Regional Transport Inequality
I call the Minister.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Suicide Prevention
I call Lee Pitcher, who will speak for around 15 minutes.
- Hansard source
Non-surgical Aesthetic and Cosmetic Treatments
I beg to move, That this House has considered regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are witnessing an emerging public health crisis. The cosmetic and aesthetic treatment industry is expanding rapidly, yet our laws have utterly failed to keep pace. In 2023 alone, around 7.7 million people in the UK underwent treatments and procedures, ranging from botox injections to facelifts. Every single cosmetic and aesthetic treatment or procedure is currently under-regulated, both surgical and non-surgical alike. Each year, more people undergo these treatments, and each year, more are left vulnerable to devastating complications because of a systematic failure in our legal system. The statistics paint an indisputable picture. Without raising the baseline minimum level of clinical standards, millions across the country will continue to suffer, and some will pay with their lives. We live in a time when beauty standards are set at impossible heights. Every single day, people of all ages are bombarded, whether through social media, advertising, magazines, or messages telling them how they should look. Young women in particular are relentlessly targeted with new beauty trends, each one more unattainable than the last. Failure to follow them leaves many feeling ugly and unworthy in their own skin, but let us be clear: they are not ugly, unworthy or imperfect. More and more people are victims of a culture that thrives on selling unattainable beauty standards. One day, you are too fat; the next, you are too skinny. Your lips are too thin, then suddenly they are too thick. Your forehead is too wrinkly. Your nose is too pointed. The list goes on and on. There is always something to make someone feel that they are not enough. The impact is undeniable. In 2020, a parliamentary report found that 61% of adults and 66% of children in the UK had negative body image. What do people do? Many turn to cosmetic and aesthetic treatments, searching for confidence in a system that profits increasingly from their insecurity, but these so-called beauty standards do not just lightly shape how people perceive themselves; they create shame, pressure and, for some, a devastating impact on their mental health. A parliamentary report in 2022 revealed the scale of the problem: 80% of people said that negative views about their body had harmed their mental health. As confirmed by the Mental Health Foundation, the two disorders most closely linked to poor body image are eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorder—the number of diagnoses for which are on the rise. Currently, an estimated 1.25 million people in the UK are living with an eating disorder. Between 2015 and 2021, hospital admissions for eating disorders rose by 84%, and over half of those admitted were aged 25 or younger. Body dysmorphic disorder, despite stigma and under-diagnosis, is thought to affect over 1 million people in the UK, and the true figure is almost certainly far higher. Most shocking of all, one in eight people experience suicidal thoughts and feelings because of body image concerns. This is a crisis. More and more people across the country are suffering, and many are developing life-threating health conditions. However, the truth is that something can be done. The Mental Health Foundation found that 21% of adults said that advertising images had caused them body image concerns, and 40% of teenagers said the same about social media. Yet, right now, the cosmetic and aesthetic industry is free to advertise however it wants. Businesses can digitally alter images beyond recognition and present them as reality, and social media influencers are allowed to push cosmetic treatments straight at young people. Currently, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of Advertising Practice restrict the use of enhancements that make an image misleading and restrict cosmetic advertising from being targeted at under-18s, but that is evidently not enough. We need tougher regulations—tougher protections for young people on social media and tougher rules to stop the public being misled. The answer? Requiring all images and videos used in advertising on every platform to display a clear symbol showing if they have been digitally altered or enhanced. That idea was first put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) in a private Member’s Bill, the Digitally Altered Body Images Bill, which sadly did not make it through all its parliamentary stages before the Dissolution of the last Parliament. That requirement, alongside stricter enforcement of the advertising ban for under-18s, would protect young people from harmful online content, expose the false promises of cowboy practitioners and help people finally see the reality behind the images. Of course, advertising regulation changes are not the only changes that this industry is in desperate need of. Right now in the UK, anyone can perform non-surgical cosmetic and aesthetic treatments and anyone on the General Medical Council register can carry out surgical cosmetic and aesthetic procedures. We live in a regulated society, leading to a misconception on the part of many people that the industry is already regulated. After all, the rest of the medical sector is, so why would it not be? Many genuinely believe that the practitioners they visit have a medical background. They may see official-looking certificates on the wall, and they presume that the training claimed to have been completed is of the same rigorous standard as nurses and doctors go through. The reality is that I could sign up to an online course, complete roughly 10 hours of coursework, attend two days of in-person training and call myself qualified to perform fat dissolution or botox injections. I could sign up to another course, watch a series of “specialist” videos and then be “qualified” to inject lip and dermal fillers. How on earth does watching a few videos or attending a two-day course qualify anyone to perform treatments that carry serious risks, including blindness, tissue necrosis, paralysis and even death? If I were having a simple blood test, I would expect a nurse trained in phlebotomy to handle the needle. If I needed my appendix removed, I would expect a general surgeon to perform the operation. If I were having needles put into my face or my nose operated on, I would expect the person holding the needle or scalpel to have the medical qualifications required by the NHS, meaning specialist training and Care Quality Commission registration. Today’s debate is about non-surgical treatments, but let us be clear: surgical procedures are also in desperate need of regulation. After my meeting with the Royal College of Surgeons, it is evident that we must tighten the rules on who is allowed to perform cosmetic and aesthetic operations, and we must amend the health and social care legislation, expanding the powers of the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on operations and making “surgeon” a protected title. I would welcome the chance to meet the Minister to discuss this further, because we must not allow non-surgical treatments to be regulated while surgical procedures are left behind. There must be one overarching framework that encompasses all cosmetic and aesthetic treatments and procedures, and at the heart of that new framework must be a minimum baseline standard of practitioner training. The absence of such a standard has allowed low-quality, unsafe so-called clinics to spring up across the country. They decay our high streets, feed the black market with untested medication purchases and make access to dangerous treatments easier than any others in the medical sector. These