Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
It is extraordinary that the Minister does not have that answer. Too many asylum seekers are arriving in our communities far too quickly because the Government have failed on their promise to smash their gangs. People have had enough, and this Labour Government do not seem to have any answers. What actions will the Minister take to support local communities and public services to deal with the growing number of asylum seekers in our communities?
When we allow Islamist hate preachers such as Sheikh Alafasy to do speaking tours, it is no wonder British Jews in the UK no longer feel safe. In January, he had a platform at the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester, despite the Jewish Representative Council raising its concerns. They were ignored. In the follow-up meeting, described as an appalling “tick-box exercise”, the chief executive could not have cared less. It now turns out that this Sheikh was one of only 10 people that the terrorist perpetrator of this attack followed on Twitter. There was a chance that he was at the event in January. Can the Home Secretary advise what her Department is doing to hold the chief executive Andrew Bolt and the trustees of Bridgewater Hall to account for completely failing to take the concerns of Manchester’s Jewish community into consideration? It is not just the hate marches.
I am going to keep this quite basic, because I think this is where a lot of the public will come from. The Government should always want to do everything they can, and more, to keep the British public and our institutions safe, so I do not understand why they will not do everything they possibly can at least to try to bring this to trial—at least to try to give a jury an opportunity to take matters into its hands and consider this case. I do not understand why they are willing to accept advice, and not actually put this matter to trial when they have the opportunity to do so. Will the Minister please commit to publishing all minutes from any meetings at which matters discussed with the CPS, or what the CPS had requested, were asked for?
I thank our Select Committee Chair for the statement—I have a brief question. I am sure that she expects me to say this, but I just want to say for the record that although I supported the report as a whole, there are a couple of recommendations that I could not support. The first is the recommendation on the inclusion of an inhalation room, and the second is on the provision of tourniquets. I cannot ever support the facilitation of addiction as a way of helping to treat addictions—I just do not see that as an option. Why, before we know the results of the pilot, does the report conclude that it should be extended?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Ms McVey. As we have heard, the order before us will, broadly speaking, enable pharmacists to authorise pharmacy technicians to take primary responsibility for the preparation, assembly and supply of medicines in pharmacies and hospital aseptic facilities. Like the Minister, I thank the thousands of pharmacists across the country for the way they serve our communities, both in the community and in hospital settings. The Conservatives will not be opposing this legislation. The current model of medical dispensing centralises responsibility upon the shoulders of the pharmacist, taking their clinical skills away from treating patients and underutilising qualified pharmacy technicians. It is clearly sensible, therefore, for both pharmacists and technicians to work at the top of their remit. That will be more rewarding for them and more efficient for the NHS. That is why the Conservative Government launched a consultation in 2023 on retaining the need for each pharmacy to have a responsible pharmacist but enabling them to delegate more straightforward tasks to technicians. The risk of doing so is low, and it is further lowered by the fact that, in Great Britain, pharmacy technician is a regulated profession. I am therefore pleased to see that this Government have picked up the baton from the previous Conservative Government, and we welcome the new legislation in principle. However, I do have a few questions for the Minister. First, embedded within these provisions is a total reliance on “supervision” and “authorisation”, yet clarity of definition is missing on how those will operate in practice for a pharmacist authorising a pharmacy technician to dispense medicines. I note that 76% of pharmacists in the consultation shared that anxiety. The Government assure us that there will be a transition period to enable the General Pharmaceutical Council to update its 2005 guidance on pharmacist supervision, but the length of that transition period remains uncertain. Will the Minister confirm the length of that transition period to ensure that regulators can put the correct safeguards in place to preserve accountability when it comes to the rather loose terms of “supervision” and “authorisation”? What guidance has he provided to the regulator on those guidelines? This is a particularly important clarification, given the Government’s preference for oral authorisation, which, although flexible, leaves pharmacists without specific written record-keeping. As the Minister knows, not all pharmacies have a pharmacy technician. In fact, NHS England’s 2023 community pharmacy workforce survey found that there were 17,666 full-time employed pharmacists and 4,324 pharmacy technicians. The impact assessment notes that smaller pharmacies are less likely to have a technician, so larger pharmacies will be able to dispense more cheaply and develop a broader service. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect on rural, remote or small family pharmacies? What plans does he have to monitor the effect of the consolidation on travel distances and patient choice? With the time freed up by delegation of tasks, pharmacists will be able to provide contraception services, blood-pressure checks and vaccinations. They will also be able to expand Pharmacy First provision—another great service introduced by the previous Government, I note. However, as a new service, Pharmacy First was introduced within a fixed funding envelope, so what plans does the Minister have to expand that service? Finally, what discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in Northern Ireland regarding the establishment of a regulated profession of pharmacy technicians there? As Conservatives, we welcome improving efficiency and giving patients faster access to appointments and prescriptions. For those reasons, the changes are to be welcomed. I conclude by paying tribute to officials in the Department, and organisations outside this House, who have worked hard to get these updated provisions before us today.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of baby loss certificates following the pregnancy loss review under the last Government was a vital step in recognising bereaved parents’ grief and offering support on their terms?
