5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
His Majesty’s Prison Stoke Heath in Shropshire has seen six deaths in custody in less than two years. That is above the national average. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the Ministry of Justice to ensure that there are enough resources and that the right governance is in place at Stoke Heath?
Let us be clear: this is no accidental violation of Poland’s—or NATO’s—airspace. As NATO members, one could argue that it is actually a violation of our own airspace. Is it not clear that Russia is testing NATO’s resolve, and that Putin will ruthlessly exploit any real or perceived diplomatic, military or political weakness? I get the Minister’s point on calibration and proportionality, but what does a robust response mean? Following on from an earlier question from the Labour Benches, given that there are many Russian ships in the English channel and around these isles from which drones could easily be deployed, what about UK air defences?
3. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support the adoption of new technologies in the workplace.
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. Small businesses in my constituency are vital to economic growth. What is her Department doing to ensure that small businesses can benefit from innovation and new technology?
The events of yesterday come as no surprise to those of us in the Chamber who have raised the issue of the Israeli Government’s crimes, committed with an air of complete impunity. It should now be crystal clear to the Minister, as it is to so many across the world, that the Israeli Government are not interested in the slightest in peace, or indeed in the fate of their hostages. In that light, I have two questions. First, what military and intelligence assistance will we provide to the Qataris to allow them to defend themselves against further attacks? Secondly, will the UK add its voice to the growing calls across the world for the formation of an international protection force to enter Gaza and enforce a peace?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the new Secretary of State to her place and, of course, I welcome her stellar team. The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), is so hot that he snared two jobs from the guy who just fired him. The Tech Secretary replaces the Ozempic of Whitehall, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), who claimed that his digital plan would shear £45 billion of fat from the Government. By how much did it cut the civil service?
I fully agree with the right hon. Lady, but the number of civil servants has risen to a 20-year high under Labour. If somebody in the private sector led a reverse efficiency drive, they would get sacked; Labour made the person responsible Business Secretary. For a welfare meltdown, you get to be the Minister for the future, but while AI is screaming for cheap electricity, the Prime Minister cannot sack his failing Energy Secretary. Why should the tech sector believe that this is a Government of delivery?
As a seasoned diplomat, does the Minister recognise that there is a danger that we are holding Israel to a different standard? When the Americans reached out into Pakistan to snuff out Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11, we were taking them to the bar; when Israel reaches out with a precision decapitation strike on the leadership of Hamas, we want to take it to the bar of the international court.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this debate and for speaking with such knowledge and passion, not only about the Stockton and Darlington railway but about railways more generally and the impact they have had on this country. The Stockton and Darlington railway was the first step in the great railway invention and expansion that shaped our country and the world. Britain pioneered steam locomotion and railways, and we have heard how George Stephenson set the global standard. Railways in turn powered the industrial revolution by enabling the efficient movement of raw materials, goods and people. Within just a few years our country had established a railway network that grew throughout the country; what was once a three-day trip to remote areas by horse and cart became, within a few years, a journey of a few hours by train. We take it for granted today in the age of the internet and artificial intelligence, but it is hard to overstate just how transformative the railways were in the 19th century—and it all started in Stockton and Darlington. Beyond the railways’ economic impact, they transformed the social fabric of our country. They opened the countryside to the urban population, offering access to fresh air and green spaces. Rail travel also revolutionised tourism. Affordable fares made trips possible for working-class families, reshaping the character of seaside towns such as those in my constituency on the Isle of Wight. Heritage railways act as living museums that preserve the rich legacy of our railways, and they will be doing so up and down the country—an essential part of the 200th anniversary celebrations. The central and most important part of that will be the cultural festival in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. While discussing heritage railways, I must mention the contribution of the heritage railway in my constituency, the Isle of Wight steam railway at Havenstreet, which welcomes over 110,000 visitors annually. It is not just a tourist destination; it is an accredited Arts Council England museum and educational charity, employing 35 staff and enriching our local economy—particularly the visitor economy—and our community. Heritage railways contribute £600 million to the UK economy and welcome 13 million visitors each year. None of that would be possible without the extraordinary contribution of volunteers, and I am sure volunteers will play a very significant role in the upcoming cultural festival. Across the country, thousands of dedicated individuals give their time and expertise not only to restore locomotives and maintain rolling stock, but to guide visitors and passengers. On the Isle of Wight steam railway alone, we have a team of up to 500 volunteers, and it is one of the largest volunteer organisations on the island. In celebrating the 200th anniversary of our railways, we must do more to remove barriers to volunteers and offer more flexible opportunities that encourage people both young and old to volunteer. Recently, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay identified just such a barrier to volunteering and sought to remove it during consideration of the Employment Rights Bill in the other place. An obsolete 1920s law governing the employment of young people has survived in later legislation. It means that, strictly speaking, it is not legal for heritage railways to give volunteering opportunities to anyone under the age of 16. My noble Friend was able to amend the Bill in the other place on a cross-party basis to remove that outdated provision in existing legislation. I hope very much that when the Bill comes back to the Commons, as part of the 200th anniversary celebrations and in that spirit, the Government will allow that amendment to stand. I close by again congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor and by celebrating the story of Britain’s railways. The Stockton and Darlington railway was the world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives. Its opening was pioneering proof of the role not only of steam, but of railway, as a means of public transport that continues to this day. It is only fitting that we all join in honouring 200 years of innovation, connection and progress.
