Showing every spoken contribution, including 142 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I thank the Minister for that, and I will certainly pass on that message. As MPs, we do not always agree on everything. It is our job to disagree, but to disagree well, with standards, compassion and ethics. We must always seek to find common ground where we can. When we disagree, we should do so with patience and respect, as Jo always did.
<Question HRSContentId="{7E5B4D7D-83F6-45FC-81F2-4D6DC6410FA7}">Q13. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{0C78ED3C-4C22-4385-A589-153211D1A808}"></QuestionText>Running a business as a plumber, I was well used to dealing with dirty grubbiness, and there is still plenty of that dirty grubbiness behind me. Running a business is tough, so will the Prime Minister join me in backing the “VAT’s the Problem” campaign to cut VAT rates in hospitality? He did not answer the question last week, so will he tell us today: yes or no?</Question>
<Question HRSContentId="{CB6EB29E-6C26-4AEA-AC79-00CCF203F821}">Q12. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{B0CE3D1A-52B6-417C-9795-247EE53A1490}"></QuestionText>A suppressed Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report has concluded that without transformational change, our food and water systems are at risk of catastrophic failure from 2030. Another suppressed Joint Intelligence Committee report concluded that there is a “high likelihood” of ecosystem collapse, putting food production at risk. Does the Prime Minister recognise that many of us across this House are ready to work collaboratively to address these urgent challenges, and will he commit to publishing those two reports in full?</Question>
I thank the hon. Member for bringing this debate and in particular for his focus on the need for cross-Government action and to address the range of threats we face. Does he agree that as part of the resilience planning, addressing the risks attached to climate breakdown and nature collapse are absolutely central? On his point about transparency, does he agree that the two suppressed reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee and from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ futures team need to be made available if the Government and Members across parties are to work clearly to address these issues and inform the public?
On the point about transparency, the Joint Intelligence Committee’s national security assessment was partially released in January—it was a redacted version—only after a freedom of information request from Green Alliance. That report highlighted that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are a threat to national security. What action is being taken following that report? In particular, when will the full version of the report be made available to Members of this House?
I beg to move, That this House has considered energy costs. It is a pleasure to serve with you chairing, Ms McVey, and I am grateful to colleagues who are here today. This is my first speech in Westminster Hall, and we all have a lot to say on this issue, so I will see how I manage with interventions and where we go from there, if that is all right. Today is exactly 100 days since I first set foot in Parliament, as the MP for Gorton and Denton. Since then, one issue has come up pretty much every single day, whether I am speaking to families in Gorton, support groups in Manchester or local Denton businesses that are desperate to keep their doors open, and that issue is the unaffordable cost of energy. One in three households in Gorton and Denton is living in fuel poverty, and across England nearly 3 million households are in that position. Behind those statistics are people—people who are finding it harder and harder to pay their bills each month, and families who are having to choose between staying warm and buying new school uniforms for their kids—kids who are playing penguins at bedtime because their parents are trying to make a game out of huddling together against the cold.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree that we have to do something to tackle this immediately. Before I became an MP, I was a plumber. I spent my days going into people’s homes, and on so many occasions I saw the problem right in front of me. I remember walking into someone’s house and the air being so thick with damp that you could almost slice through it. The mum told me it was a constant battle to scrub mould off the walls. This was not an issue of ventilation, as some would try to suggest: it was a working family trying to provide for their kids and being unable to afford the basics—a warm home that is not full of damp; it was a working family handing their hard-earned cash to fossil <span id="78WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="78WH"></span>fuel giants. Fossil fuel giants are never the ones asked to tighten their purse strings. No, it is always us who are expected to adjust our living standards, so that they can keep making excess profits.