I call Perran Moon.
Reducing youth homelessness relies on having an effective, working housing market. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) understands that, and that is why she has pledged that a future Conservative Government will abolish stamp duty on primary residences. She has also said that she is happy for the idea to be stolen and adopted by other parties. It would reduce the cost of house buying in Beverley and Holderness by around £3,800—a real boost for young families trying to get on the housing ladder. Will the Minister say to the Secretary of State, and indeed the Chancellor, “Adopt this policy, and do it now”?
It falls to me to open the bowling for the Opposition Front Bench, so I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment and welcome him to his place today. The previous Government awarded the Mayor of London almost £9 billion of funding to build a total of 151,000 affordable homes in London. The second tranche of that money amounted to £4 billion, which was to build 35,000 homes between 2021 and 2026. To date, only 997 have been completed, with 443 of those homes being acquisitions rather than newly built. What plans does the Secretary of State have to hold the Mayor of London to account for this lamentable failure?
The whole House will have heard that the Secretary of State has no plans to intervene on the Mayor of London. Under section 340 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Secretary of State has the power to direct the Mayor of London to review and revise specific policies of the London plan if they are seen to be hindering housing delivery. There are a plethora of policies—including an obsession with dual facing and twin staircasing and a bizarre aversion to corridors—that developers are united in saying are massively hindering development in the country’s largest city, which has the highest demand for affordable housing. The Secretary of State is holding all the cards and the purse strings. Why will he not intervene?
What commitment can the Minister give to my constituents in Thurmaston, Syston, Queniborough and nearby villages who wish to remain in the county of Leicestershire and have services provided in Leicestershire that they will not against their wishes be absorbed into the city of Leicester, as advocated by Labour’s city mayor in the context of local government reorganisation?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and her Committee for a detailed and important report on a subject that is of huge importance to all our constituencies. I wanted to pick up particularly on parental involvement in the process, which is primarily covered in paragraphs 96 to 102 of her report. Too often, parents feel that the process is something that is done to them, rather than with them. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady could set out what immediate, practical steps she and her Committee think can be taken to move the process away from feeling like a confrontation and towards more of a collaboration.
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) both for bringing this debate during Baby Loss Awareness Week and the incredibly thoughtful and moving contributions they have already made to the House. I suspect we will see this House at its best this evening, debating in a measured but passionate way something of huge importance to so many of our constituents. I welcome to the Public Gallery those family members who have stayed until this late hour because this matters so much to them. I pay tribute to Bliss, Sands and other charities that do so much in this space. It has been a privilege for me to meet, and read correspondence from, constituents of mine who have been affected by baby loss. I have to say, they have carried themselves with the most incredible dignity given what they have been through. I am very conscious that it is something that they will never get over. I will not use surnames as I have not sought permission, but some families have given me the name of the baby they lost, and I want to place those names on the record, because it matters: baby Wynter, baby Harry and baby Ciara-Mae. I know that they will always be their parents’ baby. It is important that we remember that. I hope to do them justice. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest spoke with incredible eloquence when she said that it is about not just mourning the past but fighting for the future. She sums up what this debate must be about if it is about anything. We have seen progress, but it is sadly not enough. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash mentioned, that progress has apparently plateaued since the pandemic. We still see terrible inequality of outcomes across different groups in our society. Sadly, giving birth is not risk-free, but by no means are all those baby losses inevitable—many are avoidable. We need to ensure that we do all we can to reduce that risk. When something goes wrong, as sadly it has on too many occasions, families deserve transparency, openness and a fight for improvement. They need to be believed and listened to. We have seen problems in Morecambe Bay, Telford, East Kent, Nottingham—I could go on. Let me focus briefly on Nottingham—as a Leicestershire MP, many of my constituents will have been affected. Donna Ockenden’s work is very welcome; she has built extraordinary trust with the families and those who have been failed. I also welcome the national review that the Secretary of State has put in place, and the work being done by the noble Baroness Amos. I know that the Secretary of State knows this, but I gently say to him that there are different views among the families, and I encourage him and the review team to continue taking the families with them, to work with them at each stage, and to listen to them. Improvements are needed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash mentioned the CQC and he was absolutely right to do so. We need to see continued transparent engagement by that review with the families. We need to see whether more can be done to consider the role of the independent regulators. It is important that we look at the support available for both parents when the worst happens and they are bereaved. We need to raise more awareness. I know that the Secretary of State knows that. The families I have spoken to speak well of him. I know him well; he is a decent man and cares deeply about this. I know that he is listening. The fact that a Secretary of State is on the Treasury Bench at this hour and will conclude the debate at around midnight is testament to his commitment—I wish him well in his work. It behoves us all to continue to strive and do more to reduce the number of avoidable baby deaths and the pain the avoidable baby loss causes. Equally—I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash—we must also focus on hope and progress, and on safety, accountability and what more we can do to ensure that a child coming into this world is not a moment of sadness and grief but a moment of joy. I wish the Secretary of State well in his work on that.