On the point about financial risk for local authorities, does my hon. Friend agree there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that local authorities such as mine, the Isle of Wight council, would possibly want to touch when it comes to franchising for buses across my constituency? The risk for small unitary authorities is just far too great. If there is any opportunity at all in this Bill—I am not sure that there is—it will apply only to large city councils and metropolitan areas.
I am slightly surprised to be called so early, but I am delighted to speak in the debate. This will be an interesting debate. I am delighted that there is so much interest from Back Benchers. It is interesting to note that the Bill is primarily focused on process rather than passengers. I tried to work out why that was and came to the conclusion that it is, in fact, steeped in Labour’s political ideology—the ideology that the state is better at running things than private businesses—linked with the separate issue that it has a deep suspicion of the profit motive. In some of its clauses, which we will come on to in a moment, the Bill harks back to the 1960s and to municipal bus companies after the second world war. This feels like the happy place of the Labour party.
The hon. Member is quite right, of course. I am not suggesting that bus services should be only for profit. He will know that Essex county council has an enhanced partnership agreement; it has a relationship with for-profit providers, but has negotiated that it will pay extra for social journeys. He will also note that Essex has had more growth in its passenger numbers than any of the franchise operations. In particular, it has had more passenger growth than the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the organisation that the Bill largely seeks to replicate. The Bill has a deep suspicion of the profit motive and focuses on process, ignoring what the real purpose of the legislation should be. The House of Lords identified this lacuna in the drafting, and rectified it with a purpose clause, which was clause 1 when the Bill was considered in Committee. It said that the Act should “improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.” That is not a particularly high bar, or particularly onerous, because the Secretary of State merely had to have regard to those objectives. I would not have thought that was particularly challenging for the Government. However, it was too much for them, and they removed that purpose clause in Committee. New clause 34, which is in my name and that of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), seeks to reinstate that very reasonable clause. It would ensure that when we discuss the improvement of bus services, at the front and centre of our minds are the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services, so that we put the passenger first. This Bill, despite the explanations given by the Minister a moment ago, remains weak on protections for the disabled, the partially sighted and the blind. That was a huge concern in Committee. There has been a lot of concern about this in the disabled community—concern particularly focused on floating bus stops, and bus stops with shared use borders. I note that the Minister said that he is looking at having guidance notes on design, and that there should be a campaign to remind cyclists in particular of the highway code. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think a design tweak could be made to a floating bus stop that would provide partially sighted and blind users with the security that they richly deserve when using bus services. An educational campaign to remind cyclists of their duties under the highway code would not do any harm, and I suggest that the Government do it, but it would not be the solution in its own right. We have had warm words from the Minister, both in Committee and today, but we need action. New clause 28 would give the Government six months to prepare proposals to prohibit the creation of new floating bus stops. The Government appear to be deaf to the blind, and not prepared to take effective action on this point. The Government are also being weak on protections for bus passengers more generally. We want legislation that puts bus users first, both as regards accessibility, which I have mentioned, and protection against antisocial behaviour. We are not asking much—we are just asking that the legislation afford bus users the same protections that rail passengers benefit from. The Government have an opportunity to support those objectives, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that that is the direction that they should take.
The hon. Lady will know, from reading the Hansard of Committee proceedings, what time and effort the official Opposition put into supporting the aspiration to have increased accessibility across disability and special educational needs, so I am very supportive in principle of her amendment’s aims. I have addressed accessibility, but what about pricing and increasing bus usage? We know from our experience of operating bus services over the past decade that price is one of the biggest factors affecting patronage. In the previous Administration, the Conservatives put forward a £2 bus fare cap, and it was enormously successful. Apart from anything else, it was hugely popular, but it also aided the recovery from covid, and in getting people back out and about. It was particularly useful for younger passengers; it helped to build their confidence and get them back on the road to recovery. In the run-up to the last election, the continuation of the £2 bus fare cap for the duration of this Parliament was a Conservative manifesto commitment. What was Labour’s response to that? Its first act on coming into power was to put the price up by 50%, from £2 to £3. To accompany that, there was a perverse claim that that was actually a price cut. One does not need to be an economist at the Bank of England, or even from the accounts department, to work that one out. Experience of customer complaints would be enough to enable a person to see that a price rise from £2 to £3 is exactly that: a rise, not a cut.
