G20 and Ukraine
What indication was there that Putin would accept even the earlier iteration of this agreement?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
COP30
Is it not a cruel confidence trick to suggest that 1.5°C is still achievable, when it manifestly is not? Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency confirmed 2.9°C by 2100 as its central scenario and that a 2.5°C increase by 2050 was totally unrealistic and unachievable. Would the Government not be better off spending our taxpayers’ money on adapting to the realities—increasing resilience and ensuring we improve our flood defences and so on—and preparing for the inevitable, instead of continuing to punish the British people?
- Hansard source
G20 and Ukraine
Does the Prime Minister agree with many assessments that make it clear that Russia is actually in a far weaker position than President Putin pretends, so long as we continue to support the war effort in Ukraine? That depends on us developing more independent, non-American capability, and the best way to do that is to fund the Ukrainians to develop their own capabilities so that they can continue to defend their own country.
- Hansard source
G20 and Ukraine
The Prime Minister’s role in marshalling European co-operation is essential and very welcome, but would it not be obscene and unconscionable for any country—indeed, one of the permanent five at the United Nations—to invade its neighbour and murder its citizens, and to get away with it and profit from it, let alone to rejoin the G7? Have we not seen this film before? Do we not know how it ends?
- Hansard source
COP30
If I may, I will focus on the international rather than domestic aspects. I welcome the Secretary of State’s ecumenical approach in respect of the work of the former Government. I have been going to COPs since Copenhagen in 2009, with the last one being COP28 in the UAE, and I do wonder whether, at least in their current form, they are worth continuing. They are hugely expensive jamborees; hydrocarbon interests are distorting the original aim of COP; the wealthy countries are increasingly in the dock, but have decreasing money available. On the wider aspect, it is the poorest people in the world who suffer first and hardest from climate change. There is no doubt that the appalling humanitarian crisis in Darfur is exacerbated by climate change, yet we are doing very little about that.
- Hansard source
G20 and Ukraine
Signals matter. Right now, Putin thinks he is getting his own way but, as a point of principle, would the Prime Minister sit around a table if the indicted war criminal Putin was sitting at it?
- Hansard source
Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes
I thank you for chairing the debate, Sir Edward, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for allowing Members the opportunity to discuss the impact of the reforms on humanitarian visa routes. I also congratulate him on his recent appointment as patron of Hong Kong Watch, an organisation that has done a great deal to scrutinise successive Governments and to help to communicate essential information to those from Hong Kong who have sought refuge. He joins an illustrious collection of individuals, including current and former elected officials from across the House. The humanitarian visa route set up under the previous Government sought to recognise the scale of the crisis we experienced at the onset of this decade, whether that be the reprehensible invasion of Ukraine or the complete mistreatment of the existing rights of Hongkongers, which breached commitments enshrined in international agreements and law. I think Members from all parties would almost unanimously agree that it was right that such schemes were set up, and that it was necessary to put forward an offer to ensure that those in great danger, and to whom we have a historic responsibility, received protection. When we reflect on the context of such schemes, it is right that the immigration reforms appreciate the context. As such, I reiterate that the Conservative proposals on the change to settlement, which were made months before the Government’s own, always stated that they would have no impact on BNO visas and those from Ukraine, given the unique nature of those routes. Many constituents have reached out to me in fear that this Government would not continue that position. As mentioned, the Government announced last week that those on BNO routes would not be impacted by the changes to settlement. That finally gives them and many others the clarity they have been asking for. It also raises the question of why the Government could not have offered sufficient clarity earlier. Despite the unnecessary delay, I welcome the Government’s decision, and I echo the sentiment expressed by those in the community who are very pleased to see it. As we consider settlement, it is worth acknowledging the work done on the BNO visa. The previous Government not only instituted a scheme that has seen thousands of people come to this country—with over 166,000 people having arrived in the UK as of June 2025—but brought forward support for those who came. That included funding for 12 welcome hubs across the UK and demand-led funding for local authorities to provide English language and destitution support in England. That work underscores the seriousness with which the Conservative party viewed the integration of this community.
- Hansard source
Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes
I think we would like to hear from the Minister, so I will push on. Although it is unsurprising, given the continuing restrictions on freedom, the fact that the Government assume that those who arrive on the BNO route will settle after five years, and that those who switch on to the route will also settle after five years, demonstrates that the route has been broadly successful. A qualitative study of the visa route for MHCLG showed that participant responses overall suggested they felt supported by the UK Government, and people with BNO visas were grateful for the existence of the route. I appreciate that specific challenges and difficulties remain, such as the need for greater engagement with programmes to improve integration. Nevertheless, we can already see some of the immense contributions that those who came through the pathway are making both to this country and to the Hong Kong diaspora. For example, only recently Chloe Cheung won the 2025 Magnitsky award for outstanding young human rights activist. She is one of the numerous people, including young individuals, who have had bounties placed on their heads by the Chinese Government for exercising their democratic rights. The complete undermining of the safety of those individuals and of the UK’s sovereignty is wholly unacceptable, but it is welcome that those individuals are resolutely fighting for the values that underpin the necessity of the visa. However, as has been expressed in the debate, questions still remain about what the Government’s broader changes will mean for this community. What will BNO visa holders and their dependants need to demonstrate in respect of new income or economic contribution requirements? Will the current English language standard for settlement on the BNO route be maintained at B1, or will it be B2? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those born after 1997 have protection? I appreciate that those questions do not necessarily have simple answers but, given the concerns about the lack of clarity expressed recently by the community, it would be helpful if the Minister could outline answers to those matters. Ultimately, we believe there is a great deal more to do to reduce levels of legal migration, so changes to settlement are appropriate. However, as is the case with many such changes, there will be an impact, and transparency about the precise impact will always be welcome. I hope the Minister will agree that the Government should do as much as possible to express clearly the impact of the changes on people who have come to the UK through humanitarian routes.