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I first declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her thoughtful opening of this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for her as a passionate advocate of, and champion for, animal welfare. I also thank the 102,458 signatories to the petition, including the 143 from my constituency of Epping Forest. We have heard many contributions from across the House today about many of the tools in the toolbox for tackling bovine tuberculosis. We have heard from the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for St Ives (Andrew George), for Worcester (Tom Collins) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). Some of the key elements that came out in those contributions were the mental health impacts of this disease—I will touch on that later in my speech—and the different tools that are currently available to us, or are being developed, to tackle the disease. No particular tool is perfect, but we need to be looking at a combination of tools in the toolbox. I think we can all agree that, as we have heard, bovine tuberculosis has devastating consequences, and at present there is no single method that, in isolation, is perfect for combating it. During this debate it has been encouraging to hear colleagues from across the House reiterate the fundamental key aim, which is that we all want to eradicate bovine TB. That aim should unite all stakeholders, including farmers, animal welfare groups, scientists and veterinarians. Loud and clear in this debate is the importance of animal welfare—the welfare of the cattle and also the badgers. As we have heard, there are various numbers for the cattle that are slaughtered, but many thousands are slaughtered each year in the UK as part of the effort to eradicate this awful disease. Equally, there are different levels for the cost, but it is estimated that the cost to the UK taxpayer is £150 million per year, with additional costs falling on the cattle sector itself. Bovine TB takes a terrible toll on farmers, leading to the loss of highly prized animals and, in the worst cases, entire valued herds. It has devastating impacts on farming businesses up and down the land, and as we have heard across the Chamber it has significant effects on the mental health of everyone involved. In the last Session, I was a member of the EFRA Committee and triggered an inquiry and report on rural mental health. Some of the most powerful evidence we took was from the veterinary and farming sectors about the mental health impacts on farmers and other workers, including vets, from bovine TB. The stress and anxiety around the testing of a herd, the trauma and consequences of having positive reactors in a herd, and the implications and outcomes of infection in a herd are devastating. We cannot overstate the loss of animal life and the human emotional impact that result from infectious disease outbreaks in farming. My experiences as a veterinary surgeon in the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 are a huge part of my journey to this place as a Member of Parliament. I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime. Bovine TB is a very complicated situation, with complex epidemiology that, I am afraid, still very much implicates wildlife reservoirs such as badgers in the spread of the disease. The disease can be spread between cattle, from cattle to people—it is important to realise it is a zoonotic disease—and between cattle and badgers. The latter transmission can be from cow to badger and vice versa. The review for the Government by Godfray in 2018, which was updated in August this year, clearly states that there is transmission to and from badgers and cattle, and that the presence of infected badgers poses a threat to cattle herds. The Godfray review also emphasised the impact that the disease has on the welfare and wellbeing of farmers and their families—a discussion we have heard today. In October 2023, NFU Cymru released the results of a survey it had conducted. Of the 507 farmers who had completed the survey, 85% said bovine TB had negatively impacted their mental health or the mental health of someone in their family. Over 93% said they were extremely concerned or very concerned about bovine TB. The 2025 update to the Godfray review also took time to stress the significant research undertaken on bovine TB and its mental health impacts, and recommended that “those dealing directly with farmers in a regulatory or advisory capacity, received basic mental health first aid and suicide awareness training.” I strongly support that recommendation and very much urge the Government to work to implement it as soon as possible, in addition to other, similar recommendations that we made in our EFRA report on rural mental health. As we have heard today, there are significant challenges with the testing for and diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Testing is so important, and more work is needed on the optimal tests for the disease, taking into consideration both sensitivity and specificity. There is a debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the currently used single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin—SICCT—test. Godfray talks about the move to the more sensitive single intradermal cervical tuberculin—SICT—test. Indeed, the British Veterinary Association also talks about the potential roll-out of the interferon-gamma test as a supplement to the SICCT. Those diagnostic tests are just one tool in our toolbox to control and eradicate bovine TB. During the tenure of the previous Conservative Government, in a major scientific breakthrough, the Animal and Plant Health Agency developed a companion candidate test—the so-called DIVA test—to detect infections among vaccinated animals, and differentiate a vaccinated animal from a naturally infected one, and the hon. Member for St Ives spoke about that test. That major breakthrough brought us closer to being able to strategically vaccinate cattle in England against this insidious disease but, as we have heard, we are not quite there yet with that test. I urge the Government and the Minister that this must remain a huge and urgent priority, and I hope she will update us on the progress of the field trials and roll-out of that vital tool. The previous Government drove forward an ambitious strategy to eradicate bovine TB in England by 2038. That strategy set out a range of evidence-led interventions to tackle the disease in both cattle and wildlife, including by strengthening cattle testing and movement controls; introducing new help for herd owners to improve biosecurity measures on farms and manage down the risk of bringing the disease into their herds; and supporting the deployment of badger vaccination. I cannot stress enough how important biosecurity measures are in the control of this disease, just as they are for many other infectious diseases, as we have heard in the debate, and that too was emphasised by the Godfray review and by the British Veterinary Association. I cannot pass the word “biosecurity” without stressing that this issue is another clear demonstration of how crucial it is that our biosecurity is firing on all cylinders, and