Westminster Hall

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 6 January 2026

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

Less Survivable Cancers

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I am told that the Minister is on her way, but we will proceed because so many people want to speak. I remind Members to bob if they intend to make a speech, to give me a fighting chance of working out how long each Member will have to speak. It looks like Back Benchers will have an average of three minutes each, once we start.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered less survivable cancers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital; also, a family member has shares in a medical company. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, which I first asked for six months ago—[Interruption.]

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Whose phone is that?

[Clive Jones]

I apologise.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Is that the Minister calling?

[Clive Jones]

Yes, that was the Minister calling me to apologise. [Laughter.]

I asked the Committee for the debate six months ago, but having it one month before the probable publication of a national cancer plan is not a bad date for it. I also thank the less survivable cancers taskforce, Cancer Research UK and Myeloma UK for their help and guidance in securing and preparing for this debate.

As I have mentioned many times here and in the main Chamber, I am a cancer survivor. The experience has shown me how important early diagnosis and effective treatment are to our outcomes. My diagnosis was delayed, because I was sent away by the first GP I saw and had to wait several months again before being diagnosed with breast cancer. Fortunately, my treatment was successful, but many others are not so lucky, especially those with less survivable cancers.

Every year in the UK, 90,000 people are diagnosed with a less survivable cancer—cancers of the brain, liver, lungs, pancreas, oesophagus and stomach. Together, they represent 40% of all cancer deaths and account for 67,000 deaths every year. The less survivable cancers have been overlooked for far too long. While many other cancers have seen major advancements in survival, survival rates for those six cancers have remained staggeringly low for the past 25 years. The collective five-year survival rate for those cancers is just 16%. The sad reality for the 90,000 people diagnosed with one of the cancers is that 75,000 will not survive more than five years. That is a school play someone will not see, a set of exam results that they will miss, or a first day at university, a graduation, a significant birthday of their own or of a loved one, or the birth of a grandchild that someone will not see.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, in particular given his personal circumstances. He rightly outlined the need for early diagnosis. Does he agree that that is particularly true of those of us who are males, who sometimes have an extreme reluctance to go to a GP to ascertain what might be wrong? That needs to be addressed urgently.

[Clive Jones]

It does. The more that people like me and others who have survived cancer talk about it, and about our experience of a delay and having the cancer spread, the more that will help others to come forward.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate and the excellent speech he is making. He mentioned that the Government have said they will shortly publish the national cancer plan, which will include details of how they will improve outcomes for patients, speed up diagnosis and treatment, ensure that patients have access to new treatments and technology, and above all, improve cancer survival rates. Does he agree that it is critical that the plan also features key measures to address less survivable cancers, including supporting the roll-out of innovative detection tests and evaluating their use, supporting campaigns to raise awareness of symptoms, and producing a strategy for earlier and faster diagnosis?

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member makes a very good intervention. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that this is covered in the national cancer plan. From what I am hearing, I am optimistic that it will be.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. My constituent Fiona Tweedie asked me to attend this debate because she sadly lost her husband to a brain tumour last year. She asked me to flag, in relation to the national cancer strategy, the fact that it is very difficult in Scotland to access clinical trials, and if someone is based in Scotland, they cannot access English trials. Does the hon. Member agree that this needs to be a genuinely national strategy, and that it must not allow different parts of the UK to take different directions?

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member makes a good point; we definitely need more clinical trials in this country. We have been lagging behind in the last few years, and we need them nationally, rather than just in Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland. That would be advantageous for both drug companies and the people who benefit from those trials.

For many of these less survivable cancers, survival rates in the UK lag behind other countries. We can see from our international counterparts, including Australia, Belgium, Denmark and the US, that progress is achievable, and that system reforms can play a key role in driving better patient outcomes. For example, the UK is ranked 29th out of 33 countries for pancreatic cancer survival. It is fair to ask the Minister: why is the UK ranked so low? It is also fair to ask the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson): why are we ranked so low after the Conservatives’ 14 years in Government? Perhaps it is due to the challenges in how our healthcare and cancer services are organised, and our service delivery, rather than the availability of treatment options. It is vital that we learn from our international counterparts and understand what systemic changes they have made to drive progress.

The all-party parliamentary group on less survivable cancers, of which I am a member, launched an inquiry into earlier detection and faster diagnosis. During the inquiry, the APPG heard from people with lived experience—clinicians, researchers, charities and the industry—about what vital measures are needed in the national cancer plan to improve earlier detection and faster diagnosis. The APPG found that if earlier diagnosis rates were doubled, an additional 7,500 lives would be saved every year. Deaths from those cancers could quickly be reduced by 10%.

Faster diagnosis is integral to saving lives and improving outcomes for people impacted by less survivable cancers. Simply put, it enables patients to access treatment and care much quicker, increasing their chances of survival. We are currently far from achieving this: just 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 or 2, compared with 54% for all other cancers. Concerningly, brain tumours are diagnosed in emergency settings, which is closely linked to worse outcomes.

That is common for myeloma patients—an incurable blood cancer. A third of people with myeloma are diagnosed via emergency presentation. Like the delay in diagnosing less survivable cancers, this means that their cancer has progressed untreated, and the condition has become more advanced, so their ability to tolerate treatments may be seriously hampered. The APPG’s inquiry produced some recommendations for the Government that illustrate the broad range of actions needed to achieve earlier detection and faster diagnosis, from equipping GPs with better tools and rolling out targeted screening programmes to promoting greater research into innovative diagnostics.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this invaluable debate. My constituent Billy was just four years old when he passed away due to DIPG—diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma—which is an incurable child brain tumour cancer. Every nine days a child is diagnosed with it. At the request of Billy’s parents I asked the Government whether there was any more they could do for brain cancer research. I am delighted that the Government have since announced that they have allocated £13.7 million in funding to the National Institute for Health and Care Research brain tumour research consortium. Does my hon. Friend agree that allocating research into rarer cancers not only benefits the children who suffer from these horrific diseases but enhances our research and development capability more broadly, clinically, which is also a vital industry for the UK?

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions have to be a lot shorter. If Members are on the list to speak, it would be helpful if they saved their points for their speeches so that we can fit everyone in.

[Clive Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I am really sorry to hear about young Billy. The £13.7 million being put into research has to be welcomed and we should thank the Government for that.

The first recommendation is to invest in greater research, detection tests, and tools to support GPs when identifying the symptoms of less survivable cancers. GPs face difficulties in identifying vague symptoms linked to less survivable cancers, especially as they see only a small number of cases each year, and many of the symptoms overlap with those of less serious health conditions. For example, a patient with oesophageal cancer might suffer from nausea and have difficulty breathing.

I saw that lack of exposure at first hand. The first GP that I saw did not think that as a man I would be able to have breast cancer. Patients often visit their GP multiple times before being referred for further diagnostic tests. For example, currently people with pancreatic cancer visit their GP between two and five times before being referred for a CT scan. GPs lack the necessary detection tools and tests to easily identify vague symptoms earlier. But it does not have to be this way. Innovative technologies, such as Dxcover for brain cancer and Cytosponge for oesophageal cancer, are already in development and can help healthcare professionals to identify those cancers earlier and more easily.

The second recommendation is to bring together research and medical communities and establish centres of excellence for each of the less survivable cancers as key forums for knowledge sharing and collaboration. Collaboration between researchers and the medical community is essential for enhancing innovation and successfully embedding new diagnostic tools into the health system. Centres of excellence can connect specialists across research and clinical sectors, bolstering knowledge sharing and enhancing collaboration. Centres of excellence should be established by the national research community, supported by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There should also be more collaboration with colleagues across the world.

Thirdly, we have to develop a centralised, nationwide case-finding programme to proactively identify high-risk individuals across multiple cancer types, building on the work already undertaken by the NHS on new onset diabetes and weight loss. To achieve faster diagnosis we must expand efforts to identify those at high risk of developing a less survivable cancer across the country. As I have already said, many healthcare professionals say every day of the week, “When cancer is detected earlier, we significantly increase patients’ chances of survival.” That is particularly true for liver cancer. When detected earlier, nearly 50% of patients with liver cancer survive for over five years compared with only 5% of those who were diagnosed at stage 4.

For those diagnosed with less survivable cancers, faster access to treatment is critical. Treatment delays cost lives. That is true of all cancers, but particularly of the less survivable ones, which progress rapidly and require specialised treatment and care. The national cancer plan offers a crucial opportunity to tackle the systemic barriers currently preventing patients from getting faster access to treatment. Variation in patient pathways, lack of diagnostic capacity and shortages across our specialist oncology and supportive care workforce have all contributed to poor access to treatment for patients affected by these cancers.

Three in four hospitals are currently failing to meet their cancer waiting time targets. According to analysis in The Guardian, 73% of trusts are failing to meet their 62-day cancer waiting time standard. One statistic I repeat time and again is that not a single NHS trust has met the 62-day target since 2015. That failure has been allowed for 10 years. It is again fair to ask the Conservative shadow Minister why, when the party was in government for so long.

This is felt more acutely for less survivable cancers, which already have some of the lowest treatment rates. For instance, 70% of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer receive no active treatment. There is a similar picture at the Royal Berkshire hospital, where many of my constituents are patients. In 2024 alone, more than 70% of stomach cancer patients, 58% of those with pancreatic cancer and 69% of oesophageal cancer patients waited more than 62 days from urgent GP referral to treatment. That is far outside the NHS target of starting treatment for 85% within that time.

Some Royal Berkshire hospital patients are left waiting more than four months—in extreme cases more than six months—for treatment to begin, and that is not acceptable. To improve access to treatment, the Government should set tumour-specific standards through the modern service framework that has been committed to in the NHS 10-year plan, starting with the cancers with the poorest operational performance. That must include establishing minimum standards and clearer strategic priorities to support local delivery of pathway improvements for cancer.

The best way to achieve that would be to develop national, standardised, optimal pathways across the whole patient journey for different types of cancer. Where already available, those should be based on existing insight from the national clinical audits and the Getting It Right First Time programme. To achieve maximum impact, the Government must ensure that 62-day cancer waiting time targets are met and then reduced to much less than 62 days. The current standard is too low for rapidly increasing cancers such as the less survivable ones. That is crucial, because it would ensure that more people were well enough to tolerate treatment.

Research and development is also important as part of improving treatment effectiveness and diagnostics. Research into less survivable cancers has historically been underfunded, and that must change, as recognised by clinicians and many others. Isla, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), has started a petition calling for more funding of research into pancreatic cancer, and it has attracted more than 200,000 signatures. Poor survival outcomes result in fewer patients taking part in clinical trials and studies, and that in turn contributes to fewer breakthroughs and less research investment—a vicious cycle that can and must be broken. Consistent, sustained research is crucial for delivering breakthroughs.

The Rare Cancers Bill, which is progressing through Parliament, has the potential to transform research into less survivable cancers. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for sponsoring the Bill and for all his work on cancer policy. He is a true champion for cancer patients in this Parliament. The Rare Cancers Bill is a truly groundbreaking piece of legislation that has the potential to deliver the essential research investment and focus needed to unlock breakthroughs and drive better patient outcomes. If passed, the Bill would ensure there was a named lead in the Government with a responsibility to support research and innovation for these cancers. The Bill would improve patient access to relevant research and clinical trials, and it would place a duty on the Government to review and reform orphan drug regulations to incentivise greater research into treatments for rare cancers.

The Government need to act now to improve survival outcomes for less survivable cancers. Investment and reform are needed to speed up diagnosis and improve treatment, and investment in research is essential to reaching this aim. With upcoming legislation on cancer care, there is a real opportunity for the Government to act now, to be bold and to erase the previous Government’s failure to prioritise cancer diagnosis, treatment, care and outcomes.

The Minister will know from this debate that I and many other colleagues here today, and many who are not able to attend, will be watching her actions and the actions of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. We will be expecting results and massive improvements in the coming years.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Paulette Hamilton, I want to say that we will stick to a three-minute limit, but it is very tight. I may have to shave a minute or two off the Front-Bench speeches at the end so that I can get everyone in. We will see how it goes.

09:51

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate and for his tireless work campaigning for better outcomes for all affected by the least survivable cancers. For too long, these cancers have been neglected and left behind. Patients and their loved ones have had to bear the devastating costs alone.

As chair of the all-party group on less survivable cancers, I urge the Government to make this a reality by prioritising in their plan the improvement of early diagnosis for these six cancers—brain, lung, oesophagus, pancreas, stomach and liver—which remain some of the toughest to diagnose. For decades, GPs have struggled to identify the vague symptoms linked with these cancers without the necessary diagnostic tools and tech to support early diagnosis. Tragically, this means that more than 70% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage and face the heartbreaking news that it is too late.

Targeted screening plays a vital role in accelerating early detection and faster diagnosis, as we see through the successes in the NHS lung cancer screening programme. In addition to targeted screening, we want the Government to roll out the nationwide multi-cancer case-finding programme to proactively identify people at high risk of developing cancer.

I know personally just how heartbreaking less survivable cancers such as pancreatic cancer can be and the difference that early detection will make. Like many of my colleagues here today, I have seen at first hand the impact of these deadly cancers on individuals, families and loved ones. I lost my best friend in 2021. Pauline was a very vibrant woman who was looking forward to getting married. Later that year, she felt unwell. She had been to the doctor numerous times and no connection was made to cancer. She was busy planning her wedding, but because of her weight loss and continued generalised pain, she went back to the doctor. At that point, they told her that she had stage 4 pancreatic cancer and had eight weeks to live. She lived for six weeks, and then she died.

What gives me hope is the transformative role that research can play in driving early diagnosis, such as the new breath test being developed by researchers at Imperial College. As it stands, two in five people with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed quite late—they will see their doctor but not get a diagnosis—and I hope that the Rare Cancers Bill and the national cancer plan will help to drive greater investment in innovation and research. I feel confident that we can deliver bigger breakthroughs and better outcomes across these six cancers. Progress is within our reach. Now it is time to act for all who are and will be affected.

09:54

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing the debate. He is a truly committed campaigner on cancer care.

Over previous decades, we have managed to achieve great progress on cancer care and survival. Many cancers now have high survival rates and straightforward detection and treatment, and survivors live long and happy lives. However, that is not the case across the board, and the less survivable cancers are the prime examples. Survival rates remain stubbornly low, treatment rates are shockingly low and the situation facing someone who is diagnosed with a less survivable cancer is often unacceptable.

I want to describe how these deadly cancers, and access to care for them, impact people in rural communities such as mine. Every day that such cancers go undetected reduces the likelihood of survival, but too many constituents either struggle to secure a GP appointment or have difficulty navigating our ailing transport system to attend one. Those who have been diagnosed and are receiving specialist treatment are likely to have to journey outside North Norfolk to Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, or to Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge.

I warmly welcome the fact that Cromer hospital delivers chemotherapy to more than 30 patients a day in its new cancer centre, but there is still only one cancer treatment available within my constituency. Additionally, the loss of convalescence care beds in my area means that there are fewer opportunities for people to recover from major treatments closer to home.

Looking to the future, I am pleased to see new diagnostic tools and treatment options being brought forward by talented researchers across the country. The revolutionary breath test for pancreatic and other less survivable cancers could be a real game changer. However, I have real concerns that when those new and revolutionary tools and treatments are rolled out, rural areas such as North Norfolk may wait longer to receive the benefits. I hope the Minister can reassure me that her Department is working to ensure that any newly approved treatments and diagnostic tools will be just as easily available in rural communities as they are in the big cities.

I am grateful to all the charities that make up the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce for their hard work and advocacy for patients, survivors and loved ones who have felt overlooked for too long. They also do vital work in making us all aware of the symptoms we should watch out for, and when to speak to our GP if something does not seem right. I hope that as we come to Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week, people in North Norfolk will take the time to learn the signs and symptoms, because when we catch these deadly cancers early, lives can be saved.

09:57

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for organising this debate. My purpose is to find a cure for glioblastoma brain tumours, the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40, with a life expectancy from diagnosis of just nine months and a five-year survival rate of 5%. The only way to find a cure and improve outcomes for a cancer that has seen no improvement in 30 years is through drug trials.

In the absence of commercial or charitable glioblastoma drug trials, we launched our own trial in memory of my late sister, Margaret, in July last year. The trial is being run by Dr Paul Mulholland, Europe’s leading consultant on glioblastoma, who is based at University College London. It will include 16 newly diagnosed patients at University College hospital. This is a pre-surgery immunotherapy trial focused on patients who have received no prior treatment. The drug is given before surgery, allowing the immune system to attack the tumour before it is removed.

I am delighted to confirm that we have already recruited five patients and, while the trial remains at an early stage, we are encouraged by the early findings. This is only the start. This journey has proven extraordinarily difficult and has been possible only because of an alignment of factors that very few will ever encounter: access to one of Europe’s leading clinicians working from a major London teaching hospital, alongside a world-class university; a group of my sister’s friends who have campaigned tirelessly and raised more than £1 million in two years; and the engagement and backing of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to get the trial over the line.

Our ambition is to establish 10 such trials using 10 different immunotherapy drugs, but ultimately our ability to raise money will end. How can Dr Mulholland apply for funding to support the programme of trials using repurposed immunotherapy drugs? Can the Minister’s team provide a written explanation and a link setting out how a bid can be made to the NIHR to access those funds? It is a straight question, and I would welcome a straight answer.

10:00

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for leading today’s debate. It is good to be here, because next week is Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week, which starts 12 January. We often talk about cancer in general, but speaking as my party’s health spokesman, I believe it is important to shine a light on those that are less survivable, and what more we can do to support those whose world has been turned upside down by their impact. Those low-survival cancers are lung, pancreatic, liver, brain, oesophageal and stomach. These types tend to be diagnosed later and have a five-year survival rate that is often below 16%—so we need to really focus on this issue. That survival rate compares with 50% to 60% for all cancers. I am, as always, very pleased to see the Minister in her place. I know that she will reply with dedication and give us the responses that we seek.

To give a quick Northern Ireland perspective: 62% of people diagnosed with a less survivable cancer die within one year of diagnosis; 10,300 people are diagnosed with cancer each year in Northern Ireland, and there are around 4,600 deaths annually. Cancer survival in Northern Ireland lags behind that in many comparable countries, so for certain devolved regions, more must be done to ensure that access and intervention are at a parallel with what is seen in our counterparts across the United Kingdom.

As always, I put it to the Minister that we do this together and share our research and ideas, and look at how we can do better. Queen’s University Belfast does some fantastic work. Its Lung Shot project involves experts from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and has some £300,000 in funding to study oesophageal cancer, which is often described as a “forgotten” cancer. There are so many variations within the UK; these are found in differences in treatment timing and use across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland there is a longer average wait to start both chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with other UK nations and countries abroad. Those patterns mean that patients in Northern Ireland, unlike those elsewhere in the UK, often start treatment later and receive key therapies less frequently than in higher-survival countries. We must invest in greater capacity for CT and MRI scanning and endoscopy to ensure detection. Nobody should be made to play a postcode lottery for their health.

To conclude, less survivable cancers do not have to mean less priority, urgency and hope. Behind every statistic is a person—a parent, partner, sibling or friend—whose life was cut short, not because their cancer was untreatable, but because it was found too late. If we are to do something, then we must ensure that there is the correct funding, research and incentives—not just for the mainland, but collectively for everyone throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

10:03

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week is an important marker in the calendar, but I want to talk about another important marker when it comes to these cancers—one that is important for me and my family anyway—because this year marks 20 years since I was made unavoidably aware of the devastation of oesophageal cancer. In May of that year, my father developed the classic symptoms: difficulty swallowing, feeling like food was getting stuck, heartburn and weight loss. He was diagnosed in August and died on 23 December: from becoming symptomatic to losing his life was just seven months. The rapidity of the decline was overwhelming. Barely had he been diagnosed than he was given a terminal diagnosis. I must admit, though, that I was not giving my father my full attention during that time. In almost any other circumstances I would have been a much more dutiful son, but my own focus was elsewhere that year. On 1 August 2006, my wife Susan also became symptomatic with oesophageal cancer. She was diagnosed on 11 September and died on 14 November.

The speed with which I read that sentence reflects the speed with which Sue died. There was barely any chance to understand what was happening, to seek help or for the family to manage. That is not unusual with these sorts of diseases. It is the sort of story that thousands of us know. Crucially, for my Southport constituency, it is also a story that disproportionately impacts people from the north-west and from north Wales. For my family, there was not any long fight or slow decline—only shock, confusion, urgent decisions and death. That is what a less survivable cancer looks like.

May I make a clear ask of the Minister today? I am asking for a personal commitment, and a commitment across Government, to drive up survival rates for all these less survivable cancers, but most urgently—for my personal history and for the geographical distribution that shows that my part of the country has higher levels than elsewhere in the UK—for oesophageal cancer. That could mean things such as early diagnosis, recognising that one size fits all does not work. It could mean fast-track treatment pathways once suspicion is raised. Above all else, it should include serious investment in experimental and pre-symptomatic techniques, finding ways to detect cancers before symptoms even appear. These are difficult cancers to deal with, and that is why they need targeted action. I am here today because two people I loved did not get the help they needed, so I urge the Government to help other families avoid that same fate.

10:06

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for that really moving account. We know that cancer affects us all. In my family it claimed my mum Lin; my sister-in-law Lisa and my stepmum Sally have both beaten it, and now my dad Ray is living with terminal cancer. One of my team is also undergoing treatment for cancer, so we know that it is prevalent among all our lives. All of them were fit, healthy people who did everything right, as are so many others each year who get the horrible news or—worse—turn up in A&E after becoming suddenly unwell. According to a Cancer Research study, many of those patients had visited their GP but had not been referred for tests, either because they did not meet the thresholds or because they had been missed altogether. This is not a criticism of our GPs, who are working in highly difficult situations. Indeed, when I shadowed Dr Wright from Walford Mill surgery in Wimborne, he had the sober task of sharing a diagnosis and undertaking a very personal test during his appointment, which he let me witness.

If diagnosis doubled across the six least survivable cancers alone, an additional 7,500 lives a year would be saved. Each year in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole, there are 540 diagnoses of cancer and 300 cancer deaths. Although 85% of them should be starting treatment within 62 days, the number is actually only 60%. What is the Minister doing to bridge that gap? If we met the target in my constituency, 70 additional people would be getting on with their lives. Across the country, 45,000 additional people would be given a greater chance of not just surviving but having a life shared with those they love.

