Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

   RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

   I thank the hon. Member for that point. He is absolutely correct and he also referred to the fact that he, too, has Thales in his constituency, or close to it. That is the thing about the defence industry—it is intertwined with so many constituencies. In fact, I do not think that there is a single constituency that does not have some defence involvement. In my constituency, rural Dumfries and Galloway, we make the helmets for the F-35 Lightning II jets. Wherever anyone goes in the country, there is some defence involvement and we must back that to the hilt. We must also look forward, which is critical; I think that much of this debate is about looking forward, rather than looking backwards and raking over old coals.

   Hansard source
2. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

   RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

   My right hon. Friend is correct, but I believe that a bit of a fightback is coming. There is a discussion going on, partly because fans of the space-based solution have to answer for the reality that it is some years away. That gap is difficult, and that is where Hawkeye comes in. Quite how this naval veteran—the prototype Hawkeye first flew in 1960, and Biggles would recognise its propellers, if not its frisbee-style radar disc—is more survivable behind the onion layers of modern air defences than Wedgetail is perhaps not for us in this debate. How did we get here? Perhaps the Minister can give us some clue about any engineering or integration problems experienced by Boeing at its Birmingham facility—that is Birmingham, west midlands, not Birmingham, Alabama. He will certainly refer to the decision, as we have already heard, by the previous Government in 2021 to cut the RAF Wedgetail fleet from five airframes to three. The then Defence Committee, as we have also heard, called that an “absolute folly”, which traded a 40% cut in capability for a 12% cut in acquisition costs. But that was then, and this is now. Smoke billows over the battlefields of Ukraine. The restive Russian bear may next turn its eyes west. The Chinese dragon flexes in the South China sea. North Korea has nuclear weapons; Iran wants nuclear weapons.

   Hansard source
3. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

   RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

   I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that, and for his service with the RAF. He is absolutely correct. In this country, our forces are highly prized for our superb technical abilities, as well as our warfighting capabilities. That gap is very serious: it has an impact on the RAF and on our allies. The lesson learned from Ukraine is that one of the great difficulties for the Russians—and hallelujah!—is that they have been unable to achieve air superiority. That shows how important air superiority is to this day, even in what is widely thought of as a ground war. The Government appear committed to Wedgetail. Their strategic defence review recommended that further E-7s be purchased. Although heavily caveated by “when funding allows”—and that phrase does a lot of heavy lifting, let us be honest—that recommendation has been accepted. The SDR further dangles the prospect of potentially offsetting Wedgetail costs in conjunction with NATO allies. That is a good idea, but what discussions have we had with alliance partners on that? Will Boeing commit to Birmingham and the jobs there if we join with other NATO air forces to get meaningful orders for Wedgetail on its books? UK Wedgetails directly support 190 high-skills jobs across the country, and Boeing is looking to expand to meet possible further demand, with perhaps another 150 jobs. There are 32 UK firms in the supply chain, stretching from Luton to Glasgow, providing everything from interior structures to threat warning and defensive aids. When Wedgetail does enter service, there will be ongoing jobs in sustainment and maintenance. Separately, what discussions have we had with our closest ally, the United States? Would the Americans share information when and if satellites do finally fill the intelligence gap? Could we even buy their venerable Hawkeye at the eleventh hour? Perhaps the Minister might consider a meeting of interested hon. Members—and we can see the cross-party interest in this debate—to discuss the Wedgetail programme. Our pilots remain at the cutting edge. The British-built Typhoon jet is a potent dogfighter, and the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter a peerless stealth weapon, yet both are nothing if our eyes in the sky—as vital to guiding and warning them as was Chain Home in the imminent peril of 1940—are myopic at best, or non-existent as now. The safety and security of these islands rest on the brave men—and increasingly, brave women—in our armed forces, but I am not alone in arguing that we need to throw our defence industrial infrastructure into high gear to equip those amazing people with the tools for the job. “At pace” is the mantra of the machinery of government, but it cannot be a mere slogan; it must mean something. We need ordnance, complex war machines—such as submarines and frigates—drones, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armoured fighting vehicles, and innovative technology, such as laser and energy weapons. We also need to know what lurks over the horizon—what is on the reverse slope of that hill or beyond that cloud bank? We need all that at night and in all weathers. The procurement gap is yawning as threats mount. Our commissioning and purchasing system is changing, but we may be marching to war, so bimbling along as we did when the cold war thawed, or when we were fighting gendarmerie actions, will not cut it. The scramble bell has been rung. We need, as Churchill had it, “Action this day”. Wedgetail ought to be more than just on the radar of the new national armaments director; it ought to be at the centre of their gunsight reticle—is it, Minister?

   Hansard source
4. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

   RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

   I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. There is obviously a great deal of interest in this very important programme. I also thank the Minister for stepping in; we realise that this is not his brief. We welcome his generous offer to talk to interested parties. That is quite an unusual approach, and I welcome it. The hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made adroit interventions. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) talked about our geeky interest. Those who are only geeks also serve, and we do what we can here to help with the defence of the realm. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) reminded us that accuracy is important in matters military. I apologise for my lack of geography of the area. He made a very important point when he said that we agree that we all want this done. That sums up the situation: we want to see this done because this aircraft is absolutely critical. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) set this issue in the context of the wider picture. This is the west standing up for itself. It is important that we do that. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is doing great work with the Defence Committee. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is unfortunately not in his place, talked about defence in Scotland, and the Minister referred to that too. It is worth emphasising that under the SNP Government there is a hostile environment wherein young apprentices are denied access to Holyrood, and we are seeing defence structures and buildings under attack in Scotland. It is absolutely incredible and deeply, deeply worrying. It is worth reflecting that the motto of the RAF is “Per ardua ad astra”—through difficulties to the stars. This aircraft is probably in the “ardua” section of that. It is going through some difficulties; there is no doubt about that, but—fingers crossed—it will spread its wings and eventually take its place in the RAF arsenal. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the RAF E-7 Wedgetail programme.