- Hansard source
Pension Investment in UK Equities
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this important debate. Given his experience as a Treasury Minister for many years, it has been a pleasure to hear his thoughts on this issue. My right hon. Friend could not have chosen a better time for this debate, given tomorrow’s Budget. Let us hope that private pension holders are not penalised in comparison with public sector pension holders. Amid all the drama of the Budget, let us not forget that the Pension Schemes Bill comes back on Report next week. Having sat on that Bill Committee, I concur with my right hon. Friend’s point about the need for pension education. That came up many times during the debate, as did the vast majority of what he spoke about. It is really important to expand people’s imagination about where they can invest. It is not just about educating young people; it is about educating people in their 30s, 40s and 50s about where they can invest their money, particularly given what we are likely to hear in the Budget tomorrow. I would potentially be interested in having a conversation about where I can invest my money. Anyway, I do not have that much, so let us crack on with the debate. Having listened to the speeches this afternoon and during our consideration of the Pension Schemes Bill, I know that there is an obvious consensus across the House on this issue. For one reason or another, pension schemes do not feel confident to invest directly into the UK equity market. The facts do not lie. Over the past 10 years, the proportion of private sector defined contribution assets being invested in the UK equity market has fallen from around 30% to 6%. In 2006, around 32% of defined benefit assets were invested in UK equities; by 2023, that had fallen below 2% in favour of UK gilts. As the Financial Times reported, even the Financial Conduct Authority’s own pension scheme invests only around 4% in UK equities. These statistics are all the more stark when one considers that, from 2012, total global investment in equities from UK private sector workplace DC schemes has increased from 70% to 76%. It is not that pension schemes do not want to invest in equities, but something has changed that has made the UK equity market less attractive than others, and we need to figure out what has happened. I know that everyone in this Chamber agrees on that; indeed, we have heard some solutions during the debate. The pensions investment review was a welcome first step in looking at this, and we are glad that many of the recommendations are now in the Pension Schemes Bill. I want to be clear that we support the spirit of the Mansion House accord, which expands on the Mansion House compact that the right hon. Member for Salisbury helped to introduce in 2023. It seeks to persuade those in charge of DC schemes to invest in UK equities, and we think that is reasonable. However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that we still do not support the reserve mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill. While we are behind the spirit of the measure, we cannot support something that goes against trustees’ fiduciary duties. As the Minister has said many times, better returns for members are what is most important, and we agree wholeheartedly with that. However, does forcing pension funds to invest in what the Government wants them to invest in yield the best returns for members? The answer is probably not. It is no wonder that the industry is so heavily opposed to these powers, and that we are yet to hear a convincing argument for their implementation. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide a more convincing one. It seems counterintuitive for the Government to secure the commitment that they did in the Mansion House accord, and only months later bring in this measure. What makes it more confusing is that the Minister said in a recent interview on the “Making Money” podcast, “I don’t think I’m going to need to use that power…because I see the industry changing.” What is the point, if industry is changing in the way the Government want? Would it not be better to work with industry and give it a chance to reach the target, instead of holding the sword of Damocles over its head? Instead, we need to engage with the industry and acquire a better understanding of the barriers it faces. For example, has legislation created an unattractive environment? Have we been too willing to legislate following the Maxwell scandal? Have the UK’s regulators gone too far and over-interpreted legislation? Are they getting rid of reasonable risk in the market in the pursuit of perfection? What has changed in the market that has contributed to that decline? Do the unbundling rules in the markets in financial instruments directive mean that the UK has not got the necessary equity research or data capabilities to attract investment? These are the kinds of questions that need answering before we give the Government such sweeping powers. A doctor would not operate on a patient if they had not properly diagnosed their symptoms—that would be considered malpractice—so why are we trying to solve an important problem without really knowing what is causing it in the first place? For those reasons, the Conservatives will be tabling an amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill to ask just that question. Our amendment will simply ask the Government to include in their report an analysis of the barriers that pension funds are facing from legislation, regulation and market behaviour. We think that it is essential to obtain, understand and resolve this information before even considering the introduction of mandation powers. We hope the Minister agrees and will see our proposal in the constructive manner in which it is intended. I would welcome his thoughts on it. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there is much agreement on this wider issue and on the need to create an environment that will incentivise investment into the UK. I know the Minister understands that, and we want to work with him to improve the attractiveness of the UK’s equity market and reinvigorate pension funds’ appetite to invest in it. If we get this right, we could really make a difference. Now is the time to do the hard graft, to work together while this Government last and to make the UK the place to invest in again.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Order. The time limit for speeches is now three minutes.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be here for the wind-ups. That is a notice. I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but she has most definitely put her point on the record.
- Hansard source
Uckfield Community Hospital Surgical Unit
I call my constituency neighbour, Mims Davies.