Furthermore, once they get to hospital, patients are faced with out-of-date machinery and not enough specialist nurses. Macmillan Cancer Support says there is an acute shortage and calls for a cancer nurse fund to increase the numbers by 3,700. Will the future cancer strategy include such funding?

I want to speak briefly about pancreatic cancer, which claimed the life of my cousin Colin, a super-fit former Welsh Commonwealth games cyclist who died in his 50s despite the best care available. Many other constituents have written to me about poor prognosis for this treatment. They have flagged that the NHS has approved selective internal radiation therapy, but only for colorectal and liver cancers—not those whose primary cancer was in the pancreas and then spread to the liver. These families are keen for urgent trials to be undertaken to allow the treatment to be used, given the incredibly short life expectancy faced by patients. Will the Minister consider that?

We have been waiting such a long time for this cancer strategy. We need the workforce plan and the road map for the NHS plan. Nine hundred and fifty people will be diagnosed with cancer today, and those people need hope.

10:09

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

Forty-seven per cent of cancers diagnosed in the UK are rare and less common cancers, and 55% of deaths are from rare and less common cancers. That means that, every year, around 180,000 people will be diagnosed with a rare and less common cancer, and more than 92,000 people will die from such cancers. Blood cancer is one such cancer, and I recently met the Blood Cancer Alliance to discuss improving access to lifesaving blood cancer treatments across the UK. Over 280,000 people in the UK are living with blood cancer, and every year 40,000 more receive a diagnosis, including 5,000 children. It is the fifth most common cancer, the most prevalent childhood cancer and the third biggest cancer killer in our country. However, despite amazing advances in tech and treatment, our outcomes are falling behind in the nations.

The reason is clear: systemic barriers within the NHS and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal processes are preventing patients from accessing innovative therapies. Between 2019 and 2025, over a third of NICE appraisals for new blood cancer treatments were terminated—more than double the rate for other cancers. Those are not ineffective drugs; many are available overseas, and even privately in the UK. That creates a two-tier system in which those who can pay receive better care than those who cannot. It is unacceptable. I have been told that treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy can transform lives, extending survival and improving quality of life.

The current system, with rigid cost-effectiveness thresholds and inflexible commercial frameworks, is failing patients. That is why I warmly welcome the UK Government’s cancer plan, which represents a vital opportunity to reset our approach to cancer care and to ensure that innovation is embraced, not obstructed. By prioritising timely access to effective treatments and addressing systemic barriers, the cancer plan can help deliver world-class outcomes for patients.

I stand with the Blood Cancer Alliance and Cancer52 in calling for urgent, joined-up action from Government, NICE, the NHS and industry. Together we can ensure that every person with blood cancer has timely access to the best possible care, because survival should never depend on postcode or income.

10:12

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this important debate. It is clear that we have all been affected in one way or another by a person we love, or are fond of, being diagnosed with cancer and passing away.

While any debate covering cancer is serious, today’s debate is poignant for me. Just before Christmas, Keighley and the Worth valley lost two councillors to cancers. They were friends of mine, and I know their losses will be felt by not only their families and friends but the constituents and residents that they served, and the communities that they loved. Councillor Russell Brown served the Worth valley as a district councillor on Bradford council, and Chris Graham was a former Keighley town councillor who served the Long Lee and Parkwood wards.

While any death to cancer is tragic, it also sharpens our focus on the need to ensure that the very best treatments and research are available for as many people as possible. That of course includes rare and less survivable cancers, which, by their very nature, do not receive the same level of attention as more common types. That must change.

Let us start with the need to identify and screen cancers early. It is unacceptable that just 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stage 1 or 2, compared with 54% of all cancers. I am sure that a similar story is true for rarer cancers, which may not be considered until it is just too late. Here I must thank the work of the mobile cancer screening units that operate in Keighley and Ilkley as part of the Airedale hospital team, which are doing lifesaving work. I hope that, as we rebuild a new Airedale hospital over the coming years, they will have a new and improved hospital to be proud of, further boosting their work.

The UK should be proud of its world-leading cancer research, and I know that this is something on which Opposition and Government colleagues agree. Indeed, the agreement on the Rare Cancers Bill is a hugely positive step to ensuring that rare cancers get the attention they deserve. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his work on raising this important issue. After all, rare cancers are one in five of diagnosed cancers, and that must change.

There will inevitably be cases where screening and improved treatment are not enough. At that stage, people across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley are indebted to Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice, which does excellent work in looking after those at the end of their lives. I am routinely impressed by their professionalism and compassion whenever I visit.

Finally, I would like to speak about employers’ national insurance. That issue was raised with me by Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice, which now has to pay the Treasury an additional amount, which they cannot therefore put into end-of-life care. I encourage the Minister to raise that specific case with the Chancellor, so that we can ensure that hospices get the attention they deserve and the funding they need.

10:15

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate, a week ahead of Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week.

The six less survivable cancers—those of the brain, liver, lungs, pancreas, oesophagus and stomach—take 67,000 lives every year. That is equivalent to two people every week in each UK constituency—a non-trivial number. The survival rate at five years is just 16%, so for many people who get a diagnosis of one of these cancers, it must feel like a death sentence.

Too often, people with these cancers are diagnosed late. Only 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 and 2, compared with 54% of cancers overall, and too many diagnoses are made in emergency departments, where treatment choices are limited. More broadly, we should never forget that someone who is female or from an ethnic minority is much more likely to be diagnosed with cancer in A&E, which is absolutely shameful.

We know what change would look like. If we could double early diagnosis across those six cancers, we could save an additional 7,500 lives every year. That should be our goal, and that is why I am proud that this Government are focused on prioritising early detection and faster diagnosis. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), here with us today. She is respected and trusted by the wider sector to deliver that agenda as part of the cancer plan, which hopefully we will see next month.

This change can be achieved through investing in research, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), as well as supporting the roll-out of innovative tests—such as liquid biopsies and the breath test for pancreatic cancer, which we saw at the UK Labour party conference—and expanding proactive case finding for those most at risk. Centres of excellence, better data and stronger national leadership are also critical.

I speak not just as a participant in today’s debate but as the sponsor of the Rare Cancers Bill, which hon. Members have mentioned; I thank them for their kind comments. The Bill is designed to help address exactly those gaps. I introduced it after my father-in-law Ivor died of glioblastoma, the cancer type that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has dedicated so much of her life to defeating. My Bill seeks to improve data collection, increase access to clinical trials and strengthen pathways for people with rare and less survivable cancers. The voices of those patients are often not heard. I really hope that in today’s debate, people will feel that they are heard. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

10:18

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate. Even though health is a devolved matter under Holyrood control, my contribution today will be from a Scottish perspective, because I want to speak about the situation of health inequalities that we have in Scotland and how it comes down, like everything does, to a class issue.

Shockingly, 61% of people in Scotland who are diagnosed with a cancer of the lung, liver, brain, oesophagus, pancreas or stomach die within a year of diagnosis. That is the poorest survival rate anywhere in the United Kingdom. In 2023, the Scottish Government implemented the 10-year Scottish cancer strategy, which outlined 11 ambitions designed to reduce cancer risk, provide faster and earlier diagnosis, improve cancer treatment, make cancer care fit for the future and reduce the differences exacerbated by health inequalities.

The most disadvantaged Scots suffer dire health inequalities. The most deprived areas face higher incidence. The largest gap relates to lung cancer, with risk almost four times higher in deprived groups. They also face later diagnosis, often at the emergency stage: people living in deprived areas are 50% more likely to be diagnosed via emergency admission and are thus far more likely to miss the earlier—and statistically the most successfully treatable—stages of cancer.

There are also considerable economic barriers. Socioeconomic conditions often contribute to lower symptom awareness and knowledge in the first instance, greater issues with accessing and attending appointments and a higher likelihood of exposure to harmful factors such as smoking, alcohol and obesity. Smoking is the biggest cause of cancer in Scotland, and we know that it is more common in the most deprived populations. In 2019, 32% of people in the most deprived populations smoked, compared with 6% in the least deprived. If we take being overweight and obesity together, it is the second largest preventable cause of cancer in Scotland. As with smoking, obesity rates are higher in more deprived areas.

I appreciate that it will take a huge joined-up approach across several Departments and cross-governmental working to reduce the shocking health inequalities in Scotland, but if the Minister could give an indication—either in her speech or perhaps in greater depth in a letter to me after the debate—of how the UK Government plan to do so, I would be very grateful, as would my constituents.

10:20

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this vital debate on less survivable cancers.

As it is for many people across Parliament and the country, less survivable cancer is a personal fight for me. My brother-in-law, Group Captain Pip Harding, was diagnosed two years ago with glioblastoma, a devastating and aggressive brain tumour. His story illustrates both hope and what is still profoundly broken. Pip received pioneering oncothermia treatment from Dr Paul Mulholland, who has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). The treatment shrank his tumour significantly; he had a prognosis of only six months to live with his five children and wife, but two years on he is still alive and well. But that treatment remains inaccessible on the NHS: he obtained it through his family and friends crowdfunding the treatment, which illustrates how those with the means and community support can access innovation while others cannot.

Glioblastoma remains one of the hardest cancers to treat, with little improvement in survival rates compared with many other cancers. We know that research funding for brain tumours has historically lagged behind need, and it receives a tiny fraction of overall cancer research pounds, which is a scandal when the disease disproportionately affects younger adults. I support the sterling work of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden on trials, and I echo her ask.

I have heard from many families in my constituency of Esher and Walton whose lives have been turned upside down by rare cancers. One constituent shared the anguish of watching their partner struggle with a less common blood cancer that had no clear trial available in the UK, even though promising research was under way abroad. These stories are not isolated. They reflect systemic issues, including diagnostic delays. Here, I will bring in my lovely sister Mary, who died just before Christmas. She waited for a diagnosis, but was misdiagnosed and died from bowel cancer. Trial access is limited and specialist expertise across regions is patchy. Just 82.5% of cancer patients in Esher and Walton began treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, below the operational standard of 85%. Every per cent represents the heartbreak that my family felt this Christmas.

I also want to raise lobular breast cancer. It is the second most common form of breast cancer, yet it remains under-researched and under-supported. In collaboration with the lobular moonshot project, my constituent Kate Ford has been campaigning for the Government to commit £20 million for a dedicated research programme. However, after Kate had a meeting with the Secretary of State in July, the Government chose not to commit to that. Instead, they supported a broader research base, but that largely misses the point, because the status quo of research programmes means that rare cancers such as lobular breast cancer are effectively left behind.

Finally, I want to return to brain cancer and Owain’s law, which addresses issues where patients lose access to cutting edge therapies due to improper tissue preservation—

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Dr Peter Prinsley.

10:23

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate. Cancer remains a most feared word. We doctors have learned to use all sorts of other words: “growths”, “tumours” and suchlike. There are relatives who will tell us, “Don’t use that word in front of the patient, for it would simply kill him.” But things have changed. Cancers that were considered incurable are now curable, and cancers for which there was no treatment are now treatable. Such is the power of scientific progress, for it is upon science that we will depend.

What exactly is a less survivable cancer? It is one defined by persistently poor outcomes across all stages. Many have mentioned the six with a survival rate at five years of only 16%. One such example was my lovely neighbour, who presented last Christmas with loss of vision in one eye. He was found to have secondary lung cancer in the retina. It was completely incurable and unamenable to any effective treatment. Sadly, he was dead within a few weeks.

Our country has a proud record of medical research. After all, it was here that we first discovered the link between cigarettes and lung cancer, when epidemiological studies of British doctors were conducted in the 1960s. When that was revealed, my own dad gave up his pipe. The greatest act of our new Government, some 60 years later, was to continue with the legislation introduced by the last Government to ban cigarette sales, eventually, for every citizen.

Clinical academics are doctors who not only teach the next generation of doctors, but translate scientific research into clinical applications and the supervision of clinical trials. I did an MD at the University of East Anglia on the clinical observation on the genetics of a rare ear disorder, so I understand the difficulties of medical research, but also the intrinsic delight that comes with unravelling the mysteries of medicine. That role is particularly critical for less survivable cancers, where progress will depend on sustained academic leadership on converting research into viable treatment.

Unfortunately, there has been a serious collapse in the number of clinical academics in our country. Many are now approaching retirement, and the levels of recruitment of young clinical academics are completely insufficient. We must address this crisis, starting with co-ordination between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, so that salary equivalence is restored to retain the existing workforce on which our medical science depends. Let us do something we can actually do to make survivable cancer survivable. This is our political task.

10:26

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this fantastic debate. I also thank the Members in the room for all the work they have done, and the Minister for her engagement, particularly with the Brain Cancer Justice team. I really appreciate it.

My sister Georgie received a glioblastoma multiforme diagnosis two and a half years ago. She is well, has survived longer than they gave her and is fighting like hell for Brain Cancer Justice, alongside many in this room. I praise her and her colleagues, as well as so many people in my constituency in Witney who have helped her and who suffer with this range of cancers.

I will say only two things today. First, we should explore reforming the Human Tissue Act 2004 to apply to tumour tissue a default system similar to the one we now use nationally for organ donation. To do so, Parliament would need to amend the Act to introduce a deemed consent regime for residual tumour tissue and derived data, limited to public interest cancer research, with a statutory opt-out, strict purpose limits and enhanced oversight by the Human Tissue Authority. The model would mirror the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019, which means that if someone dies their organs are automatically taken, although people or their families can opt out. We are advocating the same for our tumour tissue. Very few of us really want to hang on to our tumour tissue if we are unfortunate enough to be in that situation, but that tumour tissue has huge scientific value and we should use the data as much as we can for the public good. Denmark is a fantastic model: it has a registry-first legal architecture with mandatory health registries covering cancer diagnosis, pathology, genomics, treatment and outcomes.

Secondly, we need to double the survival rates for all less survivable cancers in the next decade. If we put that mark in the sand as our goal, and it gets into the national cancer plan, it will draw global attention and will drag resources and talent to our cause and our country. It would be good for our country, good for our patients who are suffering, and good for our economy too. If we can make that a key demand of our national cancer plan, that will be a huge plus.

10:29

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for all the valuable work she does in this space, and to everyone who has shared very personal stories today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley).

Pancreatic cancer is one of the least survivable cancers. Sadly, a number of constituents have written to me about the devastating impact this disease has had on their lives. One lost her stepmother to pancreatic cancer. For months, her stepmother’s symptoms were repeatedly misdiagnosed—she was even sent home from A&E on several occasions with painkillers or antibiotics—before she was finally diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. She died just three months later, only three days after my constituent’s son was born. My constituent told me that she feels her son was robbed of a grandma.

Similarly, Jacqui wrote to tell me about the close friend she lost to pancreatic cancer and the profound effect it has had on her. Tracey, Irene and Janice also wrote to tell me about the loved ones they have tragically lost, and to advocate for better research and treatment for this cruel cancer. Each story is different, but every constituent who has written to me about pancreatic cancer has called for improved screening, earlier diagnosis and greater investment in research.

Kelly and Jennifer both wrote to me while a loved one was undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer and was forced to deal with shortages of the medication they desperately needed. It is unacceptable that patients and their families must tackle medicine shortages on top of battling cancer.

I truly believe that this Government’s 10-year health plan will support patients fighting less survivable cancers by ensuring that they have access to new treatments and technologies that can diagnose cancer earlier. We must ensure that these cancers are detected sooner and treated more effectively, so that fewer families endure the heartbreak of supporting a loved one with a less survivable cancer. Also, as the Minister has done so well, we must continue to speak out so that people become more aware of symptoms early and seek help and diagnosis.

In my remaining seconds, I pay tribute to my local hospice, the Mary Ann Evans hospice, which provides care at home for many people across my constituency and neighbouring constituencies.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I want Mr Jones to have a couple of minutes at the end, which means the Front Benchers have about eight minutes each.

10:32

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) both for securing this debate and for his tireless advocacy on this subject.

In Epsom and Ewell, there are around 650 new cancer cases every year and around 240 cancer deaths, and the local integrated care board missed the 62-day treatment target as recently as October 2025. The Lib Dems have called for a guarantee that 100% of patients can start treatment within 62 days of urgent referral.

It is easy to get lost in the numbers—those who have been diagnosed with cancer, those who have not survived, the waiting times for treatment and the performance of hospitals—but behind each number is a person with a story that must be told. A constituent wrote to me about her husband, who battled pancreatic cancer. Only one in four people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer survives beyond a year. As happens in so many cases, her husband’s cancer was not diagnosed until it had become terminal. He died within six weeks of diagnosis.

A recent story shared with me by the British Liver Trust about Jane’s husband also powerfully highlights the importance of early diagnosis of liver cancer. He was known to be at high risk because of an underlying liver condition and was meant to receive regular surveillance scans. These scans were meant to detect cancer early, when treatment options are greater and outcomes can be better. However, delays and disruption to his regular surveillance scans meant that his cancer was not diagnosed until it was already advanced.

Jane believes that had her husband’s monitoring continued as planned, his cancer could have been diagnosed at an earlier stage, when potentially lifesaving treatment and interventions were still possible. Her husband’s experience is a clear reminder of the importance of regular surveillance of people who are at risk, so that liver cancer can be detected at the earliest possible stage, when lives can still be saved.

Such stories paint a stark picture of the shockingly poor outcomes for individuals diagnosed with less survivable cancers. The UK has the highest rate of oesophageal cancer in the world, and only 15% of adult patients with oesophageal cancer survive for five years or more. A mere 15% of stomach cancer patients in the UK will survive for more than 10 years. Liver cancer survival rates have hardly changed in the last decade. And despite the work to tackle smoking, lung cancer still claims the lives of around 91 people every day.

Today, on average, the chance of someone surviving for five years after being diagnosed with one of the six least survivable cancers is only 16%. For the country that discovered penicillin, designed the world’s first insulin infusion device and uncovered the structure of DNA, we are dangerously behind. OECD research shows that the UK ranks a dismal 31st out of 43 countries for how many people survive at least five years after being diagnosed with lung cancer. Across lung cancer survival rates, the UK is below the EU and OECD averages, as well as below the US, Germany and France. For all the less survivable cancers, survival rates have increased by only a small amount over the last 50 years, and all remain below 20%.

In my role as Liberal Democrat primary care and cancer spokesperson, I have spent time meeting charities to try to understand why the outcomes for patients with the six least survivable cancers are not improving. One resounding reason is research. A response to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) revealed that the Department of Health and Social Care’s funding for research into each of the less survivable cancers since 2022 is as follows: for lung cancer, £16 million; for oesophageal cancer, £9.4 million; bladder and stomach cancer, £3 million each; liver cancer, £2 million; pancreatic cancer, £0.9 million; and brain cancer, £0.6 million. That funding is pitifully low, considering that UK survival rates for many of those cancers are devastatingly behind our international counterparts. What adds to that frustration is that even after a successful innovation is found, thanks to the tireless work of researchers, implementation is simply far too slow.

The less survivable cancers taskforce told me that senior surgeons are reporting the start of a golden time for approaches to cancer, but that the UK takes too long to implement any innovations and the later stages of clinical trials drag on for too long. For example, a diagnostic test—the capsule sponge—that allows cell changes associated with oesophageal cancer to be identified has spent 20 years in the research phase. Only last year did the test enter its next trial in certain parts of the country. Although that is welcome, progress overall is far too slow.

International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data shows that in the 1990s Denmark and the UK were two of the worst performers for cancer care. While the UK has made some progress, Denmark has surged ahead. In fact, since 1995, Denmark has seen some of the biggest improvements of any ICBP member, with survival across all seven ICBP-measured cancer types increasing by more than it has in the UK. A key factor has been Denmark’s focus on using consistent cancer plans to co-ordinate investment, drive reform and develop strong clinical leadership.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cancer survival research Act to require the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into cancers with the lowest survival rates. Alongside that, expanding the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency would halve the time it takes for new treatments to reach patients.

Before Christmas, I visited the Shooting Star hospice in Guildford and stood in the room where families can grieve next to their children. Many of those children receive palliative care for cancer. Every death is a tragedy, but that visit was a harrowing reminder of how quickly and devastatingly cancer takes even the youngest lives. As we enter the new year, I ask that the Minister makes it her resolution to tackle the black hole of research funding for less survivable cancers and to speed up the snail’s-pace implementation of lifesaving treatments.

10:38

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate.

It is sadly the case that one in two of us will get cancer in our lifetime. We all know someone who is battling cancer, someone who has beaten it and, sadly, someone whose life has been cut short by it. Cancer survival rates have consistently improved, but they are still far from where we would like them to be. When we talk about less survivable cancers, we refer particularly to six types of cancer with low survival rates: pancreatic, liver, brain, oesophageal, stomach and lung cancers. Over 90,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with one of the less survivable cancers every year—20% of cancer cases—but those cancers are responsible for 42% of cancer deaths in the UK.

I pay tribute to hon. Members who have shared their personal stories in this debate, because behind each statistic is an individual. As I prepared for this debate, I thought of my granda, who died of brain cancer; my Nana Burton, who died of lung cancer; and of my husband’s good friend and confidante, Richard, who died of oesophageal cancer.

A key reason for the troublingly disproportionate mortality rate for less survivable cancers is their later-than-average diagnosis. Just 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 or 2, which is well below the 54% rate for cancers as a whole. That cuts survival rates significantly. Pancreatic cancer is particularly lethal, with less than 7% of people with pancreatic cancer in the UK surviving beyond five years.

I am pleased that the last Conservative Government launched the targeted lung health check programme in June 2022. It led to more than 5,500 people being diagnosed with lung cancer by January 2025, with 75% of cases found at stages 1 or 2 through screening. That is encouraging progress, but clearly there is much more work to be done to improve the diagnosis rates for all six less survivable cancers.

I have personally been supportive of the current Government’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will ban the sale of tobacco to young people born after 1 January 2009. That will tackle one of the key risk factors for lung cancer. Will the Minister update us on the Bill’s progress, given that it was introduced on 5 November 2024 and has still not passed through Parliament? Prevention is said to be a big focus for the Government, so what is the Minister doing to improve prevention and to get the Bill passed?

The APPG on less survivable cancers launched an inquiry into earlier detection and faster diagnosis in March 2025 and found that doubling early diagnosis could save an additional 7,500 lives a year. What is the Minister doing to implement the inquiry’s recommendations, which were published last June? In particular, what is she doing to explore the benefits of technology in commissioning new detection tests? What assessment has she made of the new VAPOR breath test for pancreatic cancer, which could support GPs in diagnosing less survivable cancers from unclear symptoms?