   Hansard source
5. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jesse Norman

   Standards

   I thank the Leader of the House for those words. I would like, in supporting the motion, to add one small cautionary note. It has been relayed to me, both by constituency staff and by other bodies, particularly the trade unions, that there is a concern that it might be possible to connect the names released in the official public register with the email addresses used by staff. I would be grateful if the Committee devoted some consideration to that concern, among the other issues that it will wish to reflect on further, to ensure that this ruling is as good and effective as possible.

   Hansard source
6. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Helen Grant

   Blue Badge Eligibility

   I beg to move, That this House has considered blue badge eligibility for cancer patients and people with life-altering illnesses. The issue that brings us here today was brought to my attention by Elli Hodgson, a local journalist with the Kent Messenger newspaper. Her paper recognised that cancer patients and others with life-altering conditions were being denied the vital accessibility afforded by the current blue badge scheme, because they do not fall within the eligibility criteria—namely, having an enduring and substantial disability, typically defined as likely to last at least three years. Cancer treatment such as surgery and radio and chemotherapy can have significant side effects, including extreme fatigue, pain and mobility restrictions. Mental health can also be undermined by the fact that patients are often in a personal battle with life and death. Sometimes those impediments might not last for three years, but they can still reduce access to essential services during treatment and recovery. In many situations, the effects of the disease and treatment last longer than three years. Indeed, under the Equality Act 2010, the Government rightly recognise cancer as a disability from the point of diagnosis for the remainder of a person’s life.

   Hansard source
7. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Helen Grant

   Blue Badge Eligibility

   As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I agree with him that certain illnesses should have an automatic entitlement, because at the end of the day we should be making it easier for people who are going through hell, rather than harder and more complicated. It is not just the three-year rule that is out of step for people with shorter-term conditions. Blue badge applications take 12 to 15 weeks to be processed, which is far too long in terms of cancer timelines, and rejected applicants cannot reapply for six months. Again, that is incompatible with cancer treatments, where debilitating physical effects can quickly arise. So today I speak on behalf of the many thousands of cancer patients and people with life-altering conditions whose lives could be made so much easier if they had access to a fairer blue badge system. The issue came to the Kent Messenger’s attention through the experience of an employee, a lady called Sandy Burr, who is with us in the Public Gallery today. Sandy was diagnosed with skin cancer in 2024. She applied for a blue badge when she found out that her toe needed to be amputated. Not long after the operation, she was rushed back into hospital with breathing difficulties. Doctors found blood clots in her lungs, causing embolisms. She is now undergoing immunotherapy, which has additional debilitating side effects. All those issues further impact how far Sandy can walk with her crutches. Sandy’s blue badge application has been refused by Kent county council, and she told me that the rejection felt like a kick in the teeth. She said that her mindset was focused on being brave and trying to stay alive, and she did not feel she had any extra fight in her to deal with the rejection or to appeal. Another lady, Bev Evans, also shared her story with me and the Kent Messenger. Bev fell downstairs and broke her neck in 2020. She now suffers permanent injury and has extreme mobility issues. She, too, has been rejected for a blue badge by Kent county council on two separate occasions. No reasonable explanation was given. Applications are made online, and in Bev’s case the computer just said no, because it thought she might get better within three years. It did not say why it thought that. Bev cannot walk without crutches and has no realistic prospect of a full recovery.

   Hansard source
8. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Helen Grant

   Blue Badge Eligibility

   No, and the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We can, and must, do better in these important processes. Following strong public reaction to the stories about Sandy and Bev, the KM approached me, because I am a local Kent MP and because I am a recent cancer survivor. In 2023, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Later that year, I underwent the first of three surgical operations to remove the cancer and reconstruct my body. The first eight-hour operation was extremely invasive; I could hardly move, let alone walk, for several weeks. By the time I was able to walk, it was in a hunched fashion, due to the nature of the surgery. Extreme tiredness was also a significant factor for many months post surgery, while my body used much of its energy to mend me from the inside. During all that time, I was very lucky to have the support of my family to access the goods and services I needed, but not everyone is so fortunate. On 19 March this year, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport explaining the position. I requested that the eligibility criteria for a blue badge be broadened to include cancer patients and those with life-altering conditions, with the badge issued for a shorter term and with more frequent reviews, or that a separate but similar badge scheme be introduced for those with cancer and other life-altering conditions. Disappointingly, when the Minister responded on 9 April, she confirmed that the Government want only one class of blue badge and that there is no plan to legislate to change the current system, but that local authorities have powers to promote locally determined parking concessions in their respective areas. Accordingly, on 19 June this year, I am proud to say that all 18 Kent MPs and the shadow Transport Secretary signed a letter to the leader of Kent county council, with further correspondence going to the leader of Medway council. We asked both leaders to consider the introduction of a locally determined concessionary scheme for residents with short-term impairments. We await full responses, but the leader of Medway council has offered a meeting, and we hope perhaps to see him next week. We still believe that there is a strong case for a national scheme, which would require only secondary legislation. I hope that the Minister, having heard all our representations today, will reconsider the position. A national scheme would avoid an inevitably unfair postcode lottery situation, with different local authorities having different local policies on the matter. We need a fairer and faster approach to blue badge eligibility, which recognises that at the centre of these faceless application processes are highly vulnerable people who deserve care, dignity and respect. I am grateful to all my Kent colleagues, and to the Kent Messenger newspaper for bringing the issue to our attention and helping to drive this important campaign forward. I am also grateful, of course, to Sandy, Bev and others who have bravely shared their stories.

