Business before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
This Labour Government are working in close partnership with farmers to strengthen productivity, resilience and long-term food security. In recent weeks, we have published Baroness Batters’ farming profitability review, allocated £30 million to our farmer collaboration fund, set out plans to simplify the sustainable farming incentive and delivered a £30 million extension to the farming in protected landscapes programme in areas such as the Peak district.
Dr Tidball
I welcome the commitment to extend the farming in protected landscapes funding, which is worth £75,000 to farms in my constituency. Last summer, I had the pleasure of visiting Snailsden moor with Jim Sutton, the moorland manager, and representatives from the Peak district national park, the Moorland Association and Natural England. They raised the high risk of wildfires in local uplands, as a result of large-scale dry spells, that can cause poor air quality and damage to nearby farms. The risk is exacerbated by a lack of a cohesive fire plan and firefighting infrastructure, including water storage. Will the Minister meet me, along with her colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to develop a cross-Government wildfire management strategy to protect against upland moorland wildfires?
Emma Reynolds
I pay tribute to all those who do the dangerous work to bring wildfires under control. As my hon. Friend will know, the wildlife management and the fire and rescue elements of her question are the responsibility of MHCLG, but she is right that my Department is responsible for water. The Water Minister or I would be pleased to meet her to discuss how we strengthen the resilience of our emergency services and our water storage, so that we can get a hold on such problems when they arise.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
We are backing British farmers to build a profitable and sustainable future. We will put £11.8 billion into food and farming in this Parliament, including £200 million for cutting-edge innovations through the farming innovation programme. Last weekend, we announced £21.5 million backing 15 projects to turn new crops and new farm tech into ready-to-use tools that boost productivity.
Sir Julian Smith
The Batters report included a number of good recommendations about productivity. North Yorkshire farmers want to produce food; they are obviously worried about the environment, but the priority is food. After covid, we talked about more UK food resilience, so may I urge the Minister to press forward quickly with the recommendations about productivity in the Batters review? And will she come and visit a farm in my constituency soon?
Dame Angela Eagle
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the Batters review, which is an important part of ensuring that the sector remains profitable. I am always listening to farmers. I have had many welcome propositions to visit farms, and I will see what I can do to fit him into the grand tour.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Last week, I visited Gisburn auction mart in my constituency, with my constituents John Alpe and Graham Young, where I heard the challenges that farms are currently facing with the rapidly dropping milk prices. Indeed, two farmers were there to sell up their farms entirely, while others are pushed into further intensification just to survive. As a former head of innovation, I know that sometimes productivity and innovation can mean bringing back strong old ideas in new ways. In that spirit, does the Minister think that we should consider bringing back the Milk Marketing Board?
Dame Angela Eagle
The milk price has certainly had a very difficult adjustment down, as part of the global glut in milk supply, so having been in a period of high prices, we are now in a different kind of period. What my hon. Friend is suggesting is almost a form of price control. I think the best thing we can do is think about fair-dealing obligations, and ensure that the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator does his job and makes certain that there are no unfair contracts in the market.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Has the Minister had the opportunity to consider the report by the Andersons Centre for CropLife UK? It estimates that if a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union was implemented without a suitable implementation period, it could result in steep drops in UK crop production and a total loss of income of up to £810 million. That is why the Select Committee is today asking for an implementation period of 24 months. Will she impress upon her colleagues in the Cabinet Office the need for that suitable implementation period?
Dame Angela Eagle
The first thing to say is that the SPS agreement is attempting to put right the Tories’ botched Brexit deal, which made it almost impossible for many people to export to our largest market. The idea is that this should be a new, mutually beneficial agreement to remove barriers, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports it. I know that the Select Committee report came out last night, and we will certainly respond to it in more detail. We are aware of the potential downsides if wrong deals are done, but we will not sign a deal that is not in the UK’s interests.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Precision breeding is critical to improving productivity. That is why I was so pleased to see so many Norfolk-based research projects, including the fantastic John Innes Centre, receive funding from DEFRA’s farming innovation programme. It is crucial that we protect these advancements, so can the Minister outline what assurances the Department has sought on precision breeding during the SPS negotiations?
Dame Angela Eagle
The agreement between the EU and the UK to search for an SPS agreement recognised explicitly that there is a case for some exceptions, and we are negotiating that agreement as I speak. We are very well aware of the advantages that precision breeding gives to this country, which is why we laid a statutory instrument on plant precision breeding in November.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Farming cashflows are under pressure, and farming businesses need clarity, certainty and clear policy direction from this Government now more than ever. However, with partial U-turns, continuous consultations, new taskforces, road maps, frameworks, reviews and now—finally—an announcement that the renewed sustainable farming incentive will be launched, but not until summer, farming businesses are really struggling to financially plan ahead. In all this confused policy direction, has the Minister decided the budget allocation for the new SFI scheme? How much will be available per farm? What will the assessment criteria be? Given that she wants to open up the scheme first to smallholdings, has she yet defined the definition of a small farm?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have been quite clear that the new SFI should be simpler. We do not want it to be distributed in the way that it has been in the past; under the Conservatives, 25% of that scheme went to 4% of farms. That is why we have decided to open up the scheme first and foremost to small farms. We are in negotiations about the definition. All this will be set out in great detail, and there is transparency and simplicity ahead. We will not fall into the traps of creating schemes so complex that they cannot be properly administered by the Rural Payments Agency—that was the legacy that we received from the Conservatives.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I want to begin by sending my deepest sympathy to everybody impacted by recent flooding; having your home or business flooded is devastating. I pay tribute to the emergency services, the Environment Agency and the communities and volunteers who have stepped up to keep people and communities safe. The latest intelligence I have is that the weather warning remains yellow across much of the south-west. We will keep a close eye on that today.
Claire Young
I draw the attention of the House to my membership of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Protecting homes from flooding is vital in communities such as Pilning, Severn Beach, Yate and Chipping Sodbury, yet the CIRIA C790 code of practice for property flood resilience seems to be a well-kept secret. Will the Minister work with the construction and insurance sectors to raise public awareness of the code, and will she consider formalising it through legislation, ensuring that my constituents have the protection and the lower insurance premiums that they deserve?
Emma Hardy
We recently produced a report, through Peter Bonfield, called “FloodReady”, which was exactly about how we incentivise more people to get property flood resilience. It was about working with contractors, manufacturers and everybody involved in the industry to make this a mainstream option for more people. I highly recommend that the hon. Lady has a look at that report; I hope that she and her constituents find it really useful.
Patrick Hurley
Farmers in my constituency report that watercourses are not being sufficiently maintained, there is not enough investment in drainage infrastructure, and there is a limited ability to deal with changing rainfall patterns and rising water tables. They tell me that the creation of an internal drainage board could help with all that. I know that work has been done to establish new IDBs through a statutory instrument, so will the Minister tell us the current status of that work, and will she please expedite it being laid before the House?
Emma Hardy
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the fantastic work of the internal drainage boards in managing water levels, reducing flood risks and supporting communities, businesses and farmers alike. Of course, we are working hard on our statutory instrument. I am sorry that I cannot give him an exact date, but I can guarantee that it is something I am committed to doing.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Last week, 50 mm of intense rain fell across large parts of Somerset and exacerbated the already saturated ground, with a major incident declared on Tuesday. With more unsettled weather in the forecast and high spring tides imminent, residents have told me that they are worried they could be facing a repeat of the devastating 2013-14 floods. With the increasingly unpredictable, intense and changing patterns of rainfall, communities must be given the resources they need to prepare extreme weather resilience plans.
I thank the Minister for her commitment to meet me in Somerset later this year, but will she bring forward that planned visit to Glastonbury and Somerton to witness the devastating impact that flooding is having on my communities while the floodwater levels remain up?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises a really important point—I have been following the situation really closely, and it is devastating. She is quite right to point out the trauma and upset caused by flooding. We invested £80 million in Somerset between April 2024 and March 2025 on flood and coastal risk management, and we will allocate another £75 million to Somerset between April 2025 and March 2026. I will check whether my diary aligns so that I can make an earlier visit.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
This Government are overhauling the regulatory system to deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment. In our water White Paper, we set out plans for a more powerful, integrated regulator with real teeth, introducing MOT-style checks on pipes, pumps and other water infrastructure. Last year alone, the Environment Agency has ramped up enforcement, more than doubling inspections of water company assets.
Rachel Taylor
Affinity Water and Severn Trent are opening their consultation next week on the Grand Union canal transfer scheme. The project will see 53 megalitres of treated water a day pumped into the canal in Atherstone in my constituency to be extracted in the south-east. Residents in Atherstone are concerned about the noise, damage to the environment and disruption that the scheme could create. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that she will work with the water companies involved to ensure that disruption is minimal and the treated water is safe, and will she meet my constituents to hear their concerns?
Emma Reynolds
The Grand Union canal transfer scheme will strengthen the nation’s long-term water resilience and water security. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about her constituents’ concerns, and either myself or the Water Minister will be very happy to meet her to discuss them further.
James Asser
My constituents are plagued with endless disruption and roadworks from Thames Water, which is leading to disruption for motorists, delays in public transport and, in some cases, serious safety concerns for cyclists. Does the Secretary of State agree that such infrastructure works should be properly monitored and inspected so that they are carried out effectively and efficiently—and, frankly, so that our constituents can see some benefit at the end of the disruption?
Emma Reynolds
Under the last Government, we saw water infrastructure crumbling, but this Government are getting a grip of the water system. We are moving away from the “fix on failure” system that we inherited to one that includes proper maintenance and resilience standards to get ahead of problems. I hope that will mean less emergency work, and therefore less disruption for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is lovely to see the Secretary of State; the last time I saw her was in the Strangers Bar, when she was pulling a pint of Rebellion Overthrow—I can’t imagine why that stuck in my mind!
The River Thames scheme has been in abeyance, essentially—in mid-project review—since May last year. Will the Secretary of State please knock some heads together at both the Environment Agency and Surrey county council, and get them to say something about what is happening at the River Thames scheme?
Emma Reynolds
I am slightly put off by the hon. Gentleman’s reference to my brewery—although I thank him for putting on the record that I did indeed succeed in getting Rebellion brewery on tap in the Strangers Bar. I did enjoy pulling that pint, as he witnessed with his own eyes! The Water Minister or I would be glad to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the more substantive, serious issue that he raised.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
During Prime Minister’s questions on 17 December, the Prime Minister promised me a meeting with the Water Minister to discuss the scourge of constant sewage dumping in my constituency and the Lowermoor water poisoning scandal. I have followed up repeatedly, including a visit to No. 10 just last week to speak with the PM’s team, who assured me that they would chase up that meeting as soon as possible—I appreciate that they may be somewhat busy at the moment—and agreed that the delay was unacceptable. The Water Minister is still yet to respond to me, so can I ask the Secretary of State when this vital meeting will take place?
Emma Reynolds
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Water Minister was on bereavement leave for some time in January. She has received briefings about the situation, and would be happy to meet him to discuss this serious issue in his constituency.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
People have every right to be frustrated about bill rises—years of neglect and under-investment have left our water infrastructure crumbling, and those increases now show the cost of putting that right. This Government are focused on tackling the cost of living, preventing those huge bill increases from ever happening again by fundamentally changing the system, and protecting the most vulnerable by strengthening schemes such as the guaranteed service standards and WaterSure.
Sarah Olney
Thames Water’s typical metered charges increased by 40.7% this financial year, and prices will rise again each year until 2030. While our water companies have been mismanaged and reform to bring down the cost of bills is needed, more can be done to encourage customers to meter their water usage. The average non-metered household in London is charged £81 a year more than a metered household, but that is not widely known, so will the Government do more to advertise the cost-saving potential of water meters? What further steps is the Minister taking to bring down the average water bill?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am a huge champion of water meters, which not only help with bills but help reduce people’s water use. In turn, that helps with abstraction, especially in areas where we have many chalk streams. I am very keen to look at what more can be done in that space. Ofwat has a water efficiency fund, through which it is looking at innovative ways in which we can talk to the public and get them to understand, as the hon. Lady rightly said, the benefits of having a water meter, not only for their bills but for the environment.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Does the Minister have plans to introduce a national social tariff? It was not in the recent White Paper, but Independent Age, which is a national charity based in my constituency, estimates that such a tariff could lift up to half a million pensioner households out of water poverty entirely.
Emma Hardy
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the ability of so many people in both our constituencies to afford water bills. That is why, over the next five years, water companies are going to be doubling the number of people getting help through social tariffs. We have also reformed WaterSure, which provides support to people with disabilities who might require more water use, or those who might require it for various other medical reasons. We are focused on making sure that the most vulnerable in all our communities are able to get the water they need at a price that is affordable for them.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The Conservative Government allowed millions of pounds to be diverted from essential investment and used for unjustified bonuses. We are clear that executive pay must reflect company performance, and support Ofwat’s plan to consult on requiring companies to report publicly the details of all executive remuneration.
Lloyd Hatton
Just last month, The Guardian reported that the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of Wessex Water received around £50,000 in undisclosed payments from a parent company. Just weeks before, it was reported that a former Wessex Water boss was handed a whopping £170,000—again from a parent company. The galling part is that both payments were made in the same year that Wessex Water was slapped with a ban on paying bonuses. With all that in mind, does the Minister agree that if bonuses can simply be rebadged as extra payment from parent companies, we must urgently toughen up the bonuses ban so that we can finally hold failing water company bosses to account?
Emma Hardy
This situation baffles me. It seems simple to me that bonuses should reflect performance, and if performance is not good enough, people should not get a bonus. I am not sure why that seems so difficult to understand. It is not just about the letter of the law, but about the spirit of the law. Ofwat has exposed serious transparency failings across the water sector, and we are therefore tightening transparency rules to shut down any attempt to dodge the bonus ban.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Welsh Water’s chief executive has one of the highest paid jobs in Wales at almost £900,000 a year, and the company is hiking basic pay to get around the Government’s crackdown on executive bonuses, despite being a not-for-profit. That is even though Welsh Water presides over some of the worst sewage dumping and leaks in the UK and sky-high price rises. Will the Minister look into companies trying to bypass the new regulations in that way and ensure that those loopholes are closed?
Emma Hardy
With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has just made the case for why mutualising water companies is not the answer on performance. This Government have already banned more than £4 million in unfair bonuses, which have been blocked by Ofwat for 2024-25.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Pet owners have been facing rising vet costs for years, and that is why we are consulting on updating and reforming the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 for the first time in 60 years to improve price transparency and ensure pet owners get a better deal.
Johanna Baxter
The BBC “Panorama” programme that aired on 12 January reported that some vets employed by the big six veterinary conglomerates felt pressured into upselling treatments and services that may not be clinically necessary for pets. My constituents were shocked and appalled by those revelations. My right hon. Friend will know that I have long campaigned for the Government to tackle the soaring costs of veterinary fees, so can she assure the House that the consultation on reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act will bring in not only much-needed reform to support those who work in the sector, but much-needed protection for pet owners?
