation at about 440 a month—half of them in B&Bs—of which 40 are families. Although I recognise support for councils to buy properties and aims for new home completions, the reality is that will not be enough. How long must households in Plymouth who are currently in temporary accommodation wait for a home? Is Plymouth one of the 20 local authorities being supported to eliminate B&B use as part of the child poverty strategy?
- Hansard source
Fairtrade Certification
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing today’s informative and thoughtful debate. All the contributions have been insightful, but I particularly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) who spoke about the man from Del Monte, taking me back down memory lane. I had not thought about him for a long time, probably not since the ’80s. This is a timely debate. It rightly draws attention to a topic that has relevance to how the UK positions itself as a responsible trading nation and global partner. Fairtrade certification schemes have become a visible and recognised feature of British consumer life. They are well understood by the public, well supported by major retailers and increasingly used by UK businesses to demonstrate transparency and ethical practices across global supply chains. This debate invites us to reflect on how Fairtrade sits within the wider landscape of British trade and business policy, and how it might continue to support responsible sourcing, environmental sustainability and long-term development goals. At its core, Fairtrade is a voluntary certification scheme applied to consumer goods such as bananas, cocoa, coffee, tea and sugar. It sets minimum prices for producers, offers a Fairtrade premium to be invested in community projects, and lays out standards on labour rights and environmental protection. The scheme is built on a partnership model between producers in the global south and businesses and consumers in the global north. Over time, Fairtrade has come to play a role in supporting responsible UK sourcing practices. The UK has long been a leading market for Fairtrade goods, and British supermarkets were among the first in the world to adopt the Fairtrade label at scale. The distinctive mark is now found on thousands of product lines sold in every part of the country, from major supermarket chains to small independent stores. Beyond consumer familiarity, the benefits of Fairtrade certification also flow into business practices here at home. For British companies, certification helps to meet environmental, social and governance expectations from investors and consumers alike. It offers reassurance on the ethical provenance of goods and helps to reduce reputational risk in complex and sometimes opaque global supply chains. More broadly, Fairtrade fits into a wider framework of responsible sourcing in which UK firms are increasingly engaged. For example, the cocoa industry has seen significant improvements in transparency and long-term planning due to Fairtrade and similar voluntary schemes. British food and beverage companies, in particular, have drawn on Fairtrade principles to strengthen resilience and quality across key import lines. There is also a trade policy angle. Fairtrade is not only about individual transactions; it reflects a broader outlook on how the UK interacts with developing markets. As the Government have observed in the recent trade strategy, trade and development are not mutually exclusive goals. We can support UK business while also encouraging more ethical, sustainable and secure supply chains. The developing countries trading scheme, launched in 2023 under the last Conservative Government, is one such example. It reduces tariffs on goods from low and middle-income countries and allows for easier trade in value-added products, helping to support economic diversification. The previous Government were also clear that they recognised the role that voluntary schemes like Fairtrade play in complementing formal legal frameworks, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which continues to apply to large UK businesses. In this context, Fairtrade certification can be seen as one of several tools that enable the UK to act as a responsible trading nation, championing higher standards while maintaining competitive access to key goods. One of the great strengths of Fairtrade is the strong grassroots support that it enjoys. I saw that at first hand earlier this year when I was contacted by my local Reigate Fairtrade steering group to draw my attention to the “Brew it Fair” campaign. The campaign highlighted that, while the Government have committed to protecting human rights and environmental standards by endorsing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and by passing the Modern Slavery Act, wages, incomes and working conditions remain inadequate for the majority of the people involved in tea farming. As such, the Fairtrade Foundation called on the Government to introduce a law on human rights and environmental due diligence. Again, good work was done in that space under the previous Conservative Government. The UK was the first country to create a national action plan to implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which are widely regarded as the authoritative international framework to steer practical action by Governments and businesses worldwide on this important and pressing agenda. More recently, the UK has taken a number of steps through the Modern Slavery Act to ensure that no British organisation—public or private, and unwittingly or otherwise—is complicit through their supply chains in human rights violations. I am sure that the Minister will have more to say on that in a moment. I conclude by noting that this has been an excellent debate, and I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow North for securing it.
- Hansard source
Pubs: Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
It is incredibly depressing that the Minister does not appear to recognise the seriousness of the situation for pubs in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and, indeed, across the country, with around eight closing every week. Pubs already face huge costs and hiked taxes—there really are no more pips to squeak. It can be no surprise that, since the Chancellor’s Budget, some landlords, already emotionally drained from a difficult year, do not have the stomach to check their new business rates liability until after Christmas. If the Minister truly values our pubs, will she take meaningful action, rather than just tell us that business rates are going down when they are actually going up?
- Hansard source
Small and Medium-sized Businesses
Businesses of all sizes across my constituency are struggling due to the strain of Labour’s increases to national insurance contributions and the pressures created by the Employment Rights Bill. Many tell me they are questioning their viability or even considering relocating overseas. Will the Minister set out what steps the Department will take to support entrepreneurship and ensure that businesses choose to invest and grow here in the UK, rather than being driven overseas?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T4. The Minister knows the Westgate pub in her constituency well. It has seen its rateable value go up from £10,500 to £20,000, which means a rates rise of £2,400 once the temporary transitional relief expires. We know that Harrods is getting a £1 million business rate cut, so will the pubs and hospitality Minister stand up not only for her pubs, but for pubs across the country that have been hammered by these rises, by challenging the Chancellor to deliver on her claim of permanently lower business rate bills?