that the APHA is fully equipped at the forefront of the UK’s fight against animal disease outbreaks and their potentially devastating consequences. After pressing the Government no fewer than 17 times in this Parliament to fully fund the redevelopment of APHA’s headquarters in Weybridge, I am relieved that their national security strategy committed £1 billion to do so. I welcome that major commitment from the Government, which continues the work started by the previous Conservative Government. However, that £1 billion, combined with the £1.2 billion provided by the previous Conservative Government in 2020, still leaves us with a shortfall of £400 million from the £2.8 billion that the National Audit Office outlined is required. The current plans mean that the redevelopment will not be complete until 2034, with interim laboratories not in place until 2027-28. The 2025 update of the Godfray review explicitly concludes that a “lack of investment” in the APHA, and in DEFRA more widely, is still limiting our control of bovine TB. That needs to be addressed with urgency. Our wider short-term biosecurity is equally vulnerable, as outlined this year in the alarming findings of two new reports by the EFRA Committee. The “Biosecurity at the border: Britain’s illegal meat crisis” report stated that seizures of illegal meat imports have soared from 164 tonnes in 2023 to 235 tonnes in 2024. If we think about the amount that we are not detecting, it is a frightening statistic. Meat being handled in poor sanitary conditions is already creeping through into our food chain. As with bovine TB, the EFRA Committee’s reports note that a key part of this problem is a lack of strategic resourcing by DEFRA, such as DEFRA currently funding only 20% of the Dover port authority’s operational coverage, which is only made worse by poor data collection and sharing at present. All of that is against the worrying backdrop of the worldwide biosecurity context, with foot and mouth disease outbreaks this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia; African swine fever spreading across the European continent; and avian influenza, bluetongue virus and, as we are discussing today, bovine TB very much with us in the United Kingdom. Those are critical and grave threats, and we cannot afford any complacency by any Government of any political colour, so I urge the Government to carry on really focusing on biosecurity. I shudder to think of the consequences if this situation is not improved as a matter of urgency. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what the Government are doing about the biosecurity situation in her response. We have heard about vaccination of cattle today, and another vital tool in the toolbox is vaccination of cattle against TB. At present, cattle are starting to be vaccinated with the cattle BCG vaccine, which is based on the human BCG vaccine—a weakened strain, which does not cause disease. However, the BCG does not give 100% protection against the disease. On its own, that particular tool is not the silver bullet; it needs to be used in combination. As Godfray states, the development of a successful BCG/DIVA product is still not there and still not guaranteed, so we need to make sure that it is scaled up and rolled out at pace. Therefore, cattle vaccination should not be considered as the end result, but as complimentary to a comprehensive testing and surveillance programme. It is also important to highlight efforts to vaccinate the wild badger population. Practically that is, as one can imagine, a much more difficult job than vaccinating cattle. As Godfray states, the vaccination of badgers can help, but it may take over a decade based on current approaches. The Government launched a national badger population survey in February, and further surveying is scheduled to resume later this year to estimate badger abundance and population recovery. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify when the results of those surveys will be published. The last Government supported efforts to control the spread of the disease, and a new version of the ibTB mapping tool was launched, which is enabling farmers to access information on TB-free farms and facilitate safer trading. Unfortunately, this year’s update of the original Godfray review has concluded that “there is only a small chance of meeting the target without a step change in the urgency with which the issue is treated and the resources devoted to eradication.” Sadly, we again are being warned that a lack of resourcing when it comes to animal welfare is an obstacle to doing what we need to do. That must change. Moving forward, strategies to eradicate the disease must focus on vaccination. However, until that can be done at the speed and scale required, other control methods are still required. That includes the use of culling in the wildlife reservoir population of badgers, which has been shown to be an effective method of controlling the spread of the disease. We have had debate about that today. Part of ensuring that culling is undertaken as necessary is ensuring that, behind alternative tools such as vaccination, we have the body of evidence necessary to give us the clearest possible picture of their effectiveness, strengths and limitations. The National Farmers Union and the British Veterinary Association have emphasised the need for this evidence, particularly when it comes to the use of vaccination and its impact on herd incidence. That can not only have benefits in terms of how vaccination could be used as a potential exit strategy or to stop disease spreading into new areas, but could give confidence to farmers that alternatives to badger culling can be effective and motivate those with livestock at risk of bovine TB to take part in Government measures, particularly in the light of the fact that, as we have discussed today, the Government have announced that they intend to end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. When it comes to information collection and sharing, both the Godfray review and the National Audit Office have stressed the disappointing progress made on the livestock information transformation programme, which drives livestock traceability. The Godfray review’s updated publication this year found that speeding up progress on that programme is essential to eradicating bovine TB by 2038. The National Farmers Union notes that this is a huge opportunity for the industry to unlock a wealth of additional information; I urge the Government to look at how the benefits of that can be unlocked as soon as possible in the essential task of data gathering. The Labour Government’s ending of the badger cull seems a high-stakes gamble and does not appear to follow all the science or the evidence. For example, the study by Downs et al. published in 2019 found that after four years of culling, reductions in TB incidence rates in cattle herds were 66% in Gloucestershire and 37% in Somerset, relative to comparison areas. In 2024, Birch et al. found that, in a study from 2013 to 2020, the herd incidence rate of TB decreased by 56% up to the fourth year of badger control policy interventions.
