Topical Questions
This is effectively going to ban the spraying of organic manures in the coming months. Is the Secretary of State categorically ruling that out?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
This is effectively going to ban the spraying of organic manures in the coming months. Is the Secretary of State categorically ruling that out?
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement, and for providing early sight of it. Our ability to invest in public infrastructure is a positive for individuals, communities and the country as a whole, and it is right that the new Government set out their strategy. The last Government had to deal with a series of economic disruptions, including the impact of covid, the unwinding of quantitative easing across all advanced economies, and the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The global impact was disrupted supply chains, increased inflation and raised interest rates. Notwithstanding those shocks, under the last Government, public sector expenditure on capital increased in real terms, from £81.7 billion in 2019-20 to £117.8 billion in 2024-25—an increase of 44%. Today, the Chief Secretary has confirmed expenditure of £725 billion, but has provided very little detail. There is no project pipeline today; will he commit to coming back to this House when it is published? In 2024, the last infrastructure pipeline analysis included an investment pipeline of 660 projects over a 10-year period, commencing from 2024-25. The Chief Secretary’s last statement to the House was, in very large part, a restatement of the investments in local transportation projects that had already been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Will he confirm how many of the 660 projects in the previous pipeline will be retained? Will he advise the House which major projects are being abandoned, and give some insight into his reasoning for doing so? Translating a pipeline into reality requires a labour force of sufficient size and with a range of skills—in construction, project management and engineering, for example. Again, the 2024 analysis by the Construction Industry Training Board indicated that that project pipeline would create labour pressures in many of those skills areas. Since coming to office, this Labour Government have increased national insurance and are proposing new regulations on employment, both of which will disproportionately affect the construction sector. Does the Chief Secretary have any concerns about the impact of those changes on the availability of labour? Will he advise the House what assessment he has made of skills pinch points and what steps the Government are taking to alleviate them? Fulfilling these plans will require investment by taxpayers and private capital. Will the Chief Secretary advise the House on whether there has been any significant change in the mix of private and public investments—within discrete sectors or overall—compared with the last pipeline analysis in 2024? The Government created the National Wealth Fund, and said that it was their principal investor—a critical part of the Government’s growth strategy for infrastructure. The Chief Secretary has given the National Wealth Fund £7 billion, but has made no mention of it today. Why has there been no mention of the National Wealth Fund? We are moving through an era with a rapidly accelerating pace of change, in which the period from technological innovation to obsolescence can be vanishingly short. The risk that public investment in new technology solutions will become redundant is increasing. While being forward-looking, the Government should also be careful to nurture both existing technologies and new but proven ones, so what are the Government’s priorities for technology choices in the energy sector, and what actions will he take to protect taxpayers from technology redundancy risk? The Pension Schemes Bill, introduced by this Government, includes a reserved power for the Government to mandate the investments of pension schemes. Has the Chief Secretary had any discussions about—or had the Treasury do any analysis of—the use of mandation powers to provide financing to the capital investments he has announced today? Have the projects announced today been assessed according to the revised Green Book rules? If not, will they be reassessed at some point on the revised basis, and what assurance can the Chief Secretary provide that these projects will give value for money to taxpayers? As this Government have stated, and as we acknowledge, when pressures on public expenditure increase, it is frequently capital expenditure that suffers. What actions is the Chief Secretary willing to take if finances are tight to protect the budgets for the projects he has announced today? Investment in infrastructure benefits from a stable economic background, a clear set of priorities, efficient delivery, and optimal returns for taxpayers and investors. Madam Deputy Speaker, I miss the Chief Secretary in his old guise as Chairman of the Business Select Committee, when there was less of the rhetoric and the partisanship. These big decisions need open communication and critical analysis if we are to improve value for money and get projects delivered on time and on budget. In those endeavours, the Chief Secretary will always have our support.
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. I want to make a similar point to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore). A number of schools in my constituency have closed their pools over the past 20 years. When I grew up in Lewisham, I had access to a school pool. Does he agree that we need to work together on national policy to ensure that, although some school pools will still close, our young people can access their local leisure facilities at a discounted rate, through local government?