That does not take away from the overarching point that Labour has increased bus fares by 50% and described it as a price cut, which was disingenuous in the extreme. We need to understand the impact of Labour’s price rise on ridership, and in particular on social accessibility. That understanding will inform behaviour, and should inform good policy for the future, but the Government have their head in the sand. Amendment 23, also in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services. That proposal was initially inserted in the other place, with wide support from a number of parties, but again, the Government decided to remove it in Committee. They need to own the consequences of their decisions. Last year, Transport Ministers needed to find money for an unfunded pay rise of 15% for ASLEF train drivers. Where did they get the money? Their first choice was to go after bus passengers, and their second was to go after pensioners.
I am perfectly happy with that principle. In fact, it was a Conservative principle, first introduced in 2016. We do not have to choose between one thing and another; that is a false analysis. The pricing was a political decision by this ministerial team, who chose to increase prices from £2 to £3, and that was voted for by all Government Members; they made that political choice. The choice between a franchise scheme, an enhanced partnership scheme or any other form of scheme has nothing to do with the primary political choice, made by Labour Members, to raise prices for bus passengers to pay for unfunded union pay rises. That is simply the fact.
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I refer the House to Norfolk county council—another Conservative council, and the one in which my constituency is based—which has an enhanced partnership with bus companies. That partnership has been more effective in driving bus ridership than the franchised process has been in Manchester—at least as enacted by the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham. I will now deal with franchising more fully. This bizarre draft legislation appears to have taken a good idea in principle and made it worse in practice. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) is quite right that the Conservative Government recognised in 2016 the potential for region-based transport integration. In principle, mayoral combined authorities had the scale, resources and financial sophistication to take on the responsibility of creating a franchised scheme, and would thereby have more control over the design of public transport in their area. That was a Conservative innovation, and I support it. Under the 2017 legislation, other local transport authorities also had the ability to apply for franchise status, if I may loosely call it that. However, there was concern that smaller local authorities would not have as many resources—be they financial or top-tier management resources—to deal with and design such operations, so a critical safeguard was inserted in that legislation requiring such authorities, should they wish to go down the franchise route, to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for their plans. It is a sense-check—a needed safeguard—because franchising exposes local transport authorities to huge commercial risk. They are not just letting contracts and, as with an enhanced partnership, adding a bit extra on, after negotiation with commercial operators; they also become responsible for the design of the full bus map and timetable, and have the resulting commercial liability of providing all the buses and drivers. Authorities can either pay a bus company to operate for a fee, and so take no commercial risk—the company just turns up and does what it is told—or expose themselves further by creating a municipal bus company and doing everything themselves. If that goes wrong, it can bankrupt a local authority.
My hon. Friend is quite right. There is some good in the amendments. I come to amendment 58, which would reinsert the Secretary of State’s safeguard. That would not prohibit small unitaries from applying or developing a franchise model; it is about the Secretary of State having the ability to sense-check the commercial ability of an organisation to take the very significant commercial risks that franchising brings with it. There is another massive lacuna in the current drafting of the Bill. Having expanded franchising to any local authority, no matter how small and whether district, county or unitary, the Secretary of State would withdraw from any power to intervene if things go wrong. We recognise that there is increased commercial risk and that we will ask potentially small local authorities to undertake wholly novel activities of which they have no experience at all, but the Secretary of State is saying, “We wash our hands of this. We do not want to have any power to intervene, even when there is a prolonged failure of services to the public.”
I thought the hon. Member was in favour of devolution. Not all mayoral combined authorities are the same; if we have a mayoral combined authority, we want to have the right system for the area that the mayor represents. If the mayor in Teesside thinks that it is not the right thing for him, I back his decision. Let me move on to new clause 31, which would give the Secretary of State the power to step in where there has been “a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.” It seems genuinely extraordinary that the Government are saying no to that added safeguard. No cost is associated with it; the new clause just says that where there is prolonged failure on the ground to deliver the service for whatever reason, the Secretary of State would have the power to step in and take on the management. Why would the Government say that they do not need that backstop power? They voted it down in Committee, and I do not see them accepting it today either. All the amendments from the loyal Opposition have a common theme: they put passengers first. This Bill is not really about passengers; it is for a bigger state, more unions and more union involvement, and it is primarily against private business involvement. I understand that that is the ideology of Labour Members, but the problem is that their ideology is demonstrably wrong in this instance, and we see that in the Bill. Without amendment, it will damage our bus services and almost certainly damage our local transport authorities, particularly the smaller ones, if they are misguided enough to follow the encouragement of the Government and go down this route. Above all, I am sorry to say that the Bill will damage the chances of our passengers.