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Birch et al. study of 2024 looks at that issue in depth. Indeed, if we look at some of those scientific studies criticising the badger cull, the Government’s DEFRA chief scientific adviser and the chief veterinary officer queried the statistical methodology of those. We can have a long debate about the methodology of those papers, but Godfray himself, and the expert panel reconvened by the new Government, looked at a lot of the evidence, which shows that there is still a role in some way for badger control. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will carry on. The previous Government were clear that they did not want or intend to continue badger control indefinitely. No one wants to keep going with it forever. However, until all the tools in the toolbox—we have heard today about many of those tools, and they are not all there yet—are fully developed and up to speed, His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, sadly, badger control needs to be kept in that toolbox. I know that will disappoint many stakeholders watching this debate and many people in the Public Gallery, but we must try to be dispassionate and follow the science. One of the key take-homes from the Godfray review was that the polarisation of the role of the wildlife reservoir and the badger in this debate, and the fact that it has split people into one view or the other, has made it very difficult for everyone to analyse the exact risk and the best control mechanism. The British Veterinary Association states that when badger culling is deployed, it “should be deployed in a targeted, effective and humane manner only where cull design is based on the best available evidence and mitigates against the ‘perturbation effect’”, which we have heard a little about today. The National Farmers Union states that to tackle the disease effectively and combat transmission through all routes we must retain access to all tools, and their implementation must be driven by science and evidence. More widely, on rural issues, this Labour Government have already shown us that sometimes they do not follow the evidence or data in policy decisions for farming and rural communities. Just look at their retrograde approach to taxation on farms, ignoring the devastation that the family farm tax will have on the very livelihood and survival of rural businesses, and choosing to add to the pressures on farmers’ pockets and wellbeing, rather than providing them with the support they need. I too urge the Government to reverse the policy as a matter of urgency—something we have heard from across the House—to give clarity to farmers and to abolish the family farm tax. I hope the Government do not make another error by losing the progress made since 2014 in the control of bovine TB. If we take a quick decision without looking at all the science and the evidence, we might take backwards steps that will have significant impacts on our rural communities. At present, we need all the tools to remain in the bovine TB control toolbox: biosecurity measures, better diagnostic testing, cattle vaccination, badger vaccination, roll-out of the DIVA test and targeted control of the wildlife reservoir. To conclude, I reiterate that His Majesty’s official Opposition believe that targeted, humane and evidence-based badger control should remain a measure—not forever, but so long as the evidence says that it needs to stay in place. It is an available part of the toolbox, alongside others, to control the spread of the devastating disease that is bovine TB. The previous Government set out their ambition to eradicate the disease by 2038, and it is important to highlight that the current Government have not changed that target year. We should follow the science, the evidence and the data, for the sake of our cattle sector, our rural communities and, indeed, rural mental health.
We in Leicestershire have three, if not four, plans for our reorganisation, with no agreement. We also have a county council run by Reform, which has already had not one but two reshuffles, losing its cabinet leads for social services and finance. While 70% of its budget is spent on social services and special educational needs and disabilities, what assurances can the Government give me that my constituents will get those services, and that those services will be protected, when there already seems to be chaos in the council?
The right hon. Gentleman is the Minister for Security. I have been here for almost an hour and a half, and I have not heard him answer this question: was China spying on Parliament, or is it even a consideration that it is spying on Parliament?
I want to pick up the question about punishment, because I am confused. The Secretary of State says that, in order to work, someone will have to have a digital ID—it will be mandatory—yet she also says that the impetus will be on the company and not the individual, who will not need to have one. How will that work? Will the individual have to have one? If they choose not to, will that mean they cannot work? Will it mean they have to claim benefit? Or will it mean they will go to prison because they do not have a mandatory ID?
The Minister has made great play of the need to work cross-party on this issue. May I gently suggest to him that the time to do that was before the case collapsed, not afterwards? The Minister has leant heavily on what officials are willing to say about the threat or otherwise that China poses, but officials do not make Government policy and do not state the position of the UK Government; Ministers do. If the Government were struggling to find an official who would say in a witness statement that China was a threat, is there any good reason why they could not have asked the former Security Minister to do so, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who was happy to give a statement at the Dispatch Box? I am sure that many other former Government Ministers would have happily given evidence that China was a threat, enabling the case to proceed. What possible reason was there for not doing that?