cheap, unregulated clinics, run by anyone who fancies giving aesthetics a go, are putting people’s health at serious risk. They buy cheap products that may never have been properly safety tested in order to undercut professionals with bargain prices, and it works. Young people in particular are increasingly drawn in. The clinics do not offer consultations involving discussion of alternatives or risks. They do not offer cooling-off periods. They do not adhere to safe environment standards to prevent infection. In far too many cases, someone can walk in off the street and undergo treatment on the spot, performed on a living room sofa. What happens if something goes wrong during the treatment or afterwards? For many people, it does. In 2023, the Government-approved register for medical aesthetic treatments, Save Face, received more than 3,000 reports of complications and adverse outcomes. In July 2025, an ITV investigation revealed that more than 50% of women who had undergone non-surgical cosmetic procedures required medical assistance afterwards, with 15% requiring emergency support. Save Face confirmed that those findings matched its patient records. This demonstrates exactly what happens when unqualified practitioners are allowed to continue unchecked. People are suffering serious health complications. Many are left traumatised, and countless others never seek help at all, out of shame and stigma. When help is required, it often falls to the NHS to provide corrective care, which costs time and money. There is currently no exact data on the costs. However, an NHS Scotland study found that over five years the average cost of correcting botched procedures and surgeries was £9,327. To put that into perspective, a study in The European Journal of Health Economics reported that the average cost of treating breast cancer is £9,450. What do we want the Government to do? This is not a party political issue and not just a health crisis; it is an economic one, too, and is entirely avoidable. That is why regulations adopting a traffic-light system that categorises every treatment and procedure with a minimum baseline of standards is imperative: green for non-prescription treatments; amber for treatments involving prescribed medicines or that penetrate the skin; and red for surgical procedures requiring anaesthesia. There must be clear rules. All treatments across the three categories must be performed by CQC-approved professionals, with at least professional indemnity and public liability insurance in a sterile, fit-for-purpose clinical environment. Any treatment involving prescription-only medications, such as botox or certain hormone replacement therapies for weight loss, must be performed only by a prescriber or a regulated professional with the prescriber on site at all times during the treatment. All treatments involving injectables must be performed only by a medical professional registered with the relevant professional body, such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the GMC. Every consultation must include a discussion of all alternative options and potential side effects, followed by a mandatory cooling-off period before the procedure may go ahead. During this time individuals should feel under no obligation to commit, and any deposit paid should be fully refundable. Every surgical operation currently required to be performed by anyone on the GMC register must be performed by a specialist surgeon. The United Kingdom is home to one of the best healthcare systems in the world, yet in this area we are falling dangerously short and it is time to put that right. This is not about banning or shutting down businesses, but instead must be viewed as introducing protections for patients, practitioners and public health. The Government’s announcement in July pledging to regulate was a welcome step forward, but real concerns remain about the timeframe. This cannot be a two or three-year project. The industry is growing far too fast for that and patients are suffering too frequently, with the NHS and society already paying too high a price. We need urgency and clarity, along with a firm timeframe. Right now, because of failures in the law, the industry is instead risking lives. It preys on the vulnerable, particularly the young. It burdens the NHS and leaves countless people traumatised for life. That is the choice before us. We can allow the crisis to continue unchecked, or we can act with the urgency and courage needed to protect the public. Every day of delay is another life put at risk, and we cannot allow that to continue.
- Hansard source
Non-surgical Aesthetic and Cosmetic Treatments
I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for attending. First and foremost in my mind remain Jan, Alice and anyone who has had a treatment that has gone wrong or, in Alice’s case sadly, been fatal. I put on record my thanks to a constituent of mine, Nicky Robinson, who first brought this issue to my attention, around 12 months ago. Nicky is a CQC-accredited nurse and practitioner. She summed it up to me when she visited my surgery and said, “This is not about banning; this is about raising the baseline clinical standard, not just to protect patients but to protect the industry as a whole.” That is the fundamental point we have to bear in mind. We do not want to be in a society that prevents people from having treatments; we want to enable people to have whatever treatments they want in as safe a way as possible. Let me acknowledge a few contributions from hon. Members. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) talked about Jan and the crisis that has taken place with regard to implants. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of ensuring that any regulations apply throughout the United Kingdom, not just in England. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) talked about the cost to the NHS. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about confidence in practitioners and highlighted the horrific cases of botulism in the midlands and the north-east. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) emphasised the fact that most in the industry want there to be a standard that protects them, so that they can be confident that people who come to see them are not questioning whether the procedure will be conducted in a clinically safe way. I am grateful to the Minister for responding. This is one topic that will not go away; it is only going to be on the increase, particularly as societal concerns around body image are exacerbated by the continued use of social media. When the Government introduce a regime around these treatments, it is critical that we work closely with local authorities, so that they have the confidence to administer it properly, with a baseline level of consistency across the country. We must be careful not to place burdens on local authorities that they cannot or do not have the confidence to enforce. As the Government consult on this issue in the new year, the whole industry will be holding their feet to the fire. Although they have to go through a period of consultation, I encourage the Minister and the Government to work at the utmost pace to get whatever baseline level of clinical standard in place as swiftly as possible, so that we can give confidence not just to industry but to society at large. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T6. With increasing e-scooter usage, a small number of people are increasingly conducting antisocial behaviour while riding around on these micromobility vehicles. That is of great concern to my constituents, and I am particularly concerned that there is no minimum age requirement for the purchase of an e-scooter and no national registration scheme that could help track those using them for nefarious activities. Have the Government got any plans to introduce a national registration scheme for e-scooters?