- Hansard source
Uckfield Community Hospital Surgical Unit
The hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) is a strong campaigner on behalf of Uckfield community hospital and its services, which my constituents in Sussex Weald will have used and would want to use, so I too look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
- Hansard source
G20 and Ukraine
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and our support remains unwavering. Ukraine is battling the most flagrant breach of territorial integrity in Europe in recent times. We must never forget that the war was started by Putin, who is trying to extinguish a democracy on our own continent. It is important that we stand together to defend the principle that aggressors should not succeed. The previous Conservative Government led Europe in support for Ukraine. We were the first country to provide modern, western-made battle tanks and to gift munitions and Storm Shadow missiles. We led the way on sanctions and trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on UK soil. It is now incumbent on this Government to leverage British influence at this crucial time for the west. Putin’s relentless bombardment of Kyiv and KGB-style negotiating tactics show he is not serious about peace, which is why Russia must not be welcomed back into the international fold without a comprehensive peace agreement. Will the Prime Minister rule out support for readmitting Russia to the G7? We all want this terrible war to end, and as the Prime Minister rightly said, elements of that draft 28-point plan were unacceptable. Conservatives are clear that the blanket surrender of Ukrainian territory would mean rewarding Putin’s unprovoked aggression. What is the Government’s position on reports that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is on the table? If Putin is seen to emerge stronger from these negotiations, all our potential adversaries will be emboldened. Let us be in no doubt, the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to destabilise the west, aided by China, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops for Putin. It is precisely for these reasons that the Government must continue to work extremely closely with the US and to understand its objectives. Parties such as the Lib Dems and the Greens, who are encouraging us to decouple from the US, are putting their anti-American prejudice above national security. Also, given that in the last fortnight the Royal Navy has intercepted two Russian ships in our waters, and with Russian spy ships pointing lasers at RAF pilots, it is a disgrace that Reform is still blaming NATO for Russia’s aggression, although perhaps it should come as no surprise when its former leader in Wales was sent to prison last week for taking bribes from Putin. Earlier this year, many countries came together to form the coalition of the willing, pledging to strengthen support for Ukraine. Can the Prime Minister update us on the planning and readiness of the coalition of the willing? What is its scope and terms of mission? What can he tell us about a counter-proposal that is reportedly being submitted by the EU? To stand with Ukraine, we need to know that we can also stand on our own two feet. Last week, the Commons Defence Committee warned that Britain was unprepared for a major attack and that the Government were making “glacial” progress towards conflict readiness, so it is concerning that reports indicate that the Ministry of Defence faces a potential budget cut this financial year of £2.6 billion. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this is true or false? Meanwhile, the EU is reportedly demanding nearly €7 billion for the UK to buy into its defence fund. Conservatives warned that this would happen. At the time the UK-EU reset deal was being negotiated, the shadow Defence Secretary said that Labour had given away 12 years of British fishing rights in exchange for nothing. He was right. Will the Prime Minister rule out paying the EU for access to the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—programme? It is extremely disappointing that Europe is still buying Russian oil and gas. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and Europe should ban Russian oil and gas sooner than its current 2027 deadline. I believe that the Prime Minister agrees with that sentiment, so what pressure will he put on European countries to stop them buying Russian oil and gas? The UK’s genuinely world-leading support has made a material difference to Ukraine’s ability to fight back against Russia’s illegal invasion—support that I remind the Prime Minister began under the Conservatives. Let us not forget that, in 2022, Russia thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. So let us wake up and face that threat from Russia. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that we will be boosting our own defence capabilities, as well as using our influence to ensure that secure future for Ukraine?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Transport questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) asked the Transport Secretary whether a pay-per-mile charge would be introduced, as had been reported in the Financial Times. In response, the Transport Secretary said: “There are no proposals to introduce a national pay-per-mile scheme.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 834.] However, the Government then briefed the Daily Express, claiming that the Transport Secretary had misspoken in the Chamber. That directly contradicts what this House was told. I have checked Hansard and no correction has been made. This is especially concerning, given the guarantee made yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), that any important policy announcements would be made to this House. Can you therefore advise me how the Transport Secretary may be invited to return to clarify the Government’s true position?
- Hansard source
Cancer Services: North-west London
Mount Vernon hospital is a cancer specialist hospital in north-west London. Following the recent closure of the Mount Vernon urgent care centre and the delay to the new Watford general hospital until at least 2032, both of which I have previously raised in the Chamber, uncertainty regarding the future of Hemel Hempstead hospital now looks set to further restrict access to vital healthcare services for my constituents. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that my constituents receive the adequate access to healthcare that they deserve?
- Hansard source
Cancer Services: North-west London
Mount Vernon is next door.
- Hansard source
Uckfield Community Hospital Surgical Unit
I start by thanking, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. I know that it is unusual to allocate Adjournment debates to members of the shadow Cabinet, so I am grateful. I am delighted to be raising this important matter on behalf of my constituents. I appreciate it, and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour, will appreciate it too. Since July 2024, Uckfield community hospital has been entrusted to me as part of my changed constituency. It is one of two small but vital community hospitals in my area, the other being the award-winning Queen Victoria hospital in East Grinstead, which is going from strength to strength. We look forward to the completion of the community diagnostic centre in 2026. It is a buzzing, specialist community facility with great ratings and a vibrantly bright future. I thank all NHS staff in the various hospitals that cover my area, and the wider frontline staff who are there for us in times of need. As we approach the festive season, we are especially grateful to them. So why do we have what feels like a fragile moment for the Uckfield community hospital? It has the same caring NHS staff and high ratings, but services have been taken from the site, including the formal site manager. Those removals give a sense of great unease. I will give a little history of the site, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will already know. A local benefactor back in the 1980s—Mr Arthur Hughes, a generous local farmer—gave the land and £1 million. The League of Friends then raised a further £1 million, which was matched by the NHS, for the people of Uckfield and the surrounding villages to see the facility delivered. The hospital was officially opened in 1993 by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. The bequest has the vital inclusion of an operating theatre. This can be found in the associated covenants, and it was especially for the small surgical aspects of local day care. I have visited this fairly new, fresh-feeling, beautifully set and well-maintained community hospital on several occasions, and the welcome has always been warm and caring—local NHS staff taking great pride in their roles to support and administer to the local community. The League of Friends has long played an active part, and frankly a huge financial part, and has been a practical supporter of Uckfield hospital and the resident trust over the past years. Two examples recently include funding X-ray equipment to the tune of £186,000, and ultrasound machines at £60,000. It has not only supported the hospital, but offered extra funding to local GP surgeries, as it is the League of Friends’ philosophy that such funding benefits all local people. The League of Friends has delivered plans to help upgrade the busy minor injuries unit on site. However, with the surgical unit now mothballed—in reality, it feels like it is closing—the uncertainty is just too much for the Friends. That is reflected in the emails that I have received in the past few weeks and months—even today, ahead of this debate. Local people are worried about the site. I hope that their fears will be allayed tonight. The wonderful Linda Kenwood, the secretary of the League of Friends, has said poignantly: “To be treated in this way is very upsetting.”