I will continue, if that is okay. Bills have gone up by 79% since the energy crisis began in 2020. That is an extra £5,000, when our constituents’ hard-earned wages are already stretched to breaking point. Yet, from 1 July our constituents face another increase, of £221, when the next Ofgem price cap comes into effect. That is why, on my second day in Parliament, I helped to get the all-party parliamentary group on fuel poverty back up and running, and why I will join Fuel Poverty Action and other campaigners on 1 July to demand that energy costs are brought down for good. The scale of this crisis for families is enormous. It also perfectly captures what the Green party means when we talk about rip-off Britain. While my constituents are struggling, fossil fuel giants and privatised energy companies are cashing in, and almost a quarter of energy bills are taken as profit. In the first month after the US and Israel’s initial strikes on Iran, the share value of just five North sea oil and gas companies was boosted by £73 billion—£73 billion in one month. The family owners and chairman of the private oil and gas company Perenco are worth £8 billion and are now among the top 25 richest people in the UK. All of that has happened in a country where a million children under five live in fuel poverty, and where one in three kids in Greater Manchester lives in poverty. Working hard used to get people a decent life; now it is more likely to line the pockets of billionaires, fossil fuel companies and energy giants. The Green party is clear that things have to change. First, people in my constituency need support immediately, not in three months’ time. The Chancellor is apparently “monitoring the situation” and will intervene if necessary, but on behalf of families dreading the months ahead, and on behalf of disabled people who have high energy use all year round to run specialist equipment, I am telling the Government that today is the day when it is definitely necessary. Does the Minister agree that the Ofgem energy price cap should be frozen to provide universal support for households now? If not, what are the Government going to do to support bill payers with rising energy costs from July and into the winter? Will they increase the warm home discount, which has not kept pace with rising bills? Shifting some policy costs off bills is positive, as are steps to separate electricity and gas prices, but all electricity levies could be paid for more fairly by progressive taxation. We need to be taxing the wealth of multimillionaires and billionaires more fairly. Providers of frontline support, such as community warm spaces—of which there are a lot in my constituency—need immediate support too. Does the Minister agree that those vital community assets should get lower energy rates? Secondly, it is time to stamp out profiteering. Unite the Union found that UK energy companies made £30 billion in pre-tax profits in 2024 alone. While the Government’s anti-profiteering framework announced <span id="79WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="79WH"></span>in May is welcome, what other steps is the Minister taking to stop billions being transferred from bill payers to the pockets of international shareholders? What assessment has been made of the benefits of taking the grid, which enjoys some of Britain’s highest profit margins, back into public ownership? Thirdly, we need a fully funded, local authority-led, national home insulation scheme that people trust to insulate homes to an energy performance certificate standard of B or above, and an EPC scheme that cannot be manipulated. Our homes leak more heat than most places in western Europe—trust me, I have seen them. Real action demands investment and stronger regulations so that every retrofit job delivers proper savings and real improvements. Next week, I hope to meet some of the victims of the Conservatives’ failed home insulation scheme. As a plumber, if I had done a botched job, I would have been forced to fix it or pay up. Why is the Minister’s Department not ensuring that every single victim of shoddy contractors receives remediation?
I am going to continue. Fourthly and finally, we must go further and faster on renewables. New fossil fuel extraction will not bring down bills or improve the UK’s energy security—a fact I know the Minister agrees with. Since the start of the war in Iran, wind and solar have saved the UK from gas imports worth £1.7 billion. Can the Minister provide assurance that the Government will not approve proposed drilling at Rosebank, Jackdaw or Cambo, or allow new oil and gas extraction through tiebacks to existing production facilities? How will the Department use the upcoming energy independence Bill to accelerate the roll-out of renewable energy and reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels? I am pleased to have secured this debate on my 100th day as an MP. Last Sunday marked the 100th day of the US-Israeli war against Iran, which, as well as inflicting untold suffering and devastating in the region, has triggered the UK’s second major energy price crisis of the 2020s. I recognise all that the Government are doing to bring that international crisis to an end, and I hope the Minister will use this moment to also try to end the crisis of unaffordable energy costs for my constituents and millions of others across the country.
I am just about to finish. If we do not do something, this issue will keep happening. We need to act—not in the interests of fossil fuel giants, but in the interests of the very people who sent us to this place to make their lives more liveable.