I am hopeful that many of the answers to these questions, and others posed by hon. Members, will be found in the forthcoming national cancer plan. The Government have delayed that plan, along with several others, until 2026. We are now in 2026, so can the Minister confirm when the plan will be published? Rumours were swirling that it had been delayed for presentational purposes until World Cancer Day in February, but there are now further rumours that it may be delayed until early March. Can the Minister give us a date?

It is encouraging to see that NHS staff carried out over 3 million cancer checks in 2024, double the number carried out a decade prior. However, as with much of the war against cancer, this is another case of positive progress with more work needing to be done. Much of that work is dependent on the workforce.

The last Government built five new medical schools, including one in Lincolnshire, which are now producing their first medical graduates. However, British graduates need British jobs, and heavy competition from a surging number of international medical graduates is leaving many British graduates without a job. What action is the Minister taking to improve the recruitment of British graduates from British medical schools? Can she confirm when the further delayed 10-year NHS workforce plan will be published? Can she also assure us that that workforce plan, in combination with the long-anticipated cancer plan, will make provision to increase the number of oncologists, radiologists and specialist cancer nurses across the NHS?

As other Members have said, research is absolutely critical if we are to beat cancer, particularly the less survivable cancers, where new technologies for testing and treatment could save lives. Yet the cutting-edge, world-leading research that Britain has to offer does not feel as though it has the Government’s backing. Merck has scrapped its plans for a £1 billion research centre in King’s Cross and has announced plans to make 125 scientists redundant. AstraZeneca has halted a £200 million expansion of its research site in Cambridge and abandoned a £450 million vaccine manufacturing investment in Liverpool. Eli Lilly and Sanofi have both expressed frustration at the undervaluation of innovative medicines in the UK.

When I raised life sciences in a previous debate on cancer, the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) said that the Government

“want to make this country the best place to do life sciences.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 464WH.]

What support is the Minister providing to businesses in the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries to make that political slogan a reality? What work is she doing with her colleagues in the Departments for Science, Innovation and Technology and for Business and Trade to revive lost life sciences investment and to use British research, which has the world-class facilities needed to innovate and save lives? As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, it is important that we work together as a United Kingdom. What work is the Minister doing with our counterparts in Scotland in particular?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, there is a growing crisis in the hospice sector. Hospice care, provided for those with terminal illnesses such as some cancers, improves symptom control, comfort and support—it adds life to days. What is the Minister doing to press the Chancellor to recognise that her tax and national insurance changes are creating a crisis in the hospice sector, and what is she doing to save hospices from closure in many cases?

In summary, I am concerned that, 18 months in, the absence of definitive Government action for the cancer community has left us without a cancer plan or a workforce plan, while critical research continues to be driven out of this country. I encourage the Minister to provide clarity for cancer sufferers, cancer charities and the cancer workforce, who are doing such sterling work to improve people’s lives, and to get on with innovating lifesaving treatments to improve the tragic survival rates for the less survivable cancers.

10:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank you and other Members for persevering despite my slightly tardy arrival, which was due, ironically, to the somewhat unpredictable effects of cancer chemotherapy. I am well, however, and have enjoyed the debate immensely.

Before I begin, I pay tribute to all our NHS staff, our care workers and everyone serving our hospices for their work over the Christmas and new-year period. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate, and for doing his bit to keep up morale at the Royal Berkshire hospital on Christmas eve. I thank all Members for their contributions, and acknowledge all their personal stories and the stories they shared of their constituents. Such a wide range of issues has been raised; I will endeavour to respond to all questions, but given the time pressure, I will follow up in writing to any Members whose questions I do not cover.

I will address each of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham in order. He is right that progress has been uneven across different types of cancer, and that less survivable cancers can be difficult to identify as the symptoms may mirror those of a host of other illnesses. To boost the diagnosis of cancers that are harder to catch at an earlier stage, we have rolled out the non-specific symptom pathways, with 115 NSS services now live. NSS pathways provide a referral route for patients whose symptoms do not fit under a specific cancer pathway. They are making diagnosis smoother and faster for patients whose symptoms are not as clear.

The Government are proud to support the Rare Cancers Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). Baroness Elliott will move its Second Reading in the other place on Friday next week.

As a cancer patient myself, I was proud to stand on a manifesto to tackle the biggest killers. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed that pledge just over a year ago, through our plan for change. Although the all cancer survival rate is the best it has ever been, less survivable cancers have just a 16% five-year survival rate, accounting for 67,000 deaths a year. And demand is rising: each day there are around 13,000 urgent referrals for suspected cancer. That is up almost 3,000 a day since 2019.

My officials, including those leading on the national cancer plan, are carefully considering every one of the APPG’s recommendations. Although I cannot go into detail today, I assure Members that rare and less survivable cancers will feature heavily in the new cancer plan. The Government are asking the NHS, charities and all my colleagues in this place to join in a new national effort, spearheaded by the national cancer plan, which we will publish in just a few short weeks, in early February. I can confirm that there is no truth in the rumour that it is being delayed to March. The plan will cover the entirety of the cancer pathway, from referral and diagnosis to treatment and ongoing care. We want patients to have access to the latest treatments and technology, and to receive the highest quality of care.

We made genomics one of the five big bets in our 10-year plan for health, setting out how we will harness it to create a genomics population health service and support innovation. In July last year, we launched the groundbreaking national inherited cancer predisposition register, so that we can keep track of people with genes that put them at risk. That brings me to a wider point about diagnostics and primary care. We have introduced Jess’s rule, named after Jess Brady, to prompt GPs to investigate further when a patient presents with the same symptoms or concerns more than twice. We have also boosted community diagnostic centres and invested an extra £889 million in general practice. We are committed to ensuring that GPs have the right training and systems to identify cancer symptoms, and we will continue to support the use of clinical decision support tools.

On research and innovation, the Department of Health and Social Care invests over £1.6 billion a year in research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. At over £141 million in the last financial year, cancer research is a major area of NIHR spending. Just last month, the NIHR launched a pioneering new £13.7 million brain tumour research consortium to accelerate research into new treatments.

On the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), I understand that the NIHR chief executive officer, Professor Lucy Chappell, has recently written to her, and I will follow up in writing to respond to my hon. Friend’s question and to explain the process of submitting a bid to the NIHR in detail.

In 2024, the NIHR and the Office for Life Sciences announced nearly £11 million to support the further testing of innovations to help to increase the early detection and diagnosis of cancer. That includes funding for research into the new breath test for multiple gastrointestinal cancers and to look at how we can roll it out in primary care.

People watching at home might be thinking, “Well, what happens with all this research?” So let me briefly give a real-world example of implementation: the Cytosponge is a simple test that can identify conditions that are a precursor to oesophageal cancer. The NIHR, alongside Cancer Research UK, funded research into the development of this “sponge on a string”. This year will see a new NHS pilot of its use in high street pharmacies, supporting the shift in the delivery of care from hospitals to community as part of our 10-year health plan.

The Government are developing a palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework, with publication planned for spring this year. The framework will align with the ambitions of the 10-year health plan, which prioritises shifting care out of hospitals and into community settings to ensure personalised, compassionate support for individuals of all ages and their families.

The Government were elected on a manifesto to tackle the biggest killers, including cancer. I am proud to stand here today, after 18 months, and say that we can see some green shoots of recovery across the health service, with 135,000 more cancer diagnoses within the 28-day target. That is partly driven by over 100 community diagnostic centres opening at evenings and on weekends, and new surgical hubs to treat people faster.

With the publication of our national cancer plan, 2026 could be a decisive year for cancer care. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Wokingham, the APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West and all other Members to make sure that we keep our momentum into the new year and bring about real change.

10:52

[Clive Jones]

I thank the Minister very much for her interesting response. I thank all Members who contributed to the debate, many of whom spoke very personally about their own experiences. From time to time, that can be quite a hard thing to do, so I thank everybody for doing so. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who spoke very movingly.

I hope the Minister has taken note of all the things that have come out of the debate. There is a need for better diagnosis and for new and more drug trials; there is a need to share information among organisations and across borders; there is a need for better screening of cancer; there is a need for big improvements in the workforce; there is a need for better equipment and new technologies; and there is a need to embrace innovation.

I was pleased to hear that the national cancer plan is still probably going to be announced sometime in February—maybe 4 February—and that it has not been delayed. Everybody is looking forward to seeing that plan. Not just those of us who have come to this debate, but many MPs who have not been able to attend, and millions of our constituents, will be looking to see what is in the national cancer plan. We really hope it covers all the things we have been asking for to date—all the things that the APPGs have been asking for and that individual Members have had meetings with the Minister and others about. All I can say on behalf of the people who have an interest in cancer is that we really hope the Government have been listening, and that it is a cancer plan that everybody in the House is able to get behind—one that will improve diagnosis, treatment and outcomes for people in this country suffering with the most awful diseases. I thank everyone very much for attending the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered less survivable cancers.

10:55

Sitting suspended.

Poverty and Welfare Policies

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered poverty and Government welfare policies.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. One of the most important legacies this Labour Government could achieve would be the massive reduction in poverty and the widening of opportunities for millions of people currently struggling to get by. The title of the debate mentions poverty, but that does not begin to capture the depth of the crisis facing millions of people today. The phrase “the cost of living crisis” is now so common, we would think it was a fact of life. But we must be clear: poverty does not have to exist; it is a political choice.

Today, more than 14 million live in poverty, and that overall figure has barely changed over the past 14 years of austerity. That is why we now have 8.1 million working-age adults, 4.8 million disabled people, 4.3 million children and 1.9 million pensioners living in poverty. Of course, it is easy to talk about poverty in terms of statistics, but it is the real-world impact where it really matters. Living in poverty means people not being able to heat their home, pay their rent or buy essential items such as food for them and their family. It also means waking up every day facing insecurity, uncertainty and impossible decisions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that 4,400 people in Northern Ireland have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and other conditions that are not fully understood by the personal independence payment assessors, due to their complex nature, and those people are at significantly higher risk of poverty because of how the welfare system handles their needs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that disability support through welfare must reflect real-life situations and that people must not be made to suffer financially because of a lack of understanding from welfare support?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I will come later to the debate we had about PIP. I absolutely agree, and all the evidence shows, that disabled people are much more likely to face poverty and hardship than able-bodied people.

At its core, poverty prevents people from playing a full and meaningful role in our society. That is why there is both a moral and an economic case for taking action, and why tackling poverty should be central to any serious strategy for economic growth, as well as a key part of a progressive Government’s agenda. According to the Equality Trust, reducing income inequality to the level found in more equal OECD nations would save the UK up to £128 billion annually in reduced costs in areas such as crime, imprisonment rates, tackling poor mental health and welfare.

However, none of that will be possible if we continue to use the same austerity-driven measures we have used in the past. For example, the proposal to means-test the winter fuel allowance was based on the ill-judged view that a pensioner living on little more than £12,000 a year was well off. The attempt last year to reduce disability benefits by £7 billion was based not on people’s needs, but on the Treasury’s demand for cuts. Even the very welcome and long overdue decision to lift the two-child limit still leaves the overall benefit cap in place, and fails to uprate the threshold in line with universal credit. As a consequence, an estimated one in 12 children will still be caught in deep poverty.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

We keep hearing that disability spending, and welfare spending in general, is spiralling out of control, but the truth is that, as a percentage of GDP, it has barely moved since the mid-1980s, under Margaret Thatcher—that famous supporter of welfare. Does the hon. Member agree that if we are going to reform welfare, we should at least start from the right place, with the right figures?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree—in fact, the hon. Member must have read part of my speech, because I will come on to that point a bit later.

There is now a wealth of evidence showing that there is a growing gap between what people have and what they need for a decent standard of living. Millions in the UK are falling well short of that standard, as costs continue to rise and our social security system fails to provide adequate and appropriate support.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for today’s debate. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s essentials guarantee sets a minimum that people should receive through the social security system. For a single person, it is £120, which is £28 more than they are receiving; for a couple, it is £205, which is £60 more than they are receiving. That is to achieve a minimum standard. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be looking at the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to ensure that people are lifted out of poverty?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, and I cover the JRF’s demands for an essentials guarantee a bit later in my speech—it will be one of the key points I make when I sum up.

Short-term support measures are of course vital for people in need, but they will only go so far. What we need is a social security system that is fit for the future. As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) pointed out, some have argued that our benefits system is too generous, compared with those in other European countries. However, the rate of our benefits, such as unemployment benefit and the basic state pension, is incredibly low. According to a recent report from the Public and Commercial Services Union, unemployed workers in countries such as Ireland, France and Germany are entitled to more than double what UK workers get if they lose their job. It is no wonder, then, that almost a third of adults say they are unable to keep their home at the recommended minimum temperature of 18°C; that more than one in 10 UK households experienced food insecurity last year; and that the amount the poorest households have left after the bills have been paid has fallen by 2.1% in the last 18 months.

However, the weight of the cost of living crisis will not be lifted by boxing clever on single policies. One of the major structural changes we need in order to move beyond sticking-plasters and towards lasting change is the introduction of a protective minimum floor in our social security system, as supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Trussell Trust and others. The principle is simple: if our welfare state is meant to be relied on when people need it, it has to cover the essentials they need to survive. Right now, five in six low-income households on universal credit are going without essentials, and nearly 90% of people referred to food banks are receiving a means-tested social security payment.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his hugely important speech. He has touched on some of the horrific stats around food. Does he support the work we are doing with the Right to Food Commission, which is travelling the country over the next six months, to create a road map to introduce a right to food into legislation and end what we are seeing regarding hunger in the UK?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on food poverty and the need for a proper food policy that gives people the right to food. It is an important issue, which we need to address.

We all know that circumstances can change overnight. One day, someone is working and getting by; the next, they need support. There is a health scare, they are caring for a loved one, or they have lost their job and possibly their home. That risk and insecurity should not be part of everyday life for our constituents.

During a debate on the future of personal independence payments, a number of Members, as the hon. Member for Horsham said earlier, claimed that welfare spending was out of control. However, for the last 15 years, UK spending on social security has consistently been between 10% and 12% of GDP, and we regularly spend less on social security than comparable countries in Europe.

Improving the support available through our social security system should be seen as a key part of our economic growth agenda, but we need to recognise that growth that fails to tackle social inequality will mean that all the economic gains remain at the top. In fact, between 2010 and 2019 the UK’s GDP grew by 1.9% every year, but at the same time the wealth gap widened by nearly 50%. As a result, we now have the second highest wealth inequality in the OECD, after the US.

That brings us to the important issue of how we raise revenue. There is a genuine concern that if the Government fail to tax wealth effectively, they will lack sufficient resources to uphold the social contract under which strong public services, an effective social safety net and a healthy economy provide people with a decent standard of living. Failure to uphold that contract will inevitably further undermine trust in our current political system and ultimately lead to support for those with simple answers to complex questions.

In conclusion, there are some key principles that I hope the Government will accept. First, restricting welfare does not reduce poverty; it simply shifts costs on to charities, councils and the NHS as people try to find support elsewhere.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. One of the most important ways to support people is to help them back into work, and we have seen that in my constituency—as my hon. Friend knows, I have worked closely with disabled people and carers. Locally in Bexleyheath, we have seen specialist support for neuro- divergent people to assist them back into work, sometimes with the involvement of clubs and organisations. Would he welcome that kind of support for disabled people and carers to assist them back into work and give them the specialist support they require?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, absolutely. It is important that those who can work have the opportunity and the support to do so. The issue we discussed during the PIP debate last year was those individuals who would never be able to find work of any kind, and the support they would still need to enable them to live a decent and prosperous life.

There should be a commitment to benefit adequacy as a core anti-poverty measure, with reportable targets for reducing poverty over a parliamentary cycle.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful contribution with regard to poverty. What concerns me greatly is families sitting around a table on a cold night—as cold as it is today—and not being able to put the heating on or to feed themselves. They are not bothered whether it is abject poverty or whatever type of poverty. I hope that one of the commitments my hon. Friend will ask the Minister for will be to get rid of the definitions and descriptors and to just say, “We want to get rid of poverty in the UK.”

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s contribution. Whether it is fuel poverty, food poverty or various other types of poverty, at the end of the day it is poverty that we need to address—full stop.

It is time to enact the socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act 2010, which requires all public bodies to address inequalities when making strategic decisions. We should not be allowed to make decisions that will make people poorer. That was mentioned in one of the debates we had on welfare last year.

Finally, we need to reshape our social security system, with objectives that go beyond traditional anti-poverty policies and that incorporate a rights-based approach that includes providing dignity to those within the system. Last year a food parcel was handed out every 11 seconds. Ultimately, our Labour Government will be judged on whether people feel better off. That is our moral crusade and our economic mission, and that is what we should be doing.

11:15

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) on securing the debate. He spoke with great passion and knowledge about how poverty affects the individual, the family and society at large. The real-world impact is where that really matters, as he just said.

My hon. Friend spoke in his maiden speech about the nearly 7,000 residents of Poole who struggle to cover essential costs from their monthly income. In his career in Parliament, he has continued to be a strong advocate for his constituents and for the disadvantaged in our society. He has rightly pointed out that poverty is both unfair and economically reckless, and that one of the most important legacies that we could achieve as a Labour Government is a massive reduction in poverty. My hon. Friend highlighted the devastation caused by 14 years of Tory Governments to the fabric of our society and the rising levels of poverty, in particular the cost of living that we inherited from the previous Government.

To start, I refer to the child poverty strategy, which was published only last month. Under the previous Government, a shocking 900,000 more children were added to the statistics for those living in poverty. The aim of our strategy is to lift 550,0000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. It is rightly a cross-Government strategy, but welfare policies clearly play a crucial part, not least the lifting of the two-child limit. I am proud that we are getting rid of that cruel policy, which affects nearly 2,000 children in Poole, 6,000 children in the Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch local authority area, and 1.5 million children in Great Britain overall.

I was touched when I spoke with several stakeholders, including the Trussell Trust, following the announcement of the removal of the two-child limit on Budget day, because they gave me the breadth and depth of insight that comes from working with those families day in, day out. Hearing their views of how the change will be felt on the ground was humbling and hugely helpful to me.

Our strategy builds on the urgent action that we have taken already to help families since we first entered Government, which has included expanding free school meals to reach half a million more families on universal credit, our new £842 million crisis and resilience fund to reform crisis support in England, expanding free breakfast clubs, and investing in Best Start family hubs to deliver early intervention and support for new parents. We recognise that tackling the causes of poverty and delivering an enduring reduction to child poverty will take time. That is why we have been clear from the start that this will be a long-term, 10-year strategy. We have put in place structures, including a monitoring and evaluation framework, and cross-Government ministerial oversight to ensure that the strategy will deliver and that we can build on its success in future.

We know that the welfare system needs continuous reform to ensure that it supports the people who need it and is a platform for opportunity. Our welfare system is not a museum; since its creation, it has adapted and changed as society has adapted and changed, in recognition of the new challenges we face.

I want to address some of the points that my hon. Friend made. As the Minister for employment, I will say a few words about employment. We know that employment plays a vital role in lifting families out of poverty and in securing better long-term outcomes for children. That is why supporting good work will always be the foundation of our approach, and it is backed by increasing investment for employment support to £3.8 billion by 2028-29, so that people have the help they need to move into and to get on in work. That includes our plans to reform Jobcentre Plus and create a new service across Great Britain that will enable everyone to access good, meaningful work, and support them to progress in work, including through an enhanced focus on skills and careers.

My hon. Friend also talked a little about in-work poverty, and we know that low pay is a key factor. Our plan to make work pay will help more people to stay in work and will improve job security and boost living standards. From April this year, the national living wage will increase to £12.71 an hour for workers aged 21 and over—an increase of £900 a year for a full-time worker on the national living wage.

Access to suitable childcare has for too long been a barrier to progression for many parents. That is why we will invest £9 billion next year in policies such as creating new school-based nurseries and, as I have just said, rolling out free breakfast clubs. A cross-Government review of childcare is also under way, because we recognise that the current system is very complex for parents to navigate.

We also want to go further, so that every parent who can work will be able to enjoy the benefit of rewarding, secure jobs that enable them to support their families. Our ambitious labour market interventions include our inactivity trailblazers in England and Wales, skills bootcamps and the adult skills fund, which will provide a step change in the support that parents receive to help them progress in—as well as move into—work.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The Carer’s Leave Act 2023, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), was passed in the last Parliament. At the moment, carers in work are entitled to unpaid leave from work, which helps them to stay in employment. Does the Minister agree that making that leave paid would tackle the much higher levels of poverty among family carers and further help those people, particularly those on lower wages?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. I will take the opportunity to reflect on what she has said and write to her with a response. I will move on because I have only limited time, and there are quite a few other things I want to say.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole also referred to welfare reform more generally. I reassure him that the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper builds on the principle that Government should support those who can work to do so, while protecting those who cannot. We have already made significant progress in bringing forward proposals from the Green Paper to transform the support that we offer. We are taking action to get the basics right and improve the experience for people who use the system of health and disability benefits, as set out in the Green Paper.

That includes exploring ways to improve trust and transparency in the personal independence payment and the work capability assessments, by reviewing our approach to safeguarding, recording assessments to increase trust in the process and moving back to more face-to-face assessments, while continuing to meet the needs of people who may require different methods of assessment. Of course, we also have the Timms review under way. As a result of our changes, there will be 50,000 fewer individuals in relative poverty after housing costs in 2029-30. That includes a reduction in poverty for both children and working-age individuals.

I want to mention universal credit and its adequacy, as well as the essentials guarantee that a number of Members have spoken about. We know that people are struggling, and we understand the critical role of universal credit in tackling poverty and maintaining work incentives. Since April 2025, our fair repayment rate has reduced the overall deductions cap from 25% to 15% of a customer’s standard allowance, allowing approximately 1.2 million universal credit households to retain more of their award for essential living costs.

We have also gone further by taking decisive action to address the basic adequacy of the universal credit standard allowance through the first sustained above-inflation rise in the basic rate of universal credit since it was introduced. That change will benefit millions of people when it is introduced in April, while maintaining the right balance between supporting those who need it, incentivising work and providing value for the taxpayer.

My hon. Friend also referred to the benefit cap. Removing the two-child limit is the fastest and most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty and will, on its own, lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. However, it is absolutely right that we balance maintaining a strong safety net for those who need it with encouraging personal responsibility and incentivising work wherever possible. Working people are much less likely to be affected by the benefit cap, which we will review at the appropriate time and as determined by the Secretary of State, in line with the statutory obligation to review the levels at least once every five years.