- Hansard source
Uckfield Community Hospital Surgical Unit
It is a pleasure to receive an intervention from the hon. Gentleman in an Adjournment debate, and I completely agree. That is exactly what tonight’s debate is about, and I thank him for adding to it. Without a dedicated Uckfield hospital manager to pull it all together, the site has become fragmented—that is the feedback that I receive continually. I have repeatedly heard that none of the individual trusts seems to interact for the wider good of the hospital site and its patients. I have previously written to the Secretary of State for Health on this matter, as I am concerned that if any fire or substantial incident was found at the site, who ultimately would be responsible for the site as a whole and for ensuring health and safety for all? Let me take you back, Madam Deputy Speaker. I visited the hospital on 4 October 2024 to meet Danielle Gearing, a staff nurse, to see for myself the services offered at the hospital and to find out what was actually happening on behalf of my constituents. Along with the minor injuries unit, there was a full and varied range of out-patient clinics, including oncology, rheumatology, chemical pathology, dermatology, vascular, oral and maxillofacial and neurology, to name a few. Most of these clinics did include the consultant, registrar and quite often a clinical nurse specialist. Yet that list does not include the other service providers and facilities on the site, such as the health visiting team, diabetes nurses, diabetic eye screening, heart failure nurses, dietitians, cardiac rehab, Parkinson’s nurses and MS nurses. Macmillan is there. Bowel screening is there. There is hospice outreach and the AAA clinic—providing abdominal aortic aneurysm screening—and the list at Uckfield community hospital goes on. Danielle confirmed that it is a very busy out-patient department, which we hope will continue. We should not forget that at that point the hospital also had a GP surgery, a pharmacy and a mental health facility on the site. The ambulance service also runs a site close to this facility, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will say more on the pharmacy situation shortly. Out of the blue, in August 2024, the League of Friends received the following in a letter from Dr James Evans, a consultant in critical care and anaesthetics and medical examiner at East Sussex Healthcare NHS trust: “I am writing to yourselves as a Consultant within East Sussex Healthcare Trust, and Deputy Divisional director of DAS, and as a Clinical Lead for Day Surgery. I am hoping you will be able to help, and would be grateful if you could take some time to consider this email. One of my roles is Clinical Lead responsible for the newly built Sussex Surgical Centre (SSC), which is looking to be functional in March 2025. This will be a surgical Hub aiming to improve day case surgery provision across the whole region and hopefully benefiting patients and staff in East Sussex. Part of my role is related to equipment for the SSC, both ensuring we have the right stuff in place, and sourcing any essential items within a tight budget. Whilst engaged in this task, I have been made aware of some equipment within Uckfield Hospital that was kindly purchased by yourselves over the years. Some of this equipment is expensive and specialist, and extremely useful for the surgeons and whole…surgery team. I know that equipment purchased by The Friends is intended for use solely within their Hospital, but I was hoping you may be able to consider making an exception at this time. All of the equipment you have purchased (including a microscope, ultrasound machine and ECG machine) are incredibly expensive, but vital for the successful running of a DSU, and we are struggling within the constraints of our budget to purchase all of the equipment. As you know, the trust is in a dire financial position, and any help would be greatly appreciated. The items in Uckfield would go a long way to facilitating the above and would be used on a daily basis within the SSC. I am aware that I am asking a great deal from yourselves at this time but wonder if you may be open to further discussion on the subject.” This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is literally taking the family jewels in plain sight. Chris Macve, chairman of the League of Friends of Uckfield community hospital, said of their concerns about the possible removal of services from our day surgery unit that they “as yet have had no official communication from East Sussex healthcare NHS trust.” There are still various unhelpful rumours and deep concerns about what was received in this letter from James Evans, and frankly there is still no clarity for the staff, the Friends and my constituents—and your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker. For clarity, the Friends have said—this is what they know—that they “have not been told that this unit is fully closing, but you can understand our disbelief at the insensitivity and the lack of respect at receiving the news in this way. We have a perfectly good operating theatre at Uckfield, fully equipped and staffed, just sitting there doing virtually nothing.” After a number of rumours increased on 7 October 2024, the hospital staff in the surgical day unit were told unofficially that the integrated care board had agreed to a six-month closure and that they should expect a meeting at the end of October or early November in 2024. As Members can imagine, this was a real shock and morale took a massive tumble. The pilot—the mothballing—began on 2 December 2024, just before Christmas last year, and I brought to the House my worries and concerns for my constituents at that time. As Joe Chadwick-Bell, chief executive officer of East Sussex healthcare NHS trust, wrote at the time of the announcement: “Uckfield DSU cannot safely support general anaesthetic or overnight care, and does not carry out surgical procedures on patients with a higher risk of complications, such as those with complex needs, certain disabilities, significant frailty and/or certain concurrent illnesses. In those cases, even day case procedures must be carried out in an acute hospital environment where the full scope of supporting clinical services is on site. Uckfield theatre sessions are not currently well used. The reason is partly due to the safety criteria mentioned above, but also partly because some of the procedures that we previously carried out at Uckfield are no longer commissioned by the NHS. It is also because advances in care mean many of those procedures no longer need day theatres, so are delivered in normal treatment rooms. Over the course of the pilot, we will evaluate the impact of the changes and consider options for the future of day surgery at Uckfield. It is in all our interests to make the best use possible of what is a valued asset for the NHS in Sussex.” This pilot is so unfair. Frankly, the surgical unit in Uckfield was condemned to not stand a chance—with no staff, no anaesthetists and treatment figures already manoeuvred by the East Sussex healthcare trust. That is the view of staff. Another blow to the staff at the unit came at the start of 2025, when Kamsons Pharmacy closed—and left, I understand, with some clouds over the terms of its departure. Frankly, why has this happened? One year on, my residents are not taking this lying down. They have got together a local