The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech in honour of a fantastic advocate for the natural world. I have had emails from constituents about him, and I would like to share one that I received this morning, which says: “Sir David is a titan of broadcasting and has educated, amazed and enthralled generations for decades.” The point she is making is key: he has been an advocate not just for the natural world, but for our responsibilities to tackle the huge challenge of climate change. Sir David clearly deservers some sort of memorial—perhaps a living memorial. I thank the hon. Member for securing this tribute to him, and hope that we all agree that he deserves all the recognition and respect that we can give him.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate.<span id="123WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="123WH"></span> I welcome the Government’s commitment to hold a summit on tackling illicit financial flows, but it is essential that more political priority is given to this issue and that the UK shows more leadership in this space. If the summit is to be a success, we need to put our own house in order and play a critical role in helping to clean up the global financial system. We must also clean up the influence of dirty money, which infests our politics and the fabric of our country. The UK plays a core part in this issue, particularly due to the role of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies in facilitating these flows. As we have already heard, if we include the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is calculated that £788 billion of illicit finance from financial crime, money laundering, corruption, illegal trade and tax abuse flows through the UK and its territories every single year. That is a huge problem. I was particularly struck by the calculation from Tax Justice UK that the UK and its overseas territories and Crown dependencies are responsible for about a quarter of revenues worldwide lost due to tax abuse. That is extraordinary. We represent less than 1% of the global population. Our economy, depending on how it is measured—purchasing power parity or not—is between 2% and 3% of the global economy, yet we are facilitating 25% of global tax abuse. That is absolutely unacceptable. I welcome the commitment from Members across the Chamber today to tackling that. I very much hope that we will hear strong words, followed by strong action, from the Government today and in the summit. It is crucial that we have full transparency over property ownership and beneficial ownership. It is crucial that registers are fully accessible to everybody and are not just, as has been suggested by some territories, accessible only to certain people at certain times—pre-qualified, with notifications being sent to owners that people are looking into their affairs. Transparency is a fundamental principle, and it is essential to prevent the abuses that we know the system of secrecy actively enables. I very much hope to see strong action from the Government on that at the upcoming summit. It is also crucial that the summit recognises that tax abuse includes both tax evasion and tax avoidance. The UK economy loses tens of billions of pounds each year, as the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) mentioned.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member is taking the opportunity to score a cheap political point when we have been working cross-party on these issues. On that specific issue, the leader of the Green party has apologised and made clear efforts to pay any tax that he may be found to owe. As has become clear, this a complex issue that affects potentially tens of thousands of people in the UK, and we would welcome clarification on it. But that is a cheap political point to attempt to score in a debate about abuses of the tax system that are resulting in hundreds of billions of pounds of lost revenue to countries around the world.<span id="124WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="124WH"></span> I would like to pick up on a specific issue that I know the Government intend to address in the three priorities they have set out for the summit: the illicit gold trade. I have previously spoken in the main Chamber about the deeply concerning role of the illicit gold trade in funding and facilitating the horrors that we see in the conflict in Sudan, so it seems crucial that the UK Government do everything possible to clean up that particular mechanism for funding abuses globally. The huge, significant role played by the UK in supporting and enabling illicit financial flows not only harms us in the UK, with the presence of illicit businesses in our high streets and villages, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk spoke about, or, as the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine highlighted, affect us through dirty Russian money embedded in our economy; it also has huge ramifications around the world. The UK’s role in facilitating flows of illicit finance actively supports the impoverishment of already impoverished countries and Governments. We have a responsibility to clean up our act in this country both because it will benefit us and improve revenues to the public Exchequer for reinvestment in public services and because we have a fundamental moral duty to ensure that we do not facilitate flows of dirty money globally.
Unpaid carers play a crucial role in supporting so many people who need to draw on social care, thereby supporting our health service and our formal social care system, but they tell me that they are under immense strain and need more support. They are, of course, more likely to be women and to be older. Does the Minister recognise the urgent need for more respite care for unpaid carers, and will he take action to provide it now, rather than waiting a few years for the Casey commission?
In the face of consistent, sustained and systematic war crimes, violations and abuses by the Israeli Government, the Secretary of State has today announced further piecemeal sanctions and guidance, which go nowhere near acknowledging the reality that the most important sponsor, financer, protector, supporter and cheerleader of that illegal settlement expansion is the Israeli state itself. Sanctioning a few organisations ignores the reality of where the power lies in this situation. Is it not long past time for this Government, who say they are concerned about this issue, to use all their limited power, influence and leverage to take action against the Israeli state itself, starting with Netanyahu, with genuine, full and comprehensive sanctions and a full ban on any engagement with settlements?