- Hansard source
US National Security Strategy
The US strategy makes it even more important that the UK remains a cornerstone of European and global defence. With threats to us and our allies only growing, the Conservative party is clear that it would hit 3% of GDP on defence spending by the end of this Parliament. As it is abundantly clear that we need to step up against the threat posed by Russia, and that we need a Government who are serious about spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, will the Minister confirm whether it is only the Government's ambition to reach 3%, or whether the Treasury has a funded plan to do so? The US strategy is particularly clear about the nature of the Chinese Communist party regime, whereas our Government seem to be going cap in hand to Beijing, asking it to bail out their failed economic policies. We have seen reports that the Government are likely to approve China’s super-embassy spy hub. Will the Minister confirm whether the US has expressed a concern to the Government about the potential approval of that application? On Ukraine, all of us want the war to end—it is an unjust and illegal war started by Putin—but an end to the conflict, or any potential settlement, has to involve the Ukrainian people, and secure justice and lasting peace for them. A lasting peace is not about ceding territory. Will the Minister therefore update the House on what specifically the UK Government are doing to leverage British influence, in Ukraine’s interests, at this critical time?
- Hansard source
Oil Refining Sector
I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of the oil refining sector. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. I am pleased that this debate has attracted considerable support, particularly from north of the border, and that today The Times had a timely editorial on this issue. My constituency is in northern Lincolnshire on the south bank of the Humber, which has been christened “the UK’s Energy Estuary”. In recent years, the Humber has become a world-leader in the offshore and renewable energy sector—something we are proud of locally. However, while the Humber is full of opportunity for offshore and renewable energy and will play a significant role in the UK’s net zero efforts, we must not overlook the UK’s carbon energy needs as we make the transition to cleaner energy sources. We must face the fact that a significant portion of our total energy consumption still comes from oil, gas and coal and will continue to do so. The UK’s annual total primary energy consumption is around 130 million to 140 million tonnes of oil equivalent; fossil fuels made up roughly 79% to 81% of that in the year 2022-23. The Humber has played a significant role in ensuring that that demand is met. Until the crisis at Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency earlier this year, the Humber could boast of producing a third of the UK’s refined fuel, with two of the UK’s six major oil refineries based in the Humber region. Now, as we approach the end of 2025, only four operational refineries remain in the UK, following this year’s closure of Grangemouth, with significant job losses, and the uncertainty at the aforementioned Lindsey refinery where over 400 people are employed. Even more striking is the fact that the number of refineries is down from 18 in the 1970s. Sadly for the oil refining sector, most people do not even realise that it exists or appreciate its importance, yet the sector is a vital part of the UK’s energy security. A number of our crucial sectors rely on it, including the transport industry and defence sectors. All Members will know that oil refineries produce products that are essential for our critical energy needs, such as petrol, diesel, jet fuel and fuel oil. The Lindsey refinery has a capacity equivalent to around 35% of British petrol consumption and 10% of British diesel, and also supplies aviation fuel to Heathrow via pipeline. Yet the House of Commons Library states: “Refinery output in 2024 was 48 million tonnes. This was 55% below the 1973 peak.” Output in 2024 “was around 14% below levels from the late 2010s and more than 40% below output from the start of the century.” That is worrying considering that refineries supply 47% of the UK’s final energy demand, as 100% of aviation, 97% of road and 61% of rail transport still relies on liquid fuels. The refineries also support 100,000-plus jobs across the UK, with 4,000 directly in the refineries. We collect £37 billion annually in tax—that is duty and VAT—from them, and they deliver low-carbon fuels that have an impact equivalent to removing 3 million cars from the road each year. That is not to mention the fact that ours are among the lowest-carbon refineries globally—in fact, 80% of the UK’s top import partners have a higher carbon intensity—yet despite their importance we have seen the closure at Grangemouth and the uncertainty at Lindsey. What does the future hold? UK oil refineries continue to face a number of challenges. Of course demand for refined products will decrease as the country continues to reduce its emissions in accordance with the legally binding commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, though that target may change. Moreover, energy is the single largest cost of operating a refinery. The industry faces high energy costs, and carbon costs negatively impact the competitiveness of UK refineries. UK refineries are essentially competing with one hand tied behind their back while their competitors pay little or nothing in carbon costs. That is on top of the issue of unequal access to decarbonisation opportunities. Our route to lower emissions must not come at the price of deindustrialisation or at the expense of our energy security. As an editorial in The Times today points out, some in the Government are so hostile to fossil fuels and so beholden to the green ideology that they are willing to sacrifice our future income and tolerate the jobs that are being lost. We must put the national interest first. Moreover, our climate targets are still some way off, so in the meantime we must continue to rely on the products that refineries produce. The sector remains vital for today’s economy, yet our refineries are closing. We must realise that closing UK refineries does not reduce demand; it merely shifts production abroad. That, of course, often leads to higher emissions. We are thereby exporting jobs outside the UK while failing in our efforts to cut emissions. Losing further capacity would therefore leave the UK increasingly dependent on imports and the unpredictability of global politics, relying on other nations that often have weak rules on environmental protection, labour rights and safety. Moreover, once a refinery closes, it does not return. The skills, infrastructure and investment are lost permanently. We must also consider the impact on the local economy and local people that closures cause. At Lindsey, over 400 people are directly employed on the site, and well over 1,000 rely on it through the supply chain. As North Lincolnshire council said in its position statement on Lindsey oil, the implications of any closure of the site will have far-reaching consequences for the local economy and the people employed directly and indirectly. The council has stated that the potential closure of the refinery will have a significant impact on local market confidence, particularly following the turmoil at British Steel earlier this year. As such, failure to properly support the businesses impacted could multiply exponentially the impact of the closure. Moreover, the south Humber bank, where the site is located, relies on the interconnectivity of its industrial supply chains. As such, the refinery is not an isolated operator but an integral node in a wider network that supplies products to downstream users, and disruption at one site can quickly ripple across the regional economy. These integrated clusters work in tandem, reflecting the modern industrial model, and our economic resilience relies on the system being maintained, thereby ensuring long-term industrial sustainability in the UK. I note the Scottish Affairs Committee’s conclusions on the handling of Grangemouth, which can be found in the Committee’s recently published report on Scotland’s oil and gas industries. I am sure the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), will delve more deeply into the detail of the report, though let me quickly say now that the report stated that both the UK and Scottish Governments should have acted sooner to prepare for the crisis in Falkirk.