Emma Reynolds
The short answer is yes. I know you also have an interest in this issue, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s tireless campaigning on this important issue. The consultation will look at a range of issues, and she is right that that will include modernising the regulation of veterinary professionals. We will also look at requiring vet practices to publish price lists for common treatments and improving price transparency so that pet owners get a much better deal.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We are a nation of animal lovers. When I got married, my wife loved cats and I did not, but I realised that if I loved her, I had to love her cats, and that is how it works. Can I bring to the Minister’s attention one thing that annoys me and my constituents, which is pet insurance? Pet insurance is okay until the day someone goes to claim. When they go to claim, they find out that the small print says they have not got the cover that they thought they had. When she is looking at veterinary regulation, will she look at pet insurance, too?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am glad to hear that his wife has had such a profound influence on his cat-loving habits. We need to look at all elements of price transparency, including insurance.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I declare a professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I welcome the fact that the Government have launched a consultation to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. This necessary and long-overdue reform can deliver significant benefits for animal health and welfare, biosecurity and public health. However, I have serious concerns about DEFRA’s communications, which conflated reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act with the Competition and Markets Authority inquiry, resulting in a media narrative focused entirely on veterinary pricing. That has caused real distress across the sector among frontline vets, nurses and reception staff, impacting on morale and mental health. I have been contacted by voices from across the profession expressing their extreme alarm at this approach. Will the Government reassure us that they will work closely with key stakeholders to get this vital, much-needed legislation right? Can they guarantee that they will prioritise the parliamentary time it requires?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the shadow Minister for his question and for, I think, his kind words that we were doing something that the Conservatives failed to do for 14 years. He brings great expertise to this House, but I would gently say to him that the Competition and Markets Authority’s finding that vet fees have risen at nearly twice the rate of inflation is something that the Government should take into account, is of concern to pet owners across the House and across the country, and is something that, when the CMA comes out with its final report, we will be responding to later this year.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Our animal welfare strategy sets out major reforms to improve the lives of millions of animals across the UK. Building on Labour’s strong record of driving up standards, a key part of this work is ending puppy smuggling. The strategy cracks down on low-welfare dog breeding, raises welfare standards for licensed breeders and creates a proper registration scheme for every breeder.
Linsey Farnsworth
Sticking with the theme of cats, my office was recently alerted to a rather troubling incident involving a cat whose owner had been taken into hospital unexpectedly, and no one was able to access the flat. It took many days for the police to obtain a warrant, and meanwhile all the RSPCA was able to do was post ice and food through the letterbox to keep the cat alive. Animals should not be left to suffer in those circumstances. Will the Minister consider granting the RSPCA limited powers of entry in order to rescue animals faster, without delays caused by constraints on police time and resources?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am sorry to hear about the trauma related to my hon. Friend’s constituent. We recognise the RSPCA’s vital role in promoting animal welfare, but we do not have plans to extend statutory enforcement powers at this stage. Such powers are normally reserved for public bodies that have formal lines of accountability. We want to ensure that any future approach maintains clear oversight while preserving the RSPCA’s important charitable and advocacy functions.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
One of the topics that constituents get in touch with me about a lot, particularly over the autumn, is the impact that fireworks can have on domestic animals—both the number and volume of displays and kids deploying fireworks in the street or their back gardens. Those cause distress to animals, and also to people who have suffered trauma or have served as veterans. I urge the Department to look at limiting the volume of fireworks or restricting their use solely to licensed displays.
Dame Angela Eagle
We are aware of the welfare issues around fireworks, and we are looking at the evidence to see whether any such changes would actually make a difference.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Since the last oral questions, we have published the animal welfare strategy, set out key reforms to the sustainable farming incentive, hosted the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—the international panel on nature—in Manchester and published our water White Paper, setting out once-in-a-generation reforms to our water system so that it is fit for the future and delivers better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Patrick Hurley
As you will know, Mr Speaker, Southport is a lovely seaside resort and one of the nicest places to visit in the whole of the country, so what recent discussions has the Minister had with United Utilities about reducing sewage discharges, which affect Southport and the wider north-west coast?
Emma Reynolds
The Water Minister and I are working closely with water companies across the country, including United Utilities, to drive them to reform their operations and clean up rivers, lakes and seas. Our water White Paper will replace the one-size-fits-all approach with dedicated supervisory teams at every company. UU is investing £50 million to upgrade Southport’s waste water treatment by 2029 to reduce storm overflow spills and improve coastal water quality.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
The EU reset deal is predicted to slash around a third of the Government’s farming budget from farm profits in its first year, cause higher food prices and lower food production, and sink the UK fishing industry. As the Prime Minister’s authority seeps away, will the Secretary of State insist that this shoddy deal is renegotiated while she is still in post?
Emma Reynolds
Nice try! We are still negotiating the deal, and the whole purpose of it is to bring down the trade barriers that the right hon. Lady’s Government put up during their botched Brexit negotiations.
Victoria Atkins
For goodness’ sake, if the Government are still negotiating, the Secretary of State needs to deal with the matters I have raised. It is not just the farming sector that they are damaging; it is the entire rural economy. Rural and coastal businesses tell me that they simply cannot afford Labour’s high taxes, rates and costs, and they will not survive. In these desperate times, will the Government match the Conservatives’ plan to help rural and coastal businesses by scrapping business rates entirely for our high streets?
Emma Reynolds
I seem to remember that the Conservatives were in power for 14 years, and they did not do what the right hon. Lady has just set out. Her question is for the Treasury, not DEFRA. We are still in the process of negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which will bring down trade barriers for farmers and food producers, helping both those who export to our largest market and those who import, and it will deliver better outcomes for consumers too. I make no apology for clearing up the mess that the Conservatives left us.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Once my hon. Friend gets the letter off to us, she will certainly get a reply. The UK has a robust regulatory framework to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. DEFRA and the Marine Management Organisation work closely with the devolved Governments, local authorities and port health authorities to ensure that documents are appropriately checked and verified on seafood imports from all countries. If she wants to demonstrate cases where that is not happening, I would be very interested indeed to hear from her.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
What steps is DEFRA taking to raise public awareness of the impact of methane-reducing feed additives used in livestock farming, such as Bovaer? What steps is DEFRA taking to ensure that all chemicals and additives are tested and proven to be safe for humans, animals and nature before being approved for use in agriculture and food?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
We have a system. Methane-reducing food products, including seaweed, oils and synthetic products such as Bovaer, are a key tool in reducing emissions from agriculture by up to one third. Bovaer is approved for use in 70 countries, including those in the EU, Switzerland, the US, Canada and Australia. We are building the market for safe, effective options and helping farmers to adopt them. Such products are approved by the Food Standards Agency, and that advice has not been changed. Bovaer has been reviewed by 100 peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on that disgraceful site. The Environment Agency has served a notice requiring the operator to reduce the risk of smells, and the deadline is 9 February. We expect the operator to comply. If it does not, all options, including suspension and closure, remain on the table.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Following Storm Chandra, vast swathes of West Dorset are under water. An amber warning is in place, and we are expecting more flooding. Whole villages have become islands. Eighty-four houses in Yetminster have sewage in them. One family in Maiden Newton had only just moved back into their house following 15 months of repairs after the previous flooding, only to get flooded again within three days. Will the Minister please visit West Dorset and explain to residents how she will get the water companies and the Environment Agency to focus on flood-prone areas?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I can hear the hon. Gentleman’s passion and how upset he is about the devastating impact that repeated flooding has had on his community. We are putting a record amount of money into flood defences and will continue to do so. We are also looking at how we can work more effectively with other agencies in the area. I share his concern that, over the next weeks, it will continue to be quite wet. I give thanks to the emergency services and everybody involved.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. He will have noticed that we published the PFAS—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances—plan earlier this week, which looks at the issues of chemical pollution and how we can tackle it more effectively. We recognise the serious concerns at Tideswell brook. Through our water White Paper we are reforming waste water regulation and enabling earlier interventions. I will be keeping a close eye on the situation as it develops.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
On 8 January, the United States Secretary of the Interior wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of the big game hunting industry, asking her to ensure that the Government would abandon their commitment to the ban on importing hunting trophies. In her reply, will she give a robust indication that this Government are committed to that ban?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Member for that question. We are committed to banning trophy hunting. It is a manifesto commitment, and we will take it forward.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Mary Creagh
We said in our manifesto that we would deliver nine new national river walks—one in every region—to bring nature closer to people and make it accessible to everyone. My hon. Friend paints an amazing picture of the beautiful River Derwent. The first river walk, in the north-west, will be completed in the spring. The locations of the next walks will be subject to a competition later this year. I encourage her and all the partners she mentions to apply.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Government’s own national security assessment warns that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose serious risks to the UK’s long-term food security and may intensify natural disasters. Given that Parliament has not yet had the opportunity to debate this assessment, will the Secretary of State support my call for a dedicated debate, so that the risks and the actions across Government can be properly scrutinised by this House?
Mary Creagh
The Secretary of State and I have just spent a couple of days in Manchester looking at that with the international science panel on nature. We will report on Monday about how business can do better in tackling those risks. We are bringing the nature and climate debates together, and I am sure there will be time to debate them in the House, subject to your approval, Mr Speaker.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Ellie Reeves)
This Government remain absolutely committed to stamping out the appalling crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse. The national inquiry chaired by Baroness Longfield is due to start in March. The Crown Prosecution Service has seen a 25% increase in child sex abuse prosecutions over the past three years. In December, it secured convictions against two men in Bury for crimes during the 1990s, resulting in sentences of 28 and 30 years. We are dedicated to ensuring that victims continue to receive the justice they deserve.
John Lamont
Baroness Casey’s audit of group-based child sexual exploitation found
“a collective failure to properly deter and prosecute offenders or to protect children from harm.”
These crimes happen across borders and in every part of the United Kingdom, so what more can be done to ensure that prosecution services, including the CPS and Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, take a joined-up approach to bringing these vile offenders to justice?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Many of the local services under review in the national inquiry starting in March, particularly child protection and policing, are devolved responsibilities in Scotland and Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the Scottish Government have finally ordered a national review of the evidence on the operation of grooming gangs in Scotland. All parts of the UK must work together to protect children and bring perpetrators to justice.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Government’s strategy to tackle violence against women and girls sets out measures to tackle grooming gangs and support victims of sexual abuse. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to work with colleagues to improve access to justice for victims of rape and serious sexual assault and to implement that strategy?
The Solicitor General
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend on receiving the Ukrainian Order of Merit from President Zelensky for her tireless campaigning for the children of Ukraine. She and I share a number of priorities, and I am proud to sit on these Benches alongside her.
For too long, victims of grooming gangs and serious sexual assault have not been heard. That is why last week I announced the expansion of the victims’ right to review pilot, which will ensure that victims have a second chance for justice, with a second prosecutor reviewing a case before it is dropped by the CPS. This expansion has been driven by victims like Jade Blue—I pay tribute to her campaigning in this area.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
Female genital mutilation is an abhorrent practice and I am determined to see more prosecutions. Earlier this week, I spoke at the Crown Prosecution Service’s second national multi-agency conference on honour-based abuse, where I was privileged to have survivors share their stories with me and was moved by their bravery and advocacy for others. I agree with them that we urgently need to improve the criminal justice response to these cases. Last December I attended the first national honour-based abuse scrutiny panel, hosted by the CPS, and will continue to work closely with the service on this matter.
Patricia Ferguson
By its very nature, FGM is a hidden tragedy for many women and girls, and it is important that prosecution rates are increased. One way to do that would be to emphasise and publicise the use of FGM protection orders, which can help to prevent the carrying out of FGM both here and abroad, and now apply in all UK jurisdictions. Will the Solicitor General advise what action the Department can take to make the possible use of such orders better known?
The Solicitor General
We are launching a pilot in four police forces to test multi-agency approaches to managing FGM protection orders. A whole-system approach is fundamental to tackling FGM and increasing prosecutions. In the spring, the Minister for Safeguarding and I will be hosting a ministerial roundtable dedicated to FGM, bringing together every Department with a role to play to agree collective action to strengthen the prevention, investigation and prosecution of these offences.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Many of the practitioners who sell the heinous crime of female genital mutilation also sell exorcisms of children. Thousands of children have died from these so-called exorcisms over the past 10 years, including from the black African community here in the UK. Does the Solicitor General have any consideration of what needs to be done in the law to protect these children?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. This Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls in every form, which is why we announced our cross-Government strategy for tackling VAWG in December. I will happily speak to colleagues across the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to ensure that her points are properly addressed.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
This Government are determined to make the UK a hostile environment for economic crime. The CPS plays a pivotal role in deterring offenders and bringing fraudsters to justice, with consistently high conviction rates of about 86%. Last year the CPS successfully secured the first prosecution for the breach of financial sanctions, convicting two Russian nationals of eight counts of breaching financial sanctions and two counts of money laundering. The directorate will continue its swift response to the evolving nature of economic crime and maintain focus on delivering justice for the public.
Rachel Taylor
As a practising solicitor for more than 20 years, I am of course aware of the rules and professional guidance on conflicts of interest. Does the Solicitor General agree that the shadow Attorney General recusing himself from giving legal advice to the Leader of the Opposition because he would rather profit from advising Abramovich demonstrates where the priorities lie for this Conservative party when it comes to backing the Government on economic sanctions in defence of Ukraine and our national security?
The Solicitor General
It is utterly indefensible that the shadow Attorney General in the other place is acting as a lawyer for sanctioned Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich. He has recused himself from giving legal advice to the Conservative party on the issue of Ukraine and financial sanctions, sacrificing a key element of his role in order to work against our national interests. The Government are putting national security at the heart of every decision and stands in staunch solidarity with Ukraine.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Solicitor General announced an expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme, allowing rape and serious sexual assault survivors who request a case review by a different prosecutor before a final no-evidence decision is made. That is welcome news. What discussion has taken place with counterparts across the United Kingdom—the Policing and Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular—to ensure that there is a UK-wide path to justice?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the victims’ right to review scheme, which will give victims of rape and serious sexual violence a greater voice in the justice system. Too often, victims feel let down by a system that is supposed to be there to support them. I will ensure that I speak to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to see what more can be done in respect of Northern Ireland.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Solicitor General
In December, the Deputy Prime Minister set out the measures that this Government are taking to tackle the crisis in our courts. As I have stated in the House previously, jury trials will remain the cornerstone of our justice system, but reform and investment are needed to cut through the backlog, which is approaching 80,000 cases. Some 90% of criminal prosecutions are already dealt with by magistrates rather than juries, and juries will remain for the most serious cases.
Gareth Bacon
The president of the Law Society has described the proposals as
“an extreme measure that goes too far”.
The chair of the Criminal Bar Association has described them as
“a wrecking ball to a system that is fundamentally sound and has been in place for generations”.
He pointed out that the juries are not the cause of the backlogs. The Government’s own Back-Bench MPs have described the proposals as a “dereliction of duty”,
“a ludicrous proposal that will not work”,
and
“a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates”,
which “goes too far” and the consequence of which would be
“to destroy justice as we know it.”
Why do the Government think that they are all wrong?
The Solicitor General
In his report, Sir Brian Leveson estimated that introducing these reforms would lead to a 20% time saving. At the moment, we have a situation in which victims of rape are waiting three or sometimes four years for their cases to get to court. Investment in the system is also important, which is why we have the maximum number of sitting days that we have ever seen, investment in criminal defence lawyers, and investment in our courtrooms. Leveson made it clear that investment alone will not tackle the huge backlogs.
James Wild
Yesterday, a jury failed to reach a verdict on charges against Palestine Action activists involved in a violent incident in which a police sergeant’s spine was broken when she was struck by a sledge hammer. Does the Solicitor General agree with me and law abiding people across the country—
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand that this involves sub judice. Can we be very careful about what we are about to say?
James Wild
Does the Solicitor General agree that, as the Crown Prosecution Service considers whether to bring a retrial, it should bring a retrial on these serious charges, including assault occasioning grievous bodily harm?