Many thanks, Sir Edward, for your firm chairing today, which I now look forward to. I sincerely thank the petitioners, and particularly Sophie Blake for all the work she does and for a very well put petition. I also thank Nathaniel Dye, and I had the genuine honour of meeting him and seeing his work before his death. I want to add a cross-party voice to the debate. The Greens were not whipped on the issue of assisted dying—we do not whip our Members in any debates—but all four Green MPs voted for this issue of conscience. However, that is not what we are here to debate today; we are here to talk about the process. I was so impressed with it and with the seriousness with which my colleagues and colleagues across the House took this issue. We made our decisions after so much debate and engagement with the Bill text and the amendments, and debates in our offices and with our staff. In our constituencies, we all spoke with constituents from a wide range of different groups. I spoke with young people, disabled people, faith groups, several terminally ill people and people caring for those who were terminally ill. This was serious work. I was a very new MP when the Bill went through its Second Reading, and I found it so inspiring. It is a sad topic, but I found the debate extraordinary. After all the debate in the House of Commons, which was unwhipped—by any party—and conducted with such seriousness on an issue of conscience, all that work led to a majority for the Bill. We all know what happened next: a refusal by the House of Lords to come to any kind of decision, and the effective blocking of any further consideration of this issue, into which we had all put so much work.
I quite agree. It was courageous of the House to take on this issue, consider it and then vote. We put our names to positions that we came to with <span id="10WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="10WH"></span>some courage, I think, because we all knew there were people who felt very strongly the opposite way, whichever way we voted. On the principle—on this and any other issue where a similar process takes place and the House of Commons has the courage to come to a decision—I agree that it is not for the House of Lords to stop that using these kinds of methods. I agree with the petition writers, who want the Government “to ensure that when bills are supported by MPs & the public, they have the time to complete all their stages in Parliament.” That is 114,000-plus signatories, alongside the 69% of people polled this year who believe that the debate on assisted dying should have continued until Parliament reached a conclusion. I look forward to hearing from the Leader of the House about what can be done so that we can make the important private Members’ Bill process viable again in the future and restore the public’s faith in the health of democracy—I will not beat around the bush—and in the ability of this Parliament to make decisions on issues of such importance to so many of our constituents.
Will the hon. Member give way?
Does the hon. Member not recognise the fundamental problem that the House of Lords has not had the chance to approve or reject this piece of legislation because it has never come to a vote? The House of Lords has therefore not fulfilled its constitutional responsibility to fully scrutinise the legislation. Would it not be appropriate for this House to send the Bill back to the House of Lords until it does fulfil its constitutional responsibility to complete scrutiny with a vote?
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Would the Leader of the House agree that there may be a way to respect both the principle of the primacy of the Commons and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, including full scrutiny in the Lords, by coming to the point of a vote? That would not be the Government taking forward the Bill, but him, in his role as Leader of the House—the role of representing the Commons to the Government—reintroducing this Bill in the Commons so that it could be sent directly to the Lords to complete the process of parliamentary scrutiny: to the point of a vote in the Lords. That would fulfil the fundamental democratic principles that have been argued for on both sides of the debate today.
<em>rose—</em>
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I thank the Leader of the House for allowing me to clarify my point. My point is not about the specific content of the Bill; it is about the constitutional crisis caused its blockage. Is it really okay that the only way out of that is to wait for another private Member’s Bill? Is there a role in ensuring that it comes through the Commons?
At a recent roundtable that I held at a high school in Waveney Valley, one young person said: “Social media is dangerous for young people and the government needs to take more control over social media companies because of the harmful content”. A senior teacher said: “The majority of what we are dealing with as safeguarding leads is via social media.” How will the Minister ensure that the out-of-control corporate tech giants are regulated effectively, so that only age-appropriate content can be accessed?
The suppressed report from DEFRA civil servants on critical systems beyond 2030 concludes with high confidence <span id="55" class="column-number" data-column-number="55"></span>that without “transformational change” Britain’s water and food systems face a realistic risk of “catastrophic failure”. The report highlights that significant parts of the UK already face water scarcity, while high levels of industry debt and woefully inadequate infrastructure investment have undermined system resilience. Can the Minister assure the House that the water Bill will require companies to build long-term climate resilience into reservoir supply networks and waste water systems, so that communities are protected from the climate and water security challenges expected in the coming years and decades?