We have had an interesting debate with around 25 to 30 speakers, and some themes have developed from it. A number of speakers mentioned disability access, particularly issues with floating and shared-border bus stops for those who are visually impaired or blind. Other speeches focused on concessionary travel during rush hour and concessionary companion passes. We also heard a number of descriptions of local bus needs in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, particularly focusing on rural needs. I want to pick out two or three speeches for commendation, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke in support of amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34. He highlighted a concerning failure by his Liberal Democrat county council, so if we want to improve bus services, we know where the Liberal Democrats can start. I commend the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who put his name to and championed new clause 47, which aims for companion passes to form part of the concessionary travel scheme. I would like to mention the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), because he had a tiny pop at the Conservatives, particularly about new clause 10 relating to antisocial behaviour. I think this requires a bit of explanation. It was right of him to highlight that the position of His Majesty’s Opposition has changed on this measure, and I will explain why. When we discussed new clause 10 in Committee, the hon. Member will recall—if he does not, he can always refer to Hansard—that I was very sympathetic to the objective of his new clause, but, as I now accept, I took a rather narrow objection to its drafting. The new clause adds a description to a non-exhaustive list and is therefore technically not required, because the definition was already employed. The definition is one of nuisance, and audible antisocial behaviour is, by definition, nuisance. It was the lawyer in me coming out, and I was being slightly otiose.
I stand corrected, in the sense that I have listened to the hon. Member and, on reflection, I accept that I was making perhaps too legalistic a point. If by adding “sustained antisocial auditory disturbance” to the definition of nuisance we can make what is an implied power an express one, I am happy to support that. As for the jeering, perhaps my hon. Friends were cheering—who knows?
I am grateful, although I am not sure whether that was an intervention on jeering or cheering and the difference between them. I will go so far as to say that I am not in a position to make economic spending commitments at the Dispatch Box. Although we are supportive of the principle, that is why we will not vote for something that writes a blank cheque for the future, because at least the Conservatives are trying to be economically responsible. Without amendment, the Bill is a missed opportunity in relation to bus stop design and disability access. It is a missed opportunity in relation to antisocial behaviour on buses and bringing that in line with the protections already enjoyed by rail passengers. It is also a missed opportunity not to focus on passengers as the primary object of all actions undertaken as a result of the Bill, particularly in relation to rural areas. The Bill is not just a missed opportunity; it is also, in its current drafting, damaging for the future prospects of the provision of bus services, because it risks exposing local transport authorities to potential bankruptcy without support from the Secretary of State. That is, in the first instance, in terms of oversight of plans for franchising—particularly for small local transport authorities—and giving them the all-clear. Secondly, if franchise systems are set up and then they fail to provide over a prolonged period, the Secretary of State must surely be able to step in and provide those services—if we are interested in the experience of passengers as opposed to the organisation. I have raised those two issues consistently throughout Committee and earlier on today. They are significant, genuine concerns that prevent the Opposition from supporting the Bill in its current form.
I am sorry that the hon. Member was not in his place throughout the course of the debate, as he would have heard that a franchise is not a normal contract. Under an enhanced partnership or a standard operating contract, that is exactly so: a contract is let and the commercial risk lies with the provider. The challenge with franchising is that the commercial risk is transferred 100% to the taxpayer, because the local transport authority is no longer letting a commercial contract; it is buying in services for a price, with the commercial risk lying with the taxpayer. That is the crucial difference. I am glad that the hon. Member put his finger on that, because I am as worried as he is about it. Finally, I will mention the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We do not agree on many issues, but I do agree with her on this. She said that a lot of good amendments were tabled by Opposition parties—certainly three parties; there were sadly none from Reform, which would not know a transport policy if one got up and slapped it in the face. The hon. Lady came up with some good ideas, and even the Liberal Democrats came up with something or other. As for the Conservatives, we came up with good idea after good idea, yet until now they have all been rejected by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to his concession on all those good ideas.