This ID card is being touted as an idea to do mandatory work checks. It rather surprises me that the right hon. Lady, who until recently was in charge of the Department for Work and Pensions, is not aware that we already have mandatory checks in order to work. Her statement was contradictory: she said that it will give people more control over their data, but unless you are a multimillionaire who does not need to work, you will need to have an ID card, so it is not really optional at all. She has failed to answer questions from many MPs across the House on how much it will cost. Can she say how much it will cost?
Let me first draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) and the hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) and for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing the debate, and on their eloquent and thoughtful speeches. Behind the statistics that I will put before Members, as others have done today, are the broken families with a gaping hole in their lives and a pain that will never go away. There are so many unanswered questions. What would their first word have been? When would they have taken their first steps? Who would they have grown up to become? For families who have lost a baby, these questions, painfully, tragically, will never be answered. I have been honoured to meet representatives of charities all of which are doing excellent work to support families who have been affected by baby loss, and campaigning for improved maternity services. I pay tribute to those charities—including Bliss, Sands and Tommy’s—and to the royal colleges, and I thank the families in the Maternity Safety Alliance for sharing their very personal and moving stories with me when the shadow Secretary of State and I met them recently. The last Government worked hard to improve maternity services. A decade ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, announced an ambition to halve the rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths in England by 2030, and he made encouraging progress. The stillbirth rate fell by about 20%, as did the neonatal death rate, and the maternal death rate fell by about a third.
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. Those certificates have proved to be of great comfort to many. The hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) talked about her work in that regard, and I thank her for it. I am also grateful for the work of my former colleague Tim Loughton. One of the reasons I went into politics is the fact that one can make more of a difference as a politician than as a single doctor alone. The changes made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash mean that, by quite some margin, he has saved more babies’ lives than I have as a consultant paediatrician. I assure the Secretary of State that it is not flattery when I say that he has more capacity than any NHS doctor when it comes to saving babies’ lives. I am pleased to see him here at almost midnight; I know that he cares, and I know that, like all of us, he wants to stop the tragedies about which we have heard so much today. However, I ask him to consider, every day, whether he is really doing all that he can to maximise the opportunity that he has, and, in the spirit of constructive opposition, I have a few questions for him. He said he came in with a plan, but in fact he took a year to create the 10-year plan, which creates a maternity and neonatal taskforce that is tasked with creating another plan. I sincerely hope that it is a good plan, after all this waiting, but I do worry that it has lost time, so can he confirm when it will be published? Staffing levels have been mentioned in many tragic incidents, and the Secretary of State has promised that he will train thousands of additional midwives. Looking at the figures, an average of 10 fewer students have been accepted on to midwifery degrees in England across his two years in office compared with 2023. Can the Secretary of State confirm when he expects to train the 1,000 additional midwives he promised in his manifesto? The previous Government increased the number of medical school places and built five new medical schools. As those students begin to qualify, the specialist training places need to be expanded and British graduates need to be prioritised. The Secretary of State seemed to understand that at Easter, but what has he done about it? The applicant-to-place ratio has risen dramatically, and now strikes are threatened, which would threaten the care of women and babies across the country. We know that reducing baby loss starts before a baby is conceived and that factors such as teenage pregnancy, smoking, obesity and sub-optimally managed chronic conditions increase the risk of stillbirth. We must systemically improve on factors that increase the risk of baby death. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has brought through legislation, introduced by the previous Government, to fortify bread flour with folic acid by the end of 2026. That will prevent 200 cases of neural tube defects a year and improve the health of pregnant women. I am also pleased to see that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is gradually making its way through Parliament. However, given that the Bill completed its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 23 April and is not due to appear in Committee until 27 October—more than six months later—there just does not seem to be enough urgency in the Government’s actions. Can the Secretary of State tell us what he is doing to improve pre-conception advice and optimise the management of chronic conditions in women to reduce the risk of baby loss? As an NHS doctor, I pay tribute to my colleagues, who welcome almost 600,000 tiny miracles into the world each year. However, as we have heard this evening, care does not always meet the highest standards and too often avoidable deaths occur. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the findings of the ongoing Ockenden review into maternity services will be swiftly acted on? Donna Ockenden’s 2020 review into maternity care at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust found that at least 201 babies and nine mothers could have survived had they had better care. From her report came a £95 million ringfenced fund to improve the care available for expectant mothers, but as we have heard already this evening, the Government have slashed that fund from £95 million to just £2 million, with the rest of the money siphoned off to England’s 42 integrated care boards. The Government have also reduced ICB budgets and are forcing them to restructure. I am worried that this un-ringfencing of the budget, and the distracting reorganisation, will have a negative impact on efforts to improve maternity services. What is the Secretary of State doing to prevent negative consequences? Neonatal care can be lifesaving. One in seven babies in the UK requires neonatal care, but unfortunately their fight for life is not always won, and 1,933 babies died in neonatal care in 2023. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State clarify the extent to which neonatal services will be included in the maternity and neonatal investigation due by the end of the year? How will the quality of neonatal care be assessed? The recent NHS estates review of maternity and neonatal care did not appear to include parental accommodation, yet many parents find that their babies are transferred miles away for specialist care. May I urge the Secretary of State to recognise the value of this accommodation and make sure it is widely available? As many Members have mentioned, black and ethnic minority women are more likely to suffer baby loss or maternal death. Can the Secretary of State update us on what progress he has made on his Government’s manifesto promise to close the maternal mortality gap for black and Asian women? In the decade since the previous Government launched ambitions to improve maternity safety in the UK, the number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths has reduced by almost a quarter, and the number of maternal deaths has reduced by around a third. These are encouraging signs, and they show good progress. We must build on these achievements, but there is so much more work to be done. Today we have heard many stories of loss and of care failures. Only action will turn the page on baby loss. We all wish for improved maternity and neonatal care, but the Secretary of State is the man with the levers to make that happen—the levers to save hundreds of lives. I urge him to use them urgently.