Brighton is well known as the LGBT+ capital of the UK. It is a city with a famous reputation as a place where people can be who they are, love who they want to and feel safe. This is a great source of pride for me as a representative and for my constituents who make it such a fantastic place to live or visit. In previous debates, I have spoken with joy about our amazing community, our huge Pride and trans Pride celebrations, and the LGBTQ+ history of our diverse city by the sea, but with deep regret—I know that my constituents will want me to focus on this—we mark this year’s Pride Month at a time when many if not all our LGBT+ constituents feel unsafe. Our trans and non-binary constituents feel the sharpest edge of the current wave of demonisation and division, but I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members will have heard how it is also impacting our gay, lesbian, bisexual and gender non-conforming constituents. This dangerous and harmful environment has been created online, in our media and, sadly, in this place. The new guidance produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the most immediate example of how this is happening in legislation. The code of practice for services, public functions and associations is the culmination of years of well funded campaigns to drive a minority group out of British public life. It sets out nothing less than a system of segregation where trans people are excluded from services and spaces that reflect their gender—and in some cases also excluded from services and spaces that reflect their sex assigned at birth. Where unisex facilities exist, they are usually also disabled access, sometimes with restricted key entry, so trans people can be forced into asking for and using those toilets, outing themselves in the process. Where those facilities do not exist, trans people will be left with nowhere to go. As hon. Members have pointed out, the Government’s own equality impact assessment on the code admits that there will be a significant impact on those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as a result of trans people being forced to out themselves by using disabled toilets, and will put trans women at greater risk of sexual violence by making them use men’s services. I have met service providers in Brighton who want to be inclusive but fear putting themselves at very real legal risk now that the guidance is coming forward. What an impossible position to be put in as a Brighton business—to feel forced to implement oppressive and unworkable policies at the expense of trans and non- binary service users or customers who have never been a cause for concern. How is all that in the spirit of Pride Month? The bare facts are that research by TransLucent has found that there was just one complaint to English unitary authorities in 2025 concerning trans women’s use of single sex spaces, such as toilets and changing rooms. I firmly believe that it is Parliament’s responsibility to fix that and honour the joy, inclusion and freedom that Pride is really about.<span id="1372" class="column-number" data-column-number="1372"></span> The code of practice is both cruel and confusing. I have written today to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Women and Equalities to make those points. I also urge colleagues to sign early-day motion 240, proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and which I sponsor, which is a cross-party call on Parliament to disapprove the code of practice as it stands. I hope that we will see much more cross-party work on this issue, as there often was when progress was made by previous Governments. From my local point of view, it is clear that my city and my constituency want and need a renewed focus on rights and for the guidance to be challenged. I was so pleased and proud to read the recent official statement from the leader of Brighton and Hove city council. She is not from my party, but we are united on this issue for those we represent. She said that the EHRC guidance “creates a deeply confusing picture which sees trans people being told in the same breath that they may not be able to use facilities aligned with either their sex at birth or their gender. This creates…uncertainty and insecurity for affected individuals and it is deeply unfair. Trans and non-binary residents of our city have told us that the chilling effect is already being felt with some trans people avoiding accessing services including hospitals and healthcare, to avoid challenge and discrimination…parliament must urgently act and legislate to clarify that trans people have the right to participate in everyday life in an inclusive way.” The leader of the council and I agree that Parliament should reject this document. We also agree that we must instead legislate to create a legal framework with clear and equal rights for all, which protects trans people’s rightful place in society. We must also legislate to clear up the obvious misunderstandings of the current law and its intentions at Supreme Court level when the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act are looked at together. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) pointed out so powerfully, other countries have written laws that work for everyone’s rights; so can we. Trans people of all ages and backgrounds exist in communities across the country and always have done. They have every right to thrive, just as their cisgender friends, family members and colleagues do. I recognise the Minister’s pride in previous achievements and her upcoming plans, but when Labour brought in the Gender Recognition Act over two decades ago, it promised trans people that it would help them live their daily lives in peace, privacy and dignity. This current Government will break that promise if we do not act together to make laws that work. This Pride Month, if the current environment for LGBTQ+ people teaches us one thing, it is that progress is precious and that rights for any of us, if not defended fully, can be rolled back. It is our job in this place to prevent that.