- Hansard source
Oil Refining Sector
The hon. Member makes an important point: it is the case that such decisions are not solely commercial; the Government must consider, more widely, energy security and the impact on the economy. In preparation for this debate, I received representations from various interested parties that are dependent on the oil refining sector. They have outlined their concerns, some of which I have mentioned already, and the solutions they would like to see put forward. One issue that has been mentioned to me is the expansion of the scope of the carbon border adjustment mechanism to include oil refineries’ products. As Members may know, the CBAM is a tax levied on goods at the border based on their carbon content. Expanding the CBAM to products from oil refineries based overseas, as the Government proposed in their autumn Budget, would enable domestic oil refineries to remain competitive and stop them fighting with one arm tied behind their back. I mentioned that the refining sector is subject to ever-increasing regulatory burdens and carbon pricing. Sadly, the impact of net zero politics, particularly the UK emissions trading scheme, is driving rapid and sustained deindustrialisation of the British economy. Refining receives substantially lower free allowances under the scheme compared with other industries, such as steel and cement, and ETS costs are one of the highest expenditures in a refinery’s operating budget. Competitors in other regions do not face those costs, which seriously damages the competitiveness of UK refineries. We must realise that the ETS damages our energy security and should be urgently repealed. Longer-term solutions may include bringing refined products fully into the UK CBAM or ensuring that the UK retains control over refineries in any future UK-EU carbon market linkage agreement. If we do not want to let this issue get any more out of control, we must act now. Before concluding, I refer back to the situation at Lindsey oil, because the company is in administration. We have a situation in which FTI Consulting, acting on behalf of the official receiver, is engaged in discussions with potential buyers and investors. Those talks are rightly confidential, and when questioned, Ministers have repeatedly said that they are awaiting the recommendations from FTI. That inevitably feeds speculation through the grapevine that angers employees and their union representatives. I have held meetings with two consortia that are interested in buying the whole site and continuing operations, and the leader of North Lincolnshire council has held discussions with a third. Do the Government support a deal that would retain the refinery complete? Until now there has been no answer. I again ask the Minister: do the Government favour that option and, if necessary, would they provide some support? Have the Government instructed FTI to prioritise jobs? A letter from Unite the Union to the Secretary of State throws that into doubt. In the letter, Unite says: “In this vein you informed me and the Unite reps for the refinery on two occasions that you had advised FTI that bids which save the jobs should be prioritised and that if needed, there could be government money for a viable bid which saved the site.” Is Government money available? The reply seems to throw doubt on all of that. The reply from the Minister for Energy to Sharon Graham at Unite says that the Government “have made repeatedly clear that long-term and sustainable employment is a priority for the Government”, but that does not necessarily mean it is a priority that has been passed on to the official receiver. At a meeting with me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), the Minister for Energy assured us that if the worst came to the worst and the refinery were to close, or there were to be large- scale job losses, one option would be for the Government to work with MPs, local authorities and other agencies to form a taskforce to consider what help and support would be available to revive the local economy. Is that offer still open? My understanding is that the Government have said that there will be no further redundancies until the end of March, which I welcome. Could today’s Minister clarify whether the Government are meeting the cost of that, or whether the costs will be taken into account by the administrators and the amount available to creditors adjusted accordingly? The future of not just Lindsey oil but the whole oil refining sector is at stake. The Government must review their current position and act to secure the industry for the future.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Last Saturday morning, the manager and assistant manager of a local care home came to my surgery out of concern for an elderly resident—they gave up their own time to do so. She was bedbound and could not get dental attention for a serious abscess, and she was in great pain. She could not get to the hospital or to a GP, and no dentist was prepared to come and attend to her in the home. I have been in touch with the integrated care board, and we are trying to sort this issue out, but there does not appear to be any particular duty to provide in these sorts of circumstances. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement so that we can clarify the situation?