I congratulate the Home Secretary on an excellent statement, in which she said early on that the police officers involved are being treated as witnesses. That is absolutely right, but does she understand that many members of the security forces involved in this kind of work fear that they will be hung out to dry? Many of them will not have their fears assuaged by the written ministerial statement today on the legacy of the troubles, on which more anon. Will she reassure me that everything is being done by the Greater Manchester police to put an arm around those officers who were directly involved in this incident, and that they will be given every support necessary?
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I respect very much indeed, that his answer to the question put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General, raised more questions than he gave answers. Is he seriously suggesting that the National Security Adviser, with all his links to the 48 Group and to the Grandview Institution, had no involvement whatsoever in the advice that went to the Crown Prosecution Service? While he is about it, will he clarify that apparent conflation of this country’s economic ties with China, which he appeared to give in mitigation for the mess that the Government appear to have got themselves into?
Why does the Minister think that a staggering 3 million people have already signed a petition against her expensive and intrusive plans? Does she perhaps think that those people want her to get on with fixing things that matter to them, like illegal immigration and smashing the gangs, which this measure will do nothing to fix, as the construction of her statement seemed to suggest she understands? Will she spend her time trying to sort things that really matter to people, rather than trying to create problems to which there is no obvious solution?
Despite that answer, it is clear that things are getting worse. Our councils are battling with the cost of this Government’s border failures. The 22% rise in small boat arrivals, combined now with Chagossians arriving in rising numbers, throwing themselves at the mercy of our local authorities as they escape Starmer’s sell-out, is stretching council housing budgets to breaking point. The Government have refused to answer my written questions about what financial support they provide to councils housing asylum seekers and refugees who are granted asylum in their areas. Can the Minister tell the House how much of the proposed rise in council tax is for the cost of the Government’s asylum failures, and will he publish the full costs and support in the interests of transparency?
Does the Minister agree that the Government have now set a perverse incentive for British officials, in that admitting to espionage problems with China is seen as rocking the boat?
The Minister used the Roussev case in his own defence. In that case, the Court of Appeal set the clear precedent that the appropriate definition of an enemy state is not based on what the Government say—it is a state that behaves like an enemy. The judge stated plainly that “There is no reason in our view why the term ‘an enemy’ should not include a country which represents a current threat to the national security of the UK.” Throughout the duration of this case, there has been ample evidence—including from the Intelligence and Security Committee and the current director of MI5—that China represents a threat to our national security, including at the time when Mr Berry and Mr Cash were acting as spies. The Prime Minister’s comments on this case were frankly nonsense, and it is time that we stop kowtowing and take a stand against China. If the Minister means what he said about future dealings, will he start by doing what a number of people have called for and refusing to approve the espionage centre masquerading as an embassy at the Royal Mint? Will he reject it and tell the Chinese, effectively, that enough is enough?
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. While I am very supportive of the work that is being done to increase security at Jewish synagogues and other venues, the answer cannot be constantly more security for the Jewish community. The Jewish community need to be able to live their lives fully, as the Home Secretary said, so what steps is she taking to address the extremist ideology of the perpetrator? It is present online, in schools and in mosques; it is addling brains and making people do utterly horrendous things, such as those we saw last week.
There is a real threat at the moment to public trust in the criminal justice system following the collapse of this trial. Will the Minister make a commitment that he, ministerial colleagues and other advisers will co-operate fully with any scrutiny work done by my Committee or other Committees of the House?
There are over 560 families on Gosport borough council’s waiting list for social housing, yet despite taking power a few years ago, the Liberal Democrat council has not built a single extra council house. Meanwhile, the complaints I get in my mailbag about the substandard quality of council accommodation grow more and more every single week. What is the Secretary of State doing to encourage such inadequate councils to build a greater quantity and better quality of council accommodation?