Mr Speaker
Order. The idea was not to talk about the particular court case. I think we will leave it at that. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member is struggling with my ruling. The hon. Member was talking about a court case and asking what is going to happen with it. We should not be questioning the position. We are crossing a line that we do not cross—that is what it is. I can reassure the hon. Member that I did not want to pull him up.
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Now we have Sir Brian Leveson’s full review, it is clear that very few of the 180 recommendations relate to jury trials. The most controversial is really the use of a single judge in the new Crown court bench division. Given that that provision will likely not contribute very much to reducing the backlog, does the Solicitor General think that we should look again at that—maybe at the length of sentence that is dealt with by that particular provision?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend, as always, for his insightful comments. In his report, Sir Brian Leveson estimated that the reforms would speed up cases by 20%. The Deputy Prime Minister recently visited Canada, where he was informed that the change could speed up cases by as much as 50%. Any reform must go hand in hand with investment, which is why we have seen an increase in sitting days—now at their highest ever—as well as investment into criminal defence lawyers and the crumbling courtrooms that were left behind by 14 years of Conservative Government.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I know from my experience serving as a magistrate the crucial role that magistrates play in our criminal justice system. They are more representative of our country as a whole and the communities that they serve. We all know the pressures on the courts system, so can the Solicitor General set out the role that magistrates can play in bringing down the backlog and victim attrition rates?
The Solicitor General
Can I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her service as a magistrate? Magistrates have a huge role to play in our criminal justice system. Cases in magistrates courts continue to be dealt with swiftly, despite increased demand. Magistrates hear around 1.3 million cases per year, which normally ensures that there is around six months of work ready for magistrates to hear at any time. We are accelerating our programme to recruit more new and diverse magistrates and are committed to supporting magistrates. They are the backbone of local justice and keep the entire system turning.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Government. The Minister for Courts and Legal Services says that she would scrap jury trials even if there was not a crisis in the courts. The Lord Chancellor says that he is open to a conversation about alternatives and wants the backlog to come down. Which is it? Is it about the backlog, in which case what alternatives to scrapping jury trials are actually being considered, or is this just an unworkable attack on our civil liberties wrapped up in ideology?
The Solicitor General
I would remind the hon. Lady that 90% of cases in this country are already heard without a jury, but I do not think it can be denied that 14 years of Conservative Government left a crisis in our courts. It cannot be right that victims of rape are waiting three or sometimes four years for their cases to get to court. As I have said before, reform on its own is not enough. That is why we have a record number of sitting days, and it is why we are putting £550 million into support for victims and have increased solicitor fees. We have to look across the system at how we can do better, because justice delayed is justice denied.
Helen Grant
That was a very disappointing answer. There is another contradiction too, this time on retro- spectivity. The Courts Minister says that cases already committed for trial at Crown court could be pushed back to swift courts. The Lord Chancellor suggests that the changes would only apply to new cases. That is not a minor discrepancy; it is about people’s lives. The Government cannot champion legal certainty on the one hand and flirt with retrospective decision making on the other. It is absurd. Which version are we meant to believe: the Lord Chancellor’s or the Minister’s?
The Solicitor General
Any changes will need to go through legislation in this House in the normal way and I am sure that the Conservatives will want to scrutinise any proposals that we put forward. I am happy to take away those questions to the Ministry of Justice and ensure that the hon. Lady receives an answer.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Jury trials are not a peculiar way to run a public service; they are a fundamental pillar of our justice system, being eroded under this Government’s proposed court reforms. Serious reforms should focus on reducing inefficiencies that waste sitting days, increasing court capacity and making use of vacant courtrooms, not scrapping the right to trial by jury. If the proposals are intended to reduce the Crown court backlog, should this House not be given clear evidence before core constitutional protections are weakened? Will the Solicitor General please tell us whether the Government will publish an estimate of what proportion of current Crown court backlog would be sent to judge-only trials as a result of the reforms? Also, given that it is Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week, what assessments have been made of how the judge-only proposals will affect vulnerable victims of domestic abuse?
The Solicitor General
The proposed changes would apply to less than 2% of all criminal trial cases. Under the reforms, almost three quarters of trial cases coming to the Crown court would still be heard by a jury, and that includes offences such as rape. There are transparency measures built in to safeguard justice, with judges setting out reasons for their verdicts and introducing recording in the magistrates courts.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
Last April, the Government published a modern slavery action plan to reinforce our commitment to working across Government and with law enforcement, civil society, survivors, businesses and international partners to prevent exploitation, protect victims and pursue those responsible for such awful crimes. The Crown Prosecution Service plays a central role in tackling modern slavery and human trafficking. It works closely with law enforcement and international partners and will prosecute any cases referred to them wherever the legal test is met.
Sonia Kumar
Paige, my constituent, a 24-year-old survivor of human trafficking, was betrayed not only by her abusers but by the very systems that were meant to protect her. When she reached crisis point and attempted to take her life, she was denied continuous medical and healthcare support, while her advocate was excluded from multi-agency meetings. Will the Solicitor General set out what steps are being taken to increase prosecutions for human trafficking and ensure that victims such as Paige receive consistent therapeutic and legal support, from initial disclosure through to the aftercare that follows court proceedings?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I am very sorry to hear about the experiences of her constituent Paige. Modern slavery cases are complex. The CPS will always ensure that its prosecutors share best practice and insights to improve outcomes for victims and, as I said previously, the Government are committed to spending £550 million to support those victims. In May 2025, the CPS established a modern slavery national scrutiny panel, chaired by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, to examine its performance in modern slavery and human trafficking cases. Insights from the process are shared with the CPS network to strengthen decision making, case building and support for vulnerable victims.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
We know that the disgusting paedophile Jeffrey Epstein had thousands of victims across the world who he trafficked. Many of them are British victims and survivors, who would have been thoroughly retraumatised by the events of just the last few days. What steps will the Government take to ensure that all those who aided and abetted the trafficking that Jeffrey Epstein perpetrated are also prosecuted by the British state?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Tackling violence against women and girls is my No. 1 priority in government, just as it was when I was in opposition. I am in awe of the bravery of the victims who have come forward. I am absolutely disgusted and sickened by the revelations that have come out in recent days, and I stand in solidarity with the victims. I will ensure that I am speaking across Government to see what more can be done.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Solicitor General
The suffering in Gaza is indefensible. We have been very clear that Israel has an obligation under international humanitarian law to ensure the provision of aid in Gaza and that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has a critical role. The priority is for aid routes to be fully opened, international aid to get in and international non-governmental organisations to be permitted to operate in Gaza again. UK support so far has meant that over 430,000 people have received essential healthcare and over 650,000 have received food. We are working intensively to support global peace initiatives, and humanitarian aid delivery is an integral part of that.
Iqbal Mohamed
On 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice found that it is “plausible” that Israel’s acts could infringe rights of the Palestinian people protected by the genocide convention. Since then, tens of thousands have been murdered and Gaza has been reduced to rubble. The ICJ has affirmed that states have a duty to act when they learn of a serious risk of genocide and must take immediate and effective proactive measures to protect vulnerable populations. Will the Solicitor General confirm what specific proactive measures the UK Government have taken to fulfil their obligations to prevent genocide under the genocide convention in Palestine and what more they need to do?
The Solicitor General
Since this Government have come to office, we have been very clear that Israel has an obligation under international humanitarian law to ensure the provision of aid in Gaza and that UNRWA has a critical role in delivering that response. The UK remains firmly committed to upholding international law. It is the UK Government’s long-standing position that any determination as to whether a genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court. That is consistent with our obligations under the genocide convention.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this question and for her continued work campaigning on child abduction and domestic abuse. The UK is actively engaged on this issue internationally and domestically. Where a child abduction offence has been committed, prosecutors will always consider the motivations and circumstances of the alleged abduction, recognising that some cases arise from complex family breakdowns. Ultimately, any decision will prioritise the safety and stability of the child.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the Solicitor General for the work she and others are doing on this topic. I have had previous conversations with Justice Ministers who have outlined plans about initiating qualitative research on the operation of the 1980 Hague convention, particularly in domestic abuse cases, which is welcome for all the Hague mothers and their families. However, many women across the country, including at least two in my constituency, remain in limbo. What discussions has the Solicitor General had with the Crown Prosecution Service about how it co-ordinates with family courts when they are hearing Hague convention applications where domestic abuse is alleged? Could she update the House on what plans the Government have to strengthen legal protections for mothers and children fleeing abuse under the Hague convention?
The Solicitor General
I am very sorry to hear of situation of the hon. Member’s constituents. I am aware that the hon. Member has met colleagues from the Ministry of Justice, and I commend her for her dedication to championing these issues. We are considering further qualitative research on the operation of the Hague convention in cases of domestic abuse, and we will ensure that research is given full and proper consideration. I am not sure of the exact details of her constituents’ cases, but if she writes to me with more detail, I can take it up with the CPS. Alternatively, she may wish to meet the chief Crown prosecutor in her region to discuss it further.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
My constituent had a dreadful experience following her daughter’s kidnapping and assault. The CPS has admitted that the handling of the case was flawed, including through the failure to offer a victim personal statement and by too readily accepting a plea from the perpetrator, which meant that he got just a 12-month referral order. This Government are firmly on the side of victims, so how will they ensure that CPS practice reflects that?
The Solicitor General
I am very sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent—my hon. Friend is a great champion for them. I am not aware of the specific details, but if she writes to me, I will raise the case with the CPS, and, again, if helpful, I will facilitate a meeting for her with her local CPS area.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 9 February will include:
Monday 9 February—General debate on the UK-India free trade agreement, followed by debate on a motion on increasing survival rates of brain tumours. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 10 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026 and the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026.
Wednesday 11 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Thursday 12 February—General debate on LGBT+ History Month, followed by debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House of Commons will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February.
The provisional business for the week commencing 23 February includes:
Monday 23 February—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill.
Tuesday 24 February—Opposition day (18th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
For the convenience of the House, the debates on estimates are expected to take place in the week commencing 2 March.
Jesse Norman
I do not think that this is a moment for normal business. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House and all Members, will join me in taking this moment to remember the victims of Jeffrey Epstein: the young women and girls who were systematically trafficked and abused by him and his associates over many years—both those who have come forward and those who have not felt able to do so.
Today, I will talk about Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House and colleagues across this Chamber feel the same way that I do. He and they will understand that this is a matter that far transcends party politics. Peter Mandelson, when Business Secretary, advised Jeffrey Epstein that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J. P. Morgan, should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor at the time—his colleague, Alistair Darling—over the planned tax on bankers’ bonuses, as Jamie Dimon, still the chief executive of J. P. Morgan, duly did.
Mandelson forwarded market-sensitive information to Epstein that related to the 2009 sale of up to £20 billion in state assets, describing the internal Downing Street memo—internal, I stress—as an
“Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.”
Mandelson gave Epstein advance notice of the EU’s 2010 €500 billion bail-out the night before the official announcement, and he warned him in advance of the departure of Gordon Brown from No. 10 Downing Street —a further highly market-sensitive piece of information.
In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in Florida under a state plea bargain on two sample felony counts: solicitation of prostitution from a minor and procurement of a minor for prostitution. The Prime Minister was specifically asked at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday whether he knew that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction. He said:
“when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security”.—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]
Unfortunately, that is plainly untrue—it must be inadvertent. When the Labour party presented its Humble Address for impact assessments on Brexit to be released on 1 November 2017, that address did not mention national security at all. The second name on that motion was that of the Prime Minister. I hope the Leader of the House will encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record when he next appears at the Dispatch Box.
The Prime Minister also said yesterday:
“we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]
Let us think about that for a moment. The Prime Minister is saying that if only he had known about the depth and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein as it continued after 2008, he would have rejected the appointment. It was not enough that he knew Mandelson had a continuing relationship with this convicted paedophile and sex trafficker. He knew it—indeed, the fact that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s mansion had been reported to him by public sources, and he ignored it. Not only that, but the Prime Minister had the public information further confirmed and reinforced by the security vetting that was done after the appointment but before Mandelson had signed his contract of employment. That was a further chance for the Prime Minister to reject the appointment, and he ignored that too.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister yesterday:
“can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 262.]
Those victims are the many dozens—perhaps hundreds—of girls and young women who were trafficked and abused by and through Jeffrey Epstein. It is clear that the Prime Minister did not consider them at all, or he could not have possibly taken the decision he did. So why did he choose Mandelson? Why did he take that decision? He did so because Morgan McSweeney told him to. McSweeney was Mandelson’s protégé, and McSweeney was paying back his long-time mentor and political sponsor for all those good works with his appointment.
This whole episode has done incredible damage to the already fragile nature of trust in politics. Every Labour Prime Minister since 1997 has given Peter Mandelson a senior job and been betrayed by him. The present Prime Minister will be seen to have had his own reputation destroyed by this scandal. But let us be clear: every Member of this House and our entire political system have been harmed by it and will continue to be until effective measures are taken to clean it up.
I ask two questions. Can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the documents to be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee will not be redacted? In order to reassure the House, can he ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the appointment procedure undertaken in this case—both the public due diligence and the developed vetting process—and set out in writing why those failed so badly in this case and how they will be improved?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for the way he has addressed these matters this morning. He is fully entitled to do so. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he is right to do so, because I agree that there is palpable anger, outrage and a degree of sadness about the way these events have unfolded.
I would normally, on such occasions, start by running through the series of events, but today I am going to reverse that order and first deal directly with the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, because they are so important. Then, with your forgiveness and leave, Mr Speaker, I will make some remarks about other matters.
The shadow Leader of the House raises some very important points. He talked about yesterday’s Humble Address and the remarks of the Prime Minister. I think there is an assumption with Humble Addresses—I have drafted a few in my time—that national security matters will be exempted from them, but as I think we found out yesterday, there is a degree of confusion about that. I am grateful that as the debate continued yesterday, we did listen to the mood of the House and ensured that what was put before the House at the end of the day reflected what the House was seeking. So if it was imperfect at the beginning—I gently suggest that the right hon. Gentleman’s motion was also, to some extent, imperfect —we got to the right place. In terrible circumstances, that was a good moment for the House, ensuring that that is what was put before the House.
The shadow Leader of the House asks about the actions of the Prime Minister, and that will, of course, be part of the outcome of investigations and inquiries. We must ensure not simply that a robust inquiry is in place, but that we trust people to get on with it. He mentioned the documents that go to the ISC. I expect the ISC to get whatever it asks for, and in the form in which it asks for it. It may have been missed yesterday, but the National Security Act 2023 states that the ISC can ask for documents. I hope we do not get to this situation, but if the ISC does not get those documents, it ends up in court with a judge deciding on such matters. I would not recommend anybody trying to over-redact or leave out documents, because I think we are in a situation where everything, however painful, needs to be out.
It is important to put on record the actions that have been taken since these further matters came to light. Let me say—I should also have said this at the beginning—that I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House not just on how awful this is, but that the victims of Epstein should always be at the forefront in our deliberations. They are brave, and we must ensure that we rise to the challenge of ensuring that they get some kind of justice at the end of it all.
The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords, and although Mandelson has himself retired, we will be bringing forward legislation to strip him of his title—as ever with these matters, it is slightly more difficult to achieve that than it is for me to say it from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister has agreed with the King that the former Lord Mandelson should be removed from the Privy Council. The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan police. They have requested that they be allowed to get on with the job, and I absolutely endorse that.