My hon. Friend gave the shocking statistic about a food parcel being handed out every 11 seconds. This Government absolutely agree that the number of people having to rely on food parcels is far too high, which is why we made a manifesto commitment to end mass dependency on emergency food parcels. As I have already said, our child poverty strategy and the crisis and resilience fund, along with renewed funding of £600 million for the holiday activities and food programme, will be a vital contribution to tackling such an important issue.

I am also working closely with the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs on this matter, and will meet with my ministerial counterpart at DEFRA tomorrow to discuss shared priorities. I would also be very happy to meet with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to discuss the work he is doing. I know he has a long-standing interest in food poverty.

In the few minutes I have left, I will talk about international comparators, particularly around state pensions. It is difficult to make meaningful comparisons between state pension schemes in different countries because there are many fundamental differences in the way they are run and operated. There are many factors to take into account, such as different tax systems, the cost of living, access to occupational pensions, the availability of other social security benefits and the provision of services and goods, either free to pensioners or available at a concessionary rate.

The UK pension system balances sustainability and adequacy with the foundation of a contributory state pension, on which private retirement savings can be built, as well as an income-related safety net for those most in need. Workers can choose to make voluntary contributions to private or occupational pension schemes to increase their retirement income.

Data from the OECD’s “Pensions at a Glance 2025” report shows that the UK’s public expenditure on pensions is lower than the average of other OECD countries. Furthermore, when Full Fact investigated the claim that the UK state pension is the lowest in the EU, it concluded that the comparison is not fair because of the differences between pension systems.

In closing, our manifesto committed to building on the legacy of the last Labour Government, which lifted more than 600,000 children and more than a million pensioners out of poverty. It promised to put good work at the heart of our approach. We are building a welfare system that is much more active in giving people opportunities not just to get by, but to get on in life.

Importantly, we are making sure these reforms are accompanied by our wider efforts to put in place the right opportunities, incentives and support—by creating good jobs, by making work pay, including through our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, which will benefit more than 15 million people, and by overhauling employment support, so that people get personalised support to overcome the individual barriers they face getting into work. Through all those changes, we can turn the tide on poverty, making a real, lasting difference to people’s lives and building a fairer, more prosperous country.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

BBC Charter Renewal

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government proposals for renewal of the BBC Charter.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. It is also a pleasure—although not wholly surprising—that the debate is so well attended. We may struggle to get everybody in; I will do my best to help. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock). She and I have spoken together about media matters many times. It is good to see her back on her former brief. I understand that the Media Minister is otherwise occupied in the House.

It is just over a year since I held a debate in this place on BBC funding. Since then, quite a lot has happened concerning the BBC. We have had major editorial failings around things like the “Panorama” reporting of a speech made by the President of the United States, the coverage of Bob Vylan at Glastonbury, and the documentary about Hamas. We have also seen some shocking revelations about harassment and bullying within the BBC, with the ongoing repercussions of the Huw Edwards incident and then the Gregg Wallace revelations. On funding, which I suspect will be the major topic in this debate, last year we saw a further 300,000 people declare that they no longer needed or were willing to pay the licence fee. All those things, I suspect, contributed to the decision of Deborah Turness and Tim Davie to resign. I was sorry that Tim Davie left his post. I think he did a good job in a very difficult circumstance. It is a sadness that most directors general, rather like politicians, have careers that end unhappily.

We have also now seen the publication of the Department’s Green Paper on the future, which points out at the beginning that unless the charter is renewed by 31 December 2027, the BBC will cease to exist. I had responsibility, in the main, for the renewal of the last charter. I did not want to see the BBC disappear then, and I do not want to see the BBC disappear today. Therefore, it is important that we agree. The charter renewal document is wide-ranging and covers a huge amount of ground. I am sure hon. Members will wish to touch on a number of elements. I will concentrate on two.

The first is the issue of governance and maintenance of standards. The last charter review resulted in the replacement of the BBC Trust, which at that time had overall oversight of the BBC, with a board, bringing together executive and non-executive members. It is worth remembering that the BBC Trust, which preceded the board, was wholly appointed by the Government. In theory, the board has only five Government appointees; of those five, three are in agreement with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The UK Government actually appoints only two members, so concerns about political interference and independence are misplaced.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The National Union of Journalists wants an inquiry into allegations of inappropriate interference by current politically appointed board members in BBC editorial matters. The right hon. Gentleman said that there are only two such members. Does he think that an inquiry is necessary to restore public trust in the BBC board?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

No, I do not. I suspect the hon. Lady is referring to the board member for England, who I believe has outstanding experience in the field of BBC editorial independence; he spent a brief time in politics. It is worth remembering that the political appointees over many years have come from both sides of the House. There was a chair who was previously a Conservative Cabinet Minister, and a deputy chair who was previously a Labour Cabinet Minister. If there was ever a concern, it was about the appointment of a former Labour Cabinet Minister to a management position. That seemed to me much more concerning since they had direct day-to-day editorial decisions. At the time, although I got on very well with James Purnell and I worked with him when he was Secretary of State, I did not think that he should have been appointed to a management position. But I have no concerns about political interference at the moment.

On the failings revealed by the Prescott report on editorial standards, clearly there need to be changes to the editorial oversight. As was debated a few months ago, there is a strong case for making the editorial standards committee much more independent. It is also at least worth considering—this is part of the Green Paper—whether the job of running an organisation with around £5 billion to £6 billion can be combined with having overall control over the entire editorial output of the BBC. Those are both huge jobs and I think it is becoming increasingly difficult for one person to hold both of them. That is something that needs to be considered.

The biggest challenge facing the BBC, which I sought to highlight in the debate a year ago, is about future funding. We have seen a steady decline in the number of people who are willing to pay the licence fee. The licence fee evasion rate has doubled so that it is now 12.5%. One in eight who should be paying the licence fee are not paying it because they are avoiding their responsibility. On top of that, another 3.6 million, we are told, have declared they do not need to pay it because they do not use the BBC or watch live TV. The Public Accounts Committee recently concluded that that results in a loss to the BBC of over £1.1 billion, and it will go on increasing.

We are seeing more and more choice available through streaming services, which people choose to subscribe to. People no longer turn to the BBC in such numbers for news and current affairs. And of course the licence fee is rising. At a time when the cost of living is high, people will consider whether they wish to continue paying it. So the Government are right to look at alternatives, which is something I have been involved in for over 10 years. When I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we produced a report on the future of the BBC. I am delighted to see the current Chair of the Committee with us this afternoon. A lot of the arguments that we considered 10 years ago stand today.

There was one thing I was disappointed to see in the Green Paper. First, before considering how to pay for the BBC, we should ask what we want the BBC to do. Let us first of all decide what the BBC ought to be doing and then how to pay for it. Yet the Green Paper rules out this debate. It states that

“we do not believe a smaller BBC”

is in the public’s interest. By making that statement, we are not questioning whether the BBC still needs to maintain eight national television channels and 10 national radio stations, despite the fact that the alternative choice available has enormously increased over the past 10 to 15 years.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Member appreciate the importance of the BBC’s investment in the devolved nations and regions, which is all the more important given the fact that private and independent media are withdrawing from some of that coverage and production? This year, the BBC will double spending to £100 million on programmes produced in Scotland and other devolved nations. That kind of investment is vital for my constituents and others.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely understand that. The Green Paper contains quite a lot about the BBC’s involvement in providing coverage in the nations of the United Kingdom, and indeed in the languages of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that one of the principal purposes of the BBC is to provide content that otherwise would not be available, then that is a good example of where it is absolutely right that the BBC should continue to invest.

There are some things, however, that the BBC does not necessarily need to continue doing, because there is such choice available. As I say, I regret the fact that that does not seem to be part of the debate within the Green Paper. It seems to suggest that the BBC should go on doing everything it does now, but that then begs an even harder question: if the BBC is to go on spending as much as it does today, how will we pay for it at a time when the willingness to pay the licence fee is declining year on year?

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, as he is a former Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Does he agree that 47p a day represents value for money for nine television stations, 17 radio stations, iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the BBC World Service?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Whether or not it is value for money is a debate that the BBC has advanced for as long as I have been debating the BBC. The question is: what do we compare it with? Is 25p value for money, or is £1.50 value for money? Unless it is decided what the BBC should be doing, we cannot determine that.

The other big factor is that paying the licence fee is not a choice. People do not have the opportunity not to pay; if they want the BBC, and indeed live television at all, they are required by law to pay the licence fee. Saying, “Oh, it’s fantastic value for money,” is very difficult when nobody has ever been given the opportunity to demonstrate whether they think it is value for money by choosing whether to pay for it.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

One thing I learned recently on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is that one way the BBC provides value for money is by being one of the only sources—if not the only source—of income for children’s content creators. Without that income, we would not get quality content for our children. There is a way of looking at this not purely from an individual perspective, but as an investment in the future. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I agree that children’s television is incredibly important, and it is a matter of real concern that fewer and fewer commercial channels are investing in children’s TV. It was for that reason that, at the time of the last charter review, we set up something called the young audiences content fund, funded by the licence fee, which allowed other broadcasters to bid for licence fee funding to supply children’s programming. It was very successful. Unfortunately, it did not survive the mid-term review, but it was created in recognition of how important that provision is. I would like to see a revival of the young audiences content fund, because I think it was very valuable.

Every time a Government has looked the licence fee, they have come to the conclusion that it has many flaws but there is no real alternative. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee that I chaired did recommend an alternative; we looked at the possibility of a household levy. While that is not perfect, it has already been ruled out. That too is excluded by the Green Paper, which states of the licence fee that

“we are not considering replacing it with alternative forms of public funding”.

So all those particular options have been closed off. However, the licence fee is highly regressive and hard to enforce. Evidence shows that women on low incomes face prosecution more than other groups. There are a lot of things wrong with the licence fee.

In terms of alternatives, the Green Paper suggests one or two options. It talks about the possibility of extending commercial activity, which I certainly welcome, as it already contributes quite a large amount to the BBC’s income.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

S4C’s headquarters are within my constituency. It employs 2,500 people across Wales, and contributes £7.6 million to our economy in Caerfyrddin itself—that is without the Welsh perspective. Although I am glad to see that consultation is discussed in the Green Paper, it needs to be more than a tick-box exercise. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any consultation must be meaningful for the people of Wales and for S4C?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I visited the S4C headquarters, and I am a strong supporter of S4C, which is often overlooked in debates about the licence fee. Of course, it is funded by the licence fee, and that is something we sought to preserve when I had responsibility for it. It needs to be taken into account. I was glad to see that the Green Paper talks quite a lot about S4C and, indeed, MG Alba, which supplies Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland.

The issue raised in the Green Paper that is causing most concern to other organisations is the possibility of advertising. Advertising on the BBC would obviously change the nature of the BBC but, as is acknowledged, it would also have a huge impact on all the commercial broadcasters that rely on advertising. If the BBC took advertising, I suspect one of the consequences would be that Channel 4 would immediately go bankrupt, because Channel 4 is still completely dependent on advertising for its income. Although some people doubt it, I do want to see Channel 4 survive. It is not just Channel 4: ITV depends in large part on advertising, as does, of course, the whole commercial radio sector. If advertising were introduced on BBC TV or radio, the impact on the commercial sector would be enormous, and not something that I think the Government would want to see. The Green Paper acknowledges that there would be an impact, but it still suggests it is one option under consideration.

That leaves only one alternative for the future: subscription. The last charter stated that the BBC should trial a subscription service for additional content on iPlayer. That never happened—the BBC was not very keen on it—but it was there. In the longer term, it becomes a more and more realistic option, not only because the alternatives look less and less attractive or acceptable, but because in due course it will become technologically possible. As I have suggested many times, it is not currently realistic to talk about the BBC moving to a subscription model, because a large number of people in this country still rely on digital terrestrial transmission to receive television services. If someone has DTT—Freeview, as it is known—they cannot switch it off. If they cannot switch it off, it cannot be charged for, because people cannot choose not to pay. Until everybody receives their television online—through the internet, rather than through DTT—a subscription model is not a realistic option.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and demonstrating why he is such an expert in this policy area. I reiterate the point about turning off free-to-view terrestrial television, which is obviously a live part of the licence fee discussion. Some, such as ITV, are arguing strongly that terrestrial television should be turned off. For my constituents, many of whom do not have access to good broadband connectivity, being entirely dependent on a fee-paying service is not an option, because the connectivity is just not there. Does my right hon. Friend understand that such communities would be deprived of a TV service if that option was adopted?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend perfectly illustrates why I do not think it is realistic at the moment. Until we reach the point at which everybody in the UK can access TV online—I recognise that that is a bigger challenge for my hon. Friend’s constituents than for those in many other parts of the country—it is not realistic, but we should begin to prepare for that time now, which is why we need to consider the option suggested in the Green Paper. The moment will come when it becomes possible.

I realise that many other Members want to speak, so I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I welcome this opportunity to debate the BBC charter renewal, and I regret that there has not been one before now. A number of options have been set out, and I simply say that the one that is not an option any longer is the status quo. I look forward to the contributions from others about what the future should hold.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob so that I can ascertain who wishes to speak. I will be imposing a time limit. Sir John was very generous in taking interventions, but we need to keep interventions and responses much shorter to allow everyone to speak.

14:50

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will be brief. I want to address the main points made by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale).

First, the issue of funding is critical, but it is not just about the decline in the number of licence fee payees; some of the damage has been inflicted by recent agreements around the funding. Those of us who were around for the previous renewal of the charter and the related discussions should remind others that Government decisions have inflicted a 30% cut on the BBC. Year after year, decisions have led to below-inflation settlements. We had the imposition of the over-75s licence, and then the imposition of funding the World Service. A lot of the financial crisis has been generated by Government, although I agree that there needs to be a longer debate. I preferred the idea of the household levy, which was a good idea on which the Select Committee did good work, and I regret that the Government are not considering it. I understand that some would argue it is just another level of taxation, but the same argument is made about the licence fee anyway.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of governance. I have heard many Members introduce speeches on a whole range of different issues by saying that we are living in a politically dangerous moment. I agree with that. The danger is that we now have a politics in which some politicians—not just in this country, but elsewhere, in particular—cannot determine between truth and fiction, or truth and a lie, so we need an independent source of information, and it is certainly not social media.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I spoke to representatives of BBC Arabic in Amman in the summer, and they talked about the fact that when cuts to the BBC meant that BBC Arabic radio was turned off in 2023, Russia’s Radio Sputnik stepped into that space and started broadcasting false and fake news in the English language. That is very worrying for us all, so we need a successful BBC renewal process that supports the BBC around the world.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend very eloquently makes the point for me. It is also about local radio, on which a lot of our constituents rely. They cannot rely on social media. If Members want to see the independence of social media, they should look at my Twitter account. The abuse levels are unbelievable—and that is just my constituents!

If the issue is the level of independence, it therefore comes down to governance. I have always been opposed to Government appointments to the BBC trust or board; it should be done by an independent body. The argument then will be: “Who appoints the independent body?” My view is that even if the independent body is Government appointed, at least it is a bit arm’s length.

I would like to see much more worker representation on the board. I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. We have been arguing for years that there should be at least 25% worker representation on the board, and that perhaps we should also introduce some form of election to some positions. Currently, there is not a view that the board is independent. There is the argument that different Governments have appointed different people at different times. I think that those individual appointees—certainly the one referred to in the Select Committee—have interfered in the BBC’s editorial decisions at different stages. That is unacceptable.

Finally, if we want independence, we of course have to have a properly funded body, and the funding should be independent of Government. We cannot go through decisions like this time and time again. There also has to be a truly independent board. We cannot allow the BBC to be endangered in the future because, as people have said, we desperately need it in this dangerous political moment—not just for truth in our own country but, exactly as has been said, because truth is being denied in so many other countries across the globe. That is why we need the BBC.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call the first Front Bencher at 3.28 pm, so there is now a three-minute time limit on all speeches. I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sports Committee.

14:54

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate. I cannot think of anyone more qualified to kick off this conversation. The Select Committee will almost certainly look closely at the charter review, but today I will pull out a couple of topics for discussion.

The Government have set out a number of lofty ambitions for the BBC in the Green Paper, but it is clear that it all hinges on a charter review that finds a long-term, sustainable funding future for the BBC. As we have seen, there are a number of challenges. The BBC provides so many different TV channels and radio stations, as we heard from my right hon. Friend. It does all that and more in an incredibly and more and more challenging commercial environment in which the licence fee looks increasingly like an anachronism. The extent to which the public no longer see live TV as the cornerstone of their viewing habits is reflected in the number of households not renewing their TV licence. We have heard that evasion is rising and is now at 12.5%. In real terms, the BBC lost over £1 billion of revenue in the decade from 2013.

I was disappointed to read that certain options regarding the BBC’s size, scale and funding are not even on the table in the charter review. On the licence fee, the Green Paper says the Government

“are not considering replacing it with alternative forms of public funding, such as a new tax on households”.

I would be interested to hear why the Government are not even considering some options, some of which are employed across Europe to fund public service media. There are obvious challenges around some of the options that are under consideration. We have already heard about the issue of advertising. The BBC chair told my Committee that

“we are absolutely clear that advertising and subscription is not the right approach. It goes back to universality and back to that old phrase, ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ If subscribers are paying, they will call the tune on what we make. If it is advertising, it is advertisers.”

Will the Minister say more about why the Government have chosen to explore some funding models and take others off the table at this vital stage?

The BBC is the most trusted broadcaster both at home and abroad, but there is no doubt that, as our national broadcaster, we hold it to a higher standard. There has been a significant loss of confidence in the BBC over recent years. The Reuters Institute suggests that between 2018 and 2025, the proportion of people in the UK who trusted “most news most of the time” fell by 7%, but that over the same period trust in BBC news fell by 15%. We should therefore welcome the Green Paper’s commitment to discuss the provision of trusted news.

Finally, the Government said they want to consider how to uphold the BBC’s independence, which includes its being transparent when it gets things wrong, how it changes its services, how it is governed and what its board looks like. There are fundamental questions for the Green Paper to address: what is the Government’s future vision for the BBC? What role should a public service broadcaster play in the current age? How can we continue to ensure that our national broadcaster remains independent, trusted and valued in this increasingly unstable and divided world?

14:57

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this important debate, and thank him for his support for broadcasting in minority languages and for making programmes that would otherwise not be made.

It was satisfying to see that Gaelic merited seven mentions in the Government’s Green Paper and public consultation on charter renewal. That is about one mention for every 10,000 speakers—that is how perilous the language is—but that represents only a tiny fraction of the viewers that Gaelic content attracts on the BBC and elsewhere. The most recent example is “An t-Eilean”, a gripping crime thriller filmed on location in Harris. It was the most successful of the BBC’s Gaelic programmes, drawing 1.6 million views on iPlayer, which was almost 20% of a record breaking 8.1 million total views for Gaelic content in the last year. Of course, it is not just about murder; it is about the children’s programmes, music and learning for the Gaelic communities and the worldwide diaspora that the BBC and BBC Alba—the channel co-funded by the BBC and MG Alba—provide.

I will turn to funding in a second, but I am glad that the Green Paper acknowledges the importance of Scottish Gaelic as a cultural transmitter and a keystone of the language, as it does for Welsh. The Green Paper states:

“Partnerships between the BBC and S4C have been a cornerstone of Welsh language media”.

Similarly, BBC Alba has become the principal broadcaster for Gaelic speakers—except that in truth there is no similarity, because the UK Government generously funds Welsh language broadcasting while giving little or no support to Gaelic broadcasting. This year, the gap in the annual funding for Gaelic and Welsh television will widen to £100 million. Admittedly, there are more Welsh speakers—850,000 and counting—but even if we look at it proportionally, we have to ask why that remains the case.

A previous Conservative Government set up the Gaelic television fund in 1991, with £9.5 million a year, and nowadays the UK contribution would be £25 million. But funding for MG Alba, the successor organisation, has been frozen for 10 years, and the UK Government contribution has fallen to zero.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am MP for Rushcliffe in the midlands. Is my hon. Friend aware that, according Equity, the midlands generates 25% of the licence fee income, but less than 3% of it is spent in the region? Does he agree that regional disparities need to be looked at in the charter renewal process?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I also echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about the £100 million spent in Scotland and elsewhere to make sure not just that all voices from across all parts of the UK are heard and seen on the BBC, but that the production value, the jobs and the creative content are made in the regions. The BBC does quite well at that. As I said, it contributes £10 million a year, and the Scottish Government grant £14.8 million, including an extra £1.8 million, perhaps because the Deputy First Minister is a Gaelic speaker—tapadh leat for that, Kate. In reality, the budgets for Gaelic broadcasting have been frozen for 10 years, and in the case of Gaelic radio—the real mainstay of Gaelic-speaking communities —budgets have been worse. That means that in two years’ time, Gaelic broadcasting budgets will be worth just 50% of the launch budget.

S4C receives £7.5 million a year from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the transition to digital, while Gaelic gets nothing. In Ireland, TG Ceathair has €20 million for digital transmission; we have nothing. I do have hopes, though, because this is not about a begging bowl. Gaelic has created 320 jobs, and for every £1 invested, £1.34 comes back to fragile communities. I hope that the Culture Secretary and the charter review stay close to the language of the Green Paper, which promised to consider options to provide MG Alba with more certainty on its funding as part of the charter review.

I do not require a figure, but I would like guarantees from the charter review and the Government that there will be certainty of support for the Gaelic broadcasting service, not just as an incredible cultural asset but as an economic dynamo that will help the language and broadcasting to continue and allow us to tell our stories to the rest of the world.

15:02

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I must know a different BBC from most MPs here today. The BBC is a service that people are forced to pay for, even if they do not use it. That is not fair. People can even go to prison for not paying the fine; those people are normally young, single mothers. As we all know, the BBC has been riddled with scandal for the past 100 years, but more so in the past few decades.

I agree that the BBC has made some great programmes over the years—documentaries, environmental programmes and so on—but it has also produced a raft of dodgy TV personalities, which probably nobody in this room will mention. I’ll tell you what: they do mention them outside in the real world. Those personalities include Jimmy Savile, Huw Edwards, Chris Denning, Jonathan King, Chris Langham, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Phillip Schofield —a whole raft of perverts who stalked the corridors of the BBC. None of these here will talk about that—not one of them. Mark my words, those creatures are still stalking the corridors of the BBC. In future their names will come out. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member like to intervene? I thought not.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I will have no chuntering from a sedentary position, please.