   Hansard source
9. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Helen Grant

   Blue Badge Eligibility

   I thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have spoken so meaningfully and passionately on this matter today. In particular, I must mention the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), who is working with closely with me and the Kent Messenger on this matter. I know that the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), will be meeting the Transport Secretary. I hope the Minister, who was listening carefully today, will also speak to the Transport Secretary about what she has heard from all hon. Members today. I am glad she said that she will reconsider certain matters, and I hope that she might agree to have a meeting with me and some other colleagues so we can go into more detail than we have in the hour allowed.

   Hansard source
10. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Helen Grant

    Blue Badge Eligibility

    I think that was a nod. We can and must do better. As I said in my speech, and I am repeating it again, we need a fairer and faster approach, which recognises that at the centre of these faceless applications are highly vulnerable people who deserve care, dignity and respect. Finally, I pay tribute to the courageous Dr Susan Michaelis, who died of lobular breast cancer last week. Susan, with her husband Tristan, was a great campaigner for cancer patients, and she would have been so happy to see this cross-party campaign debated so sensitively today. May she rest in peace. Let us all keep working together to make a difference. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered blue badge eligibility for cancer patients and people with life-altering illnesses.

    Hansard source
11. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Family Farms

    6. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2024 on family farms in Wales.

    Hansard source
12. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Family Farms

    Although the aims of the sustainable farming scheme are laudable, many farmers across Wales are expressing real concern about its complexity, the potential reduction in food production and the adequacy of the financial support on offer. What assurances can the Minister give that the scheme will be simplified, sufficiently funded and implemented in a way that supports both the environmental goals and the economic viability of Welsh farming communities?

    Hansard source
13. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Blue Badge Eligibility

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on not just securing the debate and championing her constituents so well in her speech, but bravely telling her own story as part of it, just as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) did. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond for His Majesty’s Opposition on an issue that cuts to the heart of how we treat some of the most vulnerable people in our society, not least those facing the life-changing impact of cancer treatment. The blue badge scheme has long been a vital way in which we support people with severe and permanent mobility difficulties to live independent lives, to stay connected to work, community and family, and to access essential goods and services. Under the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000, local authorities are tasked with issuing badges in line with clear national eligibility rules. Those rules, rightly, focus on the practical impact of a person’s condition on their day-to-day mobility, not simply on their diagnosis. The principle is sound, but in practice, there is, as we have heard, a glaring gap. People undergoing aggressive cancer treatment, for example, can suffer debilitating side effects that severely restrict mobility. Nerve damage, fatigue, pain and weakness can make walking even short distances impossible, yet because those impacts are deemed to be temporary, the people involved often do not qualify for a blue badge, as the impediments might not last three years. This is not a small oversight. It means that people who are in the fight of their life are too often forced to fight an additional battle just to park near a hospital, their local shops or community services. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local councils have powers to create local traffic regulation orders that allow temporary parking concessions for residents with short-term impairments. However, we know, and I am confident the Government must know, that in practice that is patchy and inconsistent. Some councils offer short-term medical parking permits; many do not. Some cancer patients are fortunate enough to find clear guidance and a fair process; too many others are left to navigate an opaque local system at the very moment when they are least able to cope with yet more paperwork, forms and stress. It is simply wrong that whether a cancer patient can access parking support depends on where they live and whether their local council happens to operate a discretionary scheme or chooses not to. The previous Government rightly reminded local authorities of their powers to provide the concessions, but that was never intended to be the long-term answer. We need a fair, unified solution that does not depend on a postcode lottery of local good will. I hope that the Minister will correct this impression when she responds to the debate, but under this Government there seems to be no commitment to update the outdated 2000 regulations in order to recognise the reality facing thousands of cancer patients and others every single year. Nor is there any progress on national guidance to make short-term exemptions consistent, automatic and easy to access. It is not good enough to say, as the Government still seem to say, that councils can just sort it out locally. The evidence is clear: the local patchwork approach has failed. Cancer does not care about council boundaries. We need a simple, nationally recognised exemption for cancer patients whose treatment has a severe short-term impact, or potentially long-term impact, on their mobility. That could mean a standardised temporary permit supported by NHS trusts, so that patients do not have to fight for evidence or explain themselves twice. This is not about changing the core principle of the blue badge scheme. It is about bringing it up to date with the real-world experience of people who urgently need that help. It is about accommodating patients living with cancer, which the Government already classify as a disability from diagnosis and as long as people live with its effects. I urge the Minister and this Government to listen to charities, to NHS professionals and to patients themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling gave the powerful examples of Sandy Burr and Bev Evans, constituents living with severe, agonising mobility challenges because of this disease and because of injury, yet still falling outside the national blue badge criteria. Now is the time to work on a cross-party basis to close the gap once and for all. Our country prides itself on compassion. It is now time for the Government to show that in practice. That can happen by ensuring that nobody in the fight of their life is forced to fight for a parking space too.