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing the debate—he genuinely is an hon. Friend. We served together on Southampton city council, we have both been education lead members, and now we are constituency neighbours. I know that he consistently stands up for the great people of the great city of Southampton, and in particular the constituents he has mentioned today. I pay tribute to Joe’s mum for the work she has already done and the work she will do in future to make sure we lose fewer people on our waterways across the country. Although the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen and I share Southampton Water, which is the busiest part of the waterways around and into Southampton, I also have in my constituency the entirety of the River Hamble, which comes off Southampton Water. The River Hamble is internationally known as one of the most difficult rivers to navigate for our sailing and boating community. It is known as an international sailing hub but also as one of the most difficult tidal waterways to navigate across the world. We saw that, unfortunately, in 2020, early in my career here as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, which is in the same area. Emily Lewis, who was on a fast boat in the Solent, was tragically killed after being catapulted out of it when it hit Netley buoy. She was travelling at 44 mph, and two charges were eventually made of manslaughter and failure to ensure safe navigation against the person who chartered the boat. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen is absolutely right that we need to have water safety education. I put it to the House and the Minister that we also need to have proper education for not only those who enter the water through our seasides, lakes and rivers, but also people who use the water on a daily basis. As I said, we have the whole of the River Hamble in the constituency of Hamble Valley, and a vast array of people use our rivers and Southampton Water—sailors, motorboaters, kayakers, paddleboarders and rowers. Many people use the river, as they should be able to, because that is intrinsic to the identity of those who grow up and live in my constituency. Given the hot weather this weekend, I intend to go out on the Hamble on Saturday to kayak, but I am aware of the intrinsic dangers of a river such as the Hamble. It is vital, as the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said, that we educate from a very early age. I also want to outline and make colleagues aware of the role of our independent lifeboats. Hamble lifeboat in my constituency has already been called out over 60 times this year. We must raise awareness of these services, because they play a very important educational role for many people in our constituencies. I was delighted to be a founding member of the National Independent Lifeboat Association, which looks after our independent lifeboats, alongside our former colleague Anthony Mangnall, who was the Member for Totnes. I encourage all Members who represent areas with independent lifeboats to get in touch with NILA and to raise awareness of water safety. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen highlighted the key variations in access to swimming pools and water education. As I indicated in my intervention, we will both be aware, from our time leading the education system in Southampton, of the number of schools there that have had closures. This is not a political point at all, because we have both been in control of the Administration, and we have had national Governments of different colours, but he will be aware of a reduction in funding for our education system from local authorities, whereby many schools have had to close their pools. Partnerships that allow kids to be taken to local leisure centres for school lessons have been reduced as well. I remember being a young person—I used to be young once—growing up in Lewisham. The council school bus would come and take me to Lewisham swimming baths every week for a two-hour swimming lesson. That has diminished, and it is vital that we work on a cross-party basis to get swimming lessons and water education delivered to people across the UK. As I said, this is not just about young people. A brief story: a couple of summers ago, I was out on my kayak when I saw an older gentleman clinging to a kayak in very cold water. He had lost his energy and would have died that day, had I and my friend Jerry not gone past and rescued him. He was not wearing a life preserver, he was very cold, and he was running out of energy, clinging to his kayak. We managed to take him out of the water and save him, and get him medical attention. Frustratingly, such things still happen, which is why any measures taken forward by the Minister need to be attentive to not only young people but all users of the rivers and waterways across the UK. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen and all Members who will speak in today’s debate. He has my commitment, alongside that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and, I am sure, the shadow Minister, that this is a cross-party issue that we all need to work on. I wish the hon. Member well in his endeavours.
The Minister is right and I agree with everything that she has outlined on ensuring that those lessons are delivered at school and particularly as early on as possible. May I have her reassurance, and will she briefly outline, how she intends to ensure that is enforced further down the line, once the national curriculum comes out?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Although they did not mention it before the election, Labour is committed to abolishing every district and borough council in Leicestershire. It has also invited proposals to expand the city’s boundaries, and the Mayor of Leicester has put forward such a proposal. This is universally not wanted in Oadby, Wigston, Great Glen and the surrounding villages—in fact, thousands of people have signed a petition against it—so can we please at least have a debate in Government time on that proposal? Will the Leader of the House encourage the Local Government Minister not to allow this expansion of the city? It is not just the higher council tax; people want to keep their local identity. If the Government are going to go ahead with the proposal, will they at least allow people to vote in a referendum?
