Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

   It is very hard to add anything to that. I fully support the comments of the hon. Member, and of the hon. Member for North Norfolk. Clause 38 is excellent. It is a great addition—it was introduced by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in the other place—because it requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of, essentially, the impact of the Bill within two years of its passing. The meat of the clause is in subsection (2), which states that the review must assess “the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,” and “the number of villages in England not served by bus services”, as well as the “demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of business services available”, and finally, “the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.” It is the review of, “What have we achieved today?” That report will be useful, because it will kick-start discussion of solutions to rural transport. The hon. Member for North Norfolk has already referred to Sanders, which is a family-owned regional bus company—I think it has grown such that I can properly call it regional. We also have First Bus in Norfolk. We have a radial approach. We know the impact of the £2 bus fare on ridership in our county: it was very useful, including by enabling residents of Fakenham, in my constituency, to get down to Norwich—that is a bus journey of three quarters of an hour for £2. It has been an effective policy to increase ridership. We will see what impact the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will have on ridership and provision in the country as a whole, especially in rural areas. I suspect that the answer is that it will have absolutely no impact. A review would expose the Bill for what it is: virtue signalling without any funding at all to support the supposed ambitions of local transport authorities. If the Government vote against clause 38 standing part of the Bill, that will clearly demonstrate their concern that the Bill is performative, that it will not actually make services better, and that it has in fact been a monumental waste of time, without funding. Time and again, throughout consideration of the Bill, I have said that the Conservative party is not against franchising; in fact, it is a Conservative policy development. In the right circumstances, it is a good solution—it is progress—but we have to accept that it is expensive. The Government are pretending that they are facilitating a whole load of local transport authorities to franchise, but are not giving them any money to do it, so we are left with a meaningless shell. The review mandated by clause 38 would hold the Government to account. If I were proven wrong by the report, and it lists a huge number of additional services that have been supplied as a result of the Bill, I would happily come back here and eat my hat.

   Hansard source
2. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

   I am grateful for the intervention. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. Moving on, new clause 53 would require a review of the minimum level of bus services required for communities, within a quite ambitious six months. I leave it to the Minister to respond to that.

   Hansard source
3. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

   I rise to strongly support clause 39, which was the inspiration of Lord Hampton, the Cross Bencher who tabled it in the other place. It would require the Secretary of State to collaborate with industry stakeholders to implement a vision zero programme for buses, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries during bus operations and improving overall safety in the sector. It is very hard to argue against that as an objective for the Bill. The Minister expressed support for the concept and direction of travel. His primary argument against the clause was that it would somehow get in the way of a multimodal approach to the reduction of injuries on transport, but there is no reason why it need do so. It could co-ordinate with a multimodal transport response. Nothing in the clause prevents it from being part of a wider piece of work. I accept that the legislative requirement would be limited to the bus sector, but a non-legislative multimodal approach would be perfectly permissible, and it is a ministerial sleight of hand to suggest otherwise. The Minister is using some other review as an excuse not to keep this very good clause. The reason why it is a good clause is that personal injury to passengers on buses caused by sharp braking is a significant issue. A 2019 study for Transport for London showed that three quarters of bus passenger injuries in London were due to non-collision incidents, such as sharp braking or harsh manoeuvres. This disproportionately affects older females and standing passengers, whether they are standing for the journey or standing on their approach to a stopping place. The challenge with the current statistics is that they are binary—they report either collision injuries or non-collision injuries—and are not broken down further into, for example, sharp braking or avoiding manoeuvres. The clause would help to get to the bottom of where risk lies, expose the data and lead to an effective focus on remediation efforts. I strongly support it.

   Hansard source
4. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

   It is rather unedifying to see the Government hiding behind arguments about article 8. If they seriously thought that article 8 was a practical consideration that prevented the adoption of the clause, why did they not seek to amend the clause? They were perfectly capable of tabling a clarifying amendment to make the clause compliant with article 8, if they really had genuine concerns about such compliance. They could have done it, but they have chosen not to. It does not befit the Minister to hide behind that as a defence for the Government’s inaction. The clause deals with the recording and sharing of data about assaults. It was proposed by the noble Lord Woodley in the other place. The Government should be aware of that, because it was after all drafted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I am sure the Government are good union supporters and, in other situations, I would have expected them to be highly supportive of union recommendations, although I seem to recall—I think I am right—that the RMT is not officially affiliated to the Labour party. Perhaps that explains why the clause is about to be removed from the Bill. The clause imposes a duty to record all data about assaults and violent behaviour, and a duty to consult any relevant trade unions about issues of staff safety arising from that data, which is eminently sensible. Before I go into more detail, I want to clarify that most bus journeys are in fact very safe. Data from Transport for London for 2024 suggests that only 9.6 crimes are committed per million journeys in London. I do not have the data in front of me, but I think that the equivalent data for rural Norfolk might show it is even safer. It is an increasing trend in London, however, as 4,167 crimes on London buses were reported as violence against the person in 2018-19, which was an increase of 2.5% on the previous year. In the west midlands, another hotspot, violent crime on buses increased 7% year on year in the latest statistics. Bus driver assaults is an important subsection of such crime, and in London between 2011 and 2013, on average four bus drivers every single day were assaulted or verbally abused. According to a Unite the union survey in 2024, 83% of UK bus drivers experienced abuse, with 79% saying that there had been an increase over the previous year and many reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults. That is the important bit: if bus drivers are reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults, why is requiring the proper recording of data associated with assaults such a bad thing? Surely the first step to change would be to understand the full nature of the problem. The clause would lead to better data, and therefore better support for bus drivers and passengers faced with violent crime.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