Over this week we have had a statement from the Dispatch Box on these matters, then Prime Minister’s questions, which was rightly dominated by them, and yesterday we had the not extraordinary but still unusual circumstances of six hours of debate on them, giving Members the opportunity to have their say. We have listened, and we are listening to the House, and indeed to the country more widely, to ensure that we get to the right place in what is an absolute tragedy, not just for the victims but also for the political process itself. I hope that I have made that position clear.
Let me return briefly to some other points. I pay tribute to Lord Triesman, a former general secretary of the Labour party. As the former chairman of the Football Association, he campaigned against racism in sport and was a vocal supporter of women’s football. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his friends and family.
I pay tribute to Lord Wallace, who also died this week. He was ever-present in Scottish politics for almost four decades, a leading architect of devolution and a tireless advocate for his constituency of Orkney and Shetland for over 30 years. We remember him with fondness and send condolences to his friends and family.
I also pay tribute to the campaigner Nathaniel Dye, who has died after a long battle with cancer. I met Nathaniel Dye. He was a brave and courageous campaigner whose life ended too soon. His family and friends should be proud, even in their grief, that his campaign made a real difference to the future wellbeing of others. Yesterday was National Cancer Day and we published our national cancer plan. It owes much to healthcare professionals, but it also owes much to ordinary people—extraordinary people, actually—like Nathaniel Dye who told their stories, and the stories of their friends and families. The plan outlines how thousands of people will receive more timely treatment, and the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), will make a statement shortly.
We have announced the roll-out of 500 new free breakfast clubs in schools across the country, which will mean a free breakfast club now operates in 1,250 schools and is available for 300,000 children.
Today is Time to Talk Day, which is an opportunity to break through the stigma that often comes with having conversations about mental health experiences. That comes ahead of Children’s Mental Health Week, which is next week. Children’s mental health is crucial for fostering positive life outcomes, and I know that there will be lots of activity in constituencies across the country to raise awareness.
Finally, hon. Members will note with interest that Parliament’s restoration and renewal costed proposals report will be published by the House this afternoon. The Palace of Westminster is part of a UNESCO world heritage site, and it is also a symbol of our democracy. It is in much need of significant work to maintain the upkeep of the building, and to make it safe for people who work in and visit the building. I hope that hon. Members will take time to read the detailed report and, in due course, we will be bringing forward the matter for debate and decision, not just by this House but by the other place too.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I have been working closely with driving instructors who provide tuition to learner drivers in North West Leicestershire. One of them reached out to me earlier this week to share that they had got up at 5.45 am to book a test for a student in Loughborough, but no tests were available. What work is being done to increase capacity in key test centres that serve my constituency, such as Loughborough? May we have a debate in Government time on how we hold test centres to account for some of the supply issues?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the House. It is not the first time that we have heard about these concerns. I look forward to answering business questions when the issue is not raised, because that will mean that serious action has been taken and the situation has improved. I completely sympathise with those impacted by a long wait for a driving test. The Government are taking action to deliver around 10,000 additional driving tests a month, and we will ensure that only learner drivers can book tests to stop the exploitation by online bots. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are heard by the relevant Minister, who I am sure will want to correspond with her.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship to Peter Mandelson. I do not intend to repeat those words, but as the political discussion intensifies in the coming days, we must not forget the victims, who are at the centre of all this, and their bravery, not only in retelling their trauma but in risking taking on powerful men—possibly some of the most powerful and connected men on the planet—and all those who serve to protect and legitimise them in those behaviours.
I feel a duty to raise some under-discussed issues, including Storm Chandra and its devasting impact on communities, particularly in south-west England, where flooding has damaged homes and a road has collapsed into the sea. It is difficult to know when these storms will hit, but we know that they are going to happen more frequently. That has put more intense scrutiny on the role of the Environment Agency, and I fear that it has been found to be lacking. Last year, the EA gave up on main rivers maintenance, saying that it could no longer afford to do it. That is just part of a pattern of the EA not being equipped any more to do its job.
In my constituency, I can think of at least two major failures in the last couple of years. This time last year, there was a major diesel spill in my local river, the River Wandle. Some 4,000 litres were spilt, which were suspected to be from a nearby bus garage. The EA was sent to investigate, but one year on, we still do not have its report and nobody has been held to account.
We also host an incinerator in my constituency. If regulated properly, an incinerator is better than landfill, but over the last 18 months there have been hundreds of emissions breaches, and the EA has failed to punish the operators sufficiently. In fact, the EA says that it is minded to approve an expansion in the capacity of the incinerator, despite strong opposition from me, the local authority and apparently the Government, who have stated publicly that they think we have reached capacity for incineration in England, yet still nothing can be done. When I challenged the EA on this matter, it said it feels that it does not have the legal grounds to object to the expansion. I ask the Government: what is going on? Can the Leader of the House organise a debate to ensure that we can hold the EA properly to account?
Sir Alan Campbell
Despite the hon. Gentleman’s understandable concerns, the Environment Agency does vital work, managing our rivers and protecting our environment. We need to recognise the work of people at the Environment Agency, who are out doing their very best as we speak, but I understand the concern expressed not just by him, but by other hon. Members. As he says, severe weather, including this winter, makes the challenges even harder.
Under this Government, we have increased the Environment Agency budget by £188 million, and our flood budget of £10.5 billion is a record investment—the most that has ever been spent on flooding. I accept that this is a matter of great importance, particularly to rural areas, and it interests and concerns Members across the House. I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and his request that these matters be the subject of debate in this House.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Saturday marks the two-year anniversary of the publication of the Hughes report, which set out how the Government should offer financial compensation to those irreversibly and avoidably harmed by the mesh and valproate scandals. To not have an official Government response after two years is frankly insulting to the thousands of women and children whose lives have been changed forever through no fault of their own. These women have been systematically gaslit and have endured so much, all for trusting healthcare professionals, as we all have done and would do. Does the Leader of the House agree that the time for thinking is now over, and that the Government must provide an urgent response to this House?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this important matter. These are complex issues, and the Government’s response needs to be fair, balanced and sensitive to everyone affected, but I appreciate Members’ frustration about the timescale, and the need for clarity for everyone affected. There is a Westminster Hall debate on the Hughes report next week, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to speak in it. I will raise her concerns directly with Ministers, because she asks reasonable questions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, on Monday the Procedure Committee is due to give a statement on its report on call lists. As that is not a day for Backbench Business debates, a motion from the Leader of the House will apparently be required to allow the statement to take place, and I hope that he will enable that to happen. On Thursday 12 February, there will be a Select Committee statement on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on its recent report. On Thursday 26 February, if we are given the day, there will be a debate on St David’s day and Welsh affairs.
In addition, the business in Westminster Hall next week will include, on Tuesday, a report on the Independent Water Commission’s final report and, on Thursday 12 February, a Select Committee statement on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, followed by a debate on Government support for healthy relationships—just in advance of Valentine’s day—and a debate on onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry. On Tuesday 24 February, when we return from recess, there will be a debate on Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza, and on Thursday 26 February, there will be a debate on Eating Disorders Awareness Week, followed by a debate on the impact of VAT on independent faith schools.
Eagle-eyed individuals who follow the Order Paper will know that there will be no second debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon, and I should explain why. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) was granted that debate three weeks ago, and the Government were given notice that it was being held. On Tuesday, however, the Minister with responsibility for public health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), apparently informed the hon. Member that she would not be available to answer the debate.
As the Leader of the House will know, it is not acceptable for the Government to determine that only one Minister can answer a debate. Another Minister, or even a health Whip, could have answered. We must give the Government 48 hours’ notice of debates, and we offered the slot to five individuals, but unfortunately they could not change their plans for this afternoon. I am sure that Members will want to defend the right of Back Benchers to hold the Government to account.
Fly-tipping in Harrow has been a scourge for most local residents. I am pleased that the council has taken many steps to combat it, including fly-tips being reported within 24 hours, free bulky waste collection, enabling multiple trips to the waste recycling centre and CCTV at fly-tipping hotspots. Recently, though, an illegal waste dump was set up on private land. Harrow council officers have been through that waste, and they have been able to identify it as the waste of 40 individuals, who have been issued with fixed penalty notices for giving their waste to illegal waste collectors. This is a warning that people should not do that. However, there is now a problem across the country with illegal waste collectors using private land to carry out these criminal actions. Can a relevant Minister make a statement on what action the Government will take to support local authorities in opposing these waste collectors, and warn individuals that they should not use them?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and the work of the Backbench Business Committee, and for his update. His first question was about the statement on the Procedure Committee report requiring a motion. The answer is yes—I will bring such a motion forward, even though the circumstances are slightly unusual.
The hon. Gentleman’s second question was about the cancellation of a debate. Sometimes it is difficult to ensure that a Minister is available. There are lots of draws on Ministers’ time, not least statements or whatever, but my strong view is that such debates are a priority for Ministers, and they should be present for them. I am very sorry to hear of the circumstances, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman and others that what has happened is not acceptable. I cannot do anything about these situations if I am not fully aware of them. If any Member finds that there is any doubt about whether a Minister will be present for their debate, they should come and see me, so that I can ensure that an appropriate Minister is available—as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in some circumstances it could be a Whip; they are also Ministers—and debates can go ahead. I apologise for that, and we will do everything we can to make things better in future.
As the hon. Gentleman said, fly-tipping is completely unacceptable and a blight on our communities. We are giving councils new powers—for example, to crush the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers—and we are bringing in prison sentences of up to five years for those transporting waste illegally. I am a firm believer that a law should act as a warning, and if it is ignored, action should be taken, so I am pleased if that has happened. As for a possible statement in future, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to the attention of Ministers, or he may wish to apply for a debate on these matters—he is uniquely placed to ensure that he gets one.
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not know about the issue that has just been raised; I am very concerned about it. I thank the Leader of the House for his answer, but I want to know why I was not told, so I will take this up.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Leo Barber from Beckenham tragically took his own life in November 2023, aged just 16, after suffering months of poor mental health. The recent inquest into Leo’s death found that he had been failed by multiple agencies, but that his mental health issues were also linked to screen use and exposure to harmful content online. Leo’s parents, Jo and Chris, have spoken devastatingly about the difficulties families face in protecting vulnerable young people in an online environment that is insufficiently regulated and characterised by addictive features, such as infinite scrolling and forums promoting suicide. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the Government’s recent action to ban smartphones in classrooms, and their consultation on young people’s use of social media, including a possible ban for under-16s—important steps to keep young people safe, and to hopefully prevent tragedies like Leo’s in the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I extend my deepest sympathies to Jo and Chris and all their family in what is an unimaginable situation. Every life lost to suicide is a profound tragedy, and we are committed to delivering the five-year suicide prevention strategy. As my hon. Friend says, we are also determined to keep young people safe online, and I obviously join him in welcoming our consultation on children’s use of technology. Once that consultation has concluded, we will update the House.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Pride in Place funding is about £5 billion directed at our most deprived areas. I think it is worked out on a constituency basis, and that constituencies have to hit a point on two indices of deprivation to qualify, and must therefore be what the Government call “double deprived”. I have significant pockets of deprivation in my constituency, particularly in parts of Stanwell, yet they do not qualify for Pride in Place funding because it is calculated on a constituency basis, which seems pretty unfair to me. Will the Leader of the House allow Government time for us to debate the Pride in Place funding formula, so that we can understand it, and bring such anomalies to the attention of the Government?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in his analysis of how funding is allocated. Certainly in my local case, the allocation is not actually to the poorest neighbourhoods; it is to neighbourhoods that are poor, and are left behind on certain indices. It is a different way of calculating than might previously have been used.
The hon. Gentleman is right, though, to point out that the Government are putting more investment in through Pride in Place. We will continue to do so, but this is not only about the investment that goes in; it is about putting local people in charge, because it is not just that some communities look like they have been left behind, but that people feel that they have been left behind. The Government obviously wish to see this scheme rolled out further, so I hope that he is more successful in future. I will do everything I can to ensure that we get an opportunity to debate these matters, because we have a good record and a good story to tell, and he will be able to make his concerns known then.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The yearly Linlithgow marches organised by the Deacons Court is a 16th-century tradition marking the boundaries of the ancient and royal burgh. The marches celebrate civic pride. There are floats, parades, and much merriment from early in the morning. Last year, the court celebrated its 50th anniversary with a special service in December, which was attended by Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal and Vice-Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Deacons Court, and perhaps join me for a glass and some merriment at this year’s marches?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the Linlithgow marches. Such events play an important part in bringing people together and promoting pride in local communities. I wish this year’s march well, and thank my hon. Friend for inviting me to attend. I would love to join, if my schedule allows.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the Leader of the House for his comments about the Westminster Hall debate. Yesterday, the Government finally launched a national cancer plan, which contained many ambitious targets. However, that plan requires us to have firm checks in place, so that we can ensure that promises on paper are delivered in practice. The plan states that
“A reformed National Cancer Board”
will
“provide regular updates to ministers.”
However, Parliament and MPs also need regular updates, so will the Leader of the House commit to ensuring that there will be regular opportunities for MPs in all parts of the House to scrutinise the delivery of the national cancer plan, perhaps starting with an update before the summer recess?
Sir Alan Campbell
There will be a statement later on the national cancer plan, where the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise his concerns directly with the Minister. It is an ambitious plan, and it is absolutely necessary, and the Government are committed to making sure that Parliament is kept abreast of these matters as we go on. I would certainly bear that in mind.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Before Christmas, I raised the poor standard of service by the Royal Mail in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney. Despite our excellent posties, constituents still report delayed deliveries leading to missed appointments and worse. Ofcom should hold Royal Mail to account on the universal service obligation, yet I have received no response from Ofcom for almost two months. Can we please have a ministerial statement on the performance of Ofcom? All our constituents should receive the level of service that they have been promised.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend again raises these matters, which have been raised consistently in the past few weeks by Members across the House. I hope that the Royal Mail, which listens to these matters, has heard what he has said. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has discussed Royal Mail’s performance with the chief executive, and the fact that it needs to do more to meet service delivery targets. Ofcom has fined Royal Mail three times on its service levels, and it is investigating Royal Mail’s compliance with its service quality obligations. My hon. Friend is right that it does not matter where someone lives; they deserve a good postal delivery system. Ofcom needs to continue to hold Royal Mail to account.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Much has been said, rightly, in support of the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Epstein. Another group who must not be forgotten are the dozens of young women who were raped and sexually assaulted by Mohamed Fayed. Fayed is dead and has been judged in a higher place, but those who aided and abetted him are still under investigation by the Metropolitan police, and they must be brought to justice. That investigation is taking too long. Will the Leader of the House please invite the Home Secretary to make a statement about the progress of that inquiry and to indicate when some action may be brought in support of these ladies?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this terrible case. Simply because the perpetrator is no longer here does not mean that the suffering gets any better for the people who have been affected. I am sure the Metropolitan police will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s comments this morning, but I will raise the matter with the Home Secretary to see whether further progress can be made.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Churches are at the heart of our communities, and I have heard from residents who go to St Peter and St Paul’s in Wingrave, St Michael’s in Aston Clinton and St Mary’s in Aylesbury, among others, about the importance of the listed places of worship grant scheme in helping to preserve historic church buildings. Can the Leader of the House therefore confirm whether that funding will be continued? What steps will be taken to protect smaller congregations if so, and can he ensure that this House debates the importance of churches in our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I have said from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions just how important churches are to local communities, and historic churches, whether in rural or urban areas, have a particular role to play in communities and in our proud history. I will get an update for my hon. Friend from the relevant Department about the future of that programme, because I know it is of importance to many churches and Church organisations across the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am going to run business questions until midday or thereabouts, so please help each other. A good example will come from James Wild.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Leader of the House referred earlier to mental health and Time to Talk Day; I will be running the London marathon in April for the 8:56 Foundation in North West Norfolk, which does important work on men’s mental health. Will he join me in paying tribute to charities across the country that are doing so much to improve people’s wellbeing?