Let me pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for leading this important debate and for doing such a good job in setting out all the different issues at stake. Although he covered a huge amount of ground in his opening statement, we also heard some excellent speeches from across the House, with everyone adding important points. We have had excellent speeches from the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and the hon. Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). Various points will stay with me. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) raised the hugely important issue of safety on ice and the terrible, terrible case involving his young constituents. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) caught my attention with her description of the Barbados of south London, which I very much enjoyed. I also strongly agreed with her tribute to water safety groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) talked about the terrible case of Emily Lewis and the issue of safety on boats, which is a crucial part of this debate. The hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) raised the issue of those old Central Office of Information films that have stayed with all of us, particularly the chilling “The Spirit of Dark and Lonely Water”, which we all seem to have seen. The hon. Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) then brought us bang up to date by talking about what social media could do in this space. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) made the crucial point about the importance of not drinking and swimming, and the critical dangers there. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) reminded us of the benefits of being able to swim outside, yet there are certain places in which it is just not safe to swim. A number of other Members made the point that, in a more transient society, not everyone knows where those places are any more. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made a powerful speech, talking not just about Sam and his father, but about his private Member’s Bill, the Water Safety Bill. We also had a really interesting contribution from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who has a beautiful constituency, which I associate with seaside holidays as a child—and as an adult. A surprising fact in her speech was that this subject is not on the curriculum in Scotland, which seems like an obvious first step. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) talked about the awful case of the missing child in his constituency. We of course hope for the best for that family. I will turn in a moment to talk about some of the things that the previous Government did. I do so not to say that everything is wonderful, because of course it is not, but because I thought that it might be a way of prompting further reflections on what more we could do to go further. As has already been mentioned, it was the previous Government who updated the national curriculum in 2013 to add swimming and water safety education. It is surprising that it was so late. That was where we got this rule that pupils should be taught to swim at least 25 metres. A few people have talked about facilities. The previous Government announced the first £10 million and then £57 million to open up access to pools in schools, as it is obviously very sad to see good facilities not being used after school hours. We enabled 220 schools to open up their pools more than they had been doing, and we want to do more of that. We worked together with some brilliant organisations in the National Water Safety Forum, including the RNLI, Swim England, the Royal Life Saving Society and many more. We have heard from a number of Members about important local and individual campaigns that can be so powerful, and I pay tribute to all the people involved in those. I was involved in using the sugar tax to create and then expand the PE and sport premium, which has provided more funding for PE lessons in schools. In 2017, we doubled the funding that primary schools received to improve the quality of their PE and sport provision, including water education—it went up from £160 million to £320 million. However, there is still much more to be done, because about a third of adults—about 14 million people—still cannot swim. I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for leading by example and learning to swim as an adult—good on her for doing that. All of us are affected by these hugely important issues. Members might think that since my constituency is as far away from the sea as it could be, the main risk is normally people with metal detectors fishing in the canal and constantly fishing out hand grenades, but water safety is relevant everywhere. Just at Christmas a one-year-old girl was rescued from the River Welland. This has been an important debate. We welcome the Government’s decision to look carefully at what can be done to build on the existing statutory guidance and update it. We have heard excellent contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Can we increase the tempo to ensure that there are fewer disappointed colleagues?
I call John Slinger to ask the final question.
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures: Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
I call the shadow Minister.
As Mr Fuller knows, there were three of us on that Committee back in those good old days.
I call John Grady, a member of the Treasury Committee.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. The Minister missed the Mexican wave that took place behind him. It was down to Chris Vince mostly, although probably it was also down to the length of the answers, which could be shorter.
I am hoping that the next question will be as entertaining as his constant chuntering. I call Alan Gemmell.
Please keep questions short.
That was not a short question.
Don’t let me down, Chris Vince.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
That is the end of the statement, so I will allow the Front Benches a few moments to shuffle over as we continue the business for the rest of the afternoon.
I call the shadow Minister.
Just before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, it would be remiss of me not to mention my local football club, Crowborough, and that we are a family of Gooners.
The River Chess in Rickmansworth is one of the chalk streams that goes through my constituency. The volunteers at the Rickmansworth Waterways Trust are keeping our canal heritage alive, despite funding for the Canal & River Trust being cut. I believe the cut is short-sighted, because these waterways tackle water shortages, boost biodiversity and protect 2,500 miles of national assets for a modest cost. Will the Minister rethink the funding cuts and back the Fund Britain’s Waterways campaign, so that local champions like David Montague and his team at Batchworth lock are not left to sink or swim on their own?