[Lee Anderson]

Thank you, Mrs Harris. Look what they did to Cliff Richard: filmed a raid on his house when he was an innocent man. Look what they did to Princess Diana. Look what they did to Donald Trump, our closest ally. Bob Vylan were on stage shouting, “Death, death to the IDF.” What about the Gaza documentaries? What about the dodgy reporting of the bank accounts of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? The list goes on and on.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

The hon. Member mentions bank accounts. Would he like to declare how much he has received in earnings from another broadcast media channel in the past year in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

[Lee Anderson]

I am quite happy to declare that; it is on my Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is £100,000 a year and it is probably more than the hon. Member will ever get paid for appearing on TV, if he gets paid anything at all.

I am not paying my licence fee. I have not paid it for around 10 years. I am not paying to subsidise the pensions of people like Huw Edwards. Some people in this room—probably all of them—may think I am being a bit unfair on the BBC, but I challenge anybody in this room to get on their phones right now and find evidence of another broadcaster that has been riddled with as many scandals as the BBC.

People should not be forced to pay for a service that they do not use. Yes, it still makes some great programmes, but it should be a subscription service.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Does the hon. Member watch or listen to the BBC because, if he does, he is obliged to pay his licence fee?

[Lee Anderson]

I do not listen to the BBC at all and I do not watch live TV. I do not get enough time, as a Member of Parliament and a TV presenter. All my time seems to be taken up with that.

I will finish with this: I hope the Minister agrees with me and the vast majority of the British public that people should have a choice. It should be a subscription service, and then people can decide whether or not they watch it and whether or not they pay for it.

15:06

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who has received BBC hospitality and formerly represented BBC workers at a union.

I was going to cover the enormous contribution made to the economy by the BBC, but other Members have covered that, and beyond economic value, there is the value to our democracy that comes from the trusted, independent and impartial news provided by our national broadcaster. Of course, the BBC has got it wrong in some stories on occasion, but so too do all media outlets, and the BBC’s commitment to getting it right without fear or favour is second to none. That really matters.

One has only to look at the broadcast media landscape in the US to see how difficult it is for people to access news without a slant or an agenda. It is not good for public discourse or democracy when people cannot come to an agreement on the facts of a matter. I worry that certain broadcast outlets in this country are now blurring the line between news reporting and editorialising. Beyond broadcast media with an agenda, we must also contend with the increasing amounts of disinformation and misinformation on social media.

It is critical that we have a trusted national public service broadcaster able to get the facts into people’s feeds and allow them to their own views on the basis of those facts and unbiased, balanced reporting.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who question the BBC and try to undermine it could well have an ulterior motive, in that the very point that he is making about having a trusted public space is precisely what they do not wish this country and other parts of the world to have?

[Tom Rutland]

Without doubt. It is right that charter renewal will seek to deliver a trusted institution that is rooted in independence, accountability and transparency.

When it comes to future funding, some options being considered are not necessarily suitable. It is right for the BBC to try to generate more commercial revenue when proposals to grow BBC studios to top up funding have merit, but we have to be careful to avoid overreliance on income generated through some of that activity, such as the selling of international rights of programmes, so that we do not get into a situation where the demands of streaming platforms and foreign markets’ audiences hold too much weight in BBC content creation decisions.

The BBC produces content that reflects British culture, and its current funding model allows it to do so and to tell stories that international streaming giants would not have a financial incentive to tell. I have concerns around carrying advertising, which would reduce market competitiveness and negatively impact commercial broadcasters, while also introducing commercial pressures and incentives that could affect editorial or content decisions.

We have already heard about the challenges around subscription and paywall models. I would be concerned about introducing a subscription paywall for the BBC World Service due to the soft power it projects abroad on our behalf. The British Broadcasting Corporation is the world’s best public service broadcaster, and we are lucky that it is ours. We would miss it if it went and, having benefitted from it for a century, we have a responsibility to safeguard it for the next hundred years.

15:09

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for setting the scene incredibly well, as well as those who have made contributions so far. I have long spoken of my frustration with the BBC and its role in the new generation of media. A Netflix bill paid some years ago was £4.99; it is now £9.99. Sky TV is no longer a one-stop shop, and for many people, the BBC certainly is not either. If someone likes sports, they pay for the sports package; if they like “The Real Housewives”, they pay for Hayu. You pay for what is important to you. The difficulty is that, for some unknown reason, that does not apply to the BBC. The everyday man who refuses to watch the BBC is tied to paying the bill, and the subscription is more expensive than most streaming prices.

It seems simple: if someone does not like something, they do not purchase it. With the BBC, there are a number of people who do not like it, do not watch it and who are vehemently opposed to its biased reporting on Northern Ireland, on Israel, on trans indoctrination, and on a host of other of moral values pushed by the BBC, but these people, including me and my constituents, have to foot the bill. In a world of subscribe or unsubscribe, too many people wish to unsubscribe from the BBC.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend touches on Israel. Only last week, we heard that the BBC is now about to fork out £28,000 to an Israeli family whose home Jeremy Bowen went into in the aftermath of 7 October, without getting permission to do so. We are going to have to pick up the bill for that as well.

[Jim Shannon]

I read in the paper about the fine on Bowen in relation to that intervention. Going into that house without permission is completely unacceptable.

For too long the BBC has had carte blanche in terms of payouts to staff, with no accountability. The prime example would be, of course, Gary Lineker, and the antisemitic posts he supported. The amount of time it took for him to no longer be the highest-paid pundit simply would not have happened in the private sector.

The latest disgraceful example of biased reporting is posed by the internal memo report that highlighted Palestinian influence and anti-Trump bias, combined with the fact that the management who resigned urged their staff to continue to do what they had been doing. There is no restoration of the BBC to the impartial, internationally respected bastion of journalism that it once was.

In terms of Northern Ireland, from the refusal to train staff to refer to Northern Ireland, or the association of the flag of the Republic of Ireland, as has become the norm, to the outright republican leniency delivered by programming, there is no salvation in the coverage of today’s politics and of legacy issues.

The BBC was once upheld as a gold standard. Now, it cannot even refer properly to Her Royal Highness Catherine, Princess of Wales, when reporting on the Remembrance Day services. It repeatedly referred to her by her maiden name and a forename that she no longer uses. It underlines the disregard not simply for our monarchy but for the principle of trusting the BBC to carry out good reporting, which, quite clearly and evidentially, it does not.

The charter renewal is a multifaceted decision, and it will take a lot of persuasion for me, and more importantly, for my constituents, to believe that the BBC can once again be a trustworthy, impartial service. That view is replicated in constituencies across the United Kingdom. It is time for an “unsubscribe” from the BBC.

While I may be tempted to continue to subscribe to watch “Strictly Come Dancing”, which I love, or “Call the Midwife”, which I also like, I also believe in the principle of getting what you pay for. I simply do not want to pay for what we are currently getting.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree with the principle that just because he does not like something, that does not mean it should not be produced? There is a wide variety of BBC productions that we may not watch, but that does not mean that we do not think they should exist.

[Jim Shannon]

If the hon. Lady had been following the thrust in my speech, I gave a number of examples of where BBC reporting has fallen down drastically, including in relation to Northern Ireland and to the monarchy. There are programmes and drama programmes that I like—I gave two examples—but the point that I am making is that when it comes to impartial reporting and journalism, the BBC falls down badly. For that reason, I believe that the contribution put forward by the right hon. Member for Maldon and others is one that I agree with.

15:14

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chair of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group.

Many colleagues have made the point about fair funding. It is critical. Ultimately, the BBC must remain universal and it must serve everyone. That means no subscription model, no two-tier system and no paywalls locking people out of so-called premium content. Public service broadcasting works only when it is genuinely public, and that universality must be protected through a funding model that is fair, sufficient and free from political interference. It is clear that sustained cuts and closed-door licence fee freezes have weakened that principle, and that has to end. The BBC has experienced 14 years of sustained real-term cuts—a 30% reduction in its funding—lost experienced journalists, hollowed out training and stretched its workforce to breaking point. It is no surprise that mistakes are more likely when journalists are overburdened and under-resourced; we cannot demand world-class journalism on a shrinking budget.

Nowhere are the consequences of cuts clearer than in regional and local news. Cuts to BBC local radio have stripped many communities of genuinely local programming, and that has particularly affected older audiences, disabled people and ethnic minority communities, who rely most on trusted news. These damaging cuts should be reversed, with renewed investment in live local radio and digital journalism in news deserts where no other local provision exists.

The same principle of proper funding applies globally. The World Service is one of the UK’s greatest assets, reaching hundreds of millions of people across more than 40 languages. It presents us to the world. In a world where journalists are threatened and independent media is silenced, the World Service provides trusted, impartial information, yet repeated rounds of cuts have reduced its reach and handed ground to state-backed outlets from authoritarian regimes. Long-term, secure funding for the World Service is firmly in the national interest and must be restored.

Finally, the BBC is a powerhouse of creativity and economic growth, and nowhere demonstrates that better than Salford. The BBC’s presence there has transformed the city and the wider north-west economically and socially, creating skilled jobs, anchoring creative clusters and proving that world-class broadcasting does not have to be London-centric or the preserve of a wealthy elite. Media City shows what public investment can achieve, and weakening the BBC would weaken Salford and the wider creative and media investment we have seen in the north-west in recent years. That must not be allowed to happen.

15:17

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The BBC is rightly regarded as a national treasure. For more than a century, it has been trusted at home and across the world as a benchmark for accurate and impartial journalism. That reputation matters, and it is precisely because of the global admiration for the BBC that its recent failures, particularly with respect to its coverage of Gaza, must be confronted.

A comprehensive report published in June 2025 by the Centre for Media Monitoring examined more than 35,000 articles and broadcast segments over a 12-month period from October 2023. Its findings amount to a devastating indictment of the BBC’s claims to impartiality. On a per fatality basis, Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage across articles, and 19 times more coverage on television and radio. To cite other equally damning statistics, BBC presenters shared Israeli perspectives 11 times more frequently than Palestinian perspectives, and the words “massacre” or “massacred” were applied almost 18 times more frequently to Israeli victims.

Headlines such as “Israel says Rafah crossing to open soon to let Palestinians leave Gaza via Egypt” amount to whitewashing of the ethnic cleansing and forced migration inflicted upon the Palestinian people. As the Centre for Media Monitoring report outlines, the term “war crimes” was mentioned in only 3% of articles in relation to Israeli violence against Palestinians. This hierarchy of language dehumanises Palestinian livelihoods, masking grave human rights violations behind a false notion of balance.

Internally, more than 100 BBC staff and 300 journalists and media professionals wrote a letter complaining that the corporation has become a propaganda platform for Israel, citing examples such as the BBC’s shocking refusal to broadcast the documentary “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack”. They wrote:

“Much of the BBC’s coverage in this area is defined by anti-Palestinian racism.”

This is not balance, but distortion. It is not impartiality, but systemic bias. Palestinian suffering is treated as less newsworthy, less human and less deserving of scrutiny or outrage.

Consequently, serious questions must be asked about the BBC’s governance. The continued influence of figures such as Robbie Gibb undermines public confidence in the BBC’s ability to report without fear or favour. The Government must ensure an end to partisan appointments and resist politically motivated attacks on reporting. They should meaningfully engage with trade unions and the National Union of Journalists throughout the charter renewal process. If the BBC is to retain its reputation for courageous, high-quality journalism, it must urgently reckon with its shortcomings, and this Government must stop looking the other way.

15:20

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for bringing this important issue to Westminster Hall.

In the short time I have, I want to make only one point: the BBC is distinctly British. What do I mean by that? It is a service—a service for all, like the NHS. It is a human organisation; it is not perfect, as we have heard in the debate. That, dare I say, is a good thing, and we are having a debate about whether the BBC is up to the high standard we expect, because it does have to meet a higher standard than other broadcasters—some of which pay some Members in this House a separate salary, rather than them being full time.

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time, and he is quite right: the BBC should be held to high standards. Can he think of another broadcaster that has had as many scandals as the BBC over the past 30 or 40 years?

[Kevin Bonavia]

The hon. Member really wants to hammer the BBC about the amount of scandals. Guess what? It is the biggest broadcaster, so I do not think that just talking about numbers is enough. The fact that is really important about the BBC is that, compared to other broadcasters, we hold it to a higher standard. It gets far more scrutiny than any other broadcaster, as it should. Yes, there are bad eggs at the BBC. There have been some terrible scandals there too. Ultimately, those are usually—but not always—flushed out. In this world of misinformation, where we have far more players and fake news out there, I have constituents in Stevenage say to me, “Sorry, I don’t do mainstream media.” There are people out there who are much happier to share a fake video. That is why it is so important—more important than it has ever been—that we have a national broadcaster that we do hold to account.

The question before us now is, how do we make this national broadcaster fit for the age we live in? In this dangerous age of misinformation from people who are prepared to take their shilling from private broadcasters, how should our national broadcaster meet the standard we expect? That is a real challenge for this Government. I know they will do their best to review the charter to make sure we have a national broadcaster that does meet the age that we live in.

I have talked about the high standards we expect in the BBC, and it has been called out on those standards in this very room today. One Member spoke about the bias towards Palestine, and another spoke about the bias towards Israel. These are right, subjective points of view, based on the facts that those Members see, and that is fine—it is good that people have that debate, and so should we in this Chamber.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the facts I cited are empirical evidence that is irrefutable? There has been no response from the BBC or the Government to the report from the Centre for Media Monitoring. Does he agree that there should be?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I have not read all that report; I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said about it. But the point I am making is not about those facts; it is that it is good that we can have a debate about the national broadcaster, in a way we would not for any other broadcaster. That is so important, and it helps us to listen more. That is what we need to do more in the age we live in, and through the BBC we can do that.

I say to all Members in this debate and beyond that we must make the BBC fit for the age we live in. If we did not have the BBC, we would not be in a world that I would want to be part of, so I ask the Minister to talk about how she will protect the BBC in the future.

15:23

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate.

Fairness and impartiality should be the hallmarks of the BBC, and many years ago they were, but unfortunately that has not been the case in recent years. The BBC understands, as I am sure others do, that the anniversaries of historic incidents from our troubled past in Northern Ireland are very important. If they are done well, people recognise them, acknowledge them and pay tribute to them; if they are done badly, people complain about them.

I will use two topical examples to try to show the need, under the charter renewal, for the BBC itself to be renewed. It needs to be seen to be impartially reporting events, whether in the middle east, Ukraine or Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

Many of my constituents want to unsubscribe from the BBC. Is it the same in my hon. Friend’s constituency?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, I can report that it is. People have told me that they no longer purchase a licence because they do not watch live TV, and that shows a lack of confidence in the BBC’s ability to report accurately.

I return to the two topical examples, which demonstrate, unfortunately, what the BBC has turned into in recent days. Just yesterday, it was the 50th anniversary of the Kingsmill massacre in County Armagh, where the IRA murdered 10 innocent Protestants. BBC Radio Ulster had a programme to acknowledge that, and it was good, right and proper that it should do so. In subsequent hourly radio news bulletins and on that programme, the BBC also told us that loyalist paramilitaries had murdered Catholics in the days immediately preceding that massacre. It seemed to many that that was an attempt to explain why the IRA took the step that it did in shooting innocent workmen. What was absent from those bulletins, as was pointed out by Kenny Donaldson, from the South East Fermanagh Foundation victims group, was that the Kingsmill massacre was meticulously planned by the IRA months previously. But the BBC did not report that.

In contrast, in the same month—January each year—the BBC has long-standing coverage of the Bloody Sunday event, which was close to my constituency, in Londonderry. The audience is never reminded that, immediately preceding the Bloody Sunday incident, two policemen were murdered. There is never any context given about that. On the very day of Bloody Sunday, Major Robin Nigel Alers-Hankey, the first British Army officer killed during the troubles, died from his injuries. The BBC never mentioned that context, but yesterday it did mention the context in relation to what may be regarded and described as the other side of the political equation.

I raise those two topical instances to show that the BBC needs to take more care. It needs to be meticulous in trying to be seen to be fair and balanced in reporting incidents that are still raw, even though they may have happened many, many years ago.

15:28

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate.

A new charter is an opportunity for a real reset for the BBC. We have heard many criticisms in the debate, but this is an opportunity for a fresh start for the BBC, and that is important. The BBC will only be as good as the accountability systems that are built around it, so it is crucial that independence is at the heart of that. Detachment from this place and from Government decisions on who should sit on the board is an important expression of that. I certainly support workers, who know their organisation so well, sitting on the board, alongside voices and experiences from across the nations.

We also need to ensure that the regulator, Ofcom, is robust in its scrutiny of the BBC. I therefore ask the Minister to look at the role Ofcom can play in enhancing the role of the BBC, its accountability and its transparency. In an age when media is driving distrust and disunity, how the BBC re-establishes itself as a trusted media source and brings community cohesion is vital for our democracy and our country. I trust that the report will place huge emphasis on that.

I also want to raise the issue of the supply of skills across media, broadcasting and journalism. There is a huge opportunity for the BBC to be a training space for so many of our future skills, whether behind the camera or in front of it. I ask the Minister to think about the role of the BBC within the whole creative sector and how it could become an academy for future voices and skills, drawing people from the regions and nations.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of devolution. The reality is that the BBC’s removal of local radio content has seen its listenership fall by 27%. I really hope that the Minister will reverse that and ensure that there is no more playing with words—I am thinking of “neighbourhood radio”, which actually means regional or beyond. We want to see localism as so many people in our community depend on it. It strengthens the BBC when voices are about community; it gives the BBC a real purpose. I trust that that can be at the centre of the reforms. Radical devolution of a centralised BBC would be the regrowth of the BBC.

15:31

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The BBC is one of Britain’s finest institutions. Although it has undoubtedly had its problems, as many institutions have—including this place—it makes a significant contribution to our national life. However, the BBC must change to ensure that it is fit for the future in a rapidly changing world; that is why I welcome the opportunity that the Green Paper consultation provides. It is an opportunity to ensure that issues relating to the BBC’s funding, governance and editorial standards are strengthened, and that its political impartiality is reinforced. It is also an opportunity to consider what the public value about the BBC and what they do not.

Some key themes and values should help shape this process. The BBC must retain its strong regional dimension. Its local radio and TV are important levers for holding decision makers to account. Weakening those functions would lead to poorer decisions in our democratic processes, and individuals and organisations that do not act in a public-spirited way would be given an easier ride. That said, we must be mindful of how coverage of local news on the BBC News website has contributed to the decline of local newspapers. We cannot have a situation where the local media landscape is monolithic because the size and scale of the BBC has drowned out all its competitors. The BBC-funded local democracy reporting service, which employs some reporters at local papers, has gone some way to mitigate that issue, and consideration should be given to whether that service should be expanded.

Given the rise of AI, fake news and disinformation online and via social media, the BBC must grow its trustworthiness and retain its accuracy and impartiality. It is a linchpin of the UK’s creative economy, and it commissions and creates world-leading content. To retain and grow that, it needs to be able to invest in programme making at a level that allows it to compete with streaming services and major US production companies. The BBC must also be able to maintain its globally recognised choirs and orchestras. The professionals delivering that music making must enjoy good terms and conditions, which they ought to have a right to expect. It must build on its educational offer—not just for children and young people, but for adults seeking to retrain and gain new skills in a rapidly changing world of work.

However, to do all that, the BBC must be properly resourced. Its funding has been cut in real terms by almost a third since 2010, following freezes or below-inflation rises of the licence fee and top-slicing to fund the World Service and licences for older people. That has led to losses of highly skilled staff, and it is undermining the Reithian principles of the BBC: to inform, entertain and educate. It is important that we consider different funding models that may be available to us as part of this process.

Finally, I encourage colleagues, the public and the organisations that care about what the BBC does to engage with the consultation about the BBC’s future, which is open now. The BBC belongs to us all. Together, we can ensure that it continues to play an important part in our national life for generations to come.

15:34

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for bringing forward this debate.

People of an age where their first exposure to television was watching “Play School”, “Danger Mouse” and the often overlooked but still culturally significant series “Bananaman”, may, like me, have a built-in childhood affection for the BBC. The Liberal Democrats have always been firm supporters of the BBC: we have long championed it as a publicly funded, impartial model of public service broadcasting and we believe it has a vital and unique place in the UK’s media landscape.

There has been a lot of discussion today about unsubscribing from the BBC. The NHS and education are two examples of public services that we all contribute to but can opt out of by going private, yet we do not say that everyone should be able to stop contributing to them; we consider them to be of wider public benefit. I hope that Members recognise that the BBC falls into that category.

As we look ahead to charter renewal, we want to see sustainable, long-term funding settlements that guarantee the BBC’s independence and protect it from political interference. That must include an end to political appointments, particularly to the BBC Board. Recent attempts by political figures, both at home and abroad, to exert pressure on the BBC only underline the importance of safeguarding its editorial independence. Allowing political or foreign interference in our media does not bode well for trust in public broadcasting.

As has been mentioned, the BBC is the backbone of our world-leading creative industries. It delivers outstanding economic value, doubling its investment across the creative economy and contributing around £5 billion each year. It produces hugely popular programmes such as “The Traitors”, while also supporting smaller and more diverse content that may serve niche audiences, but is no less valuable.

As a huge fan of BBC Radio 6 Music, I point out that in an age of plastic pop—at least that is what it all sounds like—such stations are key in supporting new, emerging and diverse acts that would not otherwise get national airtime. That is part of the wider role the BBC plays in developing talent. Its apprenticeship schemes allow young people to enter the industry and learn from some of the best in the business before going on to contribute across the wider creative sector.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

We have talked a lot about the BBC’s news output today because clearly that is what is going to interest a room full of politicians most. However, I am glad that we are now focusing a little on the creative output. We have a fantastic creative and cultural industry, which is a major export and one of the jewels of this country. Taking away the BBC, which is part of the ecosystem, would smash it. This is not just about the news.

[Anna Sabine]

I could not agree enough. If we speak to other broadcasters and people involved in the industry, we hear that they are just as worried about the future of the BBC—for exactly that reason: if we start to pull that plug out of the ecosystem, it causes problems for everybody else.

As we sit here today, many of us agog at what is happening on the international stage, it would be remiss of us not to highlight the importance of the BBC World Service. It provides trusted, high-quality news to audiences around the globe, and is a powerful counter to disinformation and authoritarianism. However, its funding was subjected to repeated and unhelpful changes by the previous Government, often limiting its ability to plan strategically. The Lib Dems would increase Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office funding for the World Service. Can the Government confirm that they will sufficiently support the crucial work of the BBC World Service, so that it can continue to provide trusted news to a weekly audience of 453 million people worldwide?