   The Minister refers to the cost of concessions. Has he made an assessment, or is he aware of what the assessed cost would be, of removing the time restriction, as proposed in new clause 48?

   Hansard source
6. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

   The new clause would introduce the simple but crucial requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula within six months of the Bill’s passage, alongside an explanation of its rationale, an assessment of its distributional impacts, and any alternative models considered but not adopted. We all recognise that bus services are a lifeline for many of our constituents, connecting people to work, education, healthcare and social functions, and yet we come back to Banquo’s ghost: funding. There are cheques being written by local authorities that opt for franchising, but where that funding will come from is absent from the Bill—it is totally opaque. The new clause would resolve that. It would not dictate what the funding formula should be. Instead, it would ensure that when a funding formula is proposed, it is done on an evidence basis, as described in subsection (2)(b), and transparently. Such transparency is essential to maintain trust in the system, especially after the vast overspends in Greater Manchester. The new clause is proportionate and constructive, and aims to fix the significant concerns around the lack of funding detail in the Bill overall. It would help to ensure that the significant investments we make in bus services deliver the greatest possible benefits, particularly for communities that rely on them most. I will press it to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
7. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This is an important new clause that deals with poor performance franchising. Subsection (1) would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement on when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services were persistently failing because of poor operational or financial management. Subsection (2) says that the statement must set out the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service and how those are to be identified, and that it must clarify the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service. As Members will be aware, under the Bill, franchising provides local authorities with significant powers to shape, manage and procure bus services in their areas. With those powers should come an equally important responsibility: the duty to ensure that services are delivered efficiently, sustainably and to the high standards that the public rightly expect. The new clause addresses that important gap in the legislation. It requires the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to lay before Parliament a clear statement outlining their intentions and mechanisms for intervention in circumstances where franchising arrangements persistently fail due to poor operational or financial management. I will cut to the chase: we have franchising on the railways. The Government are getting themselves into a very odd position. They are saying, “We are all for devolution. We don’t want to get involved. We are removing the requirement to gain the consent of the Secretary of State to enter into franchising agreements and we have no mechanism to intervene if local transport authorities get themselves into a mess and oversee persistent underperformance.” On rail, however, they take the opposite position and their version of franchising is to nationalise. What would the Government do to remedy the situation if the transport network in a local transport authority persistently underperformed? At the moment, they are expressing no opinion at all on that. The new clause gives them the power to set out their views. It seeks to ensure that where franchising authorities or franchisees fail to deliver contracted services, there is a backstop of national intervention to guarantee continuity and standards. Buses should not be the poor relation of rail. The new clause brings the franchised bus networks in line with the franchised rail network and introduces further certainty and confidence into the franchising system for operators, passengers and local authorities alike. Everyone will know that where persistent failure occurs, there will be a robust safety net to prevent communities being left with persistently poor franchised bus services.

   Hansard source
8. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

   The Minister’s comments fail to address the need for a final backstop, so I will press the new clause to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
9. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

   I associate myself with all the Minister’s comments, particularly those regarding the officials and everyone who has made this Committee work over the last few weeks. I am very grateful to hear the Minister’s nice words about how he was listening carefully to what we said. If that were the case, I wonder why he did not accept any of our amendments, but it may just be a question of time—he may reflect further on them. It is great that we have managed to finish a day early, at the time that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Halifax, had in her mind. I also thank her for the way in which she has managed the operation of this Committee behind the scenes.

   Hansard source
10. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

    NHS 10-Year Plan

    I look forward to studying the detail of this plan, but I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to neighbourhood health centres and likewise his commitment in a previous answer to rural communities. May I therefore offer him a golden opportunity? He will have heard me over many years in this House call for funding to build a new health centre in the village of Long Crendon, which lost its GP practice during the pandemic. They have the land, they have the planning permission and it will cost less than his lower number of £200 million to build. Will he convert words to delivery and commit to Long Crendon?