Daniel was a very happy and full-of-life 13-year-old boy in Fylde until, just over two years ago, he was diagnosed with a serious brain tumour. With multiple surgeries, a 70-week chemo treatment and, very sadly, a stroke while going through that treatment, Daniel has now been in hospital for over two years. He cannot move without assistance and requires assistance to breathe overnight. The local authority and the NHS have been working together with his family to help design how he can move home and live with his parents, but there is no funding available. He is falling through the cracks between different policies for the funding to pay for those changes, which the family simply cannot afford. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that no family falls through the cracks in such a way and that children are not left inevitably in hospital, and on how to get Dan home?
We are delighted to support the temporary licence changes, as I am sure are Members on all sides—although, to be fair, I do not think I would have much choice on the matter, for if I ever stood at this Dispatch Box and opposed more time in the pub to watch football, my dad would probably disown me. The changes, as the Minister has outlined, will extend licences by two hours for venues that already have licences until 11 pm and apply if England or Wales, the two qualifying teams in the UEFA women’s Euro, reaches a semi-final on 22 or 23 July, or the final on 27 July. There is no reason we should doubt that they will reach that threshold because we are the defending champions, after England’s magnificent performance at the 2022 tournament, hosted in the UK at Wembley. The final saw a 2-1 victory and, of course, it was made all the sweeter by beating the Germans. This is a fantastic time to support our local as well as our national teams. It is also worth taking the time, however, to note that since the autumn Budget, the hospitality sector is sadly reporting a spike in the number of pub closures. That is no surprise, as the Chancellor’s raid on pubs has cost them at least £2,500 per full-time employee. Sixty per cent of pubs say they have cut jobs and three quarters say they have increased their prices as a direct result. Therefore, even though the licensing changes mean we might all be able to go to the pub for a little longer, it will cost us a bit more for a pint—and sadly, for many, the local might not even be in business any more. Now, more than ever, we need to support our locals, such as the 63 pubs that were nominated in my Fylde pub of the year competition, which was won by the Coach & Horses in Freckleton. I am sure that the two Grahams who run that cracking establishment will be delighted with a shout-out from this Dispatch Box, but they will be even more delighted with the Minister for having a bit of extra time to sell some more pints of Ponkys ale. That just leaves me to finish by wishing the England and Wales teams good luck—though, of course, I am biased and hope to be raising a glass to England, once again, thrashing Germany.
Does my hon. Friend agree that people wishing for further clarification of the phrase “grossly disproportionate force” might be advised to consider the guidance on the matter issued by the Crown Prosecution Service?
I am struggling to understand either the legal or the ethical distinction that says that someone who is acquitted at trial should be in a fundamentally different position from someone who is acquitted following an appeal and has their conviction overturned. Surely the practical results should be the same. In every other part of the criminal justice process that I have encountered, they are.
As the Minister will be aware, where the Court of Appeal overturns a criminal conviction for a serious offence such as this, it will generally be because there was a serious flaw in the original trial that has left it invalid. Even in those circumstances, the Court of Appeal may grant a retrial rather than overturning the conviction. I understand the point the Minister is making about the trauma to the family and child, but would that not apply equally to someone who is acquitted at the original trial, in which case should the court not also be considering it in the event of a not guilty verdict? I really am struggling to understand why a conviction being overturned on appeal is substantively different from a not guilty verdict.
Last week, I was heartbroken to hear of the loss of Norma Burton, one half of the much-loved social media duo Jess and Norma. Norma captured the hearts of millions with her warmth and humour, and her amazing bond with her granddaughter, Jess. Can we have a debate on the vital role that grandparents play in educating the next generation, and will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Norma, who was a remarkable and inspiring woman?