- Hansard source
Energy Costs
National Grid is going to spend about £30 billion by the end of the decade building pylons, but only 2% of the steel used to build those pylons will be British; similarly, in the offshore wind projects, only 2% of the steel will be British. That is because of carbon taxes and energy costs. Does the Minister recognise that rather than promoting the opportunity of the great, green revolution that they were espousing earlier, the Government are actually killing British business with high energy costs?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Minister’s magnificent waistcoat reminds me that last night I was at the grand opening of Tulip Treasures Florist on Shepperton high street in my constituency. Will the Minister wish young Rhiannon, who is taking that brave step, every success in her endeavours?
- Hansard source
US National Security Strategy
I spent about five years, on and off, working in the Ministry of Defence, and we had a saying: plans without resources are hallucinations. On 8 September, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) that the Defence investment plan would be published “in the autumn.” Some people think autumn ends on 30 November; others, being generous, say it ends on 21 December. Will the Minister tell us today when the defence investment plan will be published, given that, in her words, national security is the Government’s “first priority”?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I welcome the Leader of the House’s opening remarks about charities. Spelthorne Dementia Support does outstanding work throughout my constituency, so I was delighted when it was given the King’s award for voluntary service in the recent list. It occurred to me that all hon. Members will have similar charities so awarded, and it would be fantastic to have an annual debate in Government time on the King’s award for voluntary service so that all hon. Members across the House could celebrate in the same way as I am celebrating Spelthorne Dementia Support.
- Hansard source
Foreign Interference
The Minister mentioned the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, of course, appointed Lord Mandelson to be our ambassador in America. For those seven months, someone had politically fatal kompromat on Lord Mandelson. I am not asking the Minister to give away any secrets, but could he tell us that he has personally investigated whether the presence of that kompromat left Lord Mandelson subject to foreign influence, or whether he knows the answer to that question one way or the other?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
May we have a debate on capital expenditure in the NHS? All our constituents will see the tax announcements and then think that that means extra investment. In south Wiltshire, we are still waiting for the elective day surgery announcement to take place. We have been told that it is on hold and that work is trying to be done for less money, while the wards have buckets collecting water. It is pretty important that people understand the process of allocation to actually see the effect on the ground, and that would be valuable for all of us.
- Hansard source
St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs
St Andrew was a guest at my wedding. No, I am not that old— I just look that way. Italia ’90 will be remembered by most for “Nessun Dorma”, Totò Schillaci and—my sympathies—England going out on penalties to Germany, but for me it was not about football; it was in Italy in 1990 that, in secret, I got married. The ceremony was held in Amalfi, under a portrait of a bearded St Andrew who looked rather like Matthew Goode as Inspector Carl Morck in “Dept. Q”. Most of St Andrew’s relics reside in Amalfi, having been moved there for safekeeping after the fourth crusade and the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Some think that Andrew brought Christianity to Scotland, but that was St Ninian, whose first footfall and church were in Whithorn, in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway. So much for history. What has Andrew done for us lately? I have often thought that St Andrew’s day suffers a bit because of the date: 30 November tends to be dreich, in the slough of despond between Halloween and Christmas. I also think that we make rather too little of it—compare it with the global Irish celebration of St Patrick’s day and, increasingly, the festivities on St George’s day. Scotland should look ahead and not back, so while we are refreshing our take on St Andrew’s day, might we also move away from the dirge that is “Flower of Scotland” as our anthem, with its maudlin fixation on days that are past and “in the past…must remain”? The SNP needs to snap out of it, too. Scotland’s wars of independence are long over, Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” is most certainly not a documentary—that may trigger woad rage—and Scotland is no colony, but as one with Britain. However, this Labour Government need to look again at their relationship with Holyrood. The much-vaunted reset between Westminster and Holyrood is just “devolve and forget” with better PR. Money is trolleyed north with little care for what happens once it is in SNP coffers. The nationalists oppose devolution; whether it is throwing a spanner in the works of defence firms by refusing to fund ordnance or a de facto boycott of our ally Israel, they will agitate in any way they can to break up Britain. Andrew was a fisherman before becoming a disciple—he of all people knew the value of mending your nets. Is it too much to ask of this Labour Government that they tend to the fabric of the Union? This is not about putting Holyrood in its place, but about delivering on what the people of Scotland voted for in 2014: remaining part of this great United Kingdom.