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. At 9.31 am on the morning of Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, we saw the sickening terrorist attack on worshippers at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester by an Islamist extremist. The brutal attack left two men dead, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and three more injured. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the victims and their families whose lives were so wickedly torn apart on that holy morning. I want to thank Greater Manchester police and others in the security and emergency services for responding so quickly, and the brave worshippers inside the synagogue who stopped the attacker from entering. I join the Home Secretary in saying that I hope the IOPC completes its work quickly and that its conclusions reflect the fact that the police officers acted with courage in what was a very dangerous, unpredictable and fast-moving situation. Sadly, we know that antisemitism is at record highs in the UK. The Community Security Trust recorded over 1,500 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first half of this year, the second-highest level ever, and Jewish people in our country, tragically, face far higher rates of hate crime than any other community. We must stand with this country’s Jewish community and fight with all our resolve and energy the ancient evil of antisemitism wherever it is found. It has no place on these shores—not ever. To be clear, attacks based on race or religion are totally unacceptable. The recent attack on a mosque in Peacehaven was appalling, and I know that we all unreservedly condemn it. Everyone in this country in all communities, including the Muslim community, must have the courage to stand up to extremism wherever we see it. Standing by and saying nothing when encountering extremism is complicity. That is why the antisemitism that is rife on university campuses must also be fought. The Home Secretary mentioned that in her statement, but will she work with her colleagues in Government to withdraw funding from universities that do not do enough to fight antisemitism? We must do more than just call out extremism. Anyone espousing extremist views or who expresses support for terrorism, or racial or religious hatred of any kind, including antisemitism, who is not a British citizen should be removed from this country. Will the Home Secretary commit today to using her powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove from this country any foreign national who expresses extremist views or sympathy for political violence, terrorism, antisemitism or any other form of religious hatred, whether or not the criminal threshold is met? She could make that commitment now. Will she show that she is serious about fighting extremism by doing so? I agree with the Home Secretary that the protests on 7 October this year, the anniversary of the terrorist murders by Hamas and just days after the Manchester attack, were appalling—“un-British”, in her words, which I agree with. The protests have continued even after the recent peace agreement relating to Gaza was signed, and, of course, they started before Israel’s military action in Gaza. In principle, I support her proposed introduction of a new cumulative impact test to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, but will she also consider expanding that test to also account for intimidation felt by other communities as a result of protest? Does the Home Secretary also agree that anyone expressing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation or who incites violence, for example by calling for jihad or intifada, should be arrested and prosecuted? Since the attack, the police confirmed the attacker pledged allegiance to Islamic State and was influenced by extreme Islamist ideology, as the Home Secretary acknowledged. Islamist extremism is sadly a threat we know all too well in the United Kingdom. In July, we remembered the 52 people murdered by Islamist terrorists in the 7/7 bombings, which took place 20 years ago—the deadliest terrorist attack committed on British soil. We also remember Sir David Amess, also murdered by an Islamist extremist, and the 22 victims of the Manchester Arena attack, also murdered by an Islamist extremist. We should not be afraid to call out this extremist ideology wherever we see it. It has no place in this country. Will the Home Secretary pledge to drop any definition of Islamophobia that would make calling out Islamist extremism any harder? The fact is that 75% of MI5’s terrorism-related caseload is related to Islamist extremism, and the vast majority of terrorist murders in the past 25 years were perpetrated by Islamists, yet only 13% of the Prevent caseload is Islamist related. What does the Home Secretary propose to do about that? Britain gave perpetrator Jihad al-Shamie a home when he arrived here from Syria. He then carried out a brutal attack on a synagogue, deliberately targeted at Jewish people, on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. We need to reflect very deeply on the implications of that. Today, we must all stand together and fight the hatred of extremism and terror. Attacks like this one are an attack on our whole nation. We will never change our way of life, and we will never allow our fellow citizens to be threatened or attacked simply because of their background. I know that the whole House will want to send out that message today.
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Education Committee. Before I call the Chair of the Committee, I remind hon. Members that questions should be brief and should be directed to her and not to those on the Front Bench.
Order. It is usual to run Select Committee statements for only 20 minutes. Members can see that many are standing to speak, so some will be disappointed unless everybody keeps their questions short and the Chair’s answers are also short.
Order. I made the point earlier that in order to get as many Members in as possible, we have to have short questions and answers.
I call Andy MacNae, who will speak for about 15 minutes.
Order. I will now call the next co-sponsor of the debate. After she has spoken, there will be a five-minute time limit.
I appreciate the hon. Lady finishing her remarks. Members will have noticed that I indulged the hon. Lady, but unfortunately after the next speaker I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes so that I can get all Members in.
Order. I ask hon. Members to take their lead from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) so that I can get everybody in. If they kept their speeches to three minutes, that would be very helpful.
Order. There is now a formal three-minute time limit.