- Hansard source
Life Sciences Investment
The Minister will know that the part of London where MSD was going to invest has received significant investment for medical research, particularly research of brain-related diseases. This decision casts doubt on the future of the greater King’s Cross area. What are the implications of the decision to disinvest on that particular proposal, which has cross-party support?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. I hope that we can have an early meeting to ensure that Back Benchers can have their voice heard in this Chamber, as before. I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for 13 October, when we return from the conference recess. Given past experience of when we return from recesses, with the likelihood of statements and possibly urgent questions, and given that 78 people want to speak on the baby loss debate, I ask him to consider giving it protected time, so that they are able to relay their stories. In addition, the business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 16 September will be a debate on the International Day of Democracy. On 16 October, there will be a debate on World Menopause Day, followed by a debate on Ada Lovelace Day and Government support for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. On 23 October, there will be a debate on histological testing of excised moles, followed by a debate on the impact of NHS workforce levels on cancer patients. I was very tempted to ask a question about the legalisation that happened in an employment tribunal earlier this week that means it is now possible to discriminate against people because of the football team they support. However, there is a much more serious issue: the situation in Nepal. Following the deaths of 20 protesters, the Prime Minister of Nepal has resigned, the Parliament building has been set on fire and there is the threat of a military coup. I have many constituents with relatives in Nepal, and they are worried about the situation for their families. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Foreign Office Minister to give a statement next week on what we are doing, as the United Kingdom, to protect those families and support the families in the United Kingdom?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I wonder whether the Secretary of State might have a word with her friend the Mayor of London about the appalling mismanagement of the Gallows Corner junction, where a flyover is being constructed. The gridlock, chaos and delays are affecting the whole Romford side of Essex, and east London. It really is chaos. Will she get it sorted out?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
indicated assent.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
This is a truly sad and tragic day for our friends in the United States of America as they remember the events of 9/11 in 2001, and given the tragic assassination last night of Charlie Kirk. I was privileged to welcome him to the Houses of Parliament in 2018 and take him to Speaker’s House for a Christmas reception. He was a friend of the United Kingdom, he stood up for freedom and his Christian faith, and we mourn his loss and send our condolences to his family and friends. Talking about someone of principle who stands up for freedom, 13 October—the day the House returns after the conference recess—will be the 100th anniversary of the birth of our finest post-war Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, which was to restore the British economy, stand up for Britain around the world, defend freedom and not give away British islands but protect, defend and restore them, as she did for the Falkland Islands in 1982?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the decision in February 2010, our national flag—the Union flag or Union Jack—must fly from the Victoria Tower every day of the year, but in summer a much larger flag is flown; in winter only a small flag is flown. Can you please ask Mr Speaker to raise with the House authorities why the larger summer flag has been removed and replaced by the smaller flag? When I last checked, British summer time does not end until 26 October, so surely the larger Union Jack should fly at least until that date. May I also say that 26 October is also Essex Day, so maybe we can fly the flag of Essex as well?
- Hansard source
Regional Transport Inequality
My hon. Friend said the magic word: “Essex”. Does he support the Transport for London (Extension of Concessions) Bill that I have tabled? TfL runs to Shenfield, Reading, Epping, Watford, Cheshunt and Amersham, way beyond the boundaries of Greater London. The Bill would require TfL to enable any local authority that is served by a TfL route or by a route to which a TfL concessionary scheme applies to opt in to the concessionary fare scheme, including the freedom pass for our old age pensioners.