petition, which at present stands at 6,366 signatures. But it is the uncertainty that is causing local residents a great deal of stress and panic. I will be building on this petition after this debate. People need local services. They need family and friends nearby to help with operations, getting to the hospital and out of hospital, and they need care in the community—all of which this Government are committed to. My residents need answers. I have had meetings, after much pleading, with three recent chief executive officers of the integrated care board: Adam Doyle, who personally promised me and my casework team updates in early August; Mark Smith; and the newly appointed chief executive officer of NHS Sussex, Karen McDowell, who I had the most recent meeting with last week. NHS England reorganisation and staff changes have left me and my casework team in the dark, just like my constituents under this Government, who I know are committed to local community services just as I am. I stress again how important the day surgery unit is to providing local care. Uckfield hospital is a vital facility. It must not slip through our fingers. Its staff—some of whom have now retired or left in upset, anger and frustration—are worried. The CEO has kindly written to me since we met and said: “I clearly heard the commitment of you and the local people for Uckfield community hospital, and am speaking to our commissioning teams who have been working with East Sussex healthcare NHS trust around their pilot specifically on day surgery but also—and likely more importantly—our terms working to develop neighbourhood care, and the potential for this asset within its work.” I thank her for this letter and share it gratefully. To recap for the Minister, a thriving surgical day unit has been mothballed. The manager of the hospital has been taken away and not replaced. Anaesthetists have been moved elsewhere and are not accessible. Patients are now directed to other surgical sites. Staff heard out of the blue of a six-month mothballing and were given roles miles away from Uckfield. The League of Friends’ assets have been stripped from the site. A year later, we are still in the dark, with no decision taken and no ICB head willing to put their head above the parapet. We need to know what comes next. My well-loved hospital is a vital community service. Our town and area are growing at a rapid rate, with a significant amount of housing being built and due to be built. There is difficulty involved in getting around a rural area and there is an impact from the public having to get to Eastbourne. Lots of people have moved from the coast and from London and have taken the opportunity to work locally, and they expect NHS services on the doorstep. That is why I am grateful to be in the Chamber this evening to ask the Minister to look at this vital matter for me and my constituents and to do all that she can. We need this facility to thrive, with the community hospital and its wide-ranging services backed to the hilt. Crucially, we want the Uckfield day surgery back doing what it should: operating.
- Hansard source
G20 and Ukraine
And will you come back?
- Hansard source
G20 and Ukraine
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but if I may, I will caution him. I understand that the reports referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) are from a single source—an unnamed US official. I think we might be falling into a trap here, which others want us to fall into, of bouncing the Ukrainians ahead of an arbitrary deadline of Thanksgiving day. We need to ensure that officials and all of us are able to verify sources and corroborate them, even if they are reported in the mainstream media and repeated in the United Kingdom. I believe I am still allowed to ask a question. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give to the people of this country and of Ukraine that President Trump’s very bad 28-point plan will not now be replaced by a bad 19-point plan? We all know from history that Ukraine, Europe, the United Kingdom and even our allies, the United States, will rue the day that we roll over for Putin. If we reward the aggressor, history tells us and we know that they come back for more.
- Hansard source
Pension Investment in UK Equities
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the change from defined benefit to defined contribution and the impact of the taxation changes that brought that about. Would he care to comment on whether he sees that as part of an unwitting repricing of the return on risk, which has impacted not only on pension funds, but more widely? He said that pension fund investment in the market is down, but retail investment in the market overall is also down very significantly. It feels like the British people as a whole have lost their appetite for risk, and that might be because the return on risk is now too highly taxed.
- Hansard source
Pension Investment in UK Equities
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s views about mandation, as the Minister knows, but would he care to comment on its impact on the appetite for risk? We have learned from my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that since the change in taxation, the general trend in pension funds has been for managers to de-risk and to go into passive funds. If they do so, no one can complain, they are not taking any risk, they do not have to outperform or underperform the market and they get what they want. If they can pass off yet more risk to the Government and effectively sit there and get paid to be told by the Government what to invest in, they will bite the Government’s hand off, will they not?
- Hansard source
Pension Investment in UK Equities
I get the example that the Minister talks about, but I think he misunderstands or perhaps misappreciates how the retail investor thinks. They do not necessarily think, “If I put £1,000 in now, in 20 years’ time it will be worth this.” They think, “If I put £1,000 in now, what is my return going to be next year? What is my running return going to be?” And it will be a percentage return on the dividend. That is why we have a P/E—price-to-earnings—ratio for every share; that is what investors look at. If that is impaired because of taxation and the return is reduced, as it has been over the last few years, they will be less inclined to invest. That, fundamentally, is the pattern that we have seen. The Minister never says this, but in the end, people invest in listed stocks and shares, whether through their pension or otherwise, to make money. They are not doing it for the good of anybody else. They are doing it to make money, and if they are going to make less money, or the perception is that they will make less money, because of Government taxation, they will do less of it. Would he not agree?
- Hansard source
COP30
I am grateful to learn from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) that I am not the only person who was not invited to COP30. But I followed it closely and was very pleased to see the emergence of the Belém 4X agreement, which committed its signatories to quadrupling the production and deployment of sustainable fuel molecules by 2035. That would include, most importantly for the United Kingdom, green hydrogen. Unfortunately, while I could find the names of India, Italy and, obviously, Brazil on the agreement, I could not find the United Kingdom’s name. Did I miss it?