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
I would like to start by congratulating the right hon. Lady. This is the third time I have had the pleasure of responding to her at business questions, and they have proved to be remarkably fruitful encounters. At our first encounter, I asked her to press the Chancellor to U-turn on winter fuel payments. The Leader of the House is clearly very influential, because the U-turn on that shameful attack on pensioners came just a few weeks later. At our second encounter, I asked the right hon. Lady to get the Government to U-turn on a national inquiry for the victims of the rape gangs, and this week the Prime Minister finally did the right thing and delivered a U-turn on that as well. The Prime Minister may be getting dizzy from all his U-turning, but I congratulate the right hon. Lady on listening to the Opposition, using her influence and securing those U-turns. Let me turn to one of the most important tasks of any Government: getting people into and keeping them in work. On the Conservative Benches, we know that economic growth comes from the success of businesses and risk-taking entrepreneurs. The Labour party has never understood that, and we are now seeing it have disastrous consequences for our country. Unemployment reached record lows under the Conservative Government. Labour Governments are always incredibly successful at driving unemployment higher. This Government seem determined to be the best ever at putting more and more people out of work. Last week, we saw the devastating impact of the Chancellor’s reckless national insurance tax raid, which businesses warned her would cost jobs. They were right: the UK unemployment rate is now at its highest level since the pandemic. Job vacancies have collapsed. Last month, there were 109,000 fewer employees on payroll. These are the direct results of a Chancellor and a Government who do not understand business. It is about to get a whole lot worse. Businesses are clear that the Employment Rights Bill will cost more jobs. The UK’s leading business groups have collectively told the Government that the Bill will damage economic growth and jobs. The Government are giving people rights in jobs that they simply will not have. The truth is that this Government are beholden to their union paymasters and cannot listen to businesses. They are a Government who have taken a time machine back to the employment nightmare of the 1970s, when union barons gave Labour Ministers their marching orders. While the Government and the unions try to refight the battles of the 1970s, the world of work is changing at a rapid rate because of artificial intelligence. AI brings many benefits, but it is also a clear and present risk to the stability of our labour markets and the livelihood of millions of people in this country. Despite their love of regulation in all other aspects of our life, this Labour Government have yet again delayed their Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill, so AI is developing unchecked and changing jobs in ways that will have a long-term impact. While businesses and workers grapple with the new reality of a 21st-century AI economy, the Government are determined to burden them with taxes and regulations from the last century, so will the Leader of the House use her considerable and proven influence to deliver a U-turn on the Employment Rights Bill before it is too late? If not, will she grant us a debate in Government time on the impact of their union-inspired tax and regulation policies on businesses? Will she bring her party back to the 21st century and grant us a debate in Government time on how we address the role of AI in the future of work? The story of this Labour Government and their economic policies is now clear. If it moves, they tax it; if it does not move, they still tax it. If they can find a way, they send unemployment higher. If businesses warn them that things will get worse, they do not listen. If the unions want something, they give it to them. This is a Government fighting the battles of the 1970s and behaving like they are still student politicians. It is a Government making the people of this country poorer as each day passes.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement—what a delight it was to receive an update on the warm home discount on this, the warmest day of the year. I know that the Minister is a tireless champion for the people of Peckham and for the most vulnerable, and I thank her for all the work that she does behind the scenes for those causes. Exactly one year ago today, the Chancellor said: “Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300.” What has happened since? Bills have not fallen by £300, as was promised so many times by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Energy Secretary and Labour MPs. In fact, bills have gone up by almost £300—the opposite of what they all promised just a year ago. On top of that, this Government took the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners through a cold winter. This announcement will provide support for some, but it is nothing more than a sticking plaster—the fact is, this Government’s energy policy is making people colder and poorer. The Minister has not said a single word about how this expansion will be paid for. It is a £400 million commitment, but there was no detail in either the Government’s press release or the Minister’s statement about how it will be funded. Will the warm home discount still be funded by levies on everyone’s energy bills? If so, this policy means that energy bills will increase for the majority of bill payers, yet the Minister did not say so in her statement. Will she therefore inform the House whether she has asked her Department to calculate by how much levies on everyone’s bills will increase to pay for the £400 million of extra spending? If so, will she inform the House so that our constituents know how much their bills will increase by under this Labour Government? The Government’s press release said that the expansion of the scheme will be offset by efficiency savings across the energy system, but we have no detail about what those efficiencies are, or how much money will be saved. In fact, the system is becoming less efficient. The National Energy System Operator recently said that the cost of balancing the grid by paying wind farms to switch off when it is too windy increased by 10% to £2.7 billion a year, warning that this will triple to £8 billion a year by 2030 as this Government rush to build more wind farms and solar farms on agricultural land than ever before. That is what this Government are delivering: more subsidies, more levies, more payments for wind farms to switch off, more tech imported from China, and more costs added to everyone’s bills. Will the Minister share some proper detail with the House on exactly how much this will cost the British people? I suspect the answer will be a resounding no. This is a statement devoid of detail because it is designed simply to distract from the fact that this Government’s energy policy is in chaos and driving bills higher and higher. This is a Government driven by the ideology of net zero, not by making energy bills lower for families across Britain. It is a Government of broken promises.