    Hansard source
11. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Edward Argar

    NHS 10-Year Plan

    I thank the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy in providing advance sight not only of his statement but of his plan. I am grateful, and others on the Government Front Bench might learn a thing or two from him. I am pleased to see the plan published. This Secretary of State is a rare thing these days: one whose announcements do tend to survive largely intact for more than a week. In the case of the plan, it is vital that it does stick. The Secretary of State is not known to be short on ambition, and to be fair that is reflected in his plan; it is ambitious. I believe that his long-term goals are right and that the reforms he has set out build on the reforms that the Conservatives set out and carried out. The desire to shift care from hospital to community, to better use technology and to move to prevention is not new at all, but it remains vital. The NHS undoubtedly needs reform, not just more cash—it is not fiscally sustainable in the long term to have 38% of day-to-day Government spending going on the NHS—so we need to focus on outcomes, not just inputs. But the plan, while welcome, is still sketchy on some of the details of delivery and how it will be paid for without the funds that the Secretary of State mentioned being eaten by pay rises and by inflation, as well as how that shift will be staffed. Greater use of the app is right, and builds on the amazing work done on the app by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) when he was Secretary of State. Greater use of technology and of genomics is right, and the Secretary of State’s big five tech bets are largely right, but, as he knows, tech alone will not deliver this; people will, so a workforce plan that is clearly aligned with his strategy is vital. Neighbourhood health centres are one of the measures at the heart of the Secretary of State’s plan. The concept is an interesting one, but it does throw up a number of questions that I hope he can answer in the spirit in which they are asked. Will the providers of those new centres be NHS public sector organisations, private sector organisations or a mixture? How will the centres fit with GP provision and other services without duplication or fishing in the same pool for staff? What assessment has he made of the cost of new buildings and technology to go in them? How many centres does he envisage, and by when? Crucially, how will he ensure that a public-private partnership model will avoid the downsides of the Blair- Brown private finance initiative model? I ask those questions from a desire not to see this fail but to succeed, because it is in all our interests that the Secretary of State does succeed, but that will take time. Given that, on page 71 of his plan he talks about the need for “immediate opportunities” to be seized. Although there will be others, may I take the opportunity to suggest just one? He should deliver on the pre-election commitment for fracture liaison services to be delivered in all communities, as campaigned for by the Royal Osteoporosis Society, The Mail on Sunday, the Express and many others. That policy would deliver savings within the comprehensive spending review period. Similarly, Melton Mowbray in my constituency has a fantastic community hospital—there will be many up and down the country—and I hope that such hospitals will be a part of delivering more services in the community. On maternity care, I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to a national investigation into maternity scandals, but I hope that will not stop him from delivering on the work done by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and Theo Clarke, which included measures that can be implemented now to help improve maternity safety. On systems reform, may I offer the Secretary of State a couple of words of caution? One is on folding the Health Services Safety Investigations Body into the Care Quality Commission, even as a discrete entity within it. HSSIB is not a regulator and is not designed as such, and it is important that those distinctions are not blurred in making that change. Similarly, may I urge him to be wary of further moving integrated care boards to larger geographies—they are at risk of becoming again the old regional health authorities—as that will move them further away from the local communities they serve and the entities providing social care in those communities with whom they must interact? That brings me finally to a significant question hanging over the plan. Unless we move faster to adjust to the challenges of social care and put it on a sustainable footing, these reforms risk failing to seize the genuine opportunity presented. In the move from cross-party talks to an independent commission, we risk losing that opportunity. Crucially, I ask the Secretary of State again to consider bringing forward the end date of that commission so that we can go further and faster on social care. I have often said to the Secretary of State that where he is wrong we will rightly hold him to account and challenge him, but where he is right we will offer constructive support. The plan, by and large, does say the right things. We must shift to outcomes and not focus continually on inputs, and we must do that through real and genuine reform. The challenges he faces will be in the detail, much of which is still to be confirmed, and crucially for the Government, in the actual delivery. He should not underestimate those challenges. I will work with him to improve the plan where it needs it, but I will support him where he pledges and brings genuine reform to our healthcare system. His plan will have a key test: will patients see the difference, and when will they see the difference? In all that we do, it is vital, as we reform our NHS, that patients are at the heart of our deliberations and our plans.

    Hansard source
12. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Business of the House

    In 2023, Twycross zoo and I secured £19.9 million from the levelling-up fund. I am pleased to report that, when I visited a couple of weeks ago, spades were in the ground for the global conservation centre. I thank Hinckley & Bosworth borough council, Dr Rebecca Biddle and the chief executive officer Craig Dunkerley. The centre is very important because it will not only bring jobs and tourism, but, most importantly, it will train the conservationists of the next generation. Can we have a debate on why a centre like this is so important in teaching the next generation how to protect endangered species, particularly orangutans, which this centre will focus on?