- Hansard source
Foreign Interference
Who is in charge of our national security, and who is a risk to our national security? Those are simple questions, but the answers are tough to determine. Take China, for example: this Labour Government are attempting to ride multiple horses—or should that be dragons? Whatever decision is taken on Beijing, it should be shaped here in this place, for perhaps no other foreign policy area is so delicate and holds such peril for national security. Yet blundering into the powder keg of Anglo-Sino relations comes the SNP. Despite having no remit in foreign policy, Scottish Government Minister Richard Lochhead undertook a stealthy visit to Beijing in April under the cloak of trade promotion. What occurred is hard to determine, but worryingly it has since emerged that First Minister John Swinney gave what might be loosely called a letter of comfort to Chinese firm Ming Yang as it seeks to insert itself—possible kill switches and all—into our critical energy infrastructure. Alongside fellow Scottish Conservative MPs, I have signed a letter to the Security Minister asking what effect Mr Swinney opening up this new front might have on UK national security and international trade. That is in part because the Scottish Government have a dreadful track record in this area. Embarrassingly, former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon inked a deal with Chinese firms in 2016. She boasted of a $10 billion boost, but that deal fell apart when corruption concerns emerged regarding one of the firm’s parent companies. There is more. John Swinney is just back from Dublin, where he was incorrectly hailed as the first head of a Government to meet the new President, Catherine Connolly. Although they style themselves as the Scottish Government, Holyrood are a devolved Administration—small beer, Madam Deputy Speaker, or perhaps small stout. But make no mistake: the missive from the Áras an Uachtaráin, the House of the President, cocked a snook at this House. Worse, Mr Swinney also met Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald. The Northern Ireland Secretary confirmed to me that the Windsor agreement allows for such discussions if they are confined to devolved matters, but Miss McDonald bragged, “We discussed our aims for constitutional change and will continue to work together.” As the House knows, the constitutional aims of the Shinners—so democratic that they dodge scrutiny in this place—are to damage Britain by ripping Northern Ireland out of the Union, and the constitutional aim of the SNP is to defy the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and to tear Scotland from that same Union. As Labour stands idly by, the SNP has created an effective boycott of our ally Israel. Former First Minister Humza Yousaf seems more concerned about Gaza than about Glasgow Pollok, which he is actually meant to represent as an MSP. Meanwhile, the SNP’s lack of financial support has undermined the defence industry north of the border to the extent that the Defence Secretary has called them “a threat to our security”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 620.], so the threats to our national security are not all external. When will this Labour Government stop facilitating the Scottish Government’s damaging shadow foreign policy, show some backbone, and stop Britain being undermined by John Swinney—the pound-shop Parnell—and his fellow travellers?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
A key theme of business questions has been the need for the Government and, indeed, the whole country to be resolute in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine. In that context, I know the whole House will want to join me again in expressing our profound sorrow for the death of Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment. He was clearly an exemplary soldier. We salute his courage and his service, and we send our deep regrets and condolences to his friends and family. You will have noted, Mr Speaker, that I have inaugurated a chink-of-light moment at business questions, recognising a time when, accidentally, deliberately or under compulsion, the Government have done something right. Last week, they quite rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill. In that same spirit, I express my very strong support for work under way on the need for European nations to collaborate on immobilising, freezing and utilising Russian financial assets for the benefit of Ukraine. Will the Leader of the House make inquiries with the relevant Ministers to ensure that the Government are taking every conceivable measure to do the same immobilisation, freezing and utilisation for any Russian assets controlled by UK financial institutions or passing through the jurisdiction of the City of London? I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a fan of the film “Casablanca”. The House will recall the immortal moment in which the morally flexible chief of police, Captain Renault, professes himself “Shocked, shocked” to discover that there is gambling going on in Rick’s casino, even while he trousers his own winnings. So it is with the Chancellor, who told the Treasury Committee this week of how angry and upset she was at the level of leaking of the Budget that had taken place. It was, as she put it, “incredibly damaging”, and she had initiated an immediate leak inquiry. I do not think that I am revealing a state secret in telling the House that that inquiry will not name any individuals as responsible or, indeed, discover that anyone was at fault at all, let alone in the nest of singing skylarks now occupying Downing Street. It is, however, offensive to think that the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility can investigate and review the leak there and resign within a matter of hours while this nonsense drags on. We must therefore conclude that, as with Captain Renault, the whole thing is a sham confected for the benefit of the Government. Even so, it is quite a revealing sham. One does not normally think of the Chancellor as a philosopher of language—though doubtless that will soon be added to her CV—but she drew an interesting distinction in her testimony between what she called authorised and unauthorised leaks. What, one might ask, is an authorised leak supposed to be? Given how damaging leaks are to the markets, should we think of authorised leaks as somehow not having those damaging effects? Under some circumstances, the act of leaking can itself be a criminal offence, or does that apply only to unauthorised leaks? If it does, perhaps someone should inform the Metropolitan police. I ask the Leader of the House to encourage the Chancellor to complete her inquiry within days and to make a statement to the House once the inquiry has reported, setting out its approach and results and explaining in plain English what an authorised leak is supposed to be. Let me go further. Thanks to some excellent—indeed, forensic—detective work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), it appears that two Government leak inquiries are still outstanding many months after they were launched. The first is in the Department for Education on the leaking of the tuition fee increases, dating back a full year to November 2024, and the second is in the Cabinet Office on the leaking of the Prime Minister’s defence statement in February—a topic on which you, Mr Speaker, had some very pithy words for the premier. It is a total embarrassment to the Government that these leak inquiries are still outstanding after so long. They underline what a charade this whole process has become. I cannot imagine that the Leader of the House feels any differently about all of this, so will he please sort it out as soon as possible?
- Hansard source
National Plan to End Homelessness
I welcome the ambition to end homelessness and pay tribute to the Purfleet Trust, King’s Lynn Night Shelter, the borough council and other groups that are working hard and collaborating to end rough sleeping and homelessness. How will this strategy and the resources help to support their efforts and focus on intervention and prevention and providing more local accommodation?