- Hansard source
Non-surgical Aesthetic and Cosmetic Treatments
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important and increasingly pressing issue. I also thank the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), who all made important contributions. A report by the British Beauty Council showed that spending on non-surgical cosmetic treatments totalled £10.1 billion last year. That includes the 900,000 botox injections that are performed in the UK each year, and other non-surgical procedures, which continue to grow exponentially in popularity. We are not talking about a minor issue here; this is a multibillion-pound industry, which is snowballing at breakneck pace. Yet this sector remains dangerously unregulated. Although there are training standards, such as the national occupational standards for practitioners in beauty aesthetics, there is no legislative framework to require all practitioners to meet those standards. As a result, some practitioners are not only unlicensed, but unqualified and inadequately insured to perform the procedures they are performing. We cannot sit back and allow patients of these procedures to entrust their safety to unlicensed cowboys profiting from the lack of regulation. It is time to call an end to this wild west free-for-all, and give patients in this industry, and the responsible operators, the protection they need and deserve. To that end, I am delighted that the previous Government kick-started this process, first by banning cosmetic fillers for under-18s in England under the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021. That was followed by the Health and Care Act 2022, which gave Ministers the power to tighten regulations by introducing a new licensing regime. The current Government are slowly and finally getting into gear on that scheme, but when do they expect to implement this protection as a matter of public safety? What steps will be taken to raise awareness of new regulations to improve public confidence in the non-surgical cosmetic sector as these measures are introduced? Of the 27,462 procedures performed and recorded by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons in 2024, approximately 93% were performed on women. Young women aged 18 to 25 years old also made up 48% of the 3,000 complaints to Save Face, a Government-approved register of medical aesthetic practitioners. That means that the Government’s failure to get on and implement regulations in this sector is disproportionately affecting a vulnerable group to a significant degree. Furthermore, the governing voice in this area is social media, again, disproportionately placing the burden of risk on younger people. Researchers at the University of Edinburgh interviewed female Instagram users aged 18 to 30. All of them had undergone, or hoped to undergo, cosmetic surgery, and all of them looked to Instagram influencers for information about cosmetic procedures. With nine in 10 children owning a mobile phone by the time they reach 11, and 75% of eight to 17-year-olds having their own social media account, there is a real danger that our children and grandchildren could be exposed to cosmetic surgery at a young age, unaware of the risks of a cheap bodily enhancement. Mental health struggles and body image challenges are unfortunately well documented, with almost 850,000 children accessing NHS mental health services in June 2025, and two in three children feeling negative or very negative about their body image, according to a survey commissioned by the Women and Equalities Committee from 2020. Social media, combined with heightened self-scrutiny on video calls since the pandemic, has sadly cast the way in which young people view themselves in an increasingly negative light. As such, the cosmetic surgery “boom”—as termed by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, following a 102% rise in procedures in 2022—is alarming but unsurprising. A failed procedure can have potentially life-threatening repercussions, and an unlicensed practitioner’s lack of training, skills and experience significantly increases the risk of failure. We owe it to the livelihoods of patients, who are predominantly young women, to improve the safety of non-surgical cosmetic procedures as much as we can. Governments are there not to stifle growth and innovation—the kind that creates jobs, rewards entrepreneurship and helps businesses to grow—but to protect the interests of British citizens in times of need. This is one of those times. The safety, and even the lives, of consumers are at risk if we do not act. With that in mind, will the Government commit to swiftly implementing a licensing framework to combat such life-threatening risks? Furthermore, the problem in this area is precisely that unlicensed practitioners carrying out procedures are operating under the radar. How do the Government intend to support local authorities to actively and effectively enforce the licensing framework, to ensure that such practitioners are prevented from operating on patients in backroom shadows? The number of complaints from patients with failed non-surgical cosmetic procedures shows no sign of plateauing. Again, I refer to the figures from Save Face, which received almost 3,000 complaints in 2022, 35% more than in 2020. Complaints about dermal fillers—treatments to add volume, typically to smooth out wrinkles or enhance facial definition—made up almost 70% of that figure. As we debate this matter today, let us remember the enormity of the influence we are privileged to have. When they go wrong, cosmetic procedures can be life-changing for all the wrong reasons. I urge the Government to accelerate the licensing framework for non-surgical cosmetic procedures and treatments—therefore requiring practitioners to be licensed, qualified and insured—for the sake of public safety and the sake of saving lives.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Two nights ago, a man in his 30s was stabbed in the centre of Bognor Regis, and that follows a fatal stabbing earlier this year. Will the Government bring forward a debate to consider how to make high streets safer and tackle the increasing prevalence of knife crime in small seaside towns such as Bognor Regis?
- Hansard source
Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace
I believe that this was a deliberate attack by Putin to test the resolve and resources of NATO and that we will see more in the coming weeks, months and years. Russia was very quick to put out disinformation by pumping the airwaves in the cyber-space. Can we ensure that we are providing all resources to counter disinformation, which is a battlespace on its own, and that we are ramping up against the current threat that Russia is pushing out across NATO countries?
- Hansard source
Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace
In the Minister’s excellent response, he talked about the geopolitical situation. During my time in office, I saw more and more co-operation between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. He talked about the emboldening of Putin. Does he share my concern that the recent show of unity at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit in China may well have emboldened Putin? That should be a wake-up call for all western democracies to stand together in defence of their mutual values?
- Hansard source
Qatar: Israeli Strike
It is not only on this issue, but on many other issues that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other middle east nations have developed a real niche and leadership in mediation and conflict resolution. Will the Minister look at our own conflict resolution unit and its resources and spend, and double down on how we are working with the Qataris on all their mediation efforts?
- Hansard source
Qatar: Israeli Strike
Despite the atrocious terrorist attack in Jerusalem, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she says that blowing up the enemy’s negotiators does not exactly suggest an interest in a negotiated solution. However, I would like clarification on the Government’s position on recognition of a Palestinian state. On 1 September, the then Foreign Secretary said that he proposed to recognise a Palestinian state, but that Hamas would not benefit from it, because they would have to be disarmed. Does that mean that Hamas must be disarmed before recognition, or will recognition go ahead, as seems to be the case, whether Hamas are disarmed or not?
- Hansard source
Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace
I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, but the reason for that is that, until recently, the commitment of the United States to NATO was never in question. It is in question now because of the nature of the incumbent of the White House. President Putin either has some sort of hold over Donald Trump, about which we do not know, or he successfully flatters him. When President Trump is in the country, can we point out to him in the strongest possible terms that this response by Russia a couple of weeks after rolling out the red carpet for the killer in the Kremlin shows nothing but disrespect to the White House and its occupant?