I hope that the Minister is not misleading the House inadvertently. Although he is right that it was delivered on time and on budget—it was about £156 million—it is argued that the subsequent year of operation had a deficit of about £236 million. Even though it may have been delivered on time and on budget, it has been in a terrible deficit ever since and is on strike now.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the violation of Poland’s airspace by Russian drones.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by expressing our total solidarity with the people of Poland? The Opposition stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in support of our strong NATO ally. Poland is a great nation, and a great friend of Britain. Our thoughts are with its people, and we fully support all efforts to rally our NATO allies and ensure that Poland’s invocation of article 4 is responded to as swiftly as possible. This is an unprecedented violation of Polish and NATO airspace that must be met with total condemnation and a robust response. So must the latest bombings of Ukraine, as Russia continues to target civilians and conduct an unprovoked war of aggression, without any regard for human life. What, if any, judgment have the Government been able to form of the precise motivation for this drone incursion? If this was designed to test NATO’s resolve, will Putin not have already seen how strong the resolve is to stand united against this aggression? We understand that Dutch F-35s were directly involved in supporting the Polish military response, and that fighters from other NATO nations may have been scrambled. Is it not sobering that the F-35s from the Netherlands followed us in rotating air support for Poland, so if this incursion had occurred just weeks ago, RAF Typhoons could have been directly involved? On the specifics of our joint NATO response, can the Minister say more about what invoking article 4 means in practical terms for the UK and our allies, and what the next steps are? Importantly, what discussions have the UK Government had with our US counterparts on these developments? Above all, given that this incident involved the use of lethal Russian drones against a fellow NATO member, what further steps are the Government now considering in order to constrain Russia’s ability to threaten our closest allies, and to provide further support to Poland? Finally, in the light of the Norway deal, the Minister will be aware that one of the largest ever defence export deals concluded under the previous Government was the sale of ground-based air defence to Poland. In the week of DSEI, does that not show why such industrial collaboration with our allies is important, not just economically, but when it comes to defending our close allies? There are those who may question the nature of the Russian threat or the need to significantly increase defence spending, but these events should leave nobody in any doubt that the threat extends beyond Ukraine, and that we must therefore continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, Poland and all our NATO allies.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that I believe constitutes a breach of the ministerial duty to respond to Members’ correspondence in a timely manner. On 28 November last year, I wrote to the now former Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to raise concerns about the absence of legislation requiring service providers to give residents notice before installing large cables on their properties. I have since followed up with the Department on 22 January, 20 March, 28 April, 13 June and 24 July. I have now been waiting for nine months without receiving a substantive reply. I understand that the new Secretary of State is new in her job and I congratulate her for that, but this considerably hinders my ability to represent my constituents and I seek your guidance on how we can get a response.
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 September.
One year on from the election, the country has seen a Transport Secretary resign over fraud, an anti-corruption Minister investigated for corruption, a homelessness Minister making tenants homeless, and a Housing Secretary not paying tax on her second house. We also have a Prime Minister who accepted more freebies than any other MP in the previous Parliament. Is this what the Prime Minister meant by “integrity” when he came to government?
I welcome the Secretary of State and the new ministerial team to their places, and thank the former team, who I have very much enjoyed sparring with over the past few months. In light of the report of the Department’s plans to review the implementation of the Online Safety Act, can the Secretary of State confirm the scope of that review, including whether it will address the apparent confusion in the media between the powers of the Online Safety Act and the Public Order Act 1986? Will the review look at age verification to ensure that people’s data is safe and secure, and that the pass schemes they use are trusted? Will it tackle the use of VPNs, particularly by children, to get around age verification?
Several of our partners in the region—in north Africa and the middle east—have expended a great deal of political capital in trying to achieve a rapprochement with Israel in recent years. The Minister will be aware, for example, of Morocco and its work and leadership in achieving the Abraham accords. What does he think this attack has done to them, and what confidence can they have that Israel is now truly embarked on a quest for peace in the region?
President Zelensky has been consistent in his argument that the invasion of his country is just the beginning and that we are all in the crosshairs. He made that argument forcefully—and famously—in the Oval Office. Does the Minister not agree that what has happened with this violation of Polish and NATO airspace completely vindicates President Zelensky?
This Adjournment debate is on the future of the minor injuries unit at Mount Vernon hospital. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, who, despite representing a Bristol constituency, has a great deal of knowledge of my area having grown up in it, and to the Secretary of State for a number of conversations that have recognised that the loss of such a unit runs contrary to the 10-year plan set out to the House. It would have a much broader impact, beyond the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust, which is the overarching NHS body for both the Mount Vernon hospital and the Hillingdon hospital site to the south. That is reflected in the fact that more than 20,000 people have signed my petition expressing concern about the loss of the service and calling for an opportunity to think again. I place on record my thanks to the Members of Parliament in a number of neighbouring constituencies who have supported me with that petition and supported their local residents. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is present, has maintained the long tradition of Hillingdon MPs working together on issues that affect their constituencies. My neighbours in Harrow East, Hertsmere, South West Hertfordshire, South Buckinghamshire and Harrow West have all expressed a similar view. They understand the impact that the closure will have on their constituencies.