Much of today’s debate has focused on the licence fee, which is central to discussions around charter renewal. The Lib Dems believe that the Government must protect the BBC and categorically rule out moving to a subscription model. The BBC itself has acknowledged that subscription funding would undermine its universality, public value and long-term sustainability. The Government should maintain stable, secure funding through the licence fee until the end of the current charter in ’27, and ensure equivalent public funding beyond that point. Charter renewal must deliver long-term financial certainty.

However, we want future decisions on the level of the licence fee to be made transparently by an independent body, to strengthen the BBC’s financial, operational and editorial independence from the Government of the day. It should consider a permanent charter as part of the renewal process. Has the Minister considered whether that would be a viable option for the BBC?

The BBC is one of Britain’s greatest sources of soft power and is trusted around the world for its independence and accuracy. It helps defend democratic values and Britain’s global standing, and it needs our support.

15:38

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate about a topic that he is extremely knowledgeable about. I thank the Minister for being here today; although this important topic is not currently part of her brief, she is also very knowledgeable about it.

The future of the BBC is an important matter for its employees, licence fee payers and people who consume its output in this country and around the world, including many—although a declining number—of our constituents. The BBC is a cherished institution, and it is the UK’s most widely used news outlet: 94% of UK adults use BBC services every month on average. It has informed, educated and entertained generations of Brits. It is one of our most admired and respected institutions, and one of our biggest global brands. However, the BBC faces considerable challenges in the digital age, and an increasingly fragmented media landscape. Recently, it has faced other challenges to its reputation—some, admittedly, of its own making.

Before Christmas, the Government released their long-awaited Green Paper as part of the process to review the royal charter. Sadly, they did so in a written ministerial statement rather than on the Floor of the House, so today is the first time we have had the opportunity to discuss this matter properly. The BBC’s existence and the licence fee arrangements are contingent on the BBC fulfilling its licence obligations—including those on impartiality, as outlined in the charter.

Recently, there have been too many examples where the BBC has not been following its own editorial guidelines on impartiality—from push notifications to its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict to trans issues, as well as the high-profile doctoring of a speech by the President of the United States, which has led to a multibillion dollar lawsuit. That lawsuit threatens the future financial stability of the BBC and could lead to resources being diverted away from important and much-loved programming, such as children’s TV, natural history series, sport and national events coverage, music and local radio. Many of those things have been mentioned today; they are what that the BBC does so well, and they help justify the licence fee and sustain the BBC’s brand and reputation around the world.

Abiding by impartiality is an important aspect of the current debate because, as the BBC’s own editorial guidelines clearly state,

“Audiences expect the BBC's news and current affairs and factual journalism output to meet the highest levels of impartiality and accuracy.”

I could not agree more, which is why the accusations of failure to uphold impartiality are so serious. There is also another important aspect of the debate around impartiality. The editorial guidelines make it clear that

“There is no requirement to give all views equal weight…Minority views or those less supported by evidence, do not need to be given similar prominence or weight to those with more support, to the prevailing consensus, or to those better evidenced.”

That begs these questions: why can the BBC not bring itself to call Hamas a terrorist organisation? Why did it feel obliged to reprimand a journalist for saying “women” instead of “pregnant people” live on air? Impartiality should not be used as an excuse to push minority or woke views that are not supported by the majority of the British population. Common sense must prevail.

This whole area clearly needs a lot of tidying up, and the charter review offers an opportunity to do so. Does the Minister agree that the governance structures, processes and procedures around compliance with, and enforcement of, impartiality and editorial guidelines must be a key focus in the charter review process? Does she agree that the BBC should not wait, and that it can, of its own volition, take action now to change its procedures and overall culture on compliance in advance of the conclusion of the charter review process?

The Green Paper rightly focuses on the issues of trust—mentioned many times today—public good, driving economic growth and funding. As has been pointed out by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and others, not every option has been considered. It is right that we should take a thorough review of all future funding options for the BBC, because all options, including the status quo, will have a knock-on impact on other public service broadcasters, and on the production and broadcasting ecosystem across the UK as a whole, including radio as well as TV.

The licence fee model, in its current form, is clearly not sustainable, partly because people are walking away from the BBC already and taking their money with them—a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. Since 2019, more than 2 million households have stopped paying the licence fee, and in the past decade licence fee evasion has doubled. At the same time, the BBC has fallen behind innovative rivals when it comes to young people. Additional sources of funding for the BBC must be found, without jeopardising the rest of the UK broadcasting landscape and without distorting the rest of the UK advertising market.

Does the Minister agree that the charter renewal discussion also needs to focus on how the BBC can further exploit commercial opportunities, particularly with its back catalogue and revenue from overseas? Does the Minister agree that we must also debate the other side of the equation: the size, scale and scope of the BBC, or what exactly its public service content duties should be? That point seems to be missing from the Green Paper, but it was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon.

The consultation also suggests that consideration be given to reduced or free licence fees for people on benefits. That does concern us. It would be outrageous if people claiming benefits were given free TV licences while hard-working people footed the bill.

Turning briefly to comments made by other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon expressed his thanks to the outgoing director general, Tim Davie, and I also put on record my thanks for his service. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport expressed concerns that some funding options had already been ruled out; again, that is a matter of concern, and I hope the Minister can address that in a moment. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) pointed out the concerning reality that licence fee penalties often disproportionately impact women.

The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) pointed out the very important role of the World Service, which is of course partly funded by the FCDO and not entirely by the licence fee. The hon. Member for Salford also highlighted the transformational impact of the BBC’s significant investment in Salford—something I had the pleasure of seeing in December.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) highlighted the important role of the national broadcaster in the age of misinformation, and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted accountability. Of course, something that we have not talked about much today, but which I am sure will be a matter of considerable debate going forward, is the role of the regulator, Ofcom.

In conclusion, we want the BBC to succeed. To do so, it must be the best version of itself. That may be perhaps quite a significantly different version from what exists today. We look forward to working constructively with the BBC, the Government and all stakeholders in this charter review process. I encourage all interested parties, including our constituents, to get involved in the consultation process. Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that there are more opportunities in the future to debate this vital topic—the future of the BBC —in Government time, on the Floor of the House, and not just via written statements?

15:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Media Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is in the main Chamber on other business. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this important debate; as he said, we have previously debated this and many other media issues many times. I am really grateful to him for bringing forward this debate and for the huge expertise he brings to it, and to all hon. Members of all parties from across the House for attending. Today’s attendance shows just how important this topic is.

I will respond to some of the specific points raised in a moment. First, I would like to begin by saying that for over 100 years the BBC has been at the very heart of our national life and our successful media ecosystem. It tells us the story of who we are—our people, our places and the communities that make up life across the UK.

Throughout its long history, the BBC has been guided by the Reithian principles of informing, educating and entertaining. It is one of the most trusted news providers, both at home and abroad, at a time when the need for trusted news and high-quality programming is so essential to our democratic and cultural life and to our place in the world—a point made by the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the BBC, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland), as well as by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes).

The BBC provides vital educational content for all ages, and of course it is where millions of us turn for high-quality entertainment. “The Celebrity Traitors” final had over 11 million people tuning in live and sharing in that moment together—a point that the Liberal Democrats, I thought, made very well. It is no wonder that the BBC remains the most used media provider in the UK, with an average of 94% of adults using its services each month. The BBC is one of the UK’s greatest cultural exports, recognised across the globe and standing strong as the “light on the hill”, as the Secretary of State would say: a shining beacon in times of darkness and a trusted voice amid all the noise.

I appreciate that there are different perspectives, as this debate has reflected, and I will address some of the specific points, questions and ideas put to me. In the interests of time, perhaps I will not be able to go into much detail, but I can say directly to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), that there will be ample opportunity to debate this topic further in this place.

The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) opened the debate by highlighting that the BBC has had a number of challenges, issues and scandals, as indeed hon. Members from across the House have pointed out. As the shadow Minister said, some—if not many—of those are of its own making. Where the highest standards have not been met, that is unacceptable. As the Secretary of State set out to the House in November, the chair of the BBC has accepted that there have been “editorial failings”, and this is simply not good enough. That has clearly had an impact on trust, as reflected in the statistics shared by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The funding is a complex issue and I will address the questions put to me in as much detail as I can in a moment. In broad terms, we want to ensure that the cost is as low as possible. We want to examine how efficiently the BBC operates, how it provides services, the way they are delivered and whether that should be revisited.

The Chair of the Select Committee put big questions to me on the long-term sustainability, the funding settlement, changing viewer habits and the scope and size of the BBC. We will debate all of those not just over the 12-week consultation but over the coming year as we debate the charter. If I have time I will come back with a little more detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke powerfully and gave a number of examples important to her own constituency. I was pleased to visit when I was the Media Minister. I want to put it on the record that I have heard the points around minority languages and the issues raised by colleagues in Northern Ireland, the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Indeed, the December before last the hon. Member for East Londonderry held a debate in the main Chamber.

I will address a point put to me by the shadow Minister on concessions. We are not looking to expand free TV licences or give them free to those in receipt of benefits. An example from Germany was taken out of context from the Green Paper; I can be clear about that now. To go into a little more detail, the BBC has clearly reached a critical juncture. The market has changed significantly, and the charter review is a timely opportunity to set the BBC up for success in a new and dynamic world. The right hon. Member for Maldon had responsibility for the last charter review 10 years ago. In a debate in December 2024 he said that the changes in the broadcasting landscape that have taken place during the 10 years since then have been

“huge and continue to accelerate.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 140WH.]

The new charter will formally set the terms of the BBC for the future with a clear ambition to set it on a path to thrive, well into the latter half of this century. Our Green Paper, published on 16 December, represents the first step on that path as we set out our vision for future-proofing our national broadcaster. The four sections outlined in the paper include governance and trust, funding, mission and purpose, and technology and digital. The BBC must remain independent, genuinely accountable to the public it serves, and critically, it must continue to command public trust.

Further afield, the BBC must also continue the World Service’s vital work in providing trusted and truthful news internationally. Members have given a number of examples. It is absolutely vital that the BBC is trusted by the British public and commands confidence in its impartiality as our national broadcaster. The charter review will support that aim and provide an opportunity to ensure the BBC remains the trusted independent source of news for UK citizens that it has been for over 100 years. As the current Media Minister has said, the corporation’s future should not be tainted by the “problems of today”.

The charter review will also ensure that the BBC remains an engine of growth, driving good jobs, skills and creativity across the UK. As part of this, we are considering how the BBC can further support the production sector across the nations and regions, including by ensuring that budgets and decision-making powers for commissioners are spread across the UK—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). We are considering how the BBC can deliver more through others, working collaboratively and in partnership with organisations across the creative economy and the local news sector—something I have heard from my own local paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made a very important point about that.

But the BBC role extends beyond economic growth and innovation. Whether it is to celebrate the coronation of His Majesty King Charles or to cheer on Britain’s gold medal wins at the Paris Olympics and Paralympics, the BBC has the power to bring the nation together. People right across our nation must be able to access content that genuinely reflects their lives, their communities and their contributions, so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) spoke about.

The BBC must commission, produce and distribute stories that are truly rooted in diverse UK experiences and promote British stories and creativity to the world. I have seen that in my own area, whether it is the BBC’s long read on the history and regeneration of our brilliant town centre, thanks to our Labour council, or the who to watch in the Yorkshire music scene, which are just a couple of pieces of coverage that the BBC has done from my own area. We know that to achieve all of this the BBC must be funded in a way that is fair and sustainable for the long term. The right hon. Member for Maldon secured a debate on this topic in December 2024, where he highlighted challenges with the licence fee, noting, as we do in our Green Paper, that the landscape has hugely changed since he was responsible for drawing up the current charter. He spoke during that debate about some of the alternatives to the licence fee, which also have their challenges, and he rightly identified the need for those to be considered alongside broader decisions about the future of television. Our thinking is certainly accounting for these points. Indeed, it was in Westminster Hall during my last debate as Media Minister that I responded to a debate—about the future of television—incredibly relevant to today’s topic.

At this stage, we are keeping an open mind on the issue and the Green Paper sets out a range of options that we are exploring, including how the BBC can operate more efficiently, how it could generate more commercial revenue, and how the licence fee could be reformed. This is a complex topic, and the public consultation will provide an opportunity for the public to have their say. In the interests of time, I am really sorry that I cannot respond in detail to some of the points raised today, though I had made notes to do so. I will make sure that I or the Media Minister write in answer to some of the specific questions.

We know that some funding options would represent a significant shift for both the sector and the BBC, as well as for audience experiences. The right hon. Member for Maldon has previously raised concerns about the potential for advertising on the BBC to impact commercial providers. A thriving media sector involving ITV, Channel 4, our diverse local media providers and others is vital for the UK, and I wish to reassure him that we will carefully consider the potential impacts on this ecosystem. I have heard the points he has made today and of course we debated them at length during the passage of what is now the Media Act 2024. We are also considering options for funding the World Service, of which I know he is a great supporter—as are many other Members across parties who have spoken brilliantly and given many examples—and for funding minority language broadcasting so that the rich linguistic heritage of our communities can continue to thrive and grow. That includes S4C, which I was pleased to visit as Media Minister last year to see its work first hand.

Many hard questions will be raised through this charter process, but it is important that it is the start of the conversation. There will be many more debates in this place as we have this discussion. The intention of the Green Paper is to spark debate and get Members from across the House and people across the country to share their views. We will continue to engage with the public and Parliament, and we will of course get the chance to have a full debate. In the meantime, I thank all Members for their contributions.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I was just about to sit down, but I will give way.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The Green Paper is about the future of the BBC, but we also have to address the issues and challenges that it faces today while the consultation goes on and the new charter is defined, established and implemented. Please could the Minister advise when or whether the Government and the BBC will respond to the report from the Centre for Media Monitoring, with substantive action points as to how it is going to prevent or improve going forward?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said at the opening of my remarks, we expect the BBC to maintain the absolute highest editorial standards and where it has fallen short, we have urged them to take action. I will take that point away for the Media Minister. I thank so many Members for attending this debate. I think it reflects how important this issue and the future of our national broadcaster is.

15:58

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I thank you, Mrs Harris, the Minister and all Members who participated this afternoon. The fact that there are so many present—to my regret, I suspect a lot have had to curtail their remarks due to the time limit—demonstrates the importance of this subject. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that there will be further opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) is right: it is important that as many people as possible respond to the consultation, although I suspect that the Minister and her officials may hope that we do not have a repeat of what happened last time, which was a 38 Degrees campaign generating 190,000 responses. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport had to hire a new building in order to count and read them all. However, it is important, and I hope that this debate is just the start of what will continue to be a discussion leading to the next charter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government proposals for renewal of the BBC Charter.

Therapeutic Play and Children’s Healthcare

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered therapeutic play and children’s healthcare.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank all colleagues who have joined us to support this debate, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), who I hope to hear from later. As all good stories begin, I was enjoying a beer at the Wanstead Tap during the Wanstead festival when I met one of my constituents, Sarah Owen. We spoke about our experiences of observing children suffering from cancer: I spoke about watching my teenage sister’s experience, and Sarah spoke about her experiences of her son, Hari. It is their story, and what it says about how the NHS can work better for children and their families, that I will highlight today. I am pleased to welcome Sarah and Hari, who are watching proceedings from the Public Gallery.

When we met, Sarah told me about the massive difference that play made to Hari’s care after he was diagnosed with leukaemia, aged just four. Suddenly he was plunged into a confusing whirlwind of surgery, blood transfusions, chemotherapy and, in between, separation and isolation. He was confined to a tiny room without much space and afraid to get out of his bed. A four-year-old’s life is centred around play. When their world is turned upside down after a diagnosis, play can be the only thing that removes the trauma from hospital treatment and makes it as smooth as possible. That was proven for Hari when the health play specialist arrived in that little dingy room, bringing a play mat, a tray of colourful Lego, a box of track and Thomas the Tank Engine.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is describing some of the approaches that I have recently been honoured to see in action at Poole hospital. Does he agree that play professionals in our healthcare settings need proper support? Does he also agree that the Government should include health play professionals in the NHS workforce plan and make health play a registered allied health profession? I also note that the all-party parliamentary group on play, which I chair, is set to look at health and play.

[Mr Bailey]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a leader in this area through his chairship of the APPG on play. We are all grateful for that, and for the significant impact he has made for his local hospital and for play more broadly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Ulster hospital, which is near my constituency of Strangford in Northern Ireland, makes sure that there is no medical equipment in some of the rooms. That allows children to relax, play, read and draw, and helps to reduce the anxiety associated with hospital stays and treatment. The hospital also has a communal area for children and young people. Does the hon. Member agree that it should not be down to charitable donations to provide that; it should be down to the health trusts?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his powerful intervention. He is a massive champion for his local hospital. I agree that we should not rely simply on charity and that this issue should be looked at, which is the aim of the debate.

When the specialist invited Hari to play with her, Sarah told me that the change was immediate. She said:

“I saw my little Hari emerge again, play was bringing him back to us, in that dark tiny room I saw his light come back. This turning point became a moment that I held on to throughout the entirety of his childhood cancer journey.”

Sarah had to fight for that essential part of Hari’s care throughout the two and a half years of that journey. She understandably saw play as the most important therapeutic tool, but for many clinicians, medical treatments came first—even to the detriment of Hari’s mental health and wellbeing.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Play therapy services in Yeovil that support adopted children and those in kinship care are struggling due to cuts to the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Services have been reduced and therapists like Lilly have gone months without being paid. Does the hon. Member agree that that situation is unacceptable, and that more needs to be done to ensure funding models for play therapy services are sustainable, ethical and child centred?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his powerful intervention. I hope that we hear from the Minister how such services can be sustained, given some of the shortfalls that have been described.

In reality, medicine and play are not in competition. When clinicians took playful approaches or when health play specialists were involved, Hari was far more willing to engage with difficult treatments, helping them to go much more smoothly. The culmination of that was an MRI scan that Hari did, fully awake, at four years old, avoiding the need for general anaesthetic. The health play specialist prepared Hari for this potentially scary and challenging ordeal by playing with a Lego scan machine, and playing the sound of an MRI while talking him through that process.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the important work that he and Starlight have done so far on this issue. Does he agree that ensuring there is effective play within children’s healthcare not only helps create happier, calmer patients but delivers real benefits for the NHS by enabling quicker, smoother procedures and reducing overall costs?

[Mr Bailey]

I know that my hon. Friend has been raising this subject on behalf of his local community and I agree with his sentiment.

Sadly, after Hari was discharged from hospital, that same quality of play-centred care was not always there for him. He needed 130 blood tests, and the lack of play contributed to these often being traumatic experiences where Hari had to be held down, violating the safe space of his own home.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that therapeutic play is most effective when embedded within healthcare teams, rather than treated in isolation, and that we need a shift away from seeing it as something that happens only in the playroom towards fully integrating it into children’s daily care?

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Member is right, and he will hear more about how that impacted Sarah and Hari’s experiences. Those experiences have already had an influence on NHS policy in the way that the hon. Member would like through Sarah’s work with the charity Starlight, which co-produced the NHS Play Well toolkit that was published last year. The Government are rightly pushing forward with our new neighbourhood model, ensuring that more care takes place within the community. If we get that shift right, it will be truly beneficial to children who are in the same position that Hari was in, but doing so requires the toolkit to be implemented across the NHS—in new community services as well as our hospitals.

When I raised the issue with Whipps Cross, our local hospital, I am pleased to say that I got a very positive response. It has a dedicated play team based in the Acorn ward, alongside a garden space and a play space. The team includes a qualified play therapist, and it co-ordinates the offer for in-patient care, including for children in other wards, and helps with preparation for procedures such as blood tests, MRIs and surgery.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the really interesting and informed speech he is giving—he is giving it quickly, so I will be quick with my intervention. Does he agree that just as play is essential in hospitals, it is also really important for parents? Therapeutic play can have a large impact on post-natal depression and parents’ mental health as they are taking their child through quite a difficult experience.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful and astute intervention. She will notice that I am speaking about not just Hari, but Sarah, because making sure that the parents are looked is a critical and fundamental part of making sure that the child is looked after.

Starlight has found that the situation in Whipps Cross is far from true around the country. In 2023/24, it found that 72% of NHS trusts had no budget for play resources and only 15% had play service policies or procedures. Only 520 registered health play specialists are employed by the NHS across the whole of England.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing Sarah and Hari’s story, which is a powerful reminder of why play is important. My constituent Eleanor wrote to me last week following the unexpected withdrawal of funding for her level 7 play therapy apprenticeship. She is an experienced teacher who had taken it on as additional training. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must look again to ensure that there are accessible training options for play therapy, which is, as we have heard, an incredibly powerful tool for children’s emotional wellbeing?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who raises a powerful point about specialist training. I know she has written to the Skills Minister and lobbied the Department for Work and Pensions directly to help the Minister who is responding today and close the skills gap on behalf of her constituent.

Those are the challenges and the situation that the toolkit is there to address and that its implementation must change. This is also a real opportunity for positive change as the Government’s NHS reform programmes move forward, because better play services for children in every part of England can not only reduce trauma and its long-term consequences, but save money through quicker procedures, lead to fewer cancellations, and reduce the need for anaesthetic.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Much like my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), my constituent Ambia has written to me to highlight the fact that funding has been withdrawn for her level 7 apprenticeship in play therapy. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) agree that if the Government want to see the savings related to therapeutic play that he talks about, they need to invest up front?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention. I know that she is fighting for her constituent and that she is lobbying the DWP, in support of the Department of Health and Social Care, to make sure that the challenges her constituents face are addressed.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Last year, two important reports were produced: “Mental health inpatient settings: overarching report of investigations directed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care” and “Improving support for people with complex mental health difficulties”. They found that therapeutic input improves patient outcomes and results for adults with mental health difficulties. My constituency is home to the Cassel hospital, a tier 4 therapeutic community for adults with complex multiple-diagnosis presentations. Patients there tell me that the treatment is lifesaving and life-changing, but it is currently under a tier 4 review. Does the hon. Member agree that that review should consider the reports I mentioned? I would be grateful if the Minister could make reference to the tier 4 review in her summing up.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for her powerful intervention; she is a massive advocate for her constituency. Her plea has been heard and I hope it will be answered.

Overall, the estimated financial benefit of the greater use of therapeutic play resources in NHS care is £3.2 million a year, at a cost of less than £700,000 a year. Surely, if we want the NHS to become more preventive, including through a higher uptake of childhood vaccinations and outreach programmes about exercise and health lifestyles, this is an opportunity we cannot miss.