- Hansard source
Violence against Women and Girls: London
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for bringing forward this vitally important debate. She spoke bravely of her own experiences. It is foundationally important that everyone in this country is able to go about their lives in the knowledge that they will be kept safe. That includes being kept safe from the powerful—be that crooked and despicable police officers, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), or wealthy and successful businessmen such as Mohamed Al-Fayed, protected by a network of expensive lawyers. I am proud to join the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) as an officer of the newly launched all-party parliamentary group for survivors of Fayed and Harrods. Given the particular physical threats that women and girls can face, both in the home and at the hands of strangers, we must pay particular attention to the threats posed specifically to that group. The previous Government took steps towards recognising those unique threats, including by, for example, launching the grooming gangs taskforce. In its first year alone, that taskforce arrested more than 550 suspects, and it extended protection to more than 4,000 victims and survivors of grooming and rape gangs, the vast majority of whom are women and girls. In their manifesto, this Government promised to take further action, with a view to halving violence against women and girls over the next decade. In March this year, the then permanent secretary of the Home Office promised that the strategy would be published before Parliament’s summer recess. In July, the Minister promised that the Government intended to publish the strategy in September. In October, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wrote to the Minster for an update. Last week, as I am sure the Minister will remember, I asked her again in the House of Commons Chamber. Today, we are still waiting for the Government’s strategy to be published. It is complex, cross-departmental work, but victims, survivors and their advocates are concerned at the delay. When the strategy does arrive, the Government must be absolutely sure that it covers the full breadth of risks to women and girls. We must not shy away if identifying those risks might create uncomfortable conversations, including around subjects such as immigration. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) shared their views on the relevance of migration to victims and survivors. It is also relevant to conversations about perpetrators. The Government refuse to publish full information, but the indicative data that we have suggests significant variations in crime rates by nationality and immigration status. According to data obtained from the Ministry of Justice, foreign nationals made up a third of all convictions for sexual assaults against women. For context, foreign nationals make up between 11% and 12% of the population. In London, where foreign nationals account for roughly a quarter of the population, foreign nationals were responsible for up to 47% of sexual offence charges last year. That suggests that foreign nationals are disproportionately likely to be the perpetrators of sexual assaults against women. Each and every case of sexual assault is wrong. Perpetrators must face the full force of the law, regardless of their nationality, and it remains the case that statistically, the most dangerous place for a woman is her own home. However, we should be able to have an informed debate about whether mass migration is making the problem worse, particularly when a large number of recent migrants come from countries where attitudes to women are very different from our own. That means publishing the full official data on criminals’ nationalities, including for offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. It also means fully engaging with the impact of mass migration as part of any strategy designed to tackle the problem. Over the past few decades, we have seen, in the starkest terms, the results of failing to address difficult questions head on. It is exactly that aversion to uncomfortable truths that led so many in the British state to cover up the rape and grooming gangs that have devastated thousands of victims, mostly young girls, across the country. In London alone, we have heard in recent months that many historical cases of sexual abuse across the capital feature the tell-tale red flags of grooming gang abuse. Will the Minister please assure us that the Government’s proposed national inquiry into grooming gangs will properly investigate historical cases in London? Will the Minister also please tell us whether the Government collect data on the nationality and immigration status of those who commit violent crimes against women and girls? If so, will the Government make it available to the public, and if not, why not? Will the Minister also tell us whether the Government’s strategy to tackle violence against women and girls will address any potential implications of mass migration for the safety of women and girls, no matter how uncomfortable those discussions might be? The aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade is laudable. What metric will be used to determine whether the Government have succeeded in halving violence against women and girls, and what are the start and end dates? Did the decade start on the date of the last general election? If not, when did it start? Will the Minister tell us when the Government’s strategy will be published? I know that many people in London and across the country would appreciate the certainty and clarity that a concrete date would provide.
- Hansard source
Pension Investment in UK Equities
I beg to move, That this House has considered pension investment in UK equities. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I think all hon. Members would agree that UK pension funds are hugely important, primarily to the millions of future pensioners, but also to the many scale-up businesses that are seeking additional investment and need extra capital for growth. They are also an important part of the UK’s capital markets more broadly. The UK has the second largest pool of pension capital in the world, but only 4% of it is allocated to UK assets. UK defined contribution pension scheme assets are set to grow from around £500 billion in 2021 to £1 trillion by 2030, an increase of 100% over nine years, and that growth will accelerate faster beyond that date. The key issue I wish to focus on is how we are to regulate, manage and enable the future form of that pool of capital, and the appropriate oversight of regulators or Government—if any—of the way it is managed. As I think all Members want, the Government have stressed the growth imperative and its prioritisation, but under-investment in the UK economy will be a significant dampener on growth. Over the past 25 years, allocation to UK equities by UK pension funds has fallen from more than 50% to 4.4%. Since the global financial crisis, the UK has under-invested, both in absolute terms and compared with our G7 peers. Our investment-to-GDP ratio is around 17% to 18%, compared with our peers’ 20% to 25%. That investment gap accounts for around £100 billion. The Government have introduced meaningful reforms. The closure of defined benefit schemes has resulted in large amounts of capital being moved from equities to bonds. Although that was a rational response to match the profile of obligations of those schemes, it is questionable whether it is optimal for the wider economy. That eagerness to match payouts to known obligations of a defined population has perhaps encouraged a lack of ambition in investment in the wider economy. What has happened progressively with DC scheme regulation is passive tracking rather than active investment. We have prioritised the minimisation of costs over returns. That has incentivised more and more funds to invest in cheap asset classes, almost alternating their investments, with fixed income, property and indexed funds being used. That is very frustrating, because over the past decade we reached consensus on auto-enrolment, and there was an emphasis on saying, “Oh, we mustn’t have any fat-cat fund managers taking too-big fees”. There was an anxiety about that, which drove an oversimplification of automated fund management. It allowed everyone to say, “The fees are very low”, but we did not have the right focus on performance and whether we were investing in the right things in the economy. It is obviously cheapest for a fund to go to passive, as it does not require active management and the skills that come with it. There have been previous fundamental reforms, such as the removal of dividend tax credits. Before 1997, when a UK company paid a dividend, it was accompanied by a tax credit, and pension funds could reclaim that credit in cash from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That meant that pension funds effectively received dividends gross of tax, boosting their investment returns. That reduced the effective yield on UK equities held by pension funds by around 20%, which was then the tax credit rate. There have been changes, with ISAs introduced in 1999 and self-invested personal pensions being widened in 2006, but this has removed the focus on UK investment.
- Hansard source
Pension Investment in UK Equities
Perhaps unsurprisingly, my right hon. Friend anticipates an argument that I am going to move on to about the wider culture of awareness of where investments are happening in our pensions, how important that is, and how we need to be cognisant of the gap that exists.