Sir Alan Campbell
I wish the hon. Gentleman well in running the London marathon, and indeed everyone who is involved in that and in raising money for such an important cause. I praise mental health charities, wherever they are—in his constituency and others; they are so important to our local communities.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I held a meeting for my constituents in Silkstone and Silkstone Common last week, and they raised with me the lack of NHS dentistry spaces locally. Some are having to travel 20 miles, taking up to an hour and a half, to get to an NHS dentist appointment. This issue affects people right across my constituency, with many being forced to go private, pay additional transport costs or go without an appointment until they need urgent hospital treatment—all pushing up their cost of living. Will the Leader of the House advise me how I can work with Health Ministers to ensure that my constituents can access NHS dentist appointments in their communities, particularly in rural areas?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these matters; she is a doughty campaigner for her constituents. We are very aware of the challenges facing dentistry, particularly—but not exclusively—in rural areas, which is why we are rolling out 700,000 more urgent dental appointments from April. I encourage my hon. Friend to attend the Adjournment debate on NHS dentistry later; perhaps those concerns can be addressed there. If she wishes, I will get her a meeting with the relevant Minister to see what further can be done for her constituency.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Ever since Australia banned social media for under-16s, my office has been inundated by appeals from parents for action here in the UK. They see the very real risks of a social media wild west; they fear for their children and want to say no, and are simply asking for the Government to have their backs. As a parent of an eight-year-old, I share their fear. I am pleased that the Government have launched a consultation and I look forward to hosting listening sessions across Rossendale and Darwen. This is a complex issue; there is much to be considered. We have to get this right. Would the Leader of the House agree to an early debate in Government time to allow Members to fully explore how we best meet this generational challenge?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the Government’s consultation into children’s use of technology, potentially including a social media ban. This subject is really important to parents; I think all our inboxes will have been filled with such concerns over the last few weeks. It is a complex matter, which is why the consultation is the right way forward. Although, for understandable reasons, yesterday’s second Opposition day motion on social media was not debated, there will be a Westminster Hall debate on young people’s screen time next week, which he may wish to attend.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
A young woman, Savannah Victora-May, is in a critical condition due to very severe ME, compounded by inadequate treatment in hospital, where she has been for 11 months, since March last year. One of the few and welcome commitments from the Government’s final delivery plan for ME was to explore whether a specialised service for very severe ME should be prescribed by the Secretary of State. The ministerial foreword acknowledged that avoidable deaths of people with ME should “become never events”, but in the continued absence of specialist provision, it is difficult to see how situations like Savannah’s can be prevented from recurring. Will the Leader of the House request an urgent update on any progress made in respect of this commitment and on when a recommendation will be made?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is distressing to learn of Savannah’s situation. I am sure the House wishes her well. I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes Government action on these matters, but if she wishes to explore what more can be done, I can arrange for her a meeting with the relevant Minister.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Several of my constituents in Salisbury have recently retired from the civil service. When they have contacted Capita, they have not been able to obtain their lump sums, so are getting into debt and have lost out on interest. Others have been cut off and ignored. Could we have a statement or a debate on this matter? It is only right, if people have worked so hard for so many years, that they should be able to access their pension as they anticipated.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the delays are unacceptable. It is not the service that people deserve, and resolving these matters is a matter of urgency. I understand that there was a debate on these matters yesterday, but I am sure there will be applications and questions as we go forward. The Cabinet Office is working hard to resolve the situation, and has put in place an expert recovery team to work with Capita and make sure things are in place to address such concerns. This issue is of concern not just to his constituents, but to other Members’ constituents too.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Many of my constituents face lengthy delays in securing their Transport for London private hire licences, with some complaining about delays of up to 18 months and unclear communication. Many of their concerns are simply being ignored. As the Leader of the House will be aware, our private hire drivers rely on those licences for their household livelihoods, helping to put food on the table and to pay their bills. Will he raise this matter with Ministers and ask them to engage with TfL, so that resources are made available and the unacceptable delays are finally addressed?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. I agree that these are important matters for drivers themselves and for their families’ wellbeing, and taxi drivers also provide a very important service to our constituents, so these matters need to be resolved. I will draw this issue to the attention of the relevant Minister and get my hon. Friend an update on what can be done to resolve the situation.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Hundreds of my constituents work at the Scunthorpe steelworks, which, as the Leader of the House will know, is under Chinese ownership. When the Prime Minister reported back earlier this week, I asked him whether he had engaged in related negotiations during his visit to China. It is disappointing to note that he did not respond to that question. Clearly, the long-term future of the plant is important to thousands of people. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to update us on how things are progressing?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is not just a matter of concern locally for the hon. Gentleman; the Prime Minister is very committed to the future of the steel industry, and to the workers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and the surrounding constituencies. I am not sure why he did not get a direct answer to his question, but I will make sure that he gets a readout from the Prime Minister’s visit, so that he can see what took place and what assurances the Prime Minister was able to get. The Prime Minister is absolutely committed to the workforce.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I would like to place on the record my disappointment that today the Government have chosen to make two oral statements, both of which are of huge significance—on Sudan and on the national cancer plan—when so many Members will be absent from the Chamber. As co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, may I put on the record that this shows disrespect to Members seeking to participate in today’s Backbench Business debates, particularly the one on the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Over many months, the Government have failed to respond to the decisions of the International Court of Justice and the UN commission of inquiry, and they have now squeezed the time available for Members to discuss that with the Minister. This is a gross discourtesy to this House, and to the millions of Palestinians impacted by Israel’s actions. Can the Leader of the House prevail upon Government Front Benchers to provide us with adequate time to debate this key issue in this place as soon as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
There is a perennial problem with timely statements and the effect they have on the business of the House. The national cancer plan is of huge significance and is timely, and Sudan is an extraordinarily important matter. It is important that the House gets an update on these matters. There will be some pressure on time today, but I hope that Members, including my hon. Friend, are able to get their points across. If that is not the case, I will certainly consider what further time could be made available.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
On 11 September last year, I stood in this House to request time for a debate on the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. In the light of the serious concern arising from the release of the Epstein files, the links to the retired Lord Mandelson and the current Government’s knowledge of those links, I am once again here to ask the Leader of the House to grant time for such a debate. This is necessary not only to restore public trust, but to make clear the standards of conduct that every Member should adhere to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I advise Members that questions need to be short because time is short.
Sir Alan Campbell
The issue the hon. Lady raises and has raised before is precisely why there is an investigation and an inquiry. There are various facets to that, but when the investigation is complete, I am sure the House will be given adequate time to discuss the outcome. It is precisely at that point that the principles she refers to will be central to the discussion.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please advise me on the best way to get the concerns of Grimsby businesses on Cleethorpe Road considered in detail and perhaps reflected in the Government’s planned high streets strategy? They are facing a severe economic impact from the council’s plans to remove parking for a bus lane that will save only 15 seconds on a journey. Is there an opportunity for a debate on council responsibilities to local businesses?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the actions the Government are taking to support small businesses and high streets, because they are a very important part of local communities. Local authorities have a crucial role in shaping the trading environment for small businesses, and I hope her local authority has heard her concerns about the parking issues and everything else. We want local authorities to work in partnership with businesses, not in tension with them. I am grateful to her for raising this example, which I hope her local authority has heard, and I will raise these matters with the relevant Minister.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The father of one of my constituents died unexpectedly, which was itself shocking and distressing for his family, but that distress has been compounded by the difficulties they have faced in getting access to vital information held on his mobile phone, computer and via online services. Indeed, the only way they can open his phone is by returning it to the manufacturer’s settings, which would lose everything stored on it. Does the Leader of the House agree that our use of technology has moved on but the rules and regulations on access to online material when somebody dies have not developed at the same pace? Will he bring forward a debate on this important matter so that these issues can be fully explored?
Sir Alan Campbell
I appreciate that this complex issue engages a range of policy areas across Government, because as the right hon. Gentleman says, technology moves on. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 clarifies that certain digital assets can be included as personal property, and some digital services have added a function to allow contacts to be nominated and have selected data sent to them. I will, however, ensure that his constituents’ case is heard by the appropriate Ministers, that they consider the issues carefully and that, should it be appropriate, they bring forward a statement or we find time for a debate on these matters.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Our country, and Harrow certainly, benefits from the hard-working Romanian community. Many Romanian families would welcome the chance for their children to supplement their normal school exams with a GCSE in Romanian. Given that no exam board currently offers a GCSE in Romanian, may we have a debate on how we can put that right?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House and for his work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Romania. As he says, languages are a vital part of our curriculum and can open doors for young people across the country and, indeed, abroad. Decisions about which languages are offered at GCSE in England are matters for exam boards rather than central Government, but I am sure the boards will have heard his question, and I hope they give this matter their consideration.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the Countryside Alliance’s annual “Rural Oscars” awards. I am delighted that eight of the finalists come from my constituency: Briggsy’s Butcher, the Allanton Inn, the Buccleuch Arms, the Blackadder in Greenlaw, the Gordon Arms, Fine Feathers, the Ancrum Pantry and the Oxton Community shop. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those businesses and in wishing them well in the public vote?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating all the finalists in his constituency; they are so important in making community work in his part of the world. The Government are committed to supporting small and rural businesses through our small business plan, saving them time and money, boosting their access to finance and opening new opportunities. There are some fantastic businesses across his constituency and they deserve to be recognised, so I wish them all well.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Following local closures, residents in the north of Dudley currently have no accessible household waste site, forcing them to make lengthy and costly journeys to the only remaining sites in Stourbridge, which is leading to fly-tipping across the borough. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Conservative council to reinstate Anchor Lane accessible waste disposal services in the north of the borough, and will he agree to a debate on this matter?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the House. Local authorities are legally required to deliver waste collection services to households in their area. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has issued guidance for local authorities on factors to consider when delivering those vital services and around waste sites. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her constituents. I am sure Dudley council will have heard her remarks; I hope it takes them into account and acts in the interest of its residents.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Nearly four years on from the outbreak of the war, our Ukrainian friends have formed ever closer bonds with our communities. Last week I was at the opening ceremony of Bath’s Ukrainian education hub, which is part of a global network of 84 such hubs. The hubs are places for classes and courses, but they also provide space for adults and young people across cultures to learn from and support each other. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Bath Ukrainian education hub and all those involved, and will he wish them all the best for the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do indeed congratulate those involved in the education hub and thank them for all the work they do. I also thank the wider community across the hon. Lady’s fantastic constituency, who have been so welcoming to Ukrainian families, for all they do and wish them well in the future.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Last Tuesday I was delighted to see the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announce £8.14 million in funding for Scotland through the multi-sport grass- roots facilities programme. I have already heard from organisations in my community that are keen to apply, including East End football academy, which runs weekly football sessions, but it is concerned about the condition of its pitch. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of access to good-quality sports facilities, particularly in the country’s poorest areas?
Sir Alan Campbell
Grassroots sport is vital to our communities and high-quality facilities are vital too—when they work well, they literally change people’s lives for the better. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the funding announced for Scotland; we are ambitious for sport right across our country, and I hope the SNP Government are equally ambitious in what they do. This would make an excellent topic for a Westminster Hall debate and I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for one.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Last week I visited Gina and Vincenzo, the owners of a fantastic local Italian restaurant in Hornchurch, whose much-loved business is struggling under the weight of extortionate business rates. They used to pay £2,200 a year, but are now having to pay around £6,800; however, according to the calculator on the Government website, they will have to pay an astonishing £19,000 in business rates in the future. The Leader of the House must know that pubs and restaurants across the UK are being ruined because of the Government’s anti-business policies, so will he at least make time for a debate on business rates reform? Can he really blame the owners of Umberto’s for banning Labour MPs from their premises?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The message about short questions does not seem to have got through. Can Members please shorten their questions, because we do not have much time?
Sir Alan Campbell
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that when he sat on the Conservative Benches rather than with Reform, 7,000 pubs were closed. This Government are committed to supporting pubs, which is why we have announced 15% off their new business rates bills. That does not underestimate the challenge that some still face. It is important that they get support from Government, and that is precisely what they are getting.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituency has been well served for 35 years by the West Midlands Air Ambulance Service, but there is now the Stoke Air Ambulance. Yesterday, the fundraising regulator published a damning report about the new boy in town, because, despite raising hundreds of thousands of pounds, it does not have a helicopter, a paramedic, pilots, Care Quality Commission registration, or a launch pad. The West Midlands Ambulance Service has publicly said that it will not task the Stoke service with jobs. The Charity Commission opened a statutory inquiry yesterday, but getting to that point was quite difficult. Will the Leader of the House bring forward two debates: one on the powers and resources of the Charity Commission, to make sure that it can tackle these charities; and another to celebrate the good work of the proper charities that look after our constituents across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should celebrate the work of our air ambulances when they do a fantastic job, but he is also right to raise the doubts that prevail about that service on behalf not just of his constituents but of his region. I will raise this matter with the relevant Department, but I hope that the Charity Commission has heard his comments.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Yesterday, I hosted the Farm Safety Foundation in Parliament to launch the ninth year of its Mind Your Head Week campaign. Although there has been progress in talking about mental health in farming, we lose too many people to suicide every year. That must change. Can we have a debate in Government time on suicide prevention and mental health and wellbeing in farming and rural communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I have said previously, the Government are very committed to tackling this matter wherever it prevails, and the hon. Member may wish to raise it directly with Ministers at Health and Social Care questions. However, if she wishes to speak to Health Ministers, I will endeavour to get her a meeting.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Residents in Stoke, Holy Cross and Upper Stoke in South Norfolk have been terribly let down by Anglian Water. The company digs up the road every two seconds, which has meant that residents are cut off from the only bus service to Norwich. Can we have a debate in Government time about companies such as Anglian Water, which keep letting down our villages by doing bodge jobs rather than doing the job right the first time?