    Hansard source
13. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Business of the House

    Those of us who have been involved in the mishandled transition of post offices from directly managed branches to franchises, as has happened in Bexhill, have seen how poorly the Post Office has responded to local businesses that want to run those branches and the MPs who support them. Will the Leader of the House agree with me, on the record, that it really matters when businesses like the Post Office pay lip service to MPs’ views but ignore us on matters of substance?

    Hansard source
14. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    British Film and High-end Television

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on her statement and on the report she has produced. To succeed, great British films also need a good audience. Will my hon. Friend tell us what she thinks of the Government’s support for local and regional cinemas?

    Hansard source
15. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    People on Low Incomes in Rural Communities

    With the closure of many churches in rural communities in England and in Scotland, too, are the commissioners concerned that people living in rural areas, particularly those on low incomes, might not be able to access worship within easy reach of their own communities?

    Hansard source
16. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House ensure that before the summer recess there is either a statement or a debate in Government time on Sudan? She will know that it is the worst humanitarian crisis ongoing in the world: tens of thousands of people killed, millions displaced and millions facing hunger every day, particularly in the Darfur region. It is stated to be the Government’s No. 1 foreign policy priority beyond Gaza and Ukraine, and of course the UK is the penholder at the United Nations. It is vital that the issue is urgently debated in this House.

    Hansard source
17. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

    Let me start by giving credit to the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for her very powerful speech and for all the work that she has done on this campaign over the years, and to many other Labour Members who have spoken so well today, particularly the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who I always listen to with respect on this topic and, indeed, on some others. It has been good to hear from Members. I particularly welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who is a great new addition to this place. We see here the true voice of the Labour party. It is the Labour movement at its best, and I pay tribute to Labour Members for their campaigning on this topic. They are the heroes of the movement. We also have the heroes of the Conservative party behind me—my good friends the knights of the shires—whom it is an honour to listen to. It is like listening to Edmund Burke when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) speaks about duty and responsibility. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings on their work together on this campaign, which, a few months ago, secured the very significant Westminster Hall debate that has been mentioned. On that day, as if the product of their work, out popped, fresh and pink, the new Minister, who was appointed to his role on that day, as if for the very purpose of answering the question of what should be done for the WASPI women. There was hope of great things from him, but I am afraid to say that we were disappointed on that day. He could offer no hope at all, yet since then we have seen a whole series of U-turns. They have become fashionable on the Government Front Bench, and who knows what we may hear the from Minister today. I recognise, and I am sure the Minister will stress, how difficult it is to address the very complicated circumstances of the very many women caught up in the pension age changes. As I am sure he will say, the ombudsman has recognised that there was no direct impact on pensioners’ incomes from the maladministration and the miscommunication of which the DWP was guilty in the 2000s. However, as Members have said— I particularly recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—women made decisions about their future, and about their life, in ignorance of their true circumstances. The failure by the DWP to successfully and appropriately communicate with the women caused them to make decisions that directly disadvantaged them. It is simply not credible, and I hope the Minister will not advance this argument, to say that correspondence from the Government is essentially pointless and has no value. That would be to suggest that there is no point in any Government communication by post. Of course, women were not advised of the changes in the circumstances, and that was the fault of the Government of the day. As many Members have said, and I acknowledge the powerful point made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), women deserve so much more. As she said, our constituents feel that they have been robbed not just of their money, but of their dignity as a consequence of these decisions. What is to be done? There has been a series of suggestions about how we might go forward. On a point of process, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon)—and I am concerned that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings seemed to agree with him—that the ombudsman’s report should in effect be binding on the Government. I do not think that is appropriate, because these are sovereign decisions that the Government, accountable to Parliament, should be making. However, I agree with the hon. Member and others that these reports should be respected by the Government, and I feel that simply did not happen in this case.