I will close by asking the Minister a few questions. First, how is the Department working to ensure that the Play Well toolkit is implemented across every part of the NHS, including through delivering on training? How will the need for health play specialists be incorporated, as we have heard, into the NHS workforce plan? How will play specialists be included in the modelling of multidisciplinary teams for the new neighbourhood health service?

I was planning to ask whether the Minister would agree to meet with Starlight, but I am very pleased that she has already agreed to do so. I look forward to hearing the outcome of that meeting, which I know will be very valuable and will help us to deliver a more effective system that addresses the problems that we have raised today.

I want to close by thanking Hari and his mum Sarah for their determination to use their experiences to create better policy and help thousands of others. I look forward to our next Huddlestone street party and to hearing how Sarah and Starlight have moved this issue forward. It is a great pleasure to be able to use my position as their MP to highlight this issue.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I assume that all Members who are bobbing have sought permission from both the Minister and the Member in charge to make a speech. They will need to be very short speeches, or else we will not get a response from the Minister.

16:16

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I will be very brief. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for securing this fascinating debate.

All play is therapeutic, and I emphasise that the Government have put £18 million into new playgrounds. My constituent Tom Williams is a proponent of adventure play, which is incredibly good for kids. It reduces anxiety, it burns more calories than sport and, crucially, it provides a digital detox and improves community cohesion.

As a GP, I always had a big box of toys in my room. To examine a child, I had to play with the child; otherwise, they would scream their head off. Therapeutic play must be part of GP training in every way. The thing about therapeutic play is that it reduces the trauma, as we have heard; it actually results in fewer cancellations and, as my hon. Friend said, reduced need for anaesthetics and shorter procedure times because the child is enjoying themselves playing. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this subject forward for debate—I will say no more.

16:17

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) on securing this short but significant debate. I will not take up too much time.

It is vital that healthcare is fully accessible for children. I do not think anyone would disagree that therapeutic play can be instrumental in putting children at ease, as far as that is possible, when they are experiencing medical treatment. The Government must do all they can to prevent and reduce child trauma. I know from my time as Minister for Children and Families that work has already begun to evaluate the benefit of our therapeutic approaches, such as dyadic developmental psychotherapy. I think all of us in attendance would appreciate an update on the Government’s progress in this area. However, while it is important for the Government to evaluate new approaches to providing medical care, it is also critical that medical staff have the skills and knowledge to support children with complex needs, with adequate pay and conditions to retain them long term.

Before I conclude, I want to say how brave Hari sounds. I appreciate everything that the Minister has already shared in this Chamber, and I trust that the Government will keep all these things in mind as they develop their NHS workforce plan.

16:18

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) not just for securing the debate, but for continuing to live up to his true legend status by being so generous with interventions and speaking time.

Therapeutic play can all too often be seen as a nice-to-have in children’s healthcare, rather than as a fundamental part of doing paediatric care well. I had the privilege recently of joining fantastic play therapists such as Christina at my local hospital and seeing the transformative impact that therapeutic play, done well, can have on outcomes for young people. I spoke to young people who had had trauma eased that could easily have lasted far longer than the condition they were being treated for; to parents who, at some of the most difficult and traumatic moments of their child’s early life, were still able to find moments of joy and solace in the smiles they saw in the play area working with those fantastic therapists; and to wider health professionals who were able to deliver far more effective and often more cost-effective care because of the fantastic collaborative work they had with the therapeutic play provision team who are well embedded into the Lister hospital.

Those parents and families are really lucky. Working with Starlight, I know many other families across the country have got to be equally lucky, but far too often families face a postcode lottery in provision. It is fantastic to see the toolkit coming into effect. We now need to make it a reality for every family and every child with healthcare needs right across the country.

16:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for securing this debate on such an important topic. I am grateful to him for sharing Hari’s story, and to Hari and Sarah for making the trip to Parliament. I have always believed in bringing patient voices to the heart of what we do in Parliament, and I hope they both leave safe in the knowledge that this Government are listening.

I strongly agree with what hon. Friends have said about the relationship between play and medicine. I volunteered in a healthcare setting as a play worker many moons ago, but more than 30 years later, the important impact of that work has stayed with me. Play and medicine are not in competition, and it is disappointing that Sarah had to fight so hard for play to remain an essential part of Hari’s care. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead got a constructive response from Whipps Cross, but he is right to say that coverage of play services varies across the country.

Investing in our children is not just a moral mission; it is a downpayment on a better future. Children do not stop being children when they enter a hospital or a GP clinic. It is important to treat children like children when they are at home, at school or in hospital. There is growing evidence that therapeutic play can mitigate risks of trauma. We recognise that play services are integral to paediatric care, not a nice-to-have. We published the NHS England and Starlight Play Well toolkit in June last year, and I am delighted to see representatives of Starlight in the Public Gallery today. That included the first national guidelines and standards for commissioning and delivering health play services in England. NHS England is making sure that every manager of health play services knows about the Play Well toolkit across a wide range of settings. We are promoting it in community clinics, emergency departments, children’s hospices and acute paediatric wards. A range of communication channels have been used to raise awareness, including engagement with services via professional bodies, messaging via the chief nursing officer, and ongoing promotion through operational delivery networks directly to trusts and with professional groups.

The NHS is also undertaking evidence-based initiatives such as the iSupport programme, which focuses on ensuring children’s rights and wellbeing. The iSupport checklist aims to help professionals deliver safe, compassionate and child-centred care. The programme is already being picked up by children’s wards across the country. I look forward to meeting Starlight. We have been trying to get this meeting in the diary for some time, and I am delighted that we have managed to do that. I look forward to working with Starlight to see where we can go further to help kids like Hari avoid childhood trauma.

[Jen Craft]

Recently, my daughter had an in-patient stay, and I saw a Starlight notice on the door of the playroom. Having met Starlight, it gave me quite a lot of confidence. In fact, thanks to the play therapist, the most traumatic thing about my daughter’s visit was when she had to leave, as she had such a good time. That was in an inner-city hospital; we also have a regional hospital that does not have the same resources. Can the Minister say how play therapy can be rolled out across the country so that every child can benefit?

[Ashley Dalton]

As I stated earlier, we are promoting the Play Well toolkit right across the country through a variety of communication methods. We look forward to a variety of healthcare settings using that toolkit to deliver in their local areas.

That moves me on to mental health. Under this Government, all children will have access to a mental health support team in their school or college by the end of this Parliament. We are also committed to opening 50 Young Futures hubs over the next four years, which will bring together services to help young people at a community level. There have been calls for us to go further on the children’s health workforce. The Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), is absolutely committed to making sure that we have the right skills to care for patients, including children, when they need it. We are working through the changes and what they will mean for different professional groups. I know that mental health will be at the top of the agenda, not least for children.

Health play therapists are trained through foundation degrees. The toolkit that has been developed sets out clearly how services should support practical training of specialists. Games and active play build social and emotional skills and support children’s wellbeing. We want every child to feel safe from harm and for their families to feel supported. We know that the poorest children are more likely to develop long-term illnesses. That is why it is shameful that child poverty has increased by 700,000 since 2010.

With more than 4 million children now living in poverty in the UK and 800,000 children using food banks to eat, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took the necessary decision to fund the biggest reduction in child poverty of any Budget this century. We are expanding free school meals to half a million kids whose parents are on low incomes, and lifting hundreds of thousands out of poverty by removing the two-child benefit cap.

In addition, there is a £126 million funding boost for the family hubs and Start for Life programme this financial year. Best Start family hubs will be rolled out to every local authority from April. We have kept our manifesto promise to restrict junk food advertising targeted at children. We have announced improvements to the soft drink industry levy, and we have invested £11 million in local authorities to deploy supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds in schools and nurseries in the most deprived areas of England.

On neighbourhood health, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead raised an important point about multidisciplinary teams for children and young people, which should take an holistic approach to looking after children. The aim is to embed general paediatricians in primary care to give specialist paediatric advice and reduce the need for out-patient paediatric referrals. Those discussions ideally bring together wider health, social care and educational specialists. The make-up of the teams is locally determined by integrated care boards, but play specialists could absolutely be involved as part of a neighbourhood team.

[Tom Hayes]

I am pleased that the Government committed £18 million to playground investment in the Budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should include health play professionals in the NHS workforce plan? Would she advocate for that as part of the plan?

[Ashley Dalton]

As my hon. Friend will have noticed, I referred to the workforce plan. My hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care will consider all areas of the workforce and what should be included. Play specialists could be involved; their use is most appropriate in teams that give face-to-face patient care, for example when a GP and a paediatrician hold a joint clinic in a GP practice.

The majority of case discussions are held virtually, without the patient or family in attendance. There is probably less need for play specialists to support children in those circumstances, but we do encourage the use of the Play Well kit, to ensure that children’s needs are taken into consideration throughout the healthcare process. For the first time, in the recently published guidance, we require NHS providers to consider children in the roll-out of all services.

The Government are cutting waiting lists, giving children a healthier start in life and lifting half a million children out of poverty. This year—2026—will be critical, as we roll out the Best Start in Life hubs to every local authority in April, while rolling out neighbourhood health hubs and implementing the 10-year plan. The Government fundamentally believe in the importance of play. I am sure all my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that we could do with a little bit more play in our lives, including in this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) pointed out, all play is therapeutic, and we would all benefit from a little more play. I stand ready to work with NHS England, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead and Starlight to make this a decisive year for children’s health.

Question put and agreed to.

Future of Thames Water

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Priorities for water sector reform, HC 1001; and oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 15 July and 13 May 2025, on Reforming the water sector, HC 588.]

16:30

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Thames Water.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Harris, and I thank the Minister for attending this debate to listen to my constituents’ concerns. What better way to start the year than to debate the future of Thames Water? But—let me be frank—I do not believe this company has a future. If Thames Water had been genuinely subject to market forces over the years, it would have collapsed many, many decades ago, but instead, a broken regulatory system and chronic mismanagement have repeatedly let businesses and customers down.

Consider this: last year, Robert, aged 81, from Abingdon, received a water bill for—wait for it—£39,000. Thames Water later revised it to £37,688.64. He and his partner Patricia said, quite understandably, that they had become ill from stress because of the bill. It took two months, an intervention and a BBC story to cancel the absurd charge. That case epitomises the incompetence and disregard for customers that has eroded public trust in this company.

Another example is 70-year-old Morna from Botley, who suffered repeated floods in her house due to a blocked Thames Water drain. I visited and saw for myself the strain it took for her to fight for over a year with Thames Water for it finally to unblock it. The delays and inaction are just unacceptable.

I have one last example: Len and Jenny are in their 80s and in frail health, and they lost basic sanitation to their home in 2023. A blocked pipe caused sewage to enter through air bricks and they were left with no toilet, no washing facilities and no power. All they had was a portaloo in their garden and a tanker to pump out sewage. Foul waste continued to bubble up through the basin in their bathroom. We are now in 2026, and Jenny and Len still do not have the recommended non-return valve, a firm date for the maintenance or compensation. If Thames Water cannot even do those basics, what can it do?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Thames Water is £20 billion in debt, and it needs £20 billion to service the investment that is necessary. The chief executive has had substantial payouts and dividends. Is it not time for the Government to intervene, take over and get the job right?

[Layla Moran]

Thames Water’s repeated mismanagement is why the Liberal Democrats have long called for all of the water company bosses not to receive that level of payout. We will continue to campaign in that vein.

Locally, we have been campaigning on the issue for many years. Along with Safer Waters, Thames21 and local activists, we secured bathing water status for Port Meadow in Oxford, only the second inland site in the country. That has forced Thames Water to monitor and report on water quality there, but for the last three years, that rating has been “poor”. Residents in Oxford, like others across the country, continue to risk their health every time they swim.

One would think that poor quality would logically lead to action, but it seems not to have done. In a debate just two years ago, I called for legally binding targets on sewage pollution, so I was pleased when the Government promised last July to halve sewage pollution by 2030. Today, I urge the Minister and the Government to move faster and to take all legal and financial steps necessary to make that change happen, because, as we have heard, Thames Water customers experience poor service, flooding, sewage in their homes and sewage in their rivers, and for this, they are being asked to pay more—indeed, 31% more in 2025-26 than the year before.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech on a topic that is very close to every Liberal Democrat heart. Thames Water is in £17 billion of debt, yet the company continues to progress with the Teddington direct river abstraction in my constituency, with a plant that would be operational for just six weeks a year at a cost of £1 billion. The project is strongly opposed locally on environmental, social and economic grounds. Does my hon. Friend agree that Thames Water should scrap the project and use that money to cut bills?

[Layla Moran]

I do not trust Thames Water to do anything, and I will come on to an example of an even bigger and even worse project. We want investment and change, but the problem we have is that there is no longer any trust that this company can do that on time and on budget, and in a way that is actually going to deliver real change. That is why 2,507 local residents across Oxfordshire backed a Lib Dem petition calling for these price hikes to be scrapped. If this were a proper private company, it would not be asking customers to pay more for this level of service, yet that is exactly what it has done, and it has frankly given them no say in the process.

While I am lambasting this company today, I am not having a go at its hard-working staff. We need to be clear that they are not to blame for the current woes and dismal performance. In July, I visited Abingdon sewage treatment works, and friendly and knowledgeable people who had worked there for decades told me how the system is supposed to work: tanks remove the sludge, microbes digest bacteria and clean water is discharged. It was so clean that I could have drunk from it there and then—in fact, a heron strutted around the wetland ponds showing exactly what would have been possible. Sadly, that summer idyll is all too frequently shattered when the rain falls, the floodgates open and raw sewage pours out.

At this point, I should acknowledge the role that we and the public can play in helping to reduce pressure on the system. We have seen with our own eyes those mountains of wet wipes being removed from the pipes, and that skip full of rubbish that should never have been flushed down the toilet in the first place. Do the Government have plans for a public information campaign on this matter—paid for, of course, by water company profits? If we saw as many adverts on this issue as we do on things such as fast food, it would help everyone in protecting our rivers.

However, I do not want to downplay the institutional failings that we see in the company. We need additional capital investment; in Abingdon specifically, the staff were asking for another set of tanks to filter and clean the sewage to help that problem there, but it is the same everywhere. Last year, Thames Water admitted that £19 billion of its assets were deemed “poor” or “failed”, posing a risk to thousands of homes.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

My hon. Friend speaks of the under-investment in sewage treatment works and other assets. Nowhere is that truer than in Oxford sewage treatment works, which serves residents in my constituency outside of Oxford city. The site already cannot cope with the amount of sewage that it has to deal with. Does my hon. Friend also find it strange that the Environment Agency suddenly dropped its objections to developments, days after receiving a letter from lobbying interests around Oxford? Does she share my scepticism that Thames Water can deliver on the upgrades before the homes are built?

[Layla Moran]

My scepticism about Thames Water is basically the theme of my entire speech, and I completely agree. We absolutely need more houses in and around Oxford—on that I am clear. However, if that work is one of the things stopping those homes from being built, we must of course ensure that it is done to the highest possible standard. It sounds like something has happened there, and I would love to understand better why the EA withdrew that objection with no further change.

More than half of sewage treatment facilities are operating below their required capacity, while raw sewage discharge doubled between 2023-24 and 2024-25. That is a symptom of chronic underinvestment, and we need serious capital to fix the problem. Instead, Thames Water chose to funnel profits into dividends. As recently as March 2024, the company paid £158.3 million out to shareholders. This is a company that is hanging on to a lifeline of creditor goodwill, having already raced through £1.5 billion of the emergency cash that was injected 11 months ago. The scale of the mismanagement is staggering.

No one doubts the need to take steps to secure our water supply for the future in the context of the climate change, but I now come to the local example that I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Thames Water presides over leaks to the tune of over 592 million litres a day, which is nearly a quarter of all the water it manages—it is unbelievable. My residents have justified questions about the validity of the arguments underpinning the south-east strategic reservoir option, also known as SESRO, which lies just outside Abingdon. It is estimated to cost £7.5 billion and counting, and we should remember that it started at £2.2 billion, and barely nothing has changed since then. If such a major project must go ahead—the Government say it should, fine—then can the Minister tell me something that I just do not get? Do they really trust Thames Water to get this done right? It is like running a bath when a hole has been punched through the plughole. I would not trust Thames Water to run a bath, let alone deliver a project of this size.

Will the Government also make clear what residents can expect from this project, should it go ahead? Will there be genuine community benefit? As it stands, the company is promising lots of lovely things—sailing clubs and all sorts—but when questioned on the matter at a recent drop-in event, the promises seemed to be nothing more than an artist’s impression. Will the Minister therefore intervene to ensure that the local villages and towns that will have to suffer the disruption get something out of it, beyond higher bills?

Time and again, constituents are being let down by chronic under-investment. For decades, every Government of every colour have presided over some form of this mess. But I do not want to blame; I just want solutions. As a result, I have some questions. What are the Government doing to prepare for when Thames Water exhausts the £1.5 billion of emergency funding? Have they considered the Liberal Democrats’ plans to turn it into a public benefit company? That is not public ownership, which others call for. The taxpayer would not take on the debt, but the profits would be invested back into infrastructure and fixing the problem, not used to enrich the likes of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and the China Investment Corporation.

Will the Government promise a full response to the Independent Water Commission report and the creation of the new regulator with teeth? When can we expect the White Paper? Will we all, together, make a new year’s resolution—that this is the year we sort out Thames Water’s mess, for the sake of people and our planet, once and for all?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak, so that we can ascertain whether we need a time limit. I will call the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm, with the Minister rising at 5.18 pm.

16:42

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing the debate and for her comments. As she said, the issues have been caused by many years of under-investment. In my corner of south-east London, constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford continue to experience many problems.

Of course, I support the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which this Government introduced following our election last year. However, as I have said on numerous occasions since my election 18 months ago, we continue to see the real impacts of a lack of investment in infrastructure over many years, particularly in Crayford town centre. We have now had four consecutive summers of major leaks in Crayford town centre. They have caused the closure of the road in the town centre for a week or two, impacting residents and businesses, and there is no real understanding of Thames Water’s long-term solution for these issues or how we will see investment in local infrastructure in the longer term.

As has been said, we have seen an enormous increase in bills this year. For many of my constituents, they have risen by 30% or 40%—my bill in fact went up by a higher percentage—but we continue to struggle to obtain information from Thames Water. I have told the company many times that, if we must have that level of increase, and we know the condition of the local infrastructure, it would be hugely helpful for me to be able to explain to my constituents why they are seeing that increase and to understand the programme of works for local infrastructure and where the money is being invested to put things right. It continues to prove very difficult to obtain that list.

I have supported the Government’s position, which is that they will continue to work to turn the company around in private ownership, but what will we do if the Government’s investment runs out? At what stage will we say to Thames Water that constituents cannot continue to see that level of increase and receive that lack of explanation on the local investment? At what stage will we say that enough is enough and we need to take a different direction?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I am imposing a three-minute time limit. Any interventions need to be short to allow all Members who are on the call list to speak.

16:45

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I commend my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for introducing the debate so eloquently. As she said, there is no question but that climate change and population growth are placing increasing strain on our water resources, and that we need the right infrastructure to accommodate a growing population. That is why, despite some aspects being controversial, I support new housing and road projects in my constituency.

Concern about some of Thames Water’s plans is widespread and impossible to ignore, because of Thames Water’s performance and track record. It is impossible to ignore the fact that Thames Water currently loses more than 600 million litres of water—nearly a quarter of the water in its network—to leaks every day. The ongoing failure to deal with those losses is one of the principal reasons why my constituents do not have faith in Thames Water’s enthusiasm for what it is now calling the White Horse reservoir.

Thames Water’s record of financial mismanagement and poor operational delivery is well documented and has badly eroded public trust. Against that background, it is extraordinary, but really ought not to surprise us, that the estimated cost of the proposed reservoir near Abingdon has risen from £2.2 billion to as much as £7.5 billion. That is no marginal increase: it is a threefold rise. At the same time, the size of the proposed reservoir has increased by 50% compared with what was once consulted on.

Despite the scale of the financial risk, it is bill payers—my constituents—not investors who are expected to foot the bill. This is not a fair allocation of risk, particularly when the company’s past decisions have contributed to its current financial fragility. We therefore urgently need an independent review and proper consideration of alternatives, such as the Severn-to-Thames transfer scheme, before irreversible commitments are made. Bill payers in Oxfordshire, and indeed across the region, deserve a proper solution that is effective, proportionate and fair. That means an urgent independent review of the south-east strategic reservoir option proposal, full transparency over costs, and serious consideration of alternatives, including leakage control, before any irreversible commitments are made.

Is the Minister really comfortable with the proposal landing on her desk in its current form, with such significant unanswered questions about cost, transparency and value for money? Is it right that bill payers will bear all the risk? It is interesting that Thames Water has decided to start calling it the White Horse reservoir, because there is a real risk that it will end up being the white elephant reservoir—and nobody wants that.

16:47

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. We have heard about Thames Water’s incompetent management of the physical pipes and networks. I want to touch on the mismanagement of its finances: the profit and loss and the balance sheet.

In 2007, Macquarie, a big private equity group, bought the company and loaded it up with so much debt that it could not cope. That is why we have ended up with the debt soaring from £6 billion to some £18 billion over the last 15 years or so, while the regulator was completely asleep at the wheel and allowed that to happen. The previous Conservative Government allowed it to happen.

We now have a situation in which the debt is trading on the markets at somewhere between 5p and 50p in the pound—in other words, the debt is not worth what the original holders provided. In Thames Water’s recent accounts there are four pages on whether or not the company is a going concern. That basically means it is not. It is effectively bust. As a genuine private company, it is not able to meet its financial or regulatory obligations. It is time to say that enough is enough.

In business there is an expression: caveat emptor. The private equity groups, the debt holders and the bond holders knew what they were doing. They were trying to make large private equity returns. That is fine—I believe in free markets—but when they mess it up, they have to pay the price. Now is the time to say to those investors that enough is enough.

The last thing we need is for the group to be bought by a substantial Chinese infrastructure group that is already the single biggest owner of all our utilities in the United Kingdom, and that takes over £1 billion in dividends and interest on shareholder loans every single year. No—now is the time for the Government to show some genuine courage and to say that enough is enough. It is time to buy it back for a pound, make the investment that is required, with competent people to stop the outrageous leaks and mismanagement of the physical assets. We will then have a worthwhile water company we can all be proud of.

16:50

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. My constituency is a river community and has been badly affected by the failures of Thames Water, including sewage discharges into the River Thames and the River Mole. That goes to the heart of public trust in Thames Water, or the lack thereof, and exemplifies its failure, as well as the lack of regulation and accountability under the previous Government.