The creation of another new authority will be met with an eye-rolling sigh in Scotland, because although it is called the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—a very shiny title—the reality is that it will have little oversight in Scotland. The plan announced today will generate Barnett formula money, which will go to Holyrood and disappear—it will go into ferries that do not float and things like that. In my constituency the A75 road is a piece of critical national infrastructure. It services the ferry ports to Northern Ireland, and it is vital for all the countries that make up the United Kingdom. Will we see any money coming for that road through today’s innovation, or will the money once again disappear into the coffers in Holyrood?
Incontinence is no respecter of person, and no respecter of sex, and it is male incontinence that I rise to speak about. The wry old joke is that men do not know they have a prostate until their other half reads about it in the Daily Mail. Campaigning newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, and charity groups like Prostate Buddies in my Dumfries and Galloway constituency have done a power of work to make men aware of prostate disease and prostate cancer—just as well, given that prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. One in eight of us will be diagnosed with it, and that figure rises to one in four for black men. It is well recognised that early diagnosis is key, but it is less well known that as many as 60% of those treated with surgery will face urinary incontinence, outwith surgical intervention. Prostate Cancer UK says that one in 25 men aged over 40 will experience some form of urinary leakage every year. The scale of the issue, and the number of people facing the problem who report feeling shame, embarrassment and isolation, is greater than many suppose. The guardedly good news is that far from being alone, people suffering incontinence are a very large portion of society. It has been another silent epidemic, and people have been left to suffer in obscurity. Today is part of the solution to that. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) on securing the debate. Given her medical background, I defer to her for advice on what can be done to relieve the physical symptoms of incontinence—and much can be done. According to the American Urological Association, better prostate treatment is cutting the number of men who suffer incontinence after prostate treatment. Pelvic floor exercises can help both men and women, as can bladder training. But what can Government do, aside from making health policy decisions on treatment for incontinence in all its forms, be it suffered by men or women, and be it post-op, prostate-related or childbirth-related? Small steps can help. When the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) asked whether there had been discussions about providing bins in men’s toilets for disposal of sanitaryware made necessary by incontinence, a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave a rather technocratic answer, promising a Health and Safety Executive review of workplace regulations dating back to 1992 on the provision of disposal facilities in workplace toilets “in due course”. I hope the Minister can today confirm that the consultation can be fast-tracked. I hope that we have taken a giant stride in this place today by stripping away some of the stigma merely by giving an airing to the issue of incontinence. There has been much talk recently about Parliament at its best, but surely this is Parliament at its best, considering unfashionable yet critical issues. Today we bury the myth that this condition is somehow shameful. With this first ever debate on the subject, we take a modest but significant step towards improving the life of those who struggle with the burden of incontinence.
Earlier this week, I was unsuccessful in trying to amend the Government’s proposed new spiking law to ensure that reckless spiking is an offence. Will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss the challenges of prosecuting violent crime towards women and girls if the Government are unpersuaded to ensure that reckless spiking becomes illegal?
I cannot believe it, but I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). It is a shock to the system, but the Chief Secretary has announced the return of the public-private partnership. The last Labour Government were a byword for disastrous contractual negotiations, and that led to the infamous £1,000 lightbulb. Given that Labour was so bad at these contract negotiations last time around, what confidence does the Chief Secretary have that he will be any better this time around?
rose—
Firs, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first outing on the Front Bench—he is doing a very good job. Secondly, I will not quibble over who it was who obtained the funding from the Conservative Government—the Conservative Member of Parliament or the Liberal Democrat district council—so let us leave that to one side. Thirdly, I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the development of having a swimming pool in Fakenham. Does he agree that that will go a long way in helping people in Fakenham and the surrounding area to learn to swim?