    Hansard source
18. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

    It is absolutely essential that the points made in the ombudsman’s report are fully acknowledged by the Government, and it is necessary, as I will explain, that some meaningful redress is made to the victims of the DWP’s maladministration. The hon. Member for Salford suggested that there could be another review of the system by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, but I do not think that the magic words, “Timms review”, will get the Government out of this hole. He has enough on his hands sorting out the mess they have made on benefits, so this is a job for this Minister, who is a very clever man, and I have great confidence in him. The suggestion made by some Members of mediation may be usefully taken forward. However, as my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, it is simply insulting of the Government to make absolutely no redress and no acknowledgement of the injustice that the WASPI women have endured, and it is appropriate for some meaningful acknowledgement to be made. It is not for me to rescue the Government from the consequences of their own incontinence—their fiscal folly—which has got them into the mess they are in, but they have made several discretionary payments since they came to power. There were the salary increases for train drivers, without any improvement in productivity; the creation of a multibillion-pound energy company that makes no energy; our paying another country billions of pounds to take over sovereign territory belonging to the UK; and, of course, all the U-turns that have imposed significant new costs on the taxpayer, including those costing £5 billion this week alone. Obviously, Government can make discretionary payments if they want to; these are sovereign decisions that they can make. Crucially, any such decision must be funded. We saw this week that the Government essentially fell apart as a consequence of a whole series of bad decisions made in the Treasury. Parliament rose up against the Treasury and demanded change. The decision making at the heart of the Government has been woeful for the past year since Labour has come to office. I pay tribute to the parliamentarians who resisted that this week. This is a new opportunity for the Government to put right a mistake, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister proposes to do that.

    Hansard source
19. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Major Sporting Events

    I 100% back the words of the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and send all our best wishes to the Lionesses as they start their competition shortly. The Secretary of State will know that Royal Ascot last week attracted a viewing population of tens of millions, and “Glorious Goodwood” is about to do the same. Horseracing supports about 85,000 jobs across the UK and generates about £4 billion a year for the UK economy, but the Secretary of State will know that it faces a looming and imminent crisis. When will the Government really start to back British horseracing?

    Hansard source
20. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    British Film and High-end Television

    I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this statement. In April, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I am very honoured to chair, published its report on British film and high-end television, and this sector is absolutely thriving. We have world-class facilities at Pinewood and Leavesden, where the inward investment means films that could be made anywhere are being made here in the UK. The development of Crown Works Studios in Sunderland ensures not just that film making is happening in London and the south-east, but that the money is spreading out to our regions, where we have enormous talents. On our screens, there are fantastic shows such as “Adolescence”, “Doctor Who” and “Rivals”—something for everybody—sharing British stories around the world. In cinemas, British talent and locations in movies such as “The Salt Path” and “The Ballad of Wallis Island”, which I am told is fantastic, are making such an impact. However, this is a fragile industry. It has done so much to rebound from the difficulties of the covid pandemic, but the US strikes in 2023 showed us just how reliant the UK industry is on inward investment and how vulnerable it is. We cannot take this success for granted. It was hard-earned and it must be protected. Our inquiry was launched in the summer of 2023. It came 20 years after the last major Committee inquiry report on the state of British film, which with the willingness of successive Governments and huge engagement from the sector, has shaped policies for the last two decades. However, it was in need of an update, so our Select Committee heard from film makers, cinemas, industry bodies and those working on skills in the sector. The previous Government acknowledged some of the issues we had begun to raise about low-budget British film and VFX—visual effects—tax credits, but last year’s general election left the inquiry on a cliffhanger, with many in the industry desperate for a sequel. We did not want to leave audiences disappointed, so with a new look Committee of excellent new members, we have brought back the inquiry on the crisis in British high-end TV, the benefits and challenges of artificial intelligence, and the work of the British Film Institute and the Government. Our report made 35 recommendations to the Government and the BFI. I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by going through them all, but based on evidence from across the industry, we proposed a comprehensive plan to support inward investment, champion British content and independent film making, drive up skills, support people to stay in the sector, help our cinemas and protect our incredible screen heritage. Admittedly, some of these recommendations were really bold. We supported the calls of eminent creators such as the fantastic producer and director Peter Kosminsky for a levy on streamer subscriptions to help fund British content. Other recommendations were comparatively small but important, such as inviting the Government to review the effectiveness of their incentives for the sector, or working with the BFI for a screen heritage strategy. In the meantime, the Government have published their creative industries sector plan, which happily made film and TV a priority as one of their first frontier sectors. They have given a welcome uplift to the UK global screen fund, which our Committee recommended. They have also announced a new capital fund for the National Film and Television School, which will contribute some, if not all, of the skills we need. Madam Deputy Speaker, if like me you have been to the cinema recently, you will have seen the trailers for the summer blockbusters coming up, and been a bit frustrated that the best bits have all been shown in the trailers, and that is where we are with the Government response. The areas where the Government agreed with the Committee and have taken decisive action were the only new announcements in the sector plan. On everything else, the Creative Industries Minister, who cannot be here for this statement, is at risk of being the villain. He might be called the Government’s very own Dr No. In the time I have left, I will go through where we think the Government have got it wrong. They simply do not share our ambition for this sector, and have not acknowledged the real anxieties those in sector have expressed and the support they have asked for. The Government agree with our Committee that we must ensure the resilience of domestic production and protect our domestic workforce, but they do not seem to have the answers on how to do so. They have failed to recognise the value of research and development in the creative arts, and that it should be treated in the same way as R&D for science and technology. They have ignored the concerns raised by film makers about access to the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme. They have ignored our proposals for a print and advertising tax relief, which would drive investment in our cinemas and independent films. They have refused to require a regional breakdown of production spending, which would help the Government ensure that the benefits of these tax credits are shared right across the UK, and we have phenomenal skills and great stories to tell around the UK. The Government’s welcome extra funding for the UK global screen fund is tempered by a refusal to engage with industry calls to rejoin Creative Europe. On skills, they have ruled out statutory reporting on spending in the sector, despite the unwillingness of some big players in the industry to be open and transparent about what they are giving back. There is hope that the growth and skills levy will be more suitable for the creative industries—the apprenticeship levy currently is not working—but there is very little new information, and I know the sector is concerned that the Treasury may weaken the proposals for a levy that works for the sector. The Government’s proposal for a freelance champion is good as far as it goes, but it is very light on detail and a long way from the freelancers’ commissioner that we have repeatedly asked for. Although the debate on AI and copyright has moved on somewhat from our ping-pong on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Government have rejected or ignored a raft of proposals that would have protected the intellectual property and the moral rights of our creative artists. I know Ministers care deeply about our creative industries, and the Government have made a commitment to them with the sector plan, but I am concerned that while they call British film and TV a frontier sector, so many of our recommendations, based on really clear and compelling evidence from the sector, have just been dismissed or ignored. There is a question whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport thinks our recommendations are wrong, or it just does not have the clout with the Treasury to make them happen. I know the Minister cannot be here, but I also know how he loves a cultural pun, so in the hope that he will be watching this back, it would be a shame not to take this opportunity to say that we had great expectations for the Government’s response but, rather than offering us the full monty, we were left brassed off. The Minister will be before our Committee next week for a brief encounter to discuss the creative industries sector plan. We are not rivals; we want to work with the Government in the line of duty to get the most for this sector. There is some time for them to add a little sense and sensibility, or perhaps some atonement. If so, rather than being wicked, the Minister could end up as British film’s local hero. I commend this statement to the House.