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
I rise to support new clause 47, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I will also make a passing reference to his excellent new clause 2, which I wholeheartedly support and which—as we have heard—is designed to remove the time restrictions on when disabled persons’ concessionary bus passes can be used. New clause 47 is very simple and, I would like to think, very logical. It simply requires that the Secretary of State should, “within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”. I was first alerted to this problem by some very effective lobbying done in Parliament a few months ago, which other right hon. and hon. Members may well remember. I was lobbied by a number of my constituents, who said to me that there was not much point in having a concessionary pass to use buses free of charge if they were unable to do so except when helped by a companion. It rather made a mockery of the concession. I followed this up with a visit to the New Forest branch of Mencap, and the implications of the scheme were impressed on me as being so obvious as to require little supporting argument. What is the point of giving somebody something for free if they cannot use it without the assistance of someone else, unless a designated companion is able to travel with them for free on the same bus pass? A number of county councils, for example, allow this, but it is a discretionary power. That seems rather strange, because a number of aspects of the scheme are statutory requirements. I believe this should be one of them, if it is not to make a nonsense—as I have already explained—of the statutory requirement that disabled persons should have a free bus pass. I have tabled a couple of written questions on this topic. One in particular—number 48343, tabled on 27 April—asked the Government whether their review of the English national concessionary travel scheme had made a recommendation on the question of companion passes for the disabled. The answer read, in part: “The Department for Transport conducted a review of the ENCTS and is currently considering next steps. The review did not consider adding companion passes to the statutory criteria for the scheme.” The answer then added a standard formulation that I have received in response to other questions on this topic: “Currently, local authorities in England have the power to go beyond their statutory obligations under the ENCTS and offer additional discretionary concessions, such as extending the travel time criteria for the ENCTS.” I simply put it to the House that if a pass-issuing authority has a statutory duty to provide disabled people with a free bus pass, there ought to be a statutory duty to require a designated companion to be included on that same pass for those who cannot use it without a companion. That is probably not something that will be decided today, but I hope the impeccable logic of my argument will appeal to the Minister and that within 12 months he will take the action requested.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
It is good news that 66% of local authorities recognise the importance of companion bus passes for those disabled people who cannot otherwise use a bus, but given the lack of logic of giving somebody a pass that they cannot use, is this not one of those cases that ought to be taken away from discretion and simply added to statute as a matter of common sense?
- Hansard source
Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace
I commend the hon. Gentleman’s statement on our support for Poland. Of course we have to support Poland; it is quite right that we should do so. May I return the hon. Gentleman to the main issue here, which is Russia’s intense bombing attacks on Ukraine? I recently came back from Ukraine. Every night in Kyiv, Lviv and other towns, people are being killed by this brute. This is just an example of what is going on across the border on a greater scale. This question remains for us. Have the Government really made overtures to the US President to say that the time is over for constant statements that say that we may do something, we will do something and we will have sanctions? Surely, we now have to get the US to massively up the level of sanctions. That is what Russia fears. Also, European nations must be told that they cannot buy any more oil or gas that has been run through India or wherever. That has to stop. We have to make that work. And we have to make sure that, at the end of it all, Russia pays a penalty right now and understands that. Will the British Government please take the opportunity, when the US President comes over, to say, “Enough is enough. Please act and get this thing done”?
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
On that point, does the hon. Lady accept that increasing the fare cap from £2 to £3 is likely to reduce ridership, whatever is contained in the new clause?
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that the provisions apply to people who travel on trains but not on buses? Does he understand why the Government made that distinction?
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
My constituents want the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services to be improved, and that is why I support new clause 34. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for re-tabling it. When the Secretary of State spoke to the Bill on Second Reading, she said that improving bus services underpins the Government’s plan for change. If that is the case, it strikes me as odd that the Government would strip out a new clause made in the other place that specifically stated that that was the purpose of the Bill. I also support new clause 29, which calls for a review of the provision of bus services to villages in England. There are many villages in my constituency with poor or non-existent bus routes, with particular problems in Spaxton, Enmore, Combwich, Fiddington and Stockland Bristol. These villages find themselves just off the main routes, with the residents left all but stranded, unable even to get to and from Bridgwater unless they have a car. Even in the villages that do have services, far too often the bus service stops in the early evening. For example, the last No. 16 bus to Langport, which serves Westonzoyland, Middlezoy and Othery, leaves Bridgwater at 5.15 pm. That means not only that the services fail to cater for those who want to travel for leisure, but that many constituents are unable to use buses for commuting because they cannot get home after work. The review should also consider integration between different modes of transport, which is an important issue for those living in rural areas who need to travel further afield. There has been no usable bus stop at Bridgwater railway station for several years because of road layout problems. It is a relatively small fix, but despite running Somerset council for the last three years, the Lib Dem administration seems unable to fix the problem. We must ensure that the Bill obliges local authorities to act in circumstances such as these, and I hope the review will assist in that. Another problem my constituents would wish the review to consider is seasonal timetables. I am fortunate to represent a beautiful part of Somerset that attracts large numbers of visitors to both the coast and the Quantock hills. During the summer, demand for buses is understandably higher. What the bus operators seem to forget, however, is that the local resident population relies on bus services continuing all year round. Seasonal buses help those in the north of my constituency commuting to work or college in Weston-super-Mare. The reduced frequency of the No. 20 bus service and the lack of a Sunday service in the winter months mean that fewer people can rely on it. I hope that the Government accept the need for this review and that its results better inform policy when the new franchising is rolled out. I support amendment 23, which calls for an assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap. The £2 cap was a great achievement of the last Conservative Government, and I was disappointed when the Labour Government decided to scrap it. They increased the amount that all our constituents have to pay by 50% and then proclaimed it a triumph. It sounds like something from Soviet propaganda. We are supposed to welcome this glorious new £3 bus fare as some sort of victory of the proletariat over the forces of capitalism, conveniently forgetting what preceded it. I want to see the £2 cap reinstated, and I hope that the assessment will be the first step toward that. I want to see bus services improved for my constituents. I believe that amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34 would improve the Bill, and I urge the Minister to accept them.