    Hansard source
14. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Engagements

    Q8. I begin by warmly congratulating the Prime Minister on his first year in office. I acknowledge that the Labour manifesto was beautifully written, deeply moving and, like that other great blockbuster of hope and redemption, “The Salt Path”, a total pack of lies. With joblessness, inflation and debt ballooning, with his personal ratings collapsing, and with his Back Benchers on a work to rule, could the Prime Minister recommend—[Interruption.]

    Hansard source
15. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Engagements

    Could the Prime Minister recommend a summer recess read, in order to take all our minds off the calamitous journey on which he and the Chancellor have embarked?

    Hansard source
16. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the relocation of the Information Commissioner’s Office on Tatton constituency. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The Information Commissioner’s Office plays a crucial role in safeguarding the public’s information rights. The ICO is headed by a commissioner. It is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, that is tasked with promoting openness from public bodies and ensuring data privacy for individuals. Those are principles rooted in transparency and openness, yet those principles have in recent months been somewhat absent from the ICO itself. That is why I called for this debate. Last month, I was surprised to learn that the ICO’s head office, which has been based in Wilmslow for 40 years, will be relocating to the new Circle Square development on Oxford Road, Manchester, in autumn 2026, following the expiry of a current lease at Wycliffe House. I read this in a newspaper article and did not receive any official notice. It came as a shock not only to me but to the whole community. Let me explain the history. The ICO first moved to Springfield House in Wilmslow in 1985. It then had just 10 employees. That figure rose to 80 by the end of the year, and the ICO now employs more than 1,000 individuals across the UK, the vast majority of whom are based in Wilmslow. The ICO is a significant employer in the town. The organisation is staffed by skilled professionals, from investigators and policy experts to technologists, lawyers and frontline support staff. All have played a critical role in delivering data protection. On top of that, this year, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 celebrates 20 years since the Act came into force, and the ICO is central to delivering that service to hold public authorities to account. Like any well-established organisation that is rooted in a community, the ICO has become part of Wilmslow’s identity over the decades. Some 800 staff are based there. Many multi-generational families who have built their lives around the town have worked there and contributed to the ICO’s success.