    Hansard source
21. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    British Film and High-end Television

    The hon. Gentleman makes such an important point. We have remarkable skills around the UK, but when we go into sixth forms in any of our constituencies and speak to the young people there, we find few who are considering a career in film and TV. Yet if we look at the things they are studying, we see that the film and TV industry has a demand for all of them. Carpenters, hairdressers, accountants, technicians, engineers and computer designers would all have a place —a job—in the industry, yet the young people may not think of it. We need to ensure that the opportunities for British film and high-end TV are understood and nurtured in every corner of our country, because we have the ideas, the skills and the phenomenal track record, and the Government must do everything they can to harness those and make sure we are benefiting from them.

    Hansard source
22. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    British Film and High-end Television

    My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. This is one of the big questions underlining our whole inquiry. The cost of making content has risen so much, it is pricing so many of our British PSBs out of the market. We heard from Peter Kosminsky, the director of “Wolf Hall”, that it simply could not be made today and that “The Mirror and the Light” was only made because some of the key people on it worked for free. We cannot carry on like that. We need our British stories to be heard around the world. We have seen some fantastic streamers making great content, such as “Black Doves” and “One Day” which do tell British stories, but our PSBs do them better than ever and we need to ensure they are getting the right funding. We have made some quite radical recommendations, such as expanding access to tax credits and a levy on streamers, which was particularly contentious. We will continue to push for some of those recommendations. The Minister is appearing in front of us next week and we will keep asking him these questions, because we need to protect our PSBs and ensure they are telling our great British stories for years to come.

    Hansard source
23. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    British Film and High-end Television

    One thing we were asking for was for streamers in particular to be feeding back on how much of their money they are spending on skills and the regional impact of the investment they are making. We know that it can make such a difference to a local area, as the hon. Gentleman says. When something is filmed in one of his towns or cities, it shines a fantastic light and puts that place in focus. It also tells stories that resonate completely with our residents and inspire an entire new generation to work on those stories but also to create them in future.