- Hansard source
Qatar: Israeli Strike
Do not the events of yesterday underline the critical need to secure a ceasefire and, above all, to move into a political process? Will the Minister—we are all pleased to see him continuing in his role following the reshuffle—commit to building on the important work done by Egypt, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to effect that peace process? All of them have underlined the fact that there is no place for Hamas in Gaza or anywhere else in government following the events that have taken place.
- Hansard source
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), not least because of the unique experiences she brings to this debate and the important way she has put it together. I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible, because I think that some 20 Government Members spoke in the debate and the Minister will have a lot to answer and get through. Obviously, a lot of the speeches have been about humanitarian access, as that is what the debate is about. Many stories have been brought forward about reports from the ground, and it is indeed undoubtable that a famine is taking place. The first thing I would like to probe the Minister on is whether he has had any reports on where all the violence is coming from at the humanitarian aid points. Is it purely from one side, or the other? Has he had any reports on what the security situation is and how that could be improved? I ask because we obviously want to see aid getting in in any way we can. In that sense, you—
- Hansard source
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access
I apologise sincerely, Mr Stringer. Has the Minister got the plans for what will be said to the President of the United States to cover these very important aspects? Why is there such violence around the aid points, and what influence can be brought to bear to get more aid in? Some Members have suggested using assets such as the Royal Navy. Indeed, the last Conservative Government were involved in trying to put harbours in and get aid in place. These are all important aspects, because the first point that we come to today is the value of human life and doing everything that can be done to stop what is a man-made famine, wherever the original or ongoing responsibilities for that may lie. The events going on in the middle east shock us all; indeed, the events of last night shocked us all. That includes the President of the United States making statements that perhaps surprised us all and showed that it may be time for the Israeli Government to rethink whether they can act with impunity, because it appears the Americans were not aware of what was happening and are absolutely furious at what appears to be an attempt to scupper any peace deal. That shows the importance of the Israeli President coming to see the Prime Minister today. It is important to keep those engagements alive, and to be able to look people in the eye and be honest with them. Often, friends can give people the most honest opinion, and it is important to keep those relationships in place. The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy said that it is not Hamas that pays the price for the lack of humanitarian aid, but the starving children. What assessment has been made of where aid is going when it is received on the ground, and what can be done to secure that aid for the populations that need it? We are in a position to leverage influence on the Israeli Government, but I am concerned that declaring recognition of a Palestinian state without calling for the release of hostages may damage the ability of the Israelis to listen to what is said. The significant shifts in foreign policy at this time must be balanced with trying to get a tangible outcome to this event. Everybody wants to see this conflict come to an end. Everybody wants to ensure that the events of 7 October cannot happen again. We must be able to be in the room and to work with the Israelis and the Americans, who have such influence in this area, to ensure that we can reach that position as quickly as possible. I think the Minister will have plenty of time to answer all the questions that have been raised about humanitarian aid, but I want to draw on the comments made by the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about getting to the ceasefire and what takes place afterwards. I urge the Minister, if he can, to outline any plans the Prime Minister may have, in meeting the President of the United States, to clarify where American thinking about the day after the war is. We have heard many conflicting reports of the things that may go on, some of which may well be genocidal acts. On that note, is it still the position of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary to support last week’s letter from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which said that the Government did not recognise a genocide? Can the Minister outline the thinking behind that? There is plenty of international law that makes the situation opaque, so perhaps he can outline exactly where that thinking came from. With that, I will sit down, because the Minister has a huge amount to get through. A lot of valuable comments have been made today, and I thank all Members for outlining their points in very precise terms.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q3. A few short weeks ago, a constituent of mine died in a tragic fire at the Lady Bailey residential park in Winterborne Whitechurch. The fire was attended by 50 Dorset and Wiltshire firefighters and others. This summer alone, 900 grassland, woodland and crop fires have equalled the busiest year on record for that fire service, and I extend my thanks to all of them for all that they do. The Prime Minister will be aware that rural funding is always an issue and that the delivery of rural services is always a challenge. Will he arrange for the relevant Minister at the Home Office to meet me and senior officials in that fire service to discuss the needs of our rural area to ensure that my constituents and those across the counties of Dorset and Wiltshire are kept as safe as they possibly can be?
- Hansard source
Qatar: Israeli Strike
The events that took place earlier this week in Jerusalem, and yesterday, prove that the two extremes in this conflict have no interest in peace. Hamas benefits from the violence, and the right wing of the Israeli Government also profits as it seeks to expand Israel’s territory and subject the Palestinian people. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and amplify the points that he made. Following yesterday’s events, Trump and the American Administration appear to be as annoyed with Israel as the rest of the world are, so is it now time to call Israel’s bluff through the United Nations? Is it not time to seek the engagement of blue helmets or some similar force, to enable us to say, “We, as an international community, have people on the ground. Don’t you dare fire into that area. Let us now trigger peace talks.” Without that catalyst, those two extremes will just continue, along with the performative merry-go-round of “Here we go again”, condemnation, and another statement or urgent question. I fear that in three or four years’ time, there will be rubble in Gaza, the Israeli Government will be even more of a rogue Government, and we will be no further forward.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Today is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day. Given that the Prime Minister has been so keen on resets in recent weeks, will he reset his relationship with our farmers and reverse the family farm tax?