- Hansard source
Oil Refining Sector
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this timely and important debate. I pay tribute to him for his work in standing up for workers, not just at Prax Lindsey but across his constituency and his region—his energy estuary. I also thank the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for his wise words. We can support all energies; it is not an either/or. We must not run down the oil, gas and liquid fuel sector just for the want of achieving a target. In 2025 alone, we have lost two of the UK’s six remaining refineries, with thousands of well-paid workers losing their jobs in the supply chain. Grangemouth and Prax Lindsey have closed, but not because we need any less petrol, diesel, jet fuel or heating oil—just as we will not need any less ethylene after the Mossmorran plant closed in Fife, or any less oil and gas when this Government wilfully shut down the North sea, destroying jobs in communities such as mine in Aberdeenshire. As the Minister knows, we will simply become more dependent on foreign imports, lose billions of pounds in tax receipts that could support our public services, and destroy hundreds of thousands of skilled jobs in parts of the country that need them the most. We will, as the Minister also knows, strangle our domestic production and then import more products from countries with far higher emissions. We will offshore our carbon, offshore our jobs and offshore our security, all so that the Secretary of State can boast of global leadership at COP. No one is going to want to follow our lead if we make ourselves poorer and less secure. We will become a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world. It is ideology over national interest. As Labour’s friends in the unions say, it amounts to exporting jobs in order to import virtue. The production at Prax Lindsey will now be replaced by imports from other countries. Ineos will retain its ethylene and propylene production at Grangemouth, but will now import ethane on huge diesel-chugging container ships from across the Atlantic. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain how that is going to reduce global carbon emissions. Rian Chad Whitton has produced a fantastic report for the Prosperity Institute in which he explains in detail how high energy costs and carbon taxes are crippling heavy industry in the UK, but particularly our refineries. We spend a lot of time in this House talking about electricity—as we should, because our electricity prices are the highest in the world, and this Government are locking us and our constituents into higher prices for longer in the upcoming allocation round 7 auction—but what we often miss in our debates is that only a small proportion of our current energy consumption is from electricity. The vast majority of it comes from other fuels such as natural gas, and that is particularly true for our heavy industry and refining sector. When refineries use natural gas to produce their products, they are subject to a carbon tax on every unit of CO2 they release. Refineries have no choice but to use natural gas, because no other fuel can do the job that natural gas does in their processes. Many other countries charge a much lower carbon tax, or—when it comes to our competitors for refined products, such as in the US, India or the Gulf—charge no carbon tax at all. The carbon tax imposed on our industry through the emissions trading scheme makes it significantly harder for refineries to do business in the UK, increases costs for consumers and makes our industry less competitive. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it; they can listen to the UK chair of ExxonMobil, which runs the Fawley refinery in Southampton. At the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee recently, he said: “the majority of…petrol and diesel imported into this country, is produced in the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and India…They have lower energy costs, lower labour costs and zero CO2 costs…Fawley refinery this year will spend between £70 million and £80 million on CO2 costs alone. In the next four or five years that will increase to £150 million. You tell me of another industry where you can afford to have a £150 million cost burden on a single producing unit and expect it to remain competitive for the long term. It is an absolute catastrophe waiting to happen”. In his report for the Prosperity Institute, Rian calculates that at Prax Lindsey, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, the cost of the carbon tax alone amounted to 120% of the operating profit. How on earth can any refinery survive in that environment? Things would be bad enough, but Ministers are not intent on making them even worse. Their decision to align the UK carbon tax with the EU’s more expensive one has increased the price that our industry pays by about 70% in the space of just a year. Why are they doing this? Ministers talk about EU alignment as if it is inevitable, but it is not. They control the market. They choose how many allowances they release. They could choose not to align with the EU and keep control of our own carbon market. Increasing the carbon tax is a political choice that is already causing production costs to soar at refineries in Pembroke, Fawley, Stanlow and the Humber, and that has increased the cost of everybody’s electricity bill, too. Labour Members should know that electricity bills have increased by £2 billion this year alone because of the Government’s choice of alignment. The carbon tax is charged on gas-fired power generation too, and it is passed straight through to our constituents in wholesale electricity prices. That is exactly why the Conservatives have said that we will axe the carbon tax as part of our cheap power plan, to cut everybody’s electricity bills instantly by 20%. The soaring carbon tax is crippling the refining sector. Will the Minister explain how refineries are supposed to survive when the Government are planning to increase the carbon tax between now and 2050? Is it the Government’s plan to have a carbon tax of £147 a tonne in 2030, as set out in the National Energy System Operator report? If not, will she disown her party’s claim that the NESO report shows that the clean power 2030 plan is achievable? Will the Government scrap their plan to align with the EU carbon tax scheme, which would lock us into ever higher carbon prices with no control? Will the Minister commit to increasing the number of free allowances given to the refining sector to shield it from at least some of the burden? Refining is viable only when the raw product to refine is abundant and cheap. We cannot run a refinery on warm words about net zero and promises of green jobs that never materialise. We need crude oil and natural gas, so let us consider what is happening to the domestic oil and gas sector under this Government. Production is down, and falling at an accelerating rate; the cessation of production and decommissioning is being brought forward; investment is going overseas; 1,000 jobs a month are being lost from producers, operators and the supply chain, and no exploration wells were drilled in the UK North sea last year, for the first time since the 1960s. Why is this happening? Because the Government have banned new licences and continue—choose to continue—to keep the energy profits levy and tax UK oil and gas production at a higher rate than any other comparable basin. How can UK companies possibly compete when paying tax at 78%? There are no longer windfall prices or windfall profits, so why are companies still having to pay windfall taxes? The Government’s short-term and idealistic policies on the North sea have an impact everywhere: they impact jobs, livelihoods, households, businesses and industries across the country. Does the Minister understand the anger and frustration in communities like mine in Gordon and Buchan, and throughout the energy sector, at the Prime Minister’s words about the EPL last week? People are losing their livelihoods and their ability to support their families because of the Government’s political choice to shut down the oil and gas sector. To hear that the Prime Minister does not even understand the policy that he is imposing, which is causing so much harm, is a complete slap in the face for energy communities across the country. Can the Minister confirm for the record that the Prime Minister was wrong to say that the windfall tax kicks in when there are excessive profits? Will she confirm that there is no longer any windfall left to tax?