- Hansard source
Pension Investment in UK Equities
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. In a moment, I will speak about what needs to change and where we need to get to. Returning to my argument, the Pension Schemes Bill, which will have its Report stage next week, has made some welcome progress—I have to acknowledge that to the Minister. It has received significant cross-party support in many areas. The consolidation of DC schemes to provide greater scale and move away from a fragmented system has long been a journey that most people would see as desirable, but we must think about the scale of capital that our growing companies need. I am concerned about how quickly some of those changes will take place. Having been in intense dialogue with the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority when I was in the Treasury, I know that these things do not happen quickly enough. I urge the Minister—though I know he does not need much urging—to be robust in ensuring accountability on the delivery of some of these things. To advance our understanding of the shift away from equities and towards bonds, let me note that in 1997, UK pension funds held 73% of their portfolios in equities and 15% in bonds. Those figures now stand at 34% and 43% respectively. I have talked about the particular aversion to UK equities, with UK pension funds investing 4.4% of their funds in domestic equities, compared with an international average of 10.1%. However, at the same time, the UK provides pension tax advantages worth more than £48 billion. That is £48 billion of taxpayers’ money that is essentially there to enrich our contributions and lay down a marker for the future. At the moment, though, there is no expectation that any of that is invested in the UK—this relates to mandation, which I will discuss now. Around half of DC funds are in global allocations. My concern is that outflows from UK equities will continue as that global allocation continues and relative growth is seen in other markets, such as the US. As other economies grow, the UK part of the pie will automatically shrink, which means less money going into UK firms from these sorts of investment funds. As that passive fund practice becomes more prevalent, businesses such as the ones in Northern Ireland mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) are simply off the radar. They do not receive any analysis, and mid-cap and small-cap firms lose out, with pools of capital never being available to them. As such, that 4% investment in equities is likely to continue to fall. The big point I want to make is about what people think of their pension schemes. New Financial, a well-known and respected think-tank connected with the City, did a survey of 1,000 working adults in the UK with a pension. That survey graphically highlighted what a “low level” of understanding people have of their pensions and the “disconnect between their expectations and the industry.” It said: “On average, people thought 41% of their pension was invested in UK companies or the UK stock market (out by a factor of five to 10 times)”, and, staggeringly, that “two-thirds of people said pensions should invest more in UK equities even if the returns might be lower than investing in other markets.” There is clearly a gap in knowledge and understanding. I advocated against the Department for Education’s backstop; I did not make much progress when I was in Government, but I am glad that this Government have made progress on financial education in the Department for Education and that it has now become part of the curriculum. This is a key chapter that is needed in that textbook. I am anxious that the answer should not be for the City and pension fund managers to say, “We know best, we have a fiduciary duty—don’t worry about it.” Auto-enrolment has helped provide them with enormous funds to invest, but the disconnect between public expectation and what they are doing with those funds must and should be addressed. The vast majority of consumers investing in DC schemes do not change from their default allocation, although they are of course able to do so. Those defaults require approval, so alongside a campaign to get people to understand what is happening with their pensions and where their money is being put, it is worth asking people to verify what proportion of their pension savings are being invested where. They have that discretion; if they do not exercise it, that investment will default to whatever the scheme is going to do, and the scheme will likely continue in a similar way. The London Stock Exchange Group tells me that by 2030, overall investment in UK equities by DC pensions would increase by around £76 billion—potentially as much as £95 billion—if this option were used. That is not mandation; I think that would be overreach, but I am sympathetic to the disconnect that exists. We must find a way to open up a proper discussion and increase awareness of the gaps where money is currently not being invested. I recognise that the Government have maintained a reserve power to mandate, although I doubt they will ever use it. However, I believe that individuals should be more empowered to take decisions, and I think they would be more empowered as active members of a DC fund. At the moment, they are not exercising that right. Consumers do and must have a choice about how their pensions are invested, and proposals to amend how default funds are allocated do not, and should not, prevent people from choosing exactly how they want to invest their pension pots. There are so many opportunities in this country, such as in life sciences—my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) has a great understanding of that sector. When we are looking for that scale-up capital, the lack of funds in the UK to provide options for series B and sometimes series C funding is manifest. I just feel that we are missing an opportunity. I will understand if we do not go for mandation—I am sympathetic to that decision—but we should do something in between. I know we are on the eve of the Budget, and as the Minister said to me as we entered the Chamber, there is little opportunity for him to adjust anything. I do not know what changes will be made tomorrow to pensions. There is obviously a lot of speculation about a reduction in ISAs, but let us get that in perspective as well. Only about 7% of those who have ISAs use the £20,000 limit. I do not believe that if there is any sort of mandation of the use of equities, people will go out and invest in them overnight, because the vast majority of people who have an ISA are at a later stage of life, and their ISA is in cash, so they will not do that anyway. Let us get it in perspective. Last year, around £750 billion was invested in ISAs: £461 billion in stocks; £289 billion in cash. Last year, the Pensions Policy Institute estimated that there is a total of £3 trillion in UK pension assets across annuities, DC funds and DB funds. That is where the pools of capital can be opened up for investment in the UK economy. We need a greater focus on the public markets, and a vibrant, active, engaged and informed investor base to change the way that we move forward. I have a couple more points to make. It is salutary to reflect on what happened with Arm Holdings: a British success story founded and built in Cambridge. As we know, it is a producer of semiconductors and software originally listed in London. The company was taken private because it felt that the public markets in this country could not support it; there was not enough liquidity in the markets. Arm was subsequently re-listed in New York, and since being taken off the London Stock Exchange, its valuation has grown by £112 billion. Of that growth, only £825 million has gone to UK investors. Had it stayed listed in the UK, that number would have been £43 billion. That would have meant higher pension valuations for a lot of people in this country, and more revenue for the Treasury from capital gains. It exemplifies the problem that we have: the lack of active, open markets where investors take risk and adopt a profile similar to those seen in the US. The FCA is disempowered and discouraged from trying to offer consumer redress. Through better financial education, we could get people to engage with the significant obligation that they have to save for the future, to take decisions that are in the interests of the UK economy and to pump more money into UK companies. In conclusion, I welcome many provisions in the Pension Schemes Bill. Poorly performing pensions need to be challenged. I welcome the consolidation and scale-up of the pots, which will take too long and should be encouraged to move forward swiftly. But I have an anxiety that in a legitimate effort to hold back from mandation, there is a gap in thinking about how we open up the public’s understanding and imagination regarding where they can invest. I urge the Minister to move forward with some tougher rules around how people verify the choices that they are making so that the powerful voices who run the pensions industry do not default to saying, “We know best; we have fiduciary duty, and we will do it better than you could dream of doing.” The evidence is that that is not what people want. A golden thread of careful and delicate interventions is needed so that we can transform public behaviour and outcomes for our pensions industry.