- Hansard source
Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace
The Minister agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that industrial collaboration between the UK and Poland is an important part of our relationship. A key part of that is primarily focused on ground-based air defence, and these events surely underline why that is critical to us and our allies. Will he tell us what progress there has been on the joint UK-Poland future common missile programme to create longer-range ground-based air defence for both nations?
- Hansard source
Keighley Picture House
I rise to present a petition to save Keighley Picture House from closure. When Bradford council announced its intention to sell the cinema building, there was deep concern that the Picture House cinema—a key landmark, open since 1913—would close with it, as it was advertised for a redevelopment opportunity. Residents of Keighley deeply value their cultural heritage. This petition, which I launched to make clear to Bradford council people’s deep feeling that selling the building was not an option, has received 5,421 signatures. Losing the Picture House would be another blow to our high street—one that Keighley simply cannot afford. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley Declares that Keighley Picture House has been part of the town’s heritage since 1913 and must be saved from redevelopment by Bradford Council. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work constructively with Bradford Council and Keighley Town Council to guarantee the future of Keighley Picture House as a cinema and cultural venue for generations to come. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003111]
- Hansard source
Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Surrey county councillor. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing today’s debate. For all the reasons that he so ably laid out, it is now well overdue that we honestly assess the impact of the Equality Act on people in the workplace and wider society and consider whether there is need for change. It is best practice to always reassess and measure outcomes, rather than assuming that something is working as intended. I wish to focus on the public sector equality duty in the Act and on its broader impact on our public institutions. It was undoubtedly a well-meaning clause. However, as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The public sector equality duty in section 149 imposes a legal burden on public bodies to “have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity…and…foster good relations” between people with different protected characteristics. That all sounds rather wonderful, but the reality is that it has become a powerful, often unaccountable force that we see distorting public priorities and fuelling ideological dogma. We see local councils that are more concerned with ensuring that residents are anti-racist than with ensuring that bus services to schools and colleges are adequate. We see them painting rainbows on our roads rather than fixing them, and speaking warm words about the importance of accessibility for disabled people while failing to cut hedges back or adjust bus stops. We all undoubtedly support the ambition that everyone—no matter their protected, or indeed unprotected, characteristics—be given the same opportunities, be treated fairly and have the chance to thrive and prosper through hard work and talent. However, looking at the impact that the public sector duty has had, I believe that it was a mistake to think that that was the answer. If anything, it has highlighted difference, undermined meritocracy and, in some cases, pitted groups against each other. It is now often helpful to someone’s career or studies to be oppressed in some shape or form, leading to the absurd situation in which some of the most talented people are blocked. That does no one any favours, and certainly not our country. EDI, or DEI as some people call it, has become a lucrative industry. Every public body, from local district councils and hospitals to police forces and schools, is now required to evidence, audit, review and revise policies in the light of how they impact protected groups, regardless of the outcomes that those policies deliver. A 2022 Policy Exchange report found that major public institutions are spending tens of millions of pounds annually on equality, diversity and inclusion roles, as well as training and compliance measures, all to ensure that they tick the right boxes against the public sector equality duty. The issue is not just the cost. What makes the public sector equality duty potentially damaging is the way in which it enables particular ideologies to seep into institutions and spaces that ought to be wholly neutral on such issues. Because the duty is so broadly framed, and because it requires anticipatory rather than reactive compliance, it has given rise to a culture of pre-emptive overreach. Public bodies feel compelled to insert themselves into questions of speech, behaviour and belief that ought to lie outside their remit. More and more, we see a move away from facts and evidence towards fashionable beliefs within institutions that should be impartial. We see that in councils demanding that their staff include pronouns in their signatures, in police forces being trained to detect unconscious bias, and even in the Welsh Government, where they have pledged to make the country anti-racist. There is nothing neutral or impartial about such choices. They reflect specific world views, and by embedding them in policy and practice, the public sector equality duty is demanding adherence to such ideas as a precondition for working in the public sector or using its services. That cannot be right. It is little wonder that public confidence has been eroded. More in Common’s “Shattered Britain” report tells of swathes of the public who now view public institutions with mistrust, partly because within such institutions a narrow set of values now dominates, and any dissent is smacked down as bigotry or even dismissed as far-right. Like all Members present, no doubt, I have heard accounts from my constituents of what that looks like in practice. I have heard from people who feel baffled and confused by all the focus on diversity, unconscious bias and pronouns, rather than on things that actually affect their day-to-day life in a meaningful way, such as fly-tipping and potholes. My central point is that the public sector equality duty does not just waste taxpayer money; it actively distorts how services are delivered and allows ideology to permeate them. We have seen NHS trusts wasting fortunes on a parade of diversity-focused roles. In the case of NHS Fife, the bureaucratic machinery was brought to bear against a nurse for objecting to a biological man entering her changing room. Meanwhile, West Yorkshire police felt that it would be a valid use of £4.5 million to send their entire workforce away to be lectured for two days on the slave trade. We can only wonder if that time would have been better spent trying to solve some crimes. I am of the view that we should reconsider whether the public sector equality duty is fit for purpose, and whether a return to a model under which equality means equal treatment for all would have better outcomes.