- Hansard source
Oil Refining Sector
I absolutely will, so I will end on that point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I find the what-aboutery from Government Members extraordinary. They seem to think that because something has happened in the past, it is okay for something else to happen now. The Government are shutting down the UK oil and gas sector because they keep taxing it. Jobs such as those lost at Grangemouth are being lost every single week across the country as a result. If the hon. Member thinks that is okay, he should say so, but I do not think it is okay, and that is why I am fighting against it.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
May we have a debate in Government time on the quality of parcel delivery services? Prompted by constituents, just last night I asked about Evri on Facebook. I have more than 100 responses already, most of them negative, sadly. Amid the gloom, one name did stand out, and that was Patrington’s Evri delivery superstar, Rachel McVitie, who goes above and beyond to make sure that parcels arrive safely and on time and seems universally beloved in the village, so it is good to mark that. Although some individuals provide that exceptional service, too many customers, particularly in rural areas, are facing problems with parcel delivery at Christmas. Will the Leader of the House consider granting time for a debate so we can explore what more can be done to ensure consistent, high-quality delivery services across the country?
- Hansard source
National Plan to End Homelessness
I thank the Minister for her remarks and for advance sight of her statement. This is the third time that I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue of homelessness with the Minister in the last seven weeks. I do not doubt that all hon. and right hon. Members here today share a strong desire to end rough sleeping and homelessness for good. Homelessness is a social tragedy wherever and for whatever reason it occurs. No one in our society should be forced to live on the streets, and it is incumbent on us all to do our best to ensure that our constituents can live in a safe, decent and secure home. The Minister’s reference to the horrendous figure of how many men, women and children have died while being homeless is a poignant reminder of why decisive action is critical. Although progress to that end was made under the previous Government, work remains to be done, and I offer my full support to the Government in their desire to end homelessness once and for all. As policymakers have increasingly come to appreciate, homelessness does not simply begin when someone finds themselves on the street. Rather, it is rooted in long-term causes. For example, some people have persistent issues with mental health or substance abuse, offenders may be stuck between prison and the streets with no place to go, or young people may leave the care system without a fixed destination. I am pleased that inspiration for cross-departmental working has been taken from the previous Government’s “Ending Rough Sleeping For Good” strategy, which brought seven Departments from across the Government together. The previous Government implemented StreetLink to provide more support for those who are sleeping rough or those concerned with someone who is sleeping rough. It connects local authorities and charities, and provides quicker support to those who need it most. We welcome the Government’s taking action, but we need to see details of how the plan will be implemented in the long term to achieve their goals. Homelessness has reached a record high in the past year, with the number of households including children in temporary accommodation surging to historic highs. St Mungo’s estimates that long-term rough sleeping is up by 27% in London. It is vital that the Government look at the wider picture to see all the connected pressures. Only by making a concerted effort to reduce the cost of living and make private housing more affordable will the Government get people out of temporary accommodation and into secure, long-term homes of their own. However, the Government are determined to spend ever increasing amounts on welfare, increase taxes and make it harder to employ people, and they must square that with the negative impact on people’s jobs. Labour promised to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament, as the Minister mentioned again today. To make good their promise, they must build 300,000 new homes per year, but with only 208,600 delivered in 2024-25, they are already 91,400 behind their self-imposed target. That does not bode well for the future. The homelessness strategy has only just been published, and we will of course study it carefully, but I have some initial questions for the Minister. With the Government demonstrably failing to meet their housing targets, what guarantee is there that they will meet their new target on homelessness and halving long-term rough sleeping? How will they make that promise cast-iron? The Government are pushing more responsibility on to local authorities by requiring them to publish action plans, in addition to the homelessness strategy. How will that help? Will it just result in more paperwork? The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), promised to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. Is that still the plan? If it is, will the Minister set out a clear timeline? The strategy mentions various new targets. What metrics will the Government use to assess the success or otherwise of the strategy? Will the Government report back to Parliament on progress regularly, and if so, with what frequency? We all want the strategy to work. In that spirit, His Majesty’s Opposition will engage constructively with the plan and scrutinise it as it is implemented.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Leader of the House will share my disappointment at the Scottish Government’s illogical and wrong-headed approach to nuclear power, which means that the former Chapelcross site in my constituency cannot be considered for a new nuclear power station. I hope that, like me, he welcomes the announcement from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority that there is to be a strategic partnership with CX Power, with the hope of turning the site into a green energy hub producing hydrogen. While that might not be the nuclear power station that my constituents would wish to have, I hope that it will bring the skilled jobs that the power station did for over 60 years.