I am grateful to the hon. Member. What he described is similar to the concerns outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and others across the wider area, as well as by many people who have been in touch with me directly. We know that minor injuries units in general, and the one at Mount Vernon in particular, are valued by people for whom A&E is not always the best place to seek treatment. Many local schools have been in touch to say that if there is an injury during the school day, minor injuries units are the ideal place for a child to get the treatment that they need. For older residents, particularly if they are not in the best of health and perhaps not up to the journey to an A&E department—many of which are under significant pressure—a minor injuries unit is the place to be. I know the Secretary of State and Ministers have responded very positively to the pleas of a number of Members across the House who have asked for the prospect of a minor injuries unit opening to serve their constituencies as part of the 10-year plan, so to see one lost that is already providing a good service seems to me a great shame. The Minister will know that the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust has been financially challenged for many years; indeed, during my days as a non-executive director of the Hillingdon primary care trust, in the days of the last Labour Government, the overspend was significant. It is a challenge that has persisted to this day under Governments of all parties, despite numerous initiatives to try to resolve it. That is reflected in the poor state of the main hospital building, which is pending a rebuild. I should declare for the record that my wife is a doctor in that building. I know the Minister and the Government have accepted the programme of works set in place previously, which was granted planning permission by the local authority and announced under the last Government, to provide a new district general hospital at Hillingdon. I am sure the Minister will know, because of her local knowledge, that we need to recognise that Hillingdon serves Heathrow airport as well as the normal district hospital population. The airport has a very large population of transitory people coming through it, many of whom are taken ill and add to the pressure on A&E. In addition, we have the largest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the country and a significant number of people in immigration detention, pending deportation. This is not just a hospital serving the normal day-to-day needs of the population area; it has particular and unique pressures, and a minor injuries unit is a means of beginning to take off some of that pressure for the benefit of local residents.
I am grateful that my constituency neighbour is here. Had he the same degree of history in Hillingdon as myself and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, I am sure he would recall that the hotels were set up and opened as part of a dispersal programme started under the Labour Government in the mid-2000s and led by Andy Burnham, who is now the Mayor of Greater Manchester. I know that has placed ongoing pressure on the local area, but the number of people put into that initial accommodation who are now stuck locally is very large. I am sure the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) shares my concern that, under the recent announcements about local authority funding, Hillingdon remains broadly the same as it always has been, but I welcome his commitment to carry on the work started under the previous Government for the rebuild of Hillingdon hospital. I know the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will be very aware that the work undertaken on sewerage and electronics for that new build over the last few years has presented a significant challenge to residents in accessing the hospital—I am sure his constituents complain about it as much as mine have done. Indeed, the challenges that will come during the rebuilding process of the hospital on what is currently its car park are a further argument for why a minor injuries unit is important in this period. It creates a bit of additional capacity to help with potentially challenging times at A&E and the difficult logistical challenge of accessing a hospital whose car park is already constrained and will be the building site for a new hospital. All those are additional reasons why a minor injuries unit remains important. It is noteworthy in this context that the move away from an open access unit to appointment-only, which took place following covid, has significantly reduced the footfall at the Mount Vernon unit and has driven up the cost per visit compared with the previous position. This is part of a pattern that we have also seen in the Harrow part of my constituency at the Pinn medical centre, where the loss of a walk-in facility has led to more patients attending the local A&E, to longer waits and, ultimately, to increased cost to the NHS, because A&E attendances are more expensive than nurse-led walk-in services such as that which is available at Mount Vernon. The Minister knows all this personally. She knows how much value the local community—not just in Hillingdon, not just in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but across north-west London and into neighbouring Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire—places on that service and how often Members of Parliament representing places like Watford and the Harrow constituencies have been in touch to share their concerns about the delays and challenges faced by patients attending A&Es in Watford, Hillingdon or Northwick Park, which are the main destinations for alternative treatment.