- Hansard source
Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society
I think the hon. Member and I will just have to disagree, because I do not believe that legislation is the solution to these things. What is much more powerful is societal attitudes and norms, and education. That is how we get the change that we want. That is also how to ensure that the spirit of the ambition is met. As soon as we try to legislate, there will be loopholes and grey areas where it is not quite clear what something means. We have got ourselves mixed up in a whole host of issues and trouble as a result of trying to define something that is common sense. All of us in this Chamber undoubtedly share the same ambition. We want everyone to be treated fairly; we just disagree on the way to do it. I do not think that it is possible to prescribe in legislation how people should act decently. There will always be some loophole or difference in interpretation that means that the law can be misused. I believe that it is absolutely right to move away from thinking that legislation is the silver bullet to all our ills. We should actually put faith in the behaviour of the people of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford says, we dealt with these things before and we have the mechanisms to do this. Most people in this country are well-intended and trying to do the right thing. Let us have some faith in this country and not just tie ourselves up in knots. Let us get back to delivering for our constituents and residents. They do not want us tying ourselves up in knots, effectively looking for social injustice the whole time rather than cracking on and sorting out our NHS so that everyone gets the treatment they need, and ensuring that our schools are giving the best education for our children. Let us get back to the priorities of the British people and stop wasting our time with all this stuff. Right: back to my speech. I think I have summed it up in my response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), so I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. It has been a good use of our time to debate how effective the Equality Act and its various provisions have been. I hope that we will continue this important conversation.
- Hansard source
Draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the Minister on maintaining his role during what some have described as the purge of the Home Office. It is therefore appropriate to thank him for his remarks about the legislation, and pay tribute to his staying power. Turning to the draft regulations, the periodic updating of codes of practice is a regular occurrence for Governments. With the codes last altered in 2023, it has been deemed necessary to provide further clarification. The regulations we are debating today appear to present proportionate clarification to the existing system, while maintaining the powers necessary to question individuals. As the Government have stated in their documentation, the changes should not alter the original intention of the legislation. Furthermore, steps appear to have been taken to ensure that the powers within the Acts remain usable under the new guidance. The response of the independent Office for Police Conduct illustrates the broad agreement that these powers will continue to be used appropriately by the authorities. On the broader point, measures that ensure transparency and improve communication—for example, ensuring clear notification—should be welcomed, provided the powers remain effective. The steps on examinations appear proportionate. However, they will also make the process more effective and quicker. I recognise that the clarification relating to public order policing is somewhat limited. However, I note that the amendment to the code explains that the examples of changes provided are illustrative, not exhaustive. Given some of the recent debate around the relationship between protests and terrorism, I ask whether the Minister has had conversations with the police to ensure that those using this power have a sufficient understanding of the changes, so that officers can accurately identify those who may be involved in the instigation of acts of terrorism, and avoid incidents such as those in the past that have prompted these changes. I am aware that many of the changes are in line with recommendations from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. On that point, I would like to ask the Minister about the changes to the code of practice concerning schedule 7 and Northern Ireland. Given the ongoing challenges with terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Minister’s code of practice set out the continuing use of the 2000 Act. However, that appears to contradict the recommendation of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who proposed abolishing the power under schedule 7 on the basis of its lack of use. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could outline how he envisages the power being used in future, and whether it still has a role to play in stopping the heinous acts of terrorism that we unfortunately continue to see in Northern Ireland. Stopping terrorism is a responsibility of the Government, which Members across the House take with the utmost seriousness. It is therefore right that we support measures that improve the system.
- Hansard source
Qatar: Israeli Strike
This is clearly a very, very serious moment for the middle east. No one in this House wants to see a spiral of escalation of hostilities. Both Israel and Qatar are important and valued strategic partners for the United Kingdom, and we value and recognise the extensive efforts by the Qatari Government to secure the release of hostages and work towards securing a ceasefire. It is tragic, as the Minister has highlighted, that security guards were killed in this attack, but there are some fundamental issues here, and many of these points have been made from the Dispatch Box time and again. This is a moment for our country. Britain must contribute and provide the British expertise necessary for conflict resolution and support strong regional initiatives, including backing Qatar and the Qataris on releasing the hostages and achieving a ceasefire. On top of that, of course, we must work with our allies in the United States, and next week’s visit from President Trump is a crucial moment. There can be no more equivocation, as this issue continues to afflict the region day after day after day. It is also true that we certainly should not be mourning the Hamas leaders who have been killed. Hamas have held innocent hostages in terrorist captivity for over 700 days, and they were responsible for the atrocities of 7 October 2023, which also killed British nationals. In recent months, Israel has been removing terrorist actors across the middle east—the leadership of the Houthis, Hezbollah and malign individuals in the Iranian regime too. That means that our Government must play a strong role and stand firm on degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities and that malign influence in the region. In recognising the sensitivity of the situation in the Gulf, will the Minister confirm what actions he and the FCDO will take to stabilise efforts to secure the release of the hostages; what proactive steps are being taken to degrade Hamas and their capabilities; and, of course, how we can work constructively with our partners in the region to drive the right outcomes, including achieving a ceasefire?
- Hansard source
Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace
Mr Naish, you seem to have bounced around every seat on the Back Bench. Are you finally comfortable and ready to ask a question?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point of order and for giving advance notice of it. Ministerial correspondence is not a matter for the Chair. However, all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government—I see Members on the Treasury Bench nodding in agreement and am sure that they will ensure that the appropriate Minister is made aware and responds to the hon. Member’s request as soon as possible.