While my constituents bear a 31% increase in their bills, all that goes towards is servicing £17 billion of debt. Yet Walton Rowing Club and the 1st Molesey Sea Scouts found 5,000 colony-forming units of E. coli per 100 ml in Walton, and 12,000 per 100 ml in Thames Ditton. Anything above 900 is classified as unsafe. We need investment in infrastructure, but until the Government take Thames Water into special administration, that cannot happen.

I want to speak briefly about the lived experience of my constituents near Thames Water’s Lower Green sewage plant in Esher, which exemplifies its casual disregard for the public. For decades, residents have endured persistent and unpleasant odours from the site. One resident from Farm Road in Esher described being forced to keep windows shut and avoid outdoor spaces, and worrying about the long-term impacts on wellbeing, air quality and property values. Nobody was interested—not the previous MP, nor Thames Water.

Residents told me that for decades their only interaction was Thames Water vans being driven at speed through the housing estate that borders the treatment plant. Residents’ complaints over decades were met with delay, deflection or silence. That experience is symptomatic of a wider failure: a water company that too often acts only when sustained pressure is applied, and a political class that does not hold the operators to account.

Last year, I met Thames Water representatives directly at the site. Following that visit, the company identified the cause: septicity driven by faulty equipment, which allowed bacteria to build up and produce a foul smell. Repairs were eventually made and preventive measures were introduced. Spare parts have now been stockpiled so that if the fault recurs, it can be fixed immediately rather than after weeks of delay. That should have happened 30 years ago. Residents should not have to wait decades, or rely on “novel” political pressure, for basic maintenance to be carried out.

The issues do not stop there. There have been incidents of sewage appearing on the nearby children’s recreation ground due to hydraulic overload. Thames Water says that this has been driven by changing weather patterns and ageing infrastructure. Again, it needs investment. Investigations after the fact are not enough when people are living with the consequences. It shows a deeply troubling national picture. Thames Water has been rated as a one-star, poor-performing company by the Environment Agency, and this is a firm that serves 16 million people—nearly a quarter of the UK population.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Monica Harding]

I have very little time.

Without structural reform, we will continue firefighting rather than fixing. So let us replace the regulator that has failed us, put Thames Water out of its misery and transform it into a public benefit company, putting people, nature and long-term resilience ahead of shareholder payouts.

16:43

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. West Oxfordshire is very much ground zero for Thames Water. We have the Thames itself, the Evenlode and the Windrush. West Oxfordshire district council has done great work in going after Thames Water. We have WASP—Windrush Against Sewage Pollution—and we, as a team, have also gone after Thames Water through the High Court and the Court of Appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court. I thank the legal team that fought pro bono with us last year on behalf of the 16 million Thames Water customers who are being royally stiffed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned, the bills people are paying are completely outrageous. I have had constituents whose bills have gone up by 50% and 70%. Somebody got a 93% increase through the post. It is outrageous.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

One of my local residents has had their bills doubled, and a mains water pipe in West Hill has burst, causing major chaos for my constituents. Yet £2.5 million was given out in executive bonuses last April. It is disgraceful that the Labour Government have left our constituents to foot the bill for Thames Water’s shoddy performance. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should put the company into special administration?

[Charlie Maynard]

I completely agree—well said. What is so depressing is that the Labour Government have embraced the Conservative’s mistakes over Thames Water, and our water sector more broadly, and then doubled down on them. The Government have been and continue to be hoodwinked by a bunch of hedge-funds whispering about financial Armageddon into ears of the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Ofwat. They need to follow through on their regulatory obligations, because we need regulators that have teeth and backbone and will actually deliver. Instead, we have hedge-funds making vast fees with outrageous interest expenses, at the cost of us as consumers. It is not fair. It is a great shame, and it is also unnecessary, because the company’s financial and environmental positions are completely unsustainable. With every day that passes, this becomes more Labour’s problem.

We now need to cut the rope and put the company into special administration, on account of its many breaches of its licence obligations, so that its debt can be written down to around three times cash flow and it can come out of the special administration regime mutually owned by 16 million customers, and run on behalf of them and the environment, and with Government-guaranteed funding mechanisms in place to fund the investment required over the next three, five and 15 years.

Will the Government please answer my letter to the Minister responsible for sewage and flooding, sent at the start of October? I asked whether the Minister believes that Thames Water’s ad hoc group of class A creditors now exerts material influence over it, thereby meeting the “ultimate controller” criteria. I would really like an answer on that. Last February, a High Court judge found that they have material influence over the company, and it would be great to have a straight answer from the Secretary of State or the Minister on that point.

I would not like the Government to give Thames Water, or any other water company, a free pass on paying environmental fines in full. When there are breaches, we need regulators that enforce the fines that are in place. Similarly, given the extreme precarity of the company’s finances, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, the Government should not entrust it with delivering a huge and costly infrastructure project in Oxfordshire in the form of the south-east strategic reservoir option, about which my hon. Friends the Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for Oxford West and Abingdon spoke in detail. Given all our constituents’ low level of faith in Thames Water, the future of which is precarious, to put it extremely mildly, it is no wonder that this is causing such alarm to residents in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends.

Please do not be bamboozled by the hedge funds; instead, show some backbone—and do not own the Tories’ mistakes. That is the key thing, because this Government still have a chance to leave it with them. Please do so and put the company into a special administration regime.

16:57

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this very important debate.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and perhaps we can now see clearly that privatising water companies in a monopoly situation, with a toothless watchdog, was never going to be a good idea. Unfortunately, we do not have a time machine, but we can still put this right. For a long time now, the Lib Dems have been calling for Thames Water to be put into special administration and restructured as a public benefit company.

Through my mailbag and the flood summit I hosted last year, I have heard so many stories of sewage on farmland, in gardens, in people’s houses and on playgrounds. I do not want to go into specifics, because those homes and businesses have had their value and their business base affected by the awful pollution from Thames Water. It is adding insult to injury that many of those customers are now being asked to pay more and more, mostly to service Thames Water’s debt.

One of my constituents remarked:

“We are being treated as cash cows”.

It is just not fair. A Lib Dem freedom of information request found that Ofwat has failed to force water companies to pay any fines for sewage discharge cases since 2021. Meanwhile, water company bosses earned a collective total of over £20 million in the financial year to 2024. Some people might think MPs get paid too much, but the chief executive officer of Thames Water gets paid 10 times as much as we do as a base salary, with a bonus on top of that. That really is an insult to Thames Water’s customers.

Let us put Thames Water out of its misery and end the misery for its many customers. I beseech the Minister: please, take action on this. The best time to have seen what is going on would have been 40 years ago, but the second best time is now. We need urgent action.

16:59

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this important debate.

Thames Water’s assets are in urgent need of repair, and the company is swamped in over £17 billion of debt, which it cannot repay. Thames Water customers, like my constituents in Wokingham, are suffering as a result, with a third of our bills servicing the company’s debt—debt that did not improve services, but largely went towards paying dividends. In return, Thames Water’s customers have to put up with a company pumping raw sewage into our waterways. In Wokingham that means Thames Water is actively harming waterways like our beautiful River Loddon, parts of which are important chalk streams.

I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) that water companies should never have been privatised. Sadly, my predecessor in Wokingham was one of the architects of the privatisation of water. The Government must allow Thames Water to go into special administration to ensure that much of its debt can be written off rather than continuing to burden residents, and put the company on a stable financial footing, allowing it to update leaking pipes and reduce the huge amount of raw sewage that it pumps into our rivers. My residents in Wokingham and the environment just cannot afford for Thames Water to continue in its current state.

17:01

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate.

Every week my office is inundated with emails relating to Thames Water. Issues range from miscalculated and aggressive billing to the now ubiquitous sewage discharging into local rivers and streams, and indeed the flooding of homes and gardens with human waste. Members have spoken eloquently on those issues, so, in the interest of time, I will not repeat what they said.

Since being elected I have also been made aware of the issue of tankering in my constituency—in other words, tankers sitting next to overwhelmed pumping stations, ready to take sewage away to a treatment works. It should be a temporary stopgap, perhaps if there has been an unexpected surge in sewage, yet it has become institutionalised. Rather than upgrading pumping stations and stopping groundwater infiltration, which is the source of the problem, the company is taking the easy way out. In the village of Cuxham, my constituents have been forced to tolerate 24/7 tankering for over a decade. Staff have got so comfortable in Cuxham that they have created their own little camp, complete with a Portaloo for their own comfort. It is probably needed, but is nevertheless a sign of just how institutionalised the practice is.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My hon. Friend describes the tankering of sewage from his constituency. In 2023, those tanks arrived in my constituency and the sewage was stored in open tanks on a Thames Water site for an entire summer, casting a stinky pall over the whole of Camberley town centre. It was an environmental crime and Thames Water promised to pay my constituents compensation, which they have never received. Does he agree that we need a far tougher regulator to bear down on these appalling environmental practices?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I wholeheartedly agree that we need greater regulation. I can only apologise that my hon. Friend has been at the raw end of our tankers.

My staff and I have tried to influence the company to install the measures that are needed, particularly in Cuxham, to resolve the issue, but Thames Water tells us that further investigations are needed and it must do more reports. When we ask when they are going to take place, it tells us, “There’s too much water now because it is winter. We must do them in the summer.” When we get to summer, it tells us, “There’s no water in the pipes, so we’ll have to wait till winter.” It is a ridiculous case that highlights just how short-sighted Thames Water is and how incapable it is of taking a long-term view. It is clear that Thames Water is now in a state of complete, irrecoverable disrepair.

Can the Minister explain why decisive action has not been taken to put Thames Water into special administration? Our constituents have no choice over who supplies their water, and it is down to the Government to protect them from being exploited. I hope that the Minister listens to the experiences of constituents that have been shared today, gains the confidence that a 174-seat majority should give her and takes bold action.

17:05

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing the debate, for leading it so brilliantly and for standing up for her community so well for so many years.

I also pay tribute to those who have contributed to the debate from all sides, but I am bound to observe the concentration of Liberal Democrat Members present, which shows how well we as a group stand up for our communities—particularly those labouring under the yoke of Thames Water, which is, as has been demonstrated, a failing company, both financially and in its primary mission to serve its customers. But in truth, this debate is about more than one failing company; it is about whether a vital public service is to be run in the interests of customers, communities and the environment, or whether the public will once again be left to pick up the bill for corporate failure while the Government fail to grasp the opportunity to make lasting changes.

Thames Water provides an essential service that none of its 16 million customers—those it is meant to serve—can opt out of. It is staggering that a company so central to public health, environmental protection and the decent stewardship of such a vital resource now stands on the brink of collapse. Thames Water is currently operating with more than £17 billion in debt, which it admits that it cannot repay. Around one third of every customer’s bill on average goes not towards fixing leaks or upgrading infrastructure, but towards servicing that debt. Much of Thames Water’s borrowing has paid for undeserved bonuses and dividends, while its infrastructure literally crumbles. That happened under the nose of the previous Conservative Government and the pitifully weak regulatory system that they created.

At the same time, customers have faced bill increases of up to 40%—indeed more, it would appear, in some circumstances. And what have customers received in return? Polluted rivers, record sewage spills and chronic under-investment. The Government’s own data confirms that sewage was pumped into the waterways of this country for more than 3.6 million hours in 2024 alone, while shareholders received £1.2 billion in dividends as a reward for that failure.

Thames Water alone was responsible for 300,000 hours of raw sewage pouring into rivers and streams. In May, the company was fined £122.7 million for breaching rules on sewage spills and on shareholder payouts. But for customers and communities who have already paid the price, that fine came far too late. The company now survives only because of emergency funding from its creditors—funding that will soon run out. The US private equity giant KKR has walked away from plans to buy Thames Water, meaning that the company is surely at the end of the road.

The question is no longer whether the current model has failed—it plainly has—but who should bear the cost of that failure, and what should happen next. For Liberal Democrats, the answer is obvious: the Government must bite the bullet and make those who are culpable pay the price. A well-planned special administration would allow much of Thames Water’s unsustainable debt to be written off and put the company on a stable financial footing while protecting essential services.

Administration must be a means to an end, not the end itself. We want Thames Water to emerge as a fundamentally different organisation, mutually owned by its 16 million customers. That should be the beginning of a wider transformation of our water industry, which could then begin to migrate to a new, public benefit model of ownership where water quality, supply and competent administration come first, instead of the amoral profiteering we have seen across the sector for the last 35 years.

This crisis also exposes a wider failure of regulation. The Independent Water Commission, which reported last summer, laid bare a system that allows companies to pollute and profit with effective impunity. Liberal Democrats have been clear for years that Ofwat should be scrapped and replaced with a tough new clean water authority that brings together financial and environmental regulation. Our current regulators are too weak, understaffed and fragmented; these huge water companies run rings around them and play them off against one another. Bring the regulators together and give them more power; let us have a regulator that the water companies actually fear.

We want strict limits on dividends and bonuses, binding targets to end sewage discharges, consistent national social tariffs, and serious investment in smart metering and infrastructure. We have led the fight, both in Parliament and in our communities, against the sewage scandal. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and I tabled 44 amendments to the Water (Special Measures) Bill earlier in this Parliament, and we look forward to doing the same with a new Bill, so when can we expect that new Bill? When will we get the water White Paper that we were promised before Christmas and are still waiting for? Will the Bill be in the King’s Speech?

I am not from the Thames Water region, but our communities in Westmorland stand in solidarity, sympathy and empathy with the customers of Thames Water. Water is deeply personal to us. We are the wettest place in England, which is fine because we have to keep all our lakes topped up—the lakes and rivers that define our landscape, provide water for our region and underpin our ecology.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

17:11

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing this important debate. We have heard many contributions from across the House.

Thames Water is a distressing example that brings to light several serious issues that require ongoing attention from the Government and regulators. During the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, His Majesty’s official Opposition tabled many sensible amendments that would have ensured that companies did not leverage too much debt. Puzzlingly, and disappointingly, the Government failed to support those amendments.

Companies should be held to the highest standards, and the last Conservative Government took a range of measures to try to do exactly that. Only 7% of storm overflows were monitored when the previous Labour Government departed office in 2010; the Conservatives took that to 100%. Our landmark Environment Act 2021 delivered our plan for cutting plastic pollution and holding water companies to account. We had our ambitious plan for water and took strong action on water companies that were illegally dumping sewage into our waters. We also banned water company bosses from receiving bonuses if the company had committed serious criminal breaches that damaged the environment.

Quite rightly, there is huge frustration that Thames Water has been wrung dry of capital over the years. It has failed to invest to expand its supply and to clean up its sewage spills. His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear that we do not want to see Thames Water fold, because, although water supply would continue, it would carry the serious risk of higher bills for customers and would not solve any of the issues facing the company. Bizarrely, the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company, and, with it, Reform appears to be happy for the company to go under, exposing the taxpayer to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky high. If the company were taken into a temporary special administration regime or permanent public ownership, the taxpayer would ultimately end up paying the price. That cannot happen, it should not happen, and the parties calling for it seem to be in denial about what it would mean for the British taxpayer.

Ofwat, as the independent regulator for the sector—for now—has responsibility for the sector’s financial resilience and must continue to work closely with Thames Water. In the 2025 to 2030 price review, Ofwat challenged the efficiency of Thames Water’s proposed spending. That led to Thames Water being expected to deliver all schemes that it had proposed, but for £491 million less than it put forward and without any reductions in scale or standard. While Thames Water had initially proposed to appeal Ofwat’s final determinations for 2025 to 2030, it has deferred the appeal while it seeks to secure a rescue proposal.

Talking of spending, the Government have repeatedly made it a talking point that they have secured £104 billion of investment in the water system. They are not telling us, however, that £93 billion of that investment had been submitted by water companies in October 2023, while the Conservatives were in office.

[Charlie Maynard]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Hudson]

I have to finish—I only have a certain amount of time. Can the Minister outline what action the Government are taking to help find a market-based solution for a Thames Water rescue deal, specifically in the light of reports that current lenders are preventing or shutting out competitors? What are the Government doing to encourage fair competition that puts the long-term interests of the company and customers first, rather than the interests of those seeking to minimise losses?

We are all agreed that Thames Water is in urgent need of a rescue plan. It must be a market-based solution that protects the taxpayer and customers. With the alarming example of Thames Water, which we are discussing today, and with the Cunliffe review’s clear call for improved financial responsibility, His Majesty’s official Opposition continue to urge the Government to rethink their approach and adopt sensible measures to put water companies on a more stable and secure financial footing, in order to protect water, the environment and the British taxpayer.

17:16

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I do not know whether it is down to you, but it is now much warmer in this room than it was in the last Parliament when I was chairing such debates. I regularly left thinking that I had developed frostbite, so whoever has managed to make that change has done a good job. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate, and thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for the manner in which they have, very eloquently, made their important points in this debate. It is a pleasure to respond to it on behalf of the water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who sadly is unable to be here today.

This Government are committed to the transformation of the water sector. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) has just said, the industry is spending £104 billion of private investment on upgrading our crumbling sewage pipes and cutting sewage pollution. Is it not a pity that some of that investment did not happen many years ago? That was promised as one of the advantages of a privatisation that, as many people have said in their various eloquent ways during today’s debate, has essentially not worked. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act, we have driven meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry, as a first step—only a first step—in enabling wider transformative change across the sector.

Following Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report, we have announced our intention to do three things: establish a new single regulator, create a water ombudsman, and stop water companies from marking their own homework when it comes to pollution. The water reform White Paper, which—I have to tantalise hon. Members—is due very shortly, will set out our vision for the sector. Members will not have to wait very long; that is all I am going to say. That White Paper will form the basis of new water legislation, which we will introduce as soon as we get a place in the parliamentary programme to do so. The reforms will secure better outcomes for customers, investors and the environment, and will make the water sector one of growth and opportunity.

Turning to Thames Water, this Government will always act in the national interest, and we will work to ensure that Thames Water acts in the best interests of customers and the environment. We are working closely with Ofwat, which is in conversation with the London & Valley Water consortium, a group of Thames Water’s creditors. Ofwat will only agree to a plan that will ensure the best possible outcomes for customers and the environment.

[James Naish]

I think it was more a turn of phrase than anything else, but it was suggested earlier that customers were being treated as cash cows for servicing the debt of Thames Water. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the case, either for Thames Water or for other companies, because investment is ringfenced under the new legislation, and therefore customer money is being put into the infrastructure that matters?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I can confirm that, and it was one of the first things that this Labour Government, when we were incoming, put on to the statute book as a priority, in order to prevent that particular abuse. Thames Water is now under a cash lock-up arrangement; only Ofwat can approve any further dividend payments. That restriction will remain in place until credit ratings improve. Nothing that is happening at the moment will allow the kind of behaviour that we have seen in the past, from this company and others, to continue.

[Charlie Maynard]

We have interest costs of 9.75% being paid. We have massive advisory fees coming out of the company. All the class A creditors’ legal fees—£15 million a month, give or take—were being paid for by Thames Water. To say that this is not all hitting the customers is not true. Who else is paying for this, if it is not ultimately the customers?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was talking about the specific point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) made about ringfencing for investment, not about some of the costs of the current impasse at Thames Water. To go back to that, the Government will always act in the interests of customers and the environment, and ensure that Thames Water acts in those best interests too.

We are working closely with Ofwat, which is currently in conversation with the London & Valley Water consortium, which is the group of creditors that was referred to. Ofwat will only agree to a plan that will ensure the best possible outcomes for customers and the environment. We will continue to support engagement between Ofwat and the consortium, with a view to supporting a market-led solution for Thames Water’s difficulties, while ensuring that customers and the environment are protected.

Many hon. Members in this debate have talked about the potential for a special administration regime. Should Thames Water become insolvent, we would not hesitate to apply to the court to place the company into a special administration regime, but as the hon. Member for Epping Forest pointed out, that is not a cost-free option. This would ensure that there is no increased disruption to customers’ water or waste-water services. In line with our preparations for a range of scenarios across regulated industries, including water, officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have selected a firm, FTI Consulting, as an adviser to help with special administration regime contingency planning. That planning is going ahead.

[Charlie Maynard]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No, I must make this point, which is quite important in the context of the debate. There is a high bar for the use of special administration regimes. The law states that special administration can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent—while Thames Water is living fairly hand to mouth, it is not currently insolvent—or is in such a serious breach of its principle statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. Those are the only two things than can lead to the application of a special administration regime.

[Richard Tice]

Thames Water is not able to meet its financial obligations. The debt is trading at 5p in the pound. It says it is going to invest £20 billion in the next five years; it does not have the money. It cannot meet its obligations. While all that is going on, it is not repairing or investing in the pipes. It is bust. It is not meeting its obligations. It does meet those criteria, Minister.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There is a process going on between the creditors and the company that must be allowed to finish one way or another. I have just said that, should Thames Water become insolvent, we will not hesitate to apply to the court to place the company into a special administration regime. Hon. Members on both sides of this Chamber should be reassured by that. We will continue to work with Ofwat to help support a market-led solution to the company’s issues of financial resilience and operational delivery.

[Charlie Maynard]

I concur with those views from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), but can the Minister confirm that those discussions with class A creditors will not involve forgiving the company for its fines?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There is an ongoing process that I cannot and will not comment on from the sidelines. What I have said is that the Government will ensure that any resolution comes in the interests of the environment and customers, and that is the criteria that the Government will apply, but I will not commentate on rumours from outside of the process in this place. It is important that we allow the process to continue to its conclusion, whatever that may be. I hope that Members are reassured that the Government will be ready to act and use special administration if we have to, should we get to that circumstance—but we are not in that circumstance yet.

I conclude by reiterating that this Government will always act in the national interest. We are clear that Thames Water must always act in the best interests of customers and the environment. We expect it to do that, and we stand ready to act if it becomes clear that it cannot.

17:26

[Layla Moran]

I thank you, Mrs Harris, and all Members for their contributions to the debate. I am not totally sure we got all the answers we were hoping for. Soon, I hope, means soon. I look forward to seeing the detail of what is in the White Paper, where many of the answers will be.

I am sure the Minister and the officials will have heard that the scepticism on both sides of the House is pretty strong. I would argue that the company is not and has not been meeting its obligations for quite some time now, either financially or to its customers. We will see what the conclusions will be. I rather suspect that, sooner rather than later, they will land on the place where we have been for quite some time. I thank all Members for participating.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of Thames Water.

17:27

Sitting adjourned.