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, another constituency neighbour, for the support that he has lent to this campaign on behalf of his constituents. In a busy capital city, where there are all kinds of challenges arising not just from the airport but from our transport links, the pressure on some of those A&Es is higher than the NHS funding formula has traditionally recognised, and services such as minor injuries units have come into being over the years to make sure that that provision is there. I know that my constituency neighbours’ constituents attend Mount Vernon not just to go to the minor injuries unit; it is also home to a cancer centre, a hospice, a private hospital, a general practitioners—a whole variety of NHS and private healthcare services—as well as to research and scanning, and nurses’ accommodation. All those things are incredibly important to the local community. My asks of the Minister are straightforward. She understands as well as we all do that the NHS is always under financial pressure regardless of which party is in government, and she understands personally how much this unit at Mount Vernon hospital matters to local people across an area that is much wider than that served solely by the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust. She also understands that the vision of the 10-year plan puts great emphasis on out-of-hospital care. The commitment to the Northwood and Pinner cottage hospital started under the previous Government and now under construction at the site in my constituency is an example of the willingness of both this Government and the previous one to invest in those types of service. It therefore seems perverse to be closing down one such service that is already successfully in operation and that is both valued and has the potential to further reduce the cost and service pressures on our local NHS. I ask the Minister simply to intervene with the trust and to ask her officials to engage with it about the wider impact that the closure will have beyond the Hillingdon hospitals trust alone. From the trust’s perspective, moving those staff and that budget on to the main hospital site will improve the look of its bottom line, but in the long term it will increase the costs to the NHS for those patients and reduce the quality of the service that they receive. Will she therefore consider encouraging the trust to move back to an open access model, as used to operate at the site, which would further reduce the number of A&E visits, which are costly to the NHS and stressful and time-consuming for patients? Will she confirm to the House that she notes the concerns that have been expressed so profoundly and across party by MPs from Hertsmere, Beaconsfield, South West Hertfordshire, East Harrow, and Hayes and Harlington, some of whom have taken the time even during a tube strike to be present for this debate to demonstrate the importance that they place on it? Some have said that the more than 20,000 local people who signed the petition were expressing faux outrage. Those 20,000 people value the service. Many of them, including myself, have used it over the years. We know the benefit that it brings. We know that it is in accordance with this Government’s vision and strategy for the NHS. We know that, used properly, it can reduce costs to the NHS and improve the quality of service, not just for my constituents but for all our constituents. Will the Minister please intervene, ask the trust to think again and find a way to secure this valued service for the future, for local residents?
I agree with every word that the Minister has said about how we get good decisions in the interests of local people, but does she share my concern that there has been no public consultation about this decision at all? There has been very limited engagement even with local residents’ associations about the process and, for the staff involved, there has been some—shall we say—degree of ambiguity about what decisions have been made at each stage of the process. Does she agree that it would be wise at this stage, as a very minimum, to pause, to think again and to undertake that public consultation, so that the NHS managers tasked with making the decisions fully understand the impact on the local community?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate. This issue is having a fundamental impact on our society but is not discussed enough. I associate myself with his remarks about Don’t Divide Us and its excellent report, which I urge everybody to read. We are not a country that divides ourselves into tribe, clan or creed. We do not believe that one sex is more intelligent or more modest than the other. We do not persecute people for their religion or sexuality. At our heart, we are a country built on Christian and enlightenment values and common law. The desire for reason and the belief that we should want for our neighbour what we want for ourselves and that we should be equal before the law have steered us towards being a more meritocratic society than almost any other in the world. I believe in making sure that opportunity can reach people no matter their background, class or circumstances, and I do think that we have some way to go in that regard. However, deep in our national psyche, we believe in judging someone by their character and not by their characteristics. There is a proud legacy of laws passed by Parliament that shows this tendency of ours to protect the few from discrimination or harassment by the many. As many Members have said, the Equality Act 2010 brought together many existing laws on discrimination, including rights for pregnant women and disabled people. Those were certainly important pieces of legislation, but they serve as a reminder that just as human rights were not created by the Human Rights Act in 1998, equality was not created by the Equality Act in 2010. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), talked about being evidence-based; the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights conducted a review of the public sector equality duty in Scotland and found that “there was virtually no robust evidence of positive change in the lives of people with protected characteristics”. We should not fall into the trap of treating this piece of legislation as flawless or beyond scrutiny just because it speaks to values that we hold dear. The Equality Act did not just bring together discrimination and harassment laws, but went much further. It imposed a legal duty on public bodies and private institutions to promote equality based on nine specific characteristics. In turn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out, that has created an industry that wants to force a statistically perfect division on the basis of sex and race in all parts of society, even though that is impossible to achieve. It encourages us to presume that every disparity is a result of prejudice and to turn even minor workplace differences into legal grievances. Worst of all, unelected officials in our institutions have worked behind closed doors with radical activists, who prescribe social engineering to get equal outcomes, even when it takes a hammer to the British people’s sense of fairness and is against the law. In seeking to progress equality, these aspects of the Act have changed our culture and taken us backwards. We do not believe that people should be held back from progression because of their protected characteristics, but in the RAF, white male recruits were deliberately blocked from training and