- Hansard source
St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate, which gives us an opportunity to consider some of the important issues facing Scotland. As a Member of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, I was very disappointed not to have the opportunity to take part in the debate reflecting on 25 years of devolution, because I wanted to pay tribute to three colleagues whom we lost over the summer. The first is Sir George Reid, who was the second Presiding Officer. Although an SNP Member, Sir George always put the Parliament ahead of politics. Indeed, I voted for him in the 1999 election for Presiding Officer against party advice, which was to support Lord Steel. I have never regretted that decision. I also pay tribute to my colleague Jamie McGrigor, who was one of the great characters of the Scottish Parliament. Many a night was spent—after parliamentary proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker—with his guitar and several drinks consumed. Finally, I pay tribute to my constituent, the late Ian Jenkins, who was the first Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, a Liberal Democrat Member of the Parliament and a very well-respected figure. Even when he left the Scottish Parliament, he played an enormous part in the community across the Borders, and he is greatly missed by all who knew him. It may surprise Members to hear that for my constituents, this is not the single most important debate taking place at the moment, or the one that will most affect them, because at this very moment, SNP-led Dumfries and Galloway council is proposing that £68 million be invested in a flood prevention scheme in Dumfries. Only a few months ago, that scheme was to cost £25 million. The cost of the scheme has ballooned, with no proper explanation, to £68 million. There may be a few moments left in which to influence councillors, if I have any influence at all with them, so I urge them to reject that proposal, which, in my view, would be a criminal waste of money for a council that is closing rural schools and struggling to provide basic services, such as maintaining our roads. I hope that my plea makes it across the ether to Dumfries.
- Hansard source
St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs
I am sure that we do not want to go down the blind alley of a long discussion about this flood prevention scheme, but it was the subject of a public inquiry, because—this is one of the most important parts of the issue—it does not command public support. That, in my view, is the reason why there have been numerous delays and it has not been progressed. Today is the opportunity to end all the uncertainty and say, “No, this project is not going ahead.” But of course, in our democracy, it will be for councillors to decide, and we will respect their decision. As all of us representing constituencies in Scotland know only too well, the story of the past two decades of SNP government has been one of stagnation, mismanagement and, in many cases, outright failure in stewardship of our public services. Education standards in Scotland’s schools are on the slide. We have fewer police on the streets, and those streets and roads are in a poor state of repair, as vital transport infrastructure does not receive the investment that it needs. But of all Scotland’s public services, few are under such intolerable strain as our NHS. Just a few weeks ago, the SNP’s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care was boasting of cutting NHS waiting times, while ignoring the fact that there are now 86,000 cases of patients who have been stuck for more than a year on waiting lists. That is higher than in 2022, when the Scottish Government pledged to “eradicate” the problem by September 2024. More than a year on from that broken promise, SNP Ministers are claiming that they will wipe out waits of over 12 months, this time by March next year—conveniently, just in time for May’s election.
- Hansard source
St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that change in Scotland is the theme of my speech, because I agree that we desperately need it. In relation to SNP promises, we have heard it all before. Year in, year out, SNP boasts about bringing down waiting times ring hollow in the ears of patients whose experience is of being left to languish on those very same lists. It is not just on waiting times that the nationalists have let Scotland’s patients down. Emergency departments—the service people turn to in their most desperate hours—are overwhelmed. A year ago, more than 76,000 people waited over 12 hours in A&E before getting treatment, compared with just 784 in 2011.
- Hansard source
St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs
As Members across the Chamber know, this is a well-used SNP tactic of constant comparison with other places, rather than focusing on the SNP Government’s delivery compared with their promises. It is clear that there is a huge discrepancy between what has been promised by the Scottish Government and what has been delivered.
- Hansard source
St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs
I do. What the hon. Lady points to is the shuffling of figures that we have just seen, so that the best figures are presented, but those 86,000 people I mentioned who have been on waiting lists for more than a year are erased from the debate. It is all about smoke and mirrors. Analysis of this astonishing increase in waiting times by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine found that it has likely contributed to more than 1,000 needless deaths, despite the best efforts of frontline staff who have been failed by the SNP’s inaction. And what of the strain on those hard-working NHS workers? Last year, data revealed that NHS frontline staff were forced to cover understaffed shifts on 348,675 occasions. That is hundreds of thousands of times when there were simply not enough staff on hospital wards and in other care settings to meet Scotland’s healthcare needs. A recent report by the Royal College of Nursing Scotland warned that over the year to May 2025, “at no point has NHS Scotland employed the number of nursing staff needed to deliver safe and effective care.” The warning signs have been there for years, but the Scottish Government have failed to act on workforce planning, and it is patients and health service workers who are paying the price of that failure. Of course, the healthcare crisis in Scotland is not restricted to our hospitals. Anyone who represents a rural constituency like mine will be acutely aware of the often severe pressure on GP services, where face-to-face appointments can be difficult to obtain, and that is to say nothing of the near impossible job of getting registered with an NHS dentist. In Dumfries and Galloway, which has one of the worst rates of NHS dental registration, more than 40% of residents are not registered with a dentist. That is not because they do not want to be, but because practices are not taking on new patients, and thousands of existing patients have been deregistered.