    Hansard source
17. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation

    The hon. Member gets to the nub of the issue. The impact of the removal on the local community is huge, and the fact that a quango seems to be unaccountable to a sponsoring Department is incredible. For the people I have mentioned, the decision to relocate is not a minor disruption. It affects livelihoods, housing, community patterns and personal finances. Wilmslow, the town that helped to build up the organisation and helped it to flourish, will suddenly and inexplicably have it removed, depleting the area of jobs and local trade for local businesses. Despite the scale of the relocation’s impact, there have been no explanations or answers about it, and the questions that I have put to the Minister about the specific details of the move remain unanswered. Can you believe it, Mr Twigg? I have been reduced to submitting freedom of information requests about the ICO, the body that oversees freedom of information requests when an organisation does not answer questions—the irony. Therein lies the major issue with quangos—their unaccountability—for no answers have come forth from the Minister or the ICO, the public body tasked with upholding information rights. I am now attempting again to get answers in Westminster Hall. First, residents want assurances that the decision was thoroughly considered and that there was a full assessment of the impact of moving the ICO out of Wilmslow. They want information about the consultation, if one was carried out at all, in the local area with local businesses. The Minister advised, however, that that is not required by the commissioner, but I want to ask: why is it not required? He did confirm that the commissioner carried out a consultation with its employees, but I want to know what sort of consultation and what was its outcome. What were the questions asked? What were the responses? What were the percentages? Surely, in making its decision to uproot and leave Wilmslow for Manchester, the ICO must have done some impact assessments. I know that the Government do not like impact assessments, but quangos should be doing them. The ICO should have drawn up the costs and made some calculations about the move. If those calculations have been done, where are they? Interestingly, the Minister explained that the move was based on “access to…skills” and the “age and diversity” of the workforce in Manchester, but those answers are nonsense. What was the problem with the skills, diversity and age of the people and staff in Wilmslow? What are the Minister and the ICO saying about Wilmslow and Cheshire in those comments? Let us remember that it was Wilmslow where the organisation grew from 10 employees to 1,000 employees, hundreds of them from in and around the Wilmslow area. What exactly do the Minister and the commissioner mean when they say the “diversity” of the workforce? That sounds discriminatory to me against the people of Cheshire, Wilmslow and Tatton. In fact, I have heard that the Government are trying to include a socioeconomic duty into the Equality Act 2010, basically discriminating against the UK’s middle classes. I would say that this is a case in point. If not, can the Minister explain why it is not? I am hoping that the Minister has some information today about the staff who will remain in Wilmslow after the move. In response to my written question, the Government said that “76 desks” will remain there until 2030—not people, desks. Is that how they view the staff of Wilmslow and Cheshire? How many staff is that, what roles will they be covering and how long will they remain in Wilmslow? What we do know is that the office in Manchester will be smaller, so people will be working from home. That is another question. On the day after it was exposed that an extraordinary Ministry of Defence data breach led to the Afghanistan relocation, surely tighter controls must be brought in to prevent such calamitous data breaches. If that is the case, why are staff at the ICO going to be working from home at all? The new Manchester office is smaller, and it will house approximately 250 people. Do not be shocked, Mr Twigg, but you should know that there are smaller offices in Wilmslow, in the Wilmslow area and in Cheshire too. Let us look at the cost implications of the move, just for the office space. The average cost of an office on Water Lane, where the ICO is currently based, ranges from £15 to £25 a square foot. An office in Manchester’s new Circle Square development is between £30 and £45 per square foot, plus a service charge of £7.50 per square foot. For 250 employees, each needing about 100 square feet, the expected cost in Wilmslow would have been anywhere between £375,000 and £625,000, yet in Manchester, with the added service charge, we can expect the office to cost somewhere between £937,000 and £1,312,000. That is an increase in cost ranging between £562,000 and £687,000, which is a large discrepancy. Manchester is more expensive than Wilmslow. Although the commissioner and the Minister might not care about wasting taxpayers’ money, I do, my constituents do and the taxpayer picking up the bill does. Those questions matter to staff and the local area but getting answers has been an uphill battle. Since the Minister confirmed limited details to me late last week, it appears that he has changed his mind. In a separate reply, he advised me that his Department has “no formal role” in the relocation, and that questions should be put to the ICO directly. Does he now think that the process was sped through, and is he distancing himself from that process? The Minister says that the move was decided by the ICO, in line with the Treasury’s Green Book principles—really? Because one of those principles is value for money, which we know has just had a hole blown through it. It seems the move was approved by the Cabinet Office, but as the sponsoring Department knows nothing about the decisions, and as the ICO has not provided a basis for the move, how on earth did the Cabinet Office sign it off, and know what it was signing off? The claim that it is not the responsibility of DSIT simply does not pass the test. The Department is responsible for the ICO’s strategic direction and financial management. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand why so many people feel frustrated about buck-passing, which Departments so often do, and which simply avoids answering legitimate questions. What is the point of a sponsoring Department if it claims no role in such a significant strategic move? If the Minister overseeing the ICO cannot provide answers, who can? The Minister advised in his answer to written questions to take queries “directly to the ICO”, but that ignores the role of the sponsoring Department as the link between Parliament and the ICO. There are no specific avenues for a Back-Bench MP to take questions to the ICO on behalf of constituents. The Information Commissioner appears before the Select Committee as and when, with the last appearance in 2023 on promoting and enforcing the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and looking at the backlog and complaints. There is no requirement for the commissioner to reply to MPs’ correspondence or to meet set response deadlines. In essence, there is no clear or guaranteed route for a parliamentarian to scrutinise an ICO decision. That is further complicated by the structure of the ICO, which operates as a corporation sole, meaning that the commissioner holds the office individually rather than through a board. I understand that the ICO is going through a governance reform and has appointed an interim chief executive officer, meaning that the commissioner will become the chair of the new information commission. Those reforms must come with improved mechanisms for scrutiny. If there is such confidence in the decision to relocate, why is no evidence being produced for that move? Equally, for an institution grounded in accountability and transparency, why is there no direct access for parliamentarians to question the ICO? I have to ask: why the secrecy? Questions about the organisation’s operational moves are not limited to the office relocation. There have been growing concerns about financial stewardship. The ICO’s expenditure grew by 15% in 2023-24, and the organisation faced a deficit that was only recently alleviated by a change in fee structure. People had to pay more because the ICO was spending more—again, where is the accountability? Put together, these concerns paint a picture of a public body lacking clear financial constraint—or restraint—and public accountability. Here lies a problem we see all too often in our political system: arm’s length bodies that receive significant sums of taxpayers’ money going without proper regulation or oversight. The ICO is just one of more than 300 arm’s length bodies in the UK, collectively employing around 397,000 staff. These organisations carry significant public responsibility and receive billions of pounds in taxpayer funding, yet they operate without adequate transparency and, unlike ministerial Departments, are not uniformly regulated. The Public Bodies Act 2011 requires a management agreement between a body and its sponsoring Department, but the exact terms are left for them to decide. I understand that DSIT became the ICO’s sponsoring Department in 2023, and that a new management agreement is currently being finalised. Can the Minister provide an update on that process and confirm whether it will include stronger provisions for parliamentary scrutiny and public transparency? The concerns I bring to the House are not complex ones about the move and accountability, nor are they unreasonable. The simple fact that these questions go unanswered undermines public trust in these organisations and brings into question the control and oversight of these bodies. Residents of Wilmslow and the ICO’s employees deserve to know this information and the reasons for the move. We must not forget that, when decisions of this scale are made, they will not go unnoticed. It comes back to the very simple principles that the ICO was founded on and continues to serve: transparency, openness and upholding trust in our public institutions. It is not good enough merely to talk about those issues; they deserve decisive action. I am putting all these questions on the record. I fully understand that the Minister might not be able to answer all of them today, and I will accept as many answers as he can give. But what I would appreciate—no, I will go further: what I expect following this debate is a letter with all those answers. I see the Minister’s civil servants seated behind him, so I should be assured that that can and will be delivered, as everyone who needs to be here for those answers is present.

    Hansard source
18. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
19. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation

    I thank the Minister very much for giving way. I would recommend that he did not shoot from the hip with his answers. I said that I would allow him to write to me, because some of these matters were complex. Trying to suggest that this is a conspiracy theory adds another layer to the cover-up that I have not have responses from him or from the ICO about. Also, he should not question what I did or did not know, or do, when I was in my previous role, because I did not have oversight of this issue in my role in the Cabinet Office. Again, I say to him, “Don’t shoot from the hip.” I would prefer a written reply; in fact, it would only be right for me and the residents of Wilmslow to have a proper, considered reply.