<Question HRSContentId="{A52ED3C1-085B-45F2-ADEB-E8FBEBA0B22E}">9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{82FB95EF-9AAE-4398-B8CC-DFC43A80F76A}">What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of her Department’s report entitled Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published on 20 January 2026.</QuestionText> </Question>
Turning to a second report that sets out grave risks to our national security, DEFRA civil servants have said that there is a realistic possibility that by 2030, our food, water and natural ecosystems will be at risk of collapse. That conclusion could not be more stark. An article in <em>The Times </em>states that it was the conclusion of a 2024 report commissioned to inform the new Government, but it was not included in handover briefings. Can the Minister confirm whether she has seen that second report, and what action is her Department taking to address its stark findings?
Huge thanks go to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for leading this important debate with such an important speech. It is great to speak today. It is right that we honour our local struggles when we talk about the general strike and ensure that we cement them in our own local history. Last month, in my constituency, I had the great honour of unveiling my very first blue plaque. It was to mark the battle of Lewes Road, which took place on 11 May 1926. The plaque has gone up at the site of the old tram depot in Lewes Road in Brighton, where 4,000 Brightonians stood strong against hundreds of police on foot and 50 mounted special constables to stop the training of strike breakers. The courage shown by thousands of local residents, workers and protesters who stood up to state intimidation, and who faced immediate imprisonment and hard labour as a result, is one of the many stories of Brighton and Hove’s proud and principled history. I praise and celebrate the work of Brighton and Hove District Trades Union Council and all those involved in campaigning and fundraising to get the plaque up on the wall in time for the centenary, and for hosting such a brilliant event recently to mark the centenary celebrations and to discuss the lessons. Let us be clear and never forget that the unprecedented working-class mobilisation of the general strike shook the establishment to its core—its reaction shows that. By recognising and honouring our local struggles for workers’ rights alongside this history of national <span id="1272" class="column-number" data-column-number="1272"></span>collective action, blue plaques such as the one in Lewes Road can act as a permanent reminder to us all of the power of solidarity, and the importance of the right to strike and protest. To today’s workers and unions in Brighton Pavilion I have pledged that I will always honour the values and spirit of our city and the battle of Lewes Road, and stand with them when they make the hard choice to strike in their own struggles. As the debate has shown so far, the lessons of the general strike are as relevant today as they were a century ago.
I met the Friends of Denton Station, who have spent two decades campaigning; despite that, we still have only two trains a week that stop at the station. The passengers and the infrastructure are there, but we remain cut off from Manchester and beyond in terms of rail access. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that towns like Denton deserve the same ambition for connectivity as communities in the south of the country?
I have had the privilege of meeting some of the women who survived Epstein’s abuse, and I pay tribute to them and to those who are no longer with us. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that as we rightly discuss the processes that took place, we must also highlight the sheer bravery of those women, and that that should be front and centre in this debate? Does he agree that this appalling episode, in which the victims were overlooked and Mandelson was still appointed despite his links to Epstein, must lead to a fundamental change in political culture?
I met with a pharmacy manager in Denton who told me that NHS reimbursement for medicines is not keeping pace with rising costs. They are dispensing medicines at a loss, paying more to suppliers than the NHS then reimburses them and absorbing the shortfall. Does the hon. Lady agree that independent pharmacies need to be fairly funded if they are to continue acting as the front door to the NHS?
One in three households in the constituency that I represent live in fuel poverty, and they face even higher bills from 1 July. Does the Minister agree that the Ofgem energy price cap should be frozen to provide universal support for households now and to give people certainty in the cold winter months ahead?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. One of the greatest threats to public safety is climate breakdown, with the increasing frequency and severity of extreme heat, flooding, food and water scarcity, critical infrastructure failures, and risks to public health and safety. Climate resilience must be embedded at the heart of national emergency planning, yet the Climate Change Committee’s key message in its latest advice is that the UK is woefully ill-prepared for the catastrophic <span id="151WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="151WH"></span>impacts to come. The CCC makes it clear that affordable, practical solutions are available and that the cost of inaction will far exceed the investment required to prepare. Those dangers are not distant: more than 1,500 deaths have been recorded on average each year from extreme heat in recent years, and this could rise to 10,000 a year by 2050. By 2050, one in four properties could be at risk of flooding. The Joint Intelligence Committee report in January made it clear that ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss make our food system extremely vulnerable. The Government and Members of most parties in this Parliament rightly have a strong focus on carbon reduction and climate mitigation, but we must increase our collective focus, and the Government’s focus, on climate adaptation and resilience. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) said, we currently see far too little co-ordinated action across Government. There must be cross-Government approach, which is why I argue that we need a Cabinet Office Minister responsible for climate resilience across Government: preparing the NHS for new public health challenges; investing in flood protection; developing a comprehensive extreme heat strategy and a national drought plan; strengthening transport, water and energy infrastructure; and supporting a farmer-led transition to climate-resilient food production. Climate breakdown is not simply an environmental issue; it is a matter of national security, public health and emergency preparedness. I ask the Minister: will we prepare now, or pay a greater price later?