- Hansard source
Pension Investment in UK Equities
I was not paid during that time.
- Hansard source
Pension Investment in UK Equities
I thank the Minister for his response. I think there has been a lot of common ground across the Chamber this afternoon, but in some areas we have not quite bottomed out what the Government’s view is about empowered pension fundholders electing to discern what amount of their pension should be invested in UK equities. We have to continue that conversation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for clearly setting out our party’s position on the Pension Schemes Bill; I agreed with her very much. I acknowledge the contributions of the hon. Members for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) and for Torbay (Steve Darling), my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), and my friend the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). I respectfully say to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that when I was a Minister and I did the capital markets review, the Jonathan Hill review and the Mark Austin review, I did not just passively sit there; I went to the City, listened to people like him who were practitioners in the City in different funds, and worked with my officials to deliver what the City wanted, to optimise the pathway that we were in. That goes down to having deep conversations about which regulations need to be moderated and which need to be withdrawn, such that the Hill review—and this Government have enacted everything that came from it—still leaves me with a sense of frustration, because there was nothing that I would not do that I was asked to do in the interests of London. To believe that somehow we set up four working groups and have a big bang like 1986 or something, and that it will all be straightforward, I think is mistaken. It is a complicated ecosystem, and we will need to look at the risk profile. I probably agree with the hon. Gentleman that there needs to be a greater appetite for risk. We have to reset that risk appetite, because we have had a dozen years since the reset after the global financial crisis, and we need to look at it again. I do think the PRA needs to be challenged, as I think it will be next week by the Financial Policy Committee, on some of the issues around what level of capital it is prepared for banks to have, which is a good place to start. I am very encouraged by the constructive nature of the conversation this afternoon. I hope that the Minister will reflect a little more on the need to empower pension holders to take decisions in the interest of investing more in UK equities.
- Hansard source
NHS Waiting Lists
The Secretary of State has failed to end industrial action like he said he would. How is that helping to reduce waiting lists?
- Hansard source
NHS Dental Services: Norfolk
The Minister told the Health and Social Care Committee that the spending envelope for dentistry would be confirmed by the end of the summer at the latest. Is the Office for Students still waiting for a ministerial direction to launch that competition for new places, so that UEA can bid along with others and so that we can get training places in Norfolk for the first time?
- Hansard source
G20 and Ukraine
Will there be another statement?
- Hansard source
COP30
Because Putin invaded Ukraine!
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about a piece of so-called ministerial correspondence that I have received, which is the worst I have ever had the displeasure to receive as a Member of Parliament. I am serious. Mine is a rural constituency and the family farm tax is an extremely serious matter. It is an existential threat to many businesses in my constituency. Earlier this month, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer setting out a serious, detailed argument about why it has such an impact. I spoke about mental health and the wider economic impact, and I expected a reasonable reply to my ask to reconsider the tax tomorrow. I received yesterday a letter that states just this, and it is not a holding reply: “I can confirm we have shared your letter with the relevant policy officials in the department. Thank you again for taking the time to make me aware of your concerns.” That is the letter signed by the correspondence and enquiries unit at HM Treasury, and not by a Minister. Is it acceptable for us to have ministerial correspondence that is not from Ministers? Is it acceptable for it not even to go to a Minister but to the relevant policy officials? Is it acceptable, on such an important matter, to have all the points in it completely ignored?
- Hansard source
Draft Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025
As we have heard from the Secretary of State, the draft order will seemingly simplify the infrastructure consent processes in Wales for infrastructure projects, including those related to energy, electricity, transport, waste and water, by moving from the current multinational-level agencies process to an approvals process monitored and applied by the Welsh Government. The explanatory notes to the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill published by the Welsh Government in June 2023 stated that it would ensure “timely and effective delivery of major infrastructure and low carbon development in the right locations”. Of course that is welcome, but it cannot and should not be at the expense of local and community voices and input. Any centralisation of planning processes and decisions must remain sympathetic to the needs and concerns of communities who will be most impacted by the new infrastructure, especially that of the scale and nature covered by the draft order. Any changes that are made —even those as relatively limited as those we are considering—must be to the benefit of the people, businesses and communities of Wales, and should not add a route to silence legitimate concerns. Of course we want a simplified approach to infrastructure and planning that is business, community and, importantly, growth friendly and will help Wales catch up with the rest of the UK. However, given the scale of what needs to be achieved in Wales to make real, tangible change, we on the Opposition Benches are not convinced that these measures represent the change necessary to stimulate and truly accelerate Wales’s economy. We will not oppose the draft order, but I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could address the following questions. Is there any scope for the Senedd or a future Welsh Government to propose changes to regulations that would make Wales unaligned with the rest of the UK, causing complications? Are the Government confident that the relevant agencies in Wales have the capacity to deal with applications under these licences? What projects does the Secretary of State feel will be most impacted, or benefit most, from these changes in the next five years? Does she see the draft order as a gateway for further devolution? Has she assessed whether the legislation might make consent easier to obtain in Wales than in other devolved nations, and the knock-on effect that could have on projects in other parts of the United Kingdom? What cross-Government work is being done on that?
- Hansard source
Palliative Care Strategy
13. If he will publish a national strategy for palliative care.