    Hansard source
20. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
21. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation

    I made it clear that the office size was shrinking, so I gave the Minister the cost per square foot. Those are the raw data and information that we need. It would have been much cheaper to stay in Wilmslow per square foot and reduce the headcount down from 800 to 250. That is the difference, and we do not have the raw data for that.

    Hansard source
22. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
23. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Financial Services Reform

    Given the news on inflation today, along with the ongoing increases in unemployment and the downgrading of growth forecasts, it is quite right that this Government are looking for other ways to stimulate growth. One of the reasons being put forward for these reforms is the poor rates of return on ordinary bank accounts and savings accounts, but what my constituents want are just decent rates of return on ordinary savings accounts. Martin Lewis and others have pointed out that that market remains stubbornly resistant to passing on interest rate savings and offering competitive rates. I understand why the Government want to encourage people to invest in other types of savings, but what plans do they have to tackle the poor rates of return that people are getting from their ordinary savings and bank accounts?

    Hansard source
24. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]

    I rise on behalf of the official Opposition to express our support for the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. I do not have the benefit of being a learned Member like the Minister, so I have enjoyed getting to understand what property law looks like in the UK. As the Minister said, this Bill comes before this House from the other place, where it has already received careful and considered scrutiny. I particularly acknowledge the contributions made there by the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, whose deep expertise in digital and emerging technologies greatly enriched the debate, and the noble Lord Sandhurst, who rightly described this Bill as “a necessary but appropriately constrained measure.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. GC284.] This Bill both preserves the inherent flexibility of the common law and provides just enough statutory clarity to support continued innovation and legal certainty in a fast-moving world. Recognising the need in 2020, the previous Conservative Government asked the Law Commission to examine how the law of personal property should respond to digital assets. The commission undertook extensive consultation and concluded that some assets defy current classification. In response, it recommended confirming in statute that assets need not be things in possession or in action to attract property rights, paving the way for a third category of personal property and ensuring that our common law can continue to evolve with confidence and coherence. This may be a short Bill, but it carries significant weight for not just the UK’s legal framework, but our global reputation as a leader in digital innovation. As other jurisdictions watch how we respond to technological change, this Bill reaffirms the UK’s commitment to legal clarity, innovation and economic competitiveness. We have a world-leading fintech ecosystem, and with trillions of pounds in digital asset transactions expected globally by the end of the decade, the UK must ensure that it remains at the forefront, supporting innovation, financial inclusion and the future of capital markets. This Bill also complements a wider programme of regulatory reform already under way in the UK. Since 2023, firms promoting crypto assets have been subject to Financial Conduct Authority rules, including mandatory risk warnings and a 24-hour cooling-off period for new consumers. Anti-money laundering rules apply, and crypto firms must register with the FCA. In 2025, the Government published draft legislation to bring a wider range of crypto assets activities, such as trading platforms and custody services, under full financial regulation. The FCA and the Bank of England are also consulting on new rules for stablecoins, prudential safeguards and the safe custody of digital assets, while the Bank explores the future of a potential central bank digital currency, the “digital pound”. Those efforts, taken together with this Bill, represent a joined-up and forward-looking approach to digital asset regulation in the UK. As the Minister explained, for centuries the law has recognised two traditional categories of personal property: things in possession, referring to tangible objects such as a bar of gold, and things in action, such as debts or contractual rights enforceable only through legal process. However, the rise of the digital economy has introduced a growing range of assets that defy those historical classifications. From crypto tokens and digital files to in-game items and carbon credits, individuals and businesses now interact with a third category of asset. This Bill introduces that third category of personal property by confirming what the courts have been increasingly willing to suggest: that a thing is not precluded from being treated as property merely because it does not fit the traditional mould. It does so in a deliberately modest way, allowing the common law to evolve with technological change, rather than attempting to predict or prescribe it. As Lord Sandhurst put it in the other place, we should champion the flexibility of the common law and legislate only to reinforce and clarify developments already emerging within it. This Bill strikes the right balance: it is principled in substance but careful in its implications. It gives confidence to our courts, clarity to commercial actors and reassurance to individuals navigating digital ownership. We welcome the Government’s amendment in the other place to extend this legislation to Northern Ireland and the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly to that extension. I understand that the Scottish Government have consulted separately on the question of recognising crypto tokens as property under Scots law. Let me take a moment to welcome the Government’s stated intention in the impact assessment of reducing the burden on businesses by improving clarity in this space. At a time when digital assets are increasingly used as a means of payment, representation or value storage, it is vital that our legal architecture keeps pace—not to control innovation, but to support it with the rule of law. We on the Conservative Benches are committed to ensuring that our legal system remains fit for the 21st century and can accommodate new technologies while safeguarding rights and responsibilities. While we are pleased to support this Bill, let us not lose sight of the broader context. After a year of downgraded growth forecasts, our economy contracting, unemployment and inflation rising and borrowing costs creeping up, the UK urgently needs legal reforms that drive up competitiveness and economic growth. Like the recent reforms to our international legal procedures, it is no coincidence that this Bill stems from a review commissioned by the last Conservative Administration—a Government who really understood the importance of forward-thinking legal reform to support technological and financial innovation to drive economic growth.