Sir Alan Campbell
That important matter has been raised with me previously. The previous Government should never have allowed the water sector to get into this state, because my hon. Friend’s constituents and all of our constituents deserve better. The water White Paper sets out our major reform plan, which secured £104 billion of investment to rebuild crumbling pipes and sewage works nationwide. I will ensure that Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers hear my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Late last week, it was with great sadness that Brummies learned of the passing away of Councillor Waseem Zaffar MBE. He was only 44 years of age and served the people of Lozells and the wider Birmingham area for 15 years. During our time together—both within and beyond the council chamber—we had our political differences, but what was never in question was my admiration for his tireless efforts to champion our city and its residents. Given the immense contribution made by Councillor Waseem Zaffar to local democracy, will the Leader of the House agree to make time for a debate on local councillors and activists, so that we can find more ways of recognising their contribution?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the contribution not just of the councillor he refers to but of all councillors. They are absolutely crucial to our local communities. He has placed that matter on record and I am sure the local community will have heard what he said.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Later this month, Northumberland Park, a key interchange between rail and metro, will be the latest station opening on the Northumberland line. The completion of the line and station has been made possible thanks to a £17 million investment from this Labour Government and £10 million from the Mayor of the North East. Can we have a debate on how this Government are supporting regional transport, such as through the opening of Northumberland Park?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning efforts on regional transport, whether it is the metro, rail or, indeed, roundabouts in her constituency. I have to say, she has done better on Northumberland Park than the previous MP—that was me, in case anybody was wondering. [Laughter.] Connecting the country through public transport is vital to growth, and I welcome the investment that has been announced. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for what I am sure will be a popular Westminster Hall debate.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
In yesterday’s debate about Lord Mandelson, we heard a lot about the despicable crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. We also heard about Mandelson’s lobbying through his Global Counsel organisation, through which he introduced the Prime Minister to the chair of the company Palantir. Yesterday the Cabinet Office denied me permission to even see the background papers on an hour-long meeting that took place between Palantir, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and Dominic Cummings in 10 Downing Street. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee is concerned about the use of Palantir in the NHS, where we have a £330 million contract with Palantir. We also have a £250 million defence contract with the company and a potential contract for the new national police service. Will the Leader of the House please allow Government time for a debate on the suitability of Palantir as such a critical aspect of our national infrastructure?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns, but as I said, there is an inquiry into the whole influence of the former Lord Mandelson. I assume and hope that all these matters will be considered. The House will then get an opportunity to see the outcome of the inquiry, and I am sure at that point the House will want to debate the matter.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Rokeby school in Canning Town has just received national recognition from the Department for Education for its exceptional achievements among disadvantaged pupils. This is an incredible achievement for the school and the local community, where families and children face many disadvantages and challenges. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Rokeby on its success, and does he agree that when we are discussing education we need to find opportunities to shine a light on such successes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I of course join my hon. Friend in congratulating all of Rokeby school’s staff and pupils on that huge achievement. I absolutely agree that we should take every opportunity to celebrate the great work of our schools.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Last October’s National Audit Office report into ECO4 wall insulation found extensive evidence of fraud and cowboy workmanship. Consumer Energy Solutions of Swansea went into receivership last month, and I have received scores of complaints regarding air source heat pumps and solar panels installed by that company and others, with some people having no heating or hot water. Could the Leader of the House advise me what parliamentary measures are available to me to ensure that there is an independent inquiry into fraud and misuse of taxpayers’ money with ECO4?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Lady could ask for a debate in which she could raise the issue of whether or not an inquiry is appropriate and get a response from the relevant Minister. If she wishes to draw attention about this issue directly to the Minister, I will arrange for a meeting.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that Parliament is sovereign when it comes to the legislative framework of this country. With that in mind, I would appreciate his views on the actions of a small number of unelected Members of the Lords who are blocking the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill rather than seeking to improve it. Can we have a debate in Government time on how the reputation of our parliamentary democracy can be protected in the face of such actions?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand, and to a large extent share, the frustration of my hon. Friend and many Members across the House, because the position of this House on the Bill was made very clear. The Government’s position has not changed: it is not a Government Bill, and the Lords have every right to scrutinise. But I again ask them to do so responsibly, because this House made its position very clear.
I hope that progress can be made. Once that has happened, I will find time in this place, if necessary, to debate those amendments, because the will of the House was very clear. Perhaps after that has been decided and the Bill has been dealt with—whatever the outcome—we need to reflect on some of the procedures that get us into this situation.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The 2024 Labour general election manifesto promised
“Immediate reform of the House of Lords”,
noted that
“reform is long over-due and essential”,
and said,
“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber”.
Given the Mandelson scandal and the unacceptable spectacle of a tiny number of unelected peers blocking the will of the majority of elected Members in this House, may we have an urgent debate in this Session and in Government time on how the Government will bring forward and realise their promises of fundamental Lords reform so that we can begin to rebuild trust in our country’s democracy?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to wider reform of the House of Lords and the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill is the first step in that process. We remain committed to that. However, I gently say to the hon. Lady that, to some extent, this is more complex than many people think. There are many priorities for this Government, not least tackling the cost of living and the terrible situation that we found our public services in when we came into office. To spend a great deal of time, at this juncture, talking about House of Lords reform is timely, costly and an extraordinarily difficult thing to achieve—I know that from experience. That does not mean that the Government will not address what we promised in our manifesto and bring about House of Lords reform at some point in the future.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Last weekend, I joined a thanksgiving service at Huddersfield parish church that paid tribute to local volunteers and residents who organised donations to Jamaica and the Caribbean islands following the devastation of Hurricane Melissa. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to those residents in Huddersfield? Will he set out how the UK Government are supporting relief efforts in the region?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to celebrate those local Huddersfield volunteers. I am sure that the whole House will join me in praising their efforts, which remind us of the deep relationship between the United Kingdom and the Caribbean. We have committed up to £2.5 million to support the humanitarian response to devastation caused by Hurricane Melissa. I encourage my hon. Friend to participate in Foreign Office oral questions at the beginning of next month to discuss how we can better support the volunteers going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to raise concerns about the treatment of the Shi’a Muslims in Saudia Arabia. There have been long-standing reports of systematic discrimination, including restrictions on religious practice, unequal access to employment and limits on political participation. Such reports raise serious concerns about freedom of religion or belief and equal treatment under the law. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what assessment the Government have made of those concerns and how they are being raised with the Saudi authorities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all. He will know that the Foreign Secretary has had considerable engagement with the Saudia Arabian Government. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a response to the issue he raises.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
My son has just started his second term at university. His cohort will be hearing the current debate and media coverage about student loan balances spiralling and many will be worried about what that means for their future. Further, sixth-form students at New College, John Leggott, North Lindsey and Doncaster College will all be worried about what that means for them. I never want any of my residents to feel that their ambition has been priced out of reach, so will the Leader of the House make time for a statement or debate on student loan interest rates and the impact of compounding interest on graduates, particularly those from more deprived backgrounds?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We are making the tough but fair decisions needed to find a balance between value for money for taxpayers and for students and graduates. We are supporting graduates with the cost of living and protecting lower earners by lifting the threshold this year, but I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and his constituents, because they will be shared by many of our own constituents. I encourage him to apply for a debate to raise those concerns and hear from Ministers directly.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last week, at a City of Wolverhampton council meeting in my constituency, when discussing the removal of face coverings under a public space protection order, a Reform councillor asked a hijab-wearing Labour cabinet member, Obaida Ahmed, whether the order extended to the removal of religious garments like burkas for the identification of criminals—comments that clearly shook Councillor Ahmed. Will the Leader of the House please join me in condemning such disgraceful and divisive questioning, and stand in solidarity with Councillor Ahmed and all those from whichever party who refuse to let prejudice and discrimination undermine efforts to make our communities safer?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and absolutely condemn the language that he describes. It is incumbent on all elected office holders to consider the language they use. I want to recognise the contribution of those who work tirelessly to ensure that prejudice and discrimination do not undermine efforts to make our communities more inclusive.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
I take this opportunity to commend the outstanding work of the team behind Coopers bar in Southport for all the work they do to support the grassroots music scene in the town. They are now further strengthening their contribution by expanding their offering, with a new venue on West Street due to open later in the spring. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the importance of grassroots music venues to our towns across the country, so that the contributions of places like Coopers can be properly recognised?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in praising the work of Coopers bar. As I have said before, bars and live music venues are cornerstones of our local communities. Our creative industries sector plan includes a £30 million music growth package to support small venues. If he were able to secure an Adjournment debate on this topic, I am sure that it would be a popular one.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Workers in Suffolk Coastal have been let down badly after carrying out their jobs in good faith only to be denied wages that they earned. After multiple failures to be granted the money they earned, employees of the Orwell hotel in Felixstowe were forced to gain employment tribunal judgments confirming that the money is owed to them, yet many are still waiting to be paid. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to engage with me urgently on this case and on the wider failure to ensure that employment tribunal awards are properly enforced?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter, and I understand that it must be deeply frustrating for the workers affected. I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets her to discuss this case.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty and helped break down barriers to opportunity by introducing child trust funds, giving every single 18 year old savings regardless of their background. However, on turning 18, a disabled person will find that if they have a care package, their child trust fund will be counted in the financial assessment. Can the Leader of the House please make time for a debate on how we can ensure that the child trust funds benefit every single young person regardless of whether they are disabled?
Sir Alan Campbell
Child trust funds have helped parents and carers invest in their children’s futures, and we are committed to ensuring that every disabled person has access to the care they need. I will arrange a meeting for my hon. Friend with the relevant Minister so they can hear her concerns at first hand.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Families in Kidsgrove are understandably annoyed that the playground at Clough Hall park has only recently reopened, having been cordoned off since last May. I raised the matter with the Conservative-led Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council, as did local councillors, yet it took eight months to bring it back into use. Does the Leader of the House agree that the borough council must start listening to residents because high-quality playgrounds must be available to all regardless of where they live?
Sir Alan Campbell
Playgrounds are a vital part of our social infrastructure, and the Budget committed £18 million to revamp playgrounds across England. I am sure that the Conservative council in Newcastle-under-Lyme will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments. It is time that it listens to residents, or will it turn out to be just like Reform: over-offering and under-delivering?
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
With the cancer plan, we have made great progress this week on how we plan to tackle terminal illnesses in this country. On Tuesday, I had the privilege of visiting my constituent Alfred Whalley, who is currently living with terminal pulmonary fibrosis. After serving 20 years as a paramedic, he wanted to share with me his disappointment at his experiences at the very dated Royal Preston hospital, where one night he was moved five times as they juggled beds—though he is keen to stress that all staff were doing an incredible job. Does the Leader of the House agree that while plans for future terminal patients are welcome, we cannot forget the experiences of patients now and must find ways to invest in hospitals like Royal Preston which will be waiting at least 12 years to be rebuilt? Will he join me in sending best wishes to Alf and his wife Wendy and join their call for one of the Health Ministers to visit Royal Preston hospital to see the conditions for themselves?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the arrival of the national cancer plan, and in sending our best wishes to Alfred, Wendy and their family and friends. We have made progress in improving the lives of patients with terminal illnesses, with 230,000 more diagnoses arriving in time and £70 million invested in cutting-edge radiotherapy. However, as my hon. Friend points out, there is a lot more to do. There will be a statement on the national cancer plan later. Should she wish to meet Ministers to make a specific case, I will ensure that she gets a meeting.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Linsey Farnsworth.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I am glad to end business questions on a joyful note. Just before Christmas, I launched Amber Valley’s business awards, and encouraged people to nominate their favourite local businesses and to shop locally. After hundreds of nominations, the winners are now in: Basilia and 47 Degrees Coffee in Langley Mill; By HeatherMay and Amber’s Beauty in Ripley; and Beth’s Groom Hut in Waingroves. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the winners, and will he update the House on the support given to small businesses and high streets?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for the businesses in her constituency. I will absolutely join her in congratulating those winners, whose awards are, I am sure, well deserved. We are committed to small businesses through our small business plan, which will help to save them time and money, and open up new opportunities. Out there in all our constituencies, businesses need our support. I am sure that they can go on to even better things.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That concludes business questions. We have made a note of those Members who were not called today.
Sudan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I wish to update the House on the situation in Sudan.
On Tuesday night, I returned from the border between Sudan and Chad, where I witnessed from the camp of 140,000 people in Adré—85% of them women and children who have fled the most horrendous violence and violations—the devastating human toll of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. In January, Sudan passed 1,000 days of conflict between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces. This is a regionalised conflict of power, proxies and profit, defined by unimaginable atrocities, by millions pushed into famine, by the horrific use of rape as a weapon of war, and by suffering that should strike at the core of our shared humanity.
That should mobilise the world’s resources and resolve, yet too often the response is to hold back and look away—catastrophically failing the people of Sudan, and Sudan’s women and girls. I am determined that we do not look away, and that we put the spotlight firmly on Sudan. That is why this week I travelled to the region to see at first hand the extent of the crisis, to listen to the testimony of traumatised women and children whose lives will never be the same again, to see how UK support is making a difference, and to see what urgently needs to be done by the international community to help arrest the spiral of bloodshed and drive urgent momentum towards peace.
In Adré, I met families who had been torn apart, mothers who had survived appalling violence only to find their daughters missing, and frightened children who had travelled vast distances in search of some semblance of safety. I met teachers, nurses, students, market traders, small businesswomen and political activists—impressive women whose lives and livelihoods back home had been stolen from them.
I met a mother separated from her children who told me she still does not know where they are and whether they are alive; a young woman who told me that most of the women she knew had been through “bad violence” on their journey, but they would not talk about it “because of the shame”; and a Sudanese community worker who told me she thought more than half the women in the camp had directly experienced sexual assault or abuse. I have heard from others in recent weeks, including a Sudanese emergency response room worker who described three sisters arriving at the response room who had all been raped. The oldest was 13, and the youngest was eight. This is a war waged on the bodies of women and girls.
But here is what I also saw: an incredible group of Sudanese women who have set up a makeshift support centre for women who have suffered sexual violence and for children with trauma. They have activities for children and support for mums. More survivors need that kind of help, so this week I announced that the UK will fund a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan, enabling them to access medical and psychological care, given the terrible stigma endured by survivors and children born of rape. That is part of our international action to tackle a global emergency of violence against women and girls.
What I did not see in Adré is just as disturbing: the fathers, husbands and brothers missing, either killed, drawn into the fighting or migrating further and leaving family behind. Reports from El Fasher after the RSF attacks were of atrocities so appalling that they could be seen from space—blood-soaked sand, multiple piles of bodies and mass graves—but aid agencies are still facing barriers to getting in. There are reports that the Sudanese Armed Forces are refusing to let desperately needed humanitarian aid through, even though right now some 30 million people need lifesaving assistance due to this war, and up to 7 million face famine. That is nearly equivalent to the entire population of London—every person across the entire city we stand in today.
In December, the UK provided an additional £21 million for food, shelter and health services, and we have committed £146 million to support over 800,000 people this year alone. Since the conflict began, we have reached over 2.5 million people, delivering water and medicine to hard-to-reach areas. We will continue to make Sudan a top priority for UK humanitarian support, and we will support reforms such as the steps advocated by UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher and the International Rescue Committee to strengthen prioritisation and closer work through local partners on the ground. But for aid to save more lives, the deliberate barriers to humanitarian access must be lifted.
Aid alone will not solve this crisis; we need an immediate and urgent ceasefire, we need those responsible for these atrocities to be held to account, and we need a pathway to peace. There is no military solution to the conflict—that only results in devastation for Sudan—yet the military men driving this conflict still refuse to agree a truce, and there is disturbing evidence that they are seeking and getting hold of ever more dangerous weapons.
This crisis is compounded by regional rivalries and vested interests, with the real risk of further escalation within Sudan and beyond as fighting spreads to the Kordofan regions. I am very fearful that the RSF advances on the city of El Obeid risk turning it into another El Fasher. Co-ordinated and determined international pressure are needed to halt this bloodshed and pursue an immediate truce, with a halt to the arms flows, tangible pressure from all those who have backed the RSF and SAF or who have influence upon them to deliver a ceasefire, and pressure from the entire international community too.
The US has been working intensively to secure a truce, drawing together other Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—and discussing humanitarian support, military withdrawal, civilian transition and action to stop arms flows. I am in close contact with all members of the Quad, including Secretary Rubio and the President’s senior adviser on Africa, as we urgently push for a way forward. The UK is particularly involved in a process to support Sudanese civilians to build their capacity.