    Hansard source
24. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    British Film and High-end Television

    That is a really important question. The Committee made a recommendation based on the conversation we had, supported by the Film Distributors’ Association, for a tax relief for print and advertising of films. The Government have not responded to that, but it is really important. If we are to support British films to be made, and the Government have brought forward tax credits for independent British films with a lower budget, we still need audiences to know that they are out there for them to be supported to get into our local cinemas. Local cinemas have suffered as well, particularly during the pandemic. We need them to be able to stay open. They are vital parts of our local community. This whole ecosystem depends on having cinemas that are flourishing and functioning, and British stories being told in our cinemas. Helping the print and advertising aspect of that story really is very important. We were very disappointed that the Government did not accept that recommendation.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    British Film and High-end Television

    My right hon. Friend represents the New Forest, which, with its great beauty, is a remarkable setting for so many of our British film and TV shows. He is absolutely right that the BFI does a remarkable job. The Select Committee visited its archives to see the collection of British film and TV content going back decades, right from the advent of film production, and to see the remarkable skills it has in being able to bring some of that really old film content back into use. This is part of our heritage. We need to do everything we can to ensure we are protecting it and investing in it, and ensuring that people have the skills to look after our film history in future, so we were really disappointed with that particular aspect of the Government’s response to our recommendations.

    Hansard source
26. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    British Film and High-end Television

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Northern Ireland film and TV sectors have been hugely successful, notably for “Game of Thrones” and I think that “Line of Duty” was shot there, too. It has had phenomenal success, again based on remarkable skills. I have not had the opportunity to speak to the Northern Ireland Government, but I really would like to because, as he says, there is plenty of work for everyone. We have British stories that are there to be told in every single corner of the British Isles. We need to make sure we are promoting our British film and TV industries, so we can keep telling those stories.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

    The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. What she says reflects some of the conversations I have had with WASPI women in my constituency about not only the distress this has caused them, but how so many of them simply did not receive the correspondence that they have been told they did receive over the years about the financial situation that was coming down the track. The hon. Lady pointed out that the PHSO report found maladministration, and that despite promising to address it in all their communications before the general election, the Government said that it was too burdensome to compensate on a flat scale. When that announcement was made, I asked the Secretary of State what else could be done to support these women, many of whom have really struggled as a result of this decision. I did not receive a particularly forthcoming response, so I wonder whether the hon. Lady has had any more joy in finding out what the Government are going to do to support these women if they cannot bring forward the financial support on which so many of them have missed out.

    Hansard source
28. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    British Film and High-end Television

    I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her statement. I think she failed to get “Bend it Like Beckham” into her list and my constituent Nick Manzi will be very disappointed in her for that.

    Hansard source
29. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

    Order. Before Mr Shannon intervenes, may I respectfully ask the hon. Lady to consider truncating her speech a little, as a number of colleagues will want to speak this afternoon?

    Hansard source
30. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

    With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Brian Leishman.

    Hansard source
31. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

    I refuse to believe that age is catching up with the hon. Gentleman. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
32. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
33. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    Unfortunately, the Leader of the House was not able to announce the business beyond Tuesday of the week after next, so I cannot announce what the business in the Chamber will be on Thursday 17 July. Indeed, she also did not announce what will happen in the final week before recess, and we are due to have the Sir David Amess summer pre-recess Adjournment debate on one of those days. It would be helpful to have an update on when we will have that debate. In addition, we will have this business in Westminster Hall: next week, on Tuesday 8 July there will be a debate on alcohol and cancer, which is quite appropriate given the comments made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss). On Thursday 10 July there will be a debate on state support for victims of terrorism, followed by a debate on London’s contribution to the national economy. On Tuesday 15 July, there will be a debate on special educational needs and disabilities provision in the south-east. On Thursday 17 July there will be a debate on the role of freedom of religion or belief in UK foreign policy, followed by a debate on the role of the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit during the second world war. On Tuesday 22 July, there will be a debate on Black Country Day. Members who have been here for a while will know that I have been campaigning for more than 20 years for Stanmore station in my constituency to receive a lift or some form of step-free access. The good news a little while ago was that Queensbury and Canons Park stations are now on the list to have step-free access. I immediately wrote to the commissioner of Transport for London to say, “What about Stanmore station?” I have received a reply this week, which may interest you, Mr Speaker, and others. The definition of step-free access “means lifts, ramps and level surfaces so you don’t have to use stairs or escalators, and can avoid the step and gap onto our trains, buses and boats”. However, the reply went on to say that Stanmore station is classified as having step-free access, despite the fact that it says quite clearly, “‘Station entry and exit requires a 110m journey via the station car park, including steep ramps.’” TfL forgets to say that this is the access to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in Stanmore and that a Paralympian is unable to get up that slope unaided. I have been in correspondence with the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who agrees that we need an updated definition. The Secretary of State for Transport is a former deputy Mayor of London for transport, so may we have a statement from her on what we will do about ensuring that there is proper step-free access and a proper definition of it?