given fewer opportunities because of their race and sex. We do not believe that women should be paid less than men for the same work, but in the Department for Education, they are using the Equality Act to justify paying men a thousand pounds more than women for the same jobs in childcare. We do not believe in employing people just because of their race, but senior officers at West Yorkshire police rigged the recruitment process to hire an ethnic minority candidate, who had failed their interview, just to meet a diversity target. Thanks to the Labour Government, a young person’s opportunity to take their first steps serving this country in the civil service is based not on how hard they work but on what job their parents did when their child was 14 years old. If you are the child of a nurse, cabbie or shopkeeper, I am sorry, but you are just not working class enough—the door is shut to you. In internships up and down the country, including at MI6, young white people have been told they cannot even apply. Here is the problem: the Equality Act has created a hierarchy of diversity. Women are told that their rights are not as important as trans rights. If a white boy grew up in care, had parents were alcoholics or had recovered from a life-changing disease, tough luck—he is not as deserving as an ethnic minority. Who is to say whose adversity has been more of a challenge? How can we fit the whole of human experience into these tidy little boxes? When rights clash, as they do, who gets to choose which group is deemed more worthy? When it came to gender ideology, it was bureaucrats behind closed doors, often working hand in glove with extreme activist groups. When women lost their jobs or were forced to share changing rooms with men, it was HR departments citing the Equality Act who held the pitchforks. Across the NHS, police forces, local councils and Government Departments, it was unelected officials who were using the Equality Act as a weapon to undermine meritocracy. In the cases of Birmingham and Next, it was unaccountable, independent experts who decided that manual shift work was equal to retail and office work. In the case of Next, when employees were given the chance, they refused to move to warehouses. The work was deemed of equal value, even when it was clearly not thought to be so by the workers themselves. That is simply absurd. One ruling bankrupted a council, and the other will push up costs for consumers, all because of decisions made by people who are unaccountable. More such cases are on the way. This hierarchy of diversity does not reflect the values upon which this country was built: fairness and merit, judging individuals by their actions and their character, not by their immutable characteristics. We cannot assign innocence or guilt, merit or privilege, by characteristic, placing some groups on a pedestal while others are pushed aside. The public see a society where protection is selective, and where the playing field tilts towards those who can claim special status. We heard today calls from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) to have yet more special statuses, but surely, the answer is this: the law that protects me from discrimination should protect my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and his constituents from discrimination, when we are all equal before the law. It is about to get worse, because the Government are set on introducing an Islamophobia definition, which they have tried to do behind closed doors. That will have a chilling effect on the ability of our public services to grasp difficult and sensitive issues, such as grooming gangs, gender inequality or Islamist extremism. They are doing this under the pretence of combating hatred and violence, which are already against the law. Instead of doing the hard graft of breaking down barriers and creating opportunity, Ministers want to hand yet more powers to consultants and HR officials in a undefined race and equality Bill to further shape the world according to who they deem worthy. It is easier, after all, to talk about quotas at diversity conferences than it is to fix entrenched problems in education, geography, family structures and culture. Because it is easier to judge physical characteristics, it risks creating a system that overlooks each individual’s personal circumstances and what they may have overcome. Giving pen pushers more authority to dictate who is privileged does not create more opportunity or make Britain more fair or prosperous, so we should ask: what message does this send to our children? Do we want them to believe that their future is determined by tick boxes on a form? Do we want them to grow up thinking that fairness means that some doors are closed to them because of their race or sex, or do we want them to live in a country where the law guarantees equal treatment and opportunity for all? It is time to put an end to the social experiment and return to first principles: equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity in life and the belief that the people of this country can rise as far as their talent and determination can take them. That is what genuine equality looks like, and that is what the British people believe in.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is talking about discrimination. The point of being equal under the law is that the same protections from discrimination can protect his constituents, the hon. Member for Romford and me. The whole point of our common-law system is that we must all face the same law, whether that is for penalty or in the case of discrimination and harassment. He refers to many of the examples of discrimination and harassment that are in the Equality Act, but they were not created by that Act; they were created decades and decades earlier.
I thank the Minister for her speech. Labour Members always try to equate protections against discrimination and harassment with the entirety of the Equality Act but, as many have said, protections against discrimination and harassment existed before the Act. They also exist in many other pieces of legislation, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. What answer does the Minister have to my questions about the public sector equality duty, which talks about advancing equality by taking specific action to address disproportionate participation? That is where we have seen some internships excluding young white people, for example.
I thank the Teller for that point of order and for correcting the record. I hereby direct the Clerks to correct the numbers and confirm that the Ayes were 69 and the Noes were 300. Third Reading