African partners in the region also have a critical role. In Addis Ababa earlier this week, I met Foreign Ministers from Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Chad, and the African Union’s chairperson and peace and security commissioner, to discuss what more can be done by border countries, and their assessment of the action needed to achieve a ceasefire. We need to build the same focus and momentum behind a peace process for Sudan as we had last year around Gaza, with countries from across the world coming together to back a ceasefire. That is why I am so determined that the UK will keep the international spotlight on Sudan. This month the UK holds the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, and we will use it to press for safe, unimpeded humanitarian access, accountability for atrocities, and international co-operation for a ceasefire. We will use it to ensure that the voices of Sudan’s women are heard in the Security Council Chamber.
As we look to the third anniversary of this devastating conflict in April, the UK and Germany will jointly convene a major international conference on Sudan in Berlin. In November, UK leadership at the UN Human Rights Council secured international agreement for an urgent UN inquiry into crimes in El Fasher, following its capture by the RSF. Later this month we will receive the report of that UN fact-finding mission, because as well as pursuing peace, we must also hold the perpetrators to account.
Today I can announce new action that the UK is taking to apply pressure deliberately on the belligerents, with fresh sanctions targeting senior figures in the SAF and RSF who have committed atrocities across Sudan. We are also targeting a network of individuals operating behind the scenes to procure weapons and recruit mercenary fighters. These designations send a clear message that the UK will hold accountable those suspected of perpetrating and profiteering from the most egregious violations of international humanitarian law.
To look away from crises such as Sudan is not just against our values but against our interests. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause harm to civilians, because their destabilising effects ripple across borders and continents through migration and extremism. Let 2026 be the year that the world listens to the women of Sudan, not the military men who are perpetuating this conflict. Let 2026 be the year that the world comes together to drive urgent new momentum for peace. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The situation in Sudan is serious and deadly, and Members across the Chamber want this awful, barbaric war to end. Millions are suffering, displaced and malnourished, and an estimated 150,000 people have been killed, including in massacres such as El Fasher. War crimes are being committed, and appalling acts of sexual violence are being perpetrated against women and girls. UK leadership is needed to make a difference to the humanitarian situation on the ground, and to support every international diplomatic effort to end this awful and deadly conflict.
I must ask the Foreign Secretary, however, how she can come to the House to talk about such barbaric sexual violence against women and girls, when the Prime Minister knowingly let his friend, Peter Mandelson, a friend of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles, into the heart of Government and her Department. Is she not ashamed and concerned that our country’s credibility and record on this issue has been damaged because of the Government’s poor judgment, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing Mandelson, knowing his links to Epstein? With Mandelson putting his interests first, has she assessed the damage that his actions have caused to the UK’s international and reputational interests, including our essential work to address the situation in Sudan? To her knowledge, did he at any stage mislead our US ally on national security and foreign affairs on key decisions such as Chagos, which impact our security partnership? This morning I am sure the Foreign Secretary will have seen reports that Secretary Rubio warned the Labour Government over the appointment of Lord Mandelson. Can she confirm whether she or her predecessor were aware of that? The UK’s credibility has been damaged by the Prime Minister and her Government’s appalling judgment. That is why answers are needed.
This week, the UK assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how we will use that position rightly to advance efforts to negotiate to end this conflict? US-led peace efforts are reportedly building momentum, with a text being prepared of a plan to try to stop the fighting. Has she seen and inputted into that text, and what are her views on it? Has she set parameters to decide whether the proposals are the right ones, and has she spoken to other Sudan Quad countries about it? If acceptable, what pressures will be put on the warring parties to agree it? What is her assessment of any progress made since the statement at last April’s Sudan conference in London, and who will participate in the conference in Germany?
We welcome the new sanctions of the RSF and the SAF, but can we expect further action against the leaders of those barbaric groups, their key operators and enforcers, who were all responsible for administering vile brutality on innocent people in different parts of the country? We all back the sanctions announced in December, but we need stronger action with robust consequences that deter the entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful war.
Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on how the UK is using international courts to pursue those responsible for these atrocities being committed, and to gather evidence? We note the £20 million of humanitarian funding announced by the Government for women and girls, so will she confirm whether that is drawn from money already pledged, or whether it is additional new funding? Which organisations are providing the programmes funded by that money, and what are the mechanisms for how the support service will work?
As well as supporting women and girls affected by sexual violence and the stigma attached to children born from rape, is the Foreign Secretary working to help male victims, where there is also stigma that prevents them coming forward? More broadly, can she update us on the volume of British aid that has managed to get over the border since the escalation of this awful conflict towards the end of last year? What information has she received about what aid is getting through, and whether it is getting into the right hands?
The war in Sudan is a stain on the world’s conscience, and Britain must exert every ounce of its influence and leverage to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately and to secure a lasting peace.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary’s words on Sudan. It is the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century, and the whole House should be united in wanting it to end. She asked about the work being done through the Quad, and the work led by the US. I am in close contact with the US special envoy, Massad Boulos, and I am keeping in close contact with Secretary Rubio on this issue. I have also been involved in discussions with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A lot of work is being pursued by the Quad, but, linked to that, the UK and Norway are also pursuing further work, particularly to build civilian capacity. We all want this to move towards a civilian political transition, but we need to build up the capacity of Sudanese civilians, who have faced the most horrendous devastation and had to flee their homes as a result of this conflict, and they need support as well.
As I said in my statement, we believe that this has to be an international effort, in the same way as in the run-up to the Gaza ceasefire, where there was work by the Arab League to say that Hamas should play no role, work by the UK, France and other countries to recognise the state of Palestine, and work by different countries to put forward potential reform plans during the summer, all of which was ultimately drawn upon in the 20-point plan put together by President Trump last year. We need the same intensity in relation to Sudan, with the same level of international engagement. That is what I want to see, and it is why I spoke to so many African Foreign Ministers in neighbouring countries this week. It is why I have been speaking to the African Union, and why I will be raising the issue not just at the UN Security Council when we hold the Chair this month, but at the Munich security conference, and as part of the Berlin conference. It is crucial that we keep that focus and energy in relation to Sudan. The £20 million announced this week is new money that will be used, in particular, for the survivors of sexual violence.
The right hon. Lady mentioned Peter Mandelson. As the House will know, I withdrew Peter Mandelson from his role as ambassador to the United States less than a week after I was appointed as Foreign Secretary. I am clear that his actions are completely unforgiveable. Given that at the heart of what Epstein did was the grave abuse and trafficking of women and girls, this is particularly disturbing. I will say something else: I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the height of the financial crisis, when everybody was busting a gut to rescue the savings and livelihoods of ordinary people across this country, so the idea that a senior and experienced Cabinet Minister, working alongside us, could instead be behaving the way we have seen is truly shocking. It is right that a police investigation is under way.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for her impactful visit and for the sanctions that she has announced today. Earlier this week, the all-party parliamentary group for Sudan and South Sudan met the Somoud civilian coalition. It stressed, as she has done today, that it is often civilians who are delivering humanitarian assistance, and it was civilians who were ejected from Government by the two generals who are currently slogging it out, at the expense of thousands upon thousands of slaughtered civilians, and millions of hungry and displaced civilians. She talked about the UK and Norway being focused on developing civilian capacity, but does she agree that cannot be a separate track to what the Quad is doing? Civilian voices must be involved in peace processes. We cannot see an empowerment of the generals, who have caused the crisis in the first place, which is what will happen if civilians are not engaged in what the Quad is doing now.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s points and pay tribute to the bravery of Sudanese civilians, especially those who continue to run the emergency response rooms, providing urgently needed support for desperate people in Sudan. She is right that civilian capacity has to be a central part of the peace process. In fact, members of the Quad have specifically asked us to play a role in developing that as part of the peace process. I also discussed that with the African Union this week, because we believe that civilians can only be supported with the assistance of the countries bordering Sudan, and with the African Union.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The situation in Sudan is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. I welcome the increased funding and the sanctions, which are long overdue, but why do the sanctions still fall short of the EU action? Why do they still fail to target the heads of the SAF and the RSF? Why has it taken this long? Will the Government now target those profiting from Sudan’s gold trade, which continues to bankroll the war economy?
Humanitarian aid must flow freely and independently. In its role as the United Nations Security Council penholder, what steps are the Government taking to secure a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can get through, and to expand the arms embargo beyond Darfur to the whole country? Will the Government expand their aid provision and ensure that aid delivery, including from UK taxpayers in my constituency of Esher and Walton, is distributed through the UN and the international non-governmental organisations, or through localised efforts, such as the emergency response rooms, and that the UN system is not undermined?
I welcome the steps that the UK has taken to ensure that Sudanese pro-democracy actors are not sidelined by external powerbrokers. Will she reaffirm the UK’s commitment to a civilian, non-military end state in Sudan? What is being done to prevent parallel diplomatic tracks from undermining UN-led peace efforts? Will the Government suspend arms exports to the United Arab Emirates, given credible evidence of its role in fuelling the conflict?
What discussions had the UK held with partners to ensure that humanitarian assistance is not being used to mask responsibility? How will accountability for atrocities be safeguarded with any peace process supported by the UK, including support for international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court? The UK has a long legacy in Sudan, and with that comes responsibility. Sudan’s civilians cannot wait. I urge the Government to act with ever more urgency and focus.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for her commitment to reaching peace in Sudan and her comments on the horrendous nature of the crisis. The sanctions that we have now issued bring us broadly in line with the EU. The US has gone further, so we are continuing to look at the issues. We are seeking to link our sanctions to the evidence on atrocities, to the evidence on arms flows and, crucially, to the peace process and the peace discussions that we want to take place.
I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of the UN. A few weeks ago, I met the UN Secretary General and the UN emergency co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, to discuss Sudan and the importance of the work that the UN is doing. The UN is in close touch with the Quad on these discussions and is pressing for much greater humanitarian access. We certainly need to move towards a civilian Government. We need a political transition and a process to get there, but that has to start with a humanitarian truce. We have to start by silencing the guns and, as part of that, we need an end to the arms flows. I have seen evidence of a whole series of countries being involved in the arms flows to different sides, and we need action against that.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, her visit and her announcement about new money and the sanctions. Children are being deliberately and systematically targeted by both sides in this conflict: boys are being forcibly recruited, girls are subject to sexual violence, and even infants have been raped. Will she confirm that what we have seen during this conflict are not spontaneous acts of violence by the warring parties, but the orchestrated, industrial-scale use of rape as a weapon of war, deliberately designed to strike fear into the civilian population? Will she confirm that she will ensure that women are at the table during the peace negotiations?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have heard the most disturbing stories about the impact on children. Mums describe how their children just stay in their tents, even though they have reached the relative safety of the camp, because they are terrified to go out because of everything that has happened to them. We have also heard terrible stories about young children being raped and facing the most horrendous sexual assaults. I strongly agree that not only do we have to pursue peace, but we need to hold to account the people who have inflicted those atrocities on children.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I commend the Foreign Secretary for her proactive engagement with Parliament on this issue, because that is part of the way we will shine a light on these horrendous circumstances. I concur with the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about the importance of civilian engagement, that any ceasefire is linked to the development of a political process, and that perhaps there can be civilian engagement at the Berlin conference. Will the Foreign Secretary say more about how she intends to engage the African Union? There is a general view that if the African Union were more engaged, it would be a lot harder for Russia to veto UN Security Council resolutions.
Yvette Cooper
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about civilian engagement. I assure him that we plan for civilian voices to be heard in the discussions at the UN Security Council, where I strongly believe we need to hear the voices of Sudanese women, and as part of the Berlin conference. He asks about the African Union, which is a priority for us. One of the reasons I went to Addis Ababa was to meet the head of the African Union and other representatives to discuss exactly how we can work with the African Union, and how Foreign Ministers from neighbouring countries can work together. They all desperately want to see peace in Sudan, because they can also see the destabilising effects of what is happening there on their countries and across the region. So yes, we need to work strongly with the African Union too.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me say to the Foreign Secretary that that was the most powerful statement this House has heard on Sudan over the 1,000 days of the conflict. I thank her for all her work in this area, but we know that this war is being fuelled by external actors with an interest in their own profligacy in Sudan. Can she say how she will engage with those actors, many of which we have trading relationships with? What leverage will she use to ensure that they withdraw their weapons and the supply of mercenaries into Sudan, which is fuelling this conflict?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. External countries and actors are fuelling the conflict through the support that they are providing to the warring parties, and that has to end. The reason why the warring parties are refusing to accept what everybody knows to be the case—that there is no military solution to this war—is that they keep thinking they can still secure additional weapons and advantage. That is why an end to the arms flow has to be part of this process, and why we are raising and discussing this issue in all the international discussions.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
How are the Government engaging directly with Sudanese civilian coalitions, including the Somoud coalition, to ensure that their proposals inform international mediation efforts?
Yvette Cooper
We are engaging directly with a range of civilian groups and seeking to provide support and bring them together. We are working with Norway to do that. This work is still at an early stage. Although we have kept in close contact with civilian groups throughout this process, we are now seeking, alongside the work of the Quad, to draw up a stronger process for the future to help to build that capacity among civilian groups. That is needed if we are to get a transition to a civilian Government.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
May I say how great it was to see that the Foreign Secretary was in Chad this week in support of Sudanese refugees? I particularly support the remarks at the start of her statement, when she said:
“I am determined that we do not look away.”
Can she tell us more about UK efforts to get our humanitarian aid to the millions who need it?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that, because we cannot look away. I fear that it has been too easy for the international community and for people across the world to look away—in particular to look away from the plight of women and girls and the way in which rape has been used as a weapon of war. That is why we are announcing the dedicated funding for survivors of sexual violence as part of the more than £140 million we are providing for Sudan. We are ensuring that that reaches local groups and organisations that can better deliver support on the ground.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, for her travel and for the prominence that she has given to this issue. May I thank her especially for her engagement with the victims of the conflict, not least the women and girls?
I welcome the action on sanctions, but obviously state and non-state sanctions and sanctions on individuals have to be a dynamic process. Can she assure us that she will engage with the civilians affected by the conflict and with civil society, which has worked on this issue for a long time? Will she also engage with this Parliament, because so many people across the Chamber have been engaging with this issue for a long time?
Yvette Cooper
The simple answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is: yes, I will. We will continue to look at the issue of sanctions and what more we can do, and we will certainly continue to engage not just with the House, but with anybody and everybody who has evidence that can support that process.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for such a strong statement this afternoon. She has rightly highlighted the disgraceful use of rape as a weapon of war in this conflict, but it happens in many other conflicts around the world, from Ukraine to Myanmar. May I urge her to use her office to lead international efforts to bring the perpetrators of this disgraceful violence against women and girls to justice, wherever that violence may be happening and no matter how long the process takes?
Yvette Cooper
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It was 25 years ago when the UK led the drawing-up of the resolution on women, peace and security at the United Nations. Since then, successive Governments have highlighted the issue of violence against women and girls. I want to ensure that that is at the heart of our foreign policy not just in Sudan, but more widely. It was devastating to hear from one aid worker who told me that—although she had worked on conflicts for 20 years and had experience of dealing with sexual violence in conflict for very many years—this instance was by far the worst. She talked to all the women arriving at the camp, and she said it felt like almost every one of them had a terrible story of sexual violence to tell.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Over the last two-and-a-half years, there has hardly been a week when we have not had an urgent question, statement or debate on the situation in Gaza, yet the situation in Sudan has often been overlooked, despite the fact that at least three times as many people have been killed in Sudan as in Gaza. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but the key here is to ensure that an arms embargo exists across the world. Can she update the House on how many of our allies have agreed to such an arms embargo? What action will be taken against those who are frankly not our allies to try to prevent those arms from getting into Sudan?