As has been raised, why were those women and girls never believed? I have a constituent whose sister was a victim of grooming gangs and tragically died from HIV contracted as a result of that abuse. Another constituent wanted me to be here today because all too often this conversation is dominated by men. The women who were sexually abused and exploited as children by grooming gangs deserve to have their voices heard.
Thank you, Dame Siobhain; I was just coming to my question. Sowing division will not keep children safe. Does the hon. Member agree that the next steps must be guided by listening to survivors and by fostering a culture in which women and girls are believed?
Like many of us here in this Chamber, I have not yet had the time to read the 1,000-plus pages of material released today, but the release shines the light of disinfectant on the political culture of how we treat the victims and survivors of heinous abusers of women and girls, and on the scandal of how Mandelson, despite being matey with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was allowed back into the highest possible office. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that this sorry episode in British political history leads to a fundamental change in political culture, so that the voices of women <span id="865" class="column-number" data-column-number="865"></span>and girls who survive abuse at the hands of people like Jeffrey Epstein are always listened to and put front and centre?
The Joint Intelligence Committee report described ecological collapse and climate breakdown as posing catastrophic and irreversible risks to UK security, including conflict, food and water insecurity, supply chain disruption and forced migration. Does the Minister agree that the destabilising impact of the climate and nature crisis is one of the biggest national security risks facing Britain? What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to co-ordinate critical actions across Government?
The Government present this legislation as technical, restructuring NHS England and reconfiguring integrated care boards. They also say that they want to devolve power from Whitehall and give patients more control over their care. However, there is a mismatch between this presentation and the contents of the Bill. While some responsibilities are being devolved, other powers are being drawn upwards to the Secretary of State, with greater control over spending, appointments and key operational decisions. There are serious concerns about how the patient voice is to be treated, and hearing that voice is essential if we are to address inequality and replace the negative health impacts of austerity, bad planning, poor housing, weak transport and divisive social policies.<span id="930" class="column-number" data-column-number="930"></span> With the Bill, we have the chance to address the totally unacceptable 16-year gap in life expectancy between different postcodes in the UK. I therefore urge Ministers to amend the Bill to include clear legal frameworks and a cross-Government strategy to mirror new duties on strategic authorities for tackling health inequalities—inequalities that I see in my constituency, where those without the means to pay for a private dentist endure horrible pain and suffering, and where children go without care; inequalities that mean men in the most deprived areas can expect to live, on average, 11 fewer years in good health than those in the least deprived areas. It is a real concern that the Bill will permit the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of public and private provision of health services if they consider that to do so is in the interests of the health service. How might that power be used in the hands of a pro-privatisation Secretary of State? As for the issue of patient voice, it beggars belief that, as drafted, the Bill abolishes the statutory duty underpinning local independent patient and public voice, including the entire network of local healthwatch organisations. That must be rectified. We need independent challenge, because without it accountability is at risk. Healthwatch Norfolk has pointed out that it has a legal power to visit health and social care services and see them in action, but the Bill does not mention that statutory power, or how it might sensibly become the responsibility of the ICB or the local council. What will happen to it? Healthwatch Suffolk has pointed out that recognition of an independent voice for patients has been a principle supported by Governments for 50 years, but if this Bill passes into law unamended, it will end that recognition. Finally, ensuring that the different records in the health system are in one place so that patients do not have to repeat their stories is an important principle, but that single patient record must be safeguarded. I therefore urge the Minister to rule out awarding the contract for its development to Palantir, so that we can ensure that clear safeguards are in place.