    Hansard source
25. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The NHS announced yesterday morning the closure of the Mount Vernon hospital minor injuries unit in my constituency, which also affects my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the hon. Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). The decision flies in the face of the 10-year plan for the NHS announced recently to this House. My letter of 24 April to the Secretary of State about the matter has gone completely unanswered. Given the impending recess, how can I place my concerns on the record and hold Ministers accountable for this action?

    Hansard source
26. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams); it has been a while since I have heard the words “Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke”, which used to be bellowed out by our former hon. Friend and his predecessor Jonathan Gullis, who was a great schools Minister—briefly—in a previous Government. I pay tribute to him and his memory—much lamented. I also pay tribute to David Johnston, another former Member, who was children’s Minister in the last Government and was responsible for many of the important reforms that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) mentioned. I welcome this debate on what I think is a cross-party agenda. I recognise much of what the Minister said about the importance of early years and the sorts of interventions that the Government are talking about. I welcome the impending child poverty strategy, which is an important step forward for us. I want to make a simple and straightforward point. I have heard a lot in this afternoon’s debate about the importance of investment and support for the different professionals who support children and families. That is all absolutely right, and I agree that that is important. Nevertheless, surely the most important resource available to us to support children and young people is their families and the communities that they grow up in. I implore the Government to think very seriously in preparing their strategy to support the conditions for success in childhood, which is about not simply the public sector professionals, agencies and institutions that are available but the strength of the informal social institutions that children and young people grow up in. I welcome the Minister’s mention of the importance of social investment, philanthropy and civil society in providing support for children and young people. This is a big boast, but I can claim some credit for the announcement that the Chancellor made on Monday. She happened to be at a charity called AllChild in Wigan, which I claim credit for having founded—although that was not on the press release, I note. The charity began life as the West London Zone, which supports children and young people and which I started back in the early 2010s, having visited the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York with the then Secretary of State Michael Gove. The Harlem Children’s Zone is a tremendously successful project aiming at much of the agenda that we are debating this afternoon, including early identification of children at risk, the provision of intensive support for those children and their families on a community basis, and a place-based model for support for children and families in disadvantage. We set up the West London Zone with the help of significant philanthropy from Paul Marshall, noted philanthropist and founder of the Ark school chain, who said that we should start one here. We did it on a slightly different model from Harlem’s, which is a monolithic, single entity that provides all services for children and young people. The model we introduced in West London and is now being expanded across the country under the banner of AllChild. I pay tribute to the AllChild team, including Louisa Mitchell, who I got in early to deliver the project, because I would not have been very good at actually running it. Louisa has been a genius, and she is still running it now. This goes to the point I am trying to make: what Louisa did was recognise that in our communities there is an enormous array of really amazing resources in the form of local projects—large and small, formal and informal—that can help with the great task of bringing up a child as a village should. The mission of the project is to identify in schools—with the help of teachers and, crucially, by using the data available on attainment and attendance—those children who are likely to struggle later. Then it is about ensuring that they get the support that they need, and very much on a personalised basis. That support should come not just from the statutory system around the school—because that will never be adequate for the range of needs and different challenges that a population of children will have—but draw on the resources of the community. We started in west London, which obviously has lots of pockets of wealth but significant pockets of disadvantage as well. Even in those disadvantaged places, and certainly across the country—the project is working in Wigan and elsewhere now—we see tremendous institutions that can support children and young people. The challenge is to do so in a co-ordinated way. There is a huge opportunity not just to look to the state, schools, local authorities or health—even though bringing all those agencies together around children is important—but to think about the real resource we have, which is in our communities. We should put in place real support and resource for those foundations, whether faith groups, professional bodies of all sorts or community organisations.

    Hansard source
27. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

    It is funny: I often find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is great, and not what I expected when he was elected to this place. I was about to come to my final point: the importance of family life. I do not know to what extent that really is on the Government’s agenda when it comes to the child poverty strategy. There will obviously be lots of talk of families, maternal health and so on, but the crucial determinant of success for children is the quality of the relationships they grow up in. We know that from all the research done into children’s brain development. Human beings are unique among mammals in that we emerge very unformed: our brains are really blank as we emerge from the womb. The strength and health of our brains and our futures are laid down in those early years by the quality of the relationships we grow up with and experience. I know the Government recognise that because of their emphasis on early years, but the quality of the relationship in the home matters so much. I really hope that the Government will be brave enough to recognise the value of stability in the home and the value of two-parent families as a source of real strength. They are a protective factor and a predictor of success for children and young people. We should, of course, do all we can to support single-parent families—they are crucial and necessary and do amazing work, and we should give them all our support—but to tackle child poverty we must do more to support family formation and family stability. That means recognising the household as a unit. We are way too individualistic in our approach to public policy. We need to think about family health and family strength, and that means supporting couples. I welcome what the Government are trying to do, and I hope that there will be recognition of the importance of community and family life in the child poverty strategy.

    Hansard source
28. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Sudan

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for securing this urgent question on the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. I welcome the leadership steps that the UK Government are taking, but will the Minister tell the House what conversations are being had with both the African Union and the United Nations about the possibility of surging peacekeepers into Sudan to protect civilians?

    Hansard source
29. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Financial Services Reform

    The Economic Secretary may want to have a look at Hansard and make sure she got the right soundbite on the record about the 10 months of wage growth and the comparison. My understanding is that wage growth was indeed slow after the financial crash. We tried to compensate for that by increasing personal allowances, but wage growth has bounced back since the pandemic. She may want to correct the record if that is the case. On the reforms, which have migrated from Edinburgh down to Leeds, the Treasury Committee will scrutinise the implementation. Is it her vision that they should be implemented over the next year, before the next Mansion House speech, rather than on the 10-year basis of the strategy as she outlined?