    Hansard source
34. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    NHS 10-Year Plan

    The Secretary of State will be aware that the Carr-Hill formula has not been updated since its introduction in 2004: the staff market forces factor is based on earnings data from 1999 and the population density data that is used is the rurality adjustment from 2001, but the population of Huntingdonshire has increased by 30,000 since that time. I know that the Department has not conducted an impact assessment on the benefit of updating the formula, but the Secretary of State has announced that he will do so and that there will be sharp focus on money following need. Given that Huntingdon is a quickly growing region, where thousands more homes are set to be built in the next 10 years, will he clarify for my constituents that the formula will be updated and that GP surgeries in Huntingdon will receive a fairer allocation of the global sum funding?

    Hansard source
35. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Business of the House

    I would like to make the Leader of the House aware of the mayhem, disruption and chaos taking place in Romford at the Gallows Corner flyover junction of the A12 and A127, which has been closed for refurbishment by Transport for London and the Mayor of London. Despite the junction being closed for over a week, there is no sign that any works have actually begun, and it is causing unacceptable delays to local businesses throughout Essex and the whole of east London. This is simply unacceptable, and there is now talk of the project going on until September and beyond. Would the Leader of the House be good enough to ask the Secretary of State for Transport, who used to be deputy mayor for transport in London, to get on to her friend the Mayor of London, and TfL, and ask them to make an urgent statement, end the disruption in my constituency and get on with the job?

    Hansard source
36. 2 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    West Bank: Forced Displacement

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing the debate. The Conservatives are clear in our support for a two-state solution delivered in the right way at the right time. The only way forward is a solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. We must give the people of the west bank and Gaza the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. There are several factors making progress towards a two-state solution more difficult. First, on Israeli settlements in the west bank, our position is as it was in government and is well understood: settlements are not helpful for achieving long-term peace. We urge Israel not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. In February last year, we took action in government by sanctioning extremist Israeli settlers who violently attacked Palestinians in the occupied west bank. We raised the matter of settlements with Prime Minister Netanyahu on a number of occasions, and in December 2023 the UK and 13 partners released a statement calling on Israel “to take immediate and concrete steps to tackle…settler violence in the occupied West Bank.” I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest conversations he has had with his Israeli counterparts and other partners. I turn to the Palestinian Authority, where reform and credible governance are essential requirements for peace. The Palestinian Authority must prove that they are capable of governing. That should start with key reforms, including on elections, education and ensuring broader freedoms. In April, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding—[Interruption.]

    Hansard source
37. 2 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    West Bank: Forced Displacement

    In April, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority, but we were left with more questions than answers. On elections, can the Minister confirm the “shortest feasible timeframe” referenced in the MOU for the Palestinian Authority to hold presidential and parliamentary elections? Does he believe that they are currently capable of holding free and fair elections? If not, what steps is he taking with allies to build that capacity?

    Hansard source
38. 2 Jul 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    West Bank: Forced Displacement

    I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am making reference to the points in the MOU. I turn to other elements of the MOU. On education, we need to see the plans for educating a new generation of Palestinians in a way that nurtures peaceful co-existence with their Israeli neighbours. Will the Minister commit to laying out in greater detail his Government’s expectations on education reforms from the Palestinian Authority? The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s 2002 “Human Rights and Democracy” report cited human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority, and in February, Reporters Without Borders raised press freedom violations in the west bank. The MOU committed to advancing freedom of expression, media freedom and civil liberties. Can the Minister outline what specific steps are being taken on those issues? Progress by the Palestinian Authority on a reform agenda is vital for peace, and the Government must do all they can do support that. Iran has been committed to the destruction of Israel for decades, and behaves in a way that damages any prospect of peace in the region. Last month’s International Atomic Energy Agency report showed that Iran was in breach of its obligations with respect to its nuclear programme. It is an authoritarian regime that represses and tortures its own people and sows instability and suffering through its sponsorship of terrorist proxies. For that reason and others, Iran must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and we stand with our allies who are working to stop it. We all want to see peace and stability in the region. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is desperate. We must see the return of the remaining hostages from Hamas captivity. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on his efforts to get new aid routes opened, and more aid getting in and going to where it is needed. I would also be grateful for confirmation of the bilateral humanitarian aid spend that will be provided this financial year, following the spending review. Finally, I want to touch on the FCDO’s assistance to British nationals in the region, which has been raised in the House. I acknowledge the recent loosening of FCDO travel advice. It is my understanding that the sixth and final evacuation flight left Tel Aviv on Sunday 29 June, but it would be helpful if the Minister could provide an update and reassure us that all the British nationals who requested evacuation have been helped. We all want to build a better future for the people of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That must be centred on a credible two-state solution, and we want our Government to do all they can to proactively pursue that goal and deal with the challenges impeding progress.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

    Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but if the Minister wishes to respond I will allow him to do so.

    Hansard source
40. 2 Jul 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review

    Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, may I take this opportunity to welcome her back to her place in the House?

    Hansard source