    Hansard source
30. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike

    Order. It might just help Members if I explain that because the debate started early, we have time for them to make speeches without having asked the Member in charge or the Minister for permission to do so. The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) is right to say that there is an excellent exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall.

    Hansard source
31. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Engagements

    Q7. Government plans for English devolution and NHS reform suggest that integrated care boards should align with new strategic authorities. The Government’s plan for Bedfordshire will not currently achieve that, so what assurances can the Prime Minister provide that local NHS reorganisation will be good value for money, improve local accountability and deliver the healthcare services that are needed to serve my constituents in rural Mid Bedfordshire, including the much-needed GP surgery in Wixams?

    Hansard source
32. 16 Jul 2025·Parliament·Alberto Costa

    Standards

    I, too, thank the Leader of the House for so quickly coming forward with a proposal to enact the sole recommendation of my Committee’s third report of this Session. The Committee agreed its report on 12 June, and here we are, barely a month later, seeking to put its recommendation into practice. The change we propose is straightforward and quite confined, but none the less it is a real pleasure to see our proposal make such quick progress. As today’s motion makes clear, the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff—those whom we as MPs employ to help us in our work—has been in its present form since 1993. At that time, it was considered that Members’ staff had privileged access to the parliamentary estate and its facilities because they held a pass allowing them physical access. It was therefore those staff, and those staff only, who were required to register any relevant interest. Times have changed, as times are wont to do. The arrival in the intervening 32 years of such minor innovations as the internet and mobile telephony have enabled remote access to the estate in a way that was not envisaged when the register was first created. There has also been a substantial growth in the practice of working from home, and it is now entirely possible—in a way it was not then—for our constituency-based staff to have access to parliamentary information and facilities without ever setting foot within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. In a sense, we are acting quickly to catch up slowly on the way that work and working practices have altered. At the time of our report a month ago, around 2,000 passes had been issued to our staff, but around 4,200 members of staff had parliamentary network access. The change the Committee proposes simply means that all those who have such access will be required to register any interest arising from the list set out in the motion. It will be a small, but important, reinforcement of the transparency that the House properly seeks in how the parliamentary community does its vital work. The change, as the Leader of the House suggested, will not happen instantly if the House agrees to the motion. The Committee has sought to include a transitional provision in the motion to enable the Standards Committee to press “Go” once the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests has satisfied us that the IT solutions required, of which we have seen examples, are robust and ready to go. I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his comments and the concerns that he noted in respect of the motion. The Committee is aware of the concern, raised via Unite the union and by some staff, that a new requirement to register interests will place their names on a public register, and the Committee and I have offered to meet staff representatives during the transition period to hear those concerns and also, if necessary, to consider whether ameliorations may be required, and I will report to the Leader of the House if that proves to be the case. I am grateful to Unite for raising those concerns with the Committee, and I am also grateful to it for saying that it approves of the principles behind the change. With that caveat in mind, the Committee hopes that the new arrangements will be in place in the autumn, and, in conjunction with the Registrar, we will seek to publicise the change to ensure that all Members are able to encourage their staff to register as required. Let me again thank the Leader of the House for responding so promptly, and I thank the shadow Leader of the House for noting the concerns that have been raised by some. I trust that the House will feel able to approve these new arrangements.

    Hansard source
33. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    West Coast Main Line

    rose—

    Hansard source
34. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    West Coast Main Line

    I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman having allowed the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to intervene first, given that the latter is fortunate enough to have a train station on his patch! You may wonder, Dr Murrison, why I am here for this debate when normally I am campaigning for Aldridge station, but connectivity is the point. We are talking about infrastructure and how we can make our railways much more reliable. We recently had the re-announcement of the funding for the midlands rail hub, which is welcome. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful now to fully understand the timeline for that, and whether the whole project will be fully funded? That will have a big impact on my constituency, as and when the Mayor allows us to have our train station in Aldridge—when he gives us the money—and we will see a much broader improvement in infrastructure, capacity and speed.

    Hansard source
35. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    West Coast Main Line

    On nationalisation, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
36. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    West Coast Main Line

    Even if someone can afford those prices, current statistics show that in 2024 only 40.6% of Avanti trains were on time, yet under the current Government plans, Avanti will be one of the last to be nationalised. Does the hon. Member agree that somewhere along the line—forgive the pun—we have to see improvement in Avanti’s service, for all our constituents?

    Hansard source
37. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    West Coast Main Line

    rose—

    Hansard source
38. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    West Coast Main Line

    The hon. Lady is helping me when it comes to making my arguments about Aldridge train station. On improving capacity, she mentioned some open access lines; does she share my disappointment about the open access bid for a direct route from Wales into Euston? That would have been a game changer for many communities, and also helped with the issue of capacity.

    Hansard source
39. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Industrial Electricity Prices

    8. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce industrial electricity prices.

    Hansard source
40. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Industrial Electricity Prices

    The UK’s industrial electricity prices are among the highest in Europe, and it is quite clear that the Government’s current policies are failing manufacturing businesses in constituencies such as mine. Will the Minister commit to introducing support that genuinely reduces electricity costs for manufacturers, including by tackling high wholesale energy prices, rather than prolonging the uncertainty, which sadly puts local jobs at risk?

    Hansard source