Yvette Cooper
The energy that we have had on Gaza and the work that took place last summer are really important. They have helped to achieve a ceasefire that is still fragile, but a ceasefire nevertheless, and a peace process that is moving forward. We need that same urgency and intensity on Sudan. This needs to be global; we need the same sense of countries coming together internationally. That is why we will continue to maintain the spotlight on it.
Restricting and preventing arms flows has been central to many of the international discussions and some of the discussions in the Quad, and countries have made commitments about ending arms flows from neighbouring parties. My personal belief is that there is much more work to do in this area, given the number of countries involved in these arms flows.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for shining a light on the horrendous suffering of women and girls in Sudan. Does she agree that rape should never be used as a weapon of war? To use rape against children is a heinous crime. Children have special protected status under international law. Will she pursue the perpetrators in the international courts? Can she say more about the rehabilitation support that we will provide to those children?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to refer to the truly horrendous crime of rape against children. Rape that takes place against young girls and boys causes deep trauma not just at the time when the crime is committed, but for many, many years afterwards. That is why we want to support the work that I have seen being done on a very small scale already to provide support for children and mothers who have been victims of sexual violence, but we want to go much further. We want to ensure that there is psychological and practical support for those who are victims of these terrible crimes.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement today, and particularly for her engagement with the African Union and regional partners. I know that she will be concerned by the possibility of broader destabilisation as a consequence of this conflict. In the light of reports of renewed clashes in Blue Nile state and the mobilisation of armed groups in the southern and western parts of that state, what is the view of Ethiopia and South Sudan on the actions that need to be taken to limit the destabilisation? What role, if any, can the UK Government offer to play to support them?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is exactly right to raise the risk of destabilisation. The impact is not just on the Blue Nile area, which he referred to; we have seen soldiers being killed in Chad as a result of incursions over the border. Many of the Foreign Ministers I spoke to, including the Ethiopian and South Sudanese Foreign Ministers, spoke about their deep concern that vacuums can be exploited by extremists, so regional destabilisation is a significant risk that they are concerned about. We discussed exactly how Foreign Ministers across the region can work together. Their understanding of and expertise in the dynamics within Sudan are crucial to the peace process, and they were all keen to be part of those discussions.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Sudanese diaspora in Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme will welcome the statement today, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for her leadership in travelling to the region—we have to be seen to be believed.
I welcome the programme of sanctions that has been announced, because we must do whatever we can to end the murders, the evil and the bloodshed. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary met the African Union and regional Foreign Ministers, which is something for which I have pushed for several months, alongside other colleagues, when discussing these issues, and I thank her for unpicking those conversations. She has mentioned Germany and Norway, but can she further unpick what our European allies—France, Italy, Spain, Ireland and the rest—are doing to help us end this war?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that this must be treated as an international issue. I have discussed this matter directly at the G7, which includes France, Germany and Italy, and I have spoken about it directly with the French Foreign Minister. We are planning to use the Berlin conference as an opportunity to involve many other European countries and international partners. My hon. Friend will know that the Norwegians have a long history of working in Sudan to support civilians. There has to be strong engagement from every continent.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary rightly spoke of the need to halt arms flows, and I listened very carefully to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). May I focus on one specific country? There is significant evidence of the use of Chinese-manufactured arms, such as the FH-95 strategic drone, in Sudan. How much time was dedicated to raising that matter with the Chinese during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China? Has the Foreign Secretary spoken to her Chinese counterparts about it? What reassurance can she give the House that it has not become an inconvenient truth in the Government’s attempt to reset the relationship with China?
Yvette Cooper
All I can tell the hon. Member is that we believe a whole range of countries have been involved in the arms flows in some way—whether it is in their manufacture and sale, in purchasing and financing or in transit routes. We continue to raise this matter in all our international engagements. I am particularly concerned about the use of drones and some of the more serious weapons; there is increasing evidence that they are being procured for use in Sudan. We continue to pursue this matter, and we are pursuing it with every nation.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for the sanctions she has announced today. Her account of the impact on civilians is devastating, with more than 21 million people facing high levels of acute food insecurity and 9.5 million internally displaced. What representations does she continue to make to parties to the conflict to secure unhindered humanitarian access, particularly for neighbouring countries that face destabilisation?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right, and we will continue to maintain the pressure because there has to be access. There must also be continuing support, which is why, in the run-up to the Berlin conference, we will discuss how we can ensure that there is also funding for the humanitarian support that is needed. One of the issues I heard about when speaking to people earlier this week was that families are still going hungry, and nobody should go hungry in the 21st century.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I very much thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, her visit, the new sanctions and aid that she has announced, and for her clear, personal passion to keep the spotlight on the horrific suffering of women and children, in particular, in this conflict, as well as her clear determination to bring together the international community and this country to do what we can to reach a ceasefire.
I draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention specifically to the role of gold in financing the conflict. It is reported that, since the war began, gold production has grown more than tenfold, and that the vast majority is being smuggled out of the country, illicitly financing the arms imports fuelling the conflict. The countries involved include cross-border flows to Egypt and the UAE. What concrete measures is the UK taking—diplomatic, regulatory, sanctions—with partners, including those two countries, to highlight, call attention to and stop the illicit gold trade that is fuelling this horrific conflict?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady is right to raise these issues. We held an event with a group of Foreign Ministers and ambassadors from a range of countries neighbouring Sudan at which we discussed the economics of the conflict and the dangers of allowing a vile conflict to take such deep root over an extended period of time that too many players in the process end up profiting from something that is destroying lives. Therefore, part of the response and peace process must be to target those routes for profit, as well as the routes for arms flows, to bring this conflict properly to a close.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The situation in Sudan is deplorable. Sadly, as is too common, women and girls are being terrorised and rape is being used as a weapon of war. The United Nations has reported that, horrifically, infants as young as a year old are being raped. This is hell on earth. The Secretary of State has mentioned that she is working with our African partners. Can she discuss what healthcare support will be provided to women and girls, from medical aid to paediatric care for children born from rape?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because sexual violence in conflict has too often been ignored, and it has been too easy to turn away from the women and children who are victims of these truly horrendous crimes. We are determined to ensure that that is not the case. I also visited, in both Ethiopia and Chad, some of the clinics and support services for victims of sexual violence, as well as some of the other services for which the UK continues to provide support and funding. We need to ensure that those services can also be provided to the victims in Sudan.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. Nobody could fail to be moved by the horrific tales from Adré. As she has said, accountability is crucial, and a future ICC court case will rely on incredibly hard work being done now to secure witness statements, preserve digital files, build structured casework and put in place strict and disciplined chain-of-custody mechanisms. All of that requires skill and expertise on the frontline. What is the UK doing to support the international effort to preserve and verify now, so that a future court case is possible and the perpetrators of these appalling crimes can be truly held accountable?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s incredibly important question. This is exactly why in November, at the Human Rights Council, the UK led on a resolution to establish a fact-finding mission into El Fasher. Teams have been sent to pursue and gather exactly that kind of evidence, and we are expecting their fact-finding report before the end of the month. While we continue to hold the chair of the UN Security Council, that report will inform our discussions. I do not yet know what it will have found or how much progress they will have managed to make, but from everything we have seen so far, I fear that its conclusions are likely to be truly damning and disturbing.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I greatly welcome the statement made today and the actions the Government have taken in response to the conflict in Sudan, including sanctions against individuals linked to the most horrendous atrocities and sexual violence. The situation in Sudan is a devastating reminder of how often sexual violence against women and girls is used in both conflicts and peacetime. As a relative newcomer to this place, I am very concerned that, across the world, we still do not treat violence against women and girls as the dealbreaker it is. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that in wider diplomatic engagement with international partners, including when negotiating trade deals, this Government will always consider a country’s attitude to girls and young women?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend about the way in which violence against women and girls has too often been discounted. Too often, people look away; we need to ensure that is not the case, which is why I have been clear that violence against women and girls and issues of equality for women more widely should be central to UK foreign policy and the discussions we have across the world. It is also why, as my hon. Friend knows, we have a domestic ambition and mission to halve violence against women and girls. We are now working with other countries to share experience globally, working together to tackle what is not just a national emergency but a global emergency.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I salute the Foreign Secretary’s commitment and passion on this topic, and congratulate her on her recent efforts. She has already mentioned the UK’s role as the penholder at the UN Security Council. With that in mind, I am sure she agrees that without the inclusion of Sudanese civic society, a long-term, peaceful and democratic resolution simply cannot be achieved. However, is the Foreign Secretary planning to support the African Union-led quintet initiative—which involves multilateral organisations, including the UN—to bring together Sudanese political parties and civil society to agree a joint position on a peaceful, civilian-led political transition? If so, what steps is she taking to support that initiative?
Yvette Cooper
That is exactly why I had meetings directly with the African Union, to make sure that the work to support civic society involves the work it is doing locally and also involves neighbouring countries directly. The hon. Member is completely right to say that if this simply becomes an ongoing stand-off between two military-led parties, we will not get a secure and sustainable peace for Sudan. The first stage has to be the humanitarian truce, but we have to have that civilian transition.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement today and commend her on her leadership, particularly in travelling out to Sudan to see at first hand the atrocities that are being committed. We all know that in conflict innocent civilians will always get caught up in crossfire, but the distinction in this case is that children are specifically being targeted—children being raped as a weapon of war and young boys being kidnapped and forced to bear arms. I am sure the whole House welcomes the additional support we are giving in the form of financial aid, but it is a drop in the ocean given the challenges faced in Sudan, so what more are we doing with our allies to ensure we can maximise the aid that gets into Sudan? Also, given that we are now in pole position as president of the United Nations Security Council, is there any prospect that we can get UN troops to protect the civilian population, and children in particular?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Member’s points about the horrendous way in which children are being targeted. Some of the most disturbing reports are of children and women who have managed to flee from one of the cities under siege. They are leaving—they are fleeing, they are running away—yet on those journeys, they are stopped and face rape, sexual violence and kidnapping. The most terrible crimes are being committed, so we are working on how we can strengthen support for children and use not just the work of the UN Security Council or that of the UN more widely, but any international forum we have, to raise the plight of children.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary very much for her tone, her words and her obvious empathy and compassion for the Sudanese victims, which are greatly appreciated by us all.
The UN’s presence in famine-stricken Kadugli in South Kordofan and risk zones in Darfur and Kordofan in order to prevent mass atrocities and widespread sexual violence against women and girls, and a substantial increase in UK and international funding, are needed to avert catastrophic further loss of life and what the UN describes as the world’s largest and most neglected humanitarian crisis—I think many Members of this House, including the Foreign Secretary, would say that that is exactly the case. Millions have been displaced, famine has been confirmed in multiple locations, and over 12 million people are in desperate need. What can be done to help provide the humanitarian and medical aid that is needed, including to address the psychological impact on those women and girls? I cannot begin to try to comprehend that, but I think the Foreign Secretary acknowledges that and understands it better than most.
Yvette Cooper
One of the disturbing things about El Fasher is that aid agencies said they expected to see thousands of people arriving who had fled El Fasher as a result of the siege. They never arrived, and no one yet knows what happened to so many of the people in El Fasher who did not arrive at neighbouring camps and safe places. I really fear that there is a risk of another El Fasher—that in the Kordofans, if there is not urgent action to establish a ceasefire, we will see more of those atrocities take place. That is why I continually say it is important that the world hears the voices of the women and children of Sudan, not those of the military men who are simply perpetuating this war.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I asked the Leader of the House my question this morning, I believe I should have declared that I am the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. I apologise to the House for omitting to say that—I was in a bit of a rush, because everyone was being hurried along.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for notice of her point of order. While it is not a matter for the Chair, she has now put her remarks on the record.
National Cancer Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s national cancer plan for England.
A cancer diagnosis changes you forever. When I was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer 18 months ago, I did not know whether I would be alive today, never mind standing at this Dispatch Box announcing a national cancer plan, but one year ago almost to the day, the Prime Minister asked me to do just that. Since the Government took office, over 212,000 more people are getting a cancer diagnosis on time, over 36,000 more are starting treatment on time, and rates of early diagnosis are hitting record highs. Despite those vital signs of recovery, though, the NHS is still failing far too many cancer patients and their families. That is why first and foremost, this plan is a break with the failure of the past 15 years.
In 2011, the coalition Government published “Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer”. That strategy was followed in 2016 by “Achieving world-class cancer outcomes: a strategy for England”. In 2019, the long-term health plan for England made cancer a priority and included a headline ambition to diagnose 75% of cancers at stages 1 and 2. However well-intentioned they were, not one of those strategies has lived up to its promises. Cancer mortality rates in the UK are much higher than in other, comparable countries, while survival rates are much lower. Cancer incidence is around 15% higher than when the 62 day standard was last met, and working-class communities are being failed most of all. The most deprived areas, including rural and coastal communities, often have fewer cancer consultants, leaving patients waiting longer. This all adds up to the chilling fact that someone living in Blackpool is almost twice as likely to die young from cancer than someone living in Harrow. Wherever in our country a person lives, they deserve the same shot at survival and quality of life as everyone else. Wealth should not dictate their health, and neither should their postcode.
Behind these statistics are real people. I have heard from those whose care lacked empathy and dignity, from those whose cancer was missed or whose test results were lost, from those who were passed from pillar to post and kept in the dark about their condition, and from those whose loved ones died before their turn came for surgery because the wait was too long. Those experiences are unacceptable—they are devastating. From day one, I was determined to put their voices front and centre of our plan. Over the past year, we have listened to and learned from cancer charities, clinicians and, most importantly, patients and their families. Every action is a response to someone’s lived experience. Every commitment is a promise to transform someone else’s life. Their stories have become the blueprint to make the biggest improvement in cancer outcomes in a generation.
Three major themes stood out from the 11,000 responses to our call for evidence, some 9,000 of which came from patients and their carers: core performance standards, improved survival, and quality of life after diagnosis. Those are not radical ideas, but unlike previous strategies, this plan is not limited to incremental improvement. Instead, it is an ambitious, bold plan to save 320,000 more lives by 2035, which will be the fastest rate of improvement this century. We will do that by modernising the NHS, harnessing the power of science and technology, putting our patients at the front of the queue for the latest medicines, and helping them to live well after diagnosis, not least for people diagnosed with stage 4, metastatic and incurable cancers—people like me.
How do we get there? We are placing big bets on genomics, data and artificial intelligence, as set out in our 10-year plan for health. We will hardwire the three shifts of our 10-year plan into cancer pathways. First, on moving from analogue to digital, we heard from patients about the importance of clinical trials, so we will make the UK one of the best places in the world to run a trial with a new cancer trials accelerator. We will start people’s care earlier using liquid biopsy tests, which can return results up to two weeks faster than conventional testing. We will harness AI to read scans, plan radiotherapy and identify the right path for each patient. We will harness genomics so that every eligible patient has access to precision medicines. We will harness data to make sure that all metastatic disease is counted properly—starting with breast cancer—so that people with incurable cancer are properly recognised and supported. When people are not counted, they feel like they do not count, but we will end that.
Innovation will also help us fight inequalities and make the shift from sickness to prevention. We will turn the NHS app into a gateway for cancer care. By 2028, it will host a dashboard for cancer prevention, with access to tests and self-referral. By 2035, it will bring together genomic and lifestyle data with the single patient record to advise every patient according to their risk. That will benefit people in rural and coastal communities who can find it difficult to access specialist care simply due to geography.
Finally, we will use the neighbourhood health service to make the shift from hospital to community. That will mean more care, from prehabilitation to recovery support, delivered closer to home. We will help people live well with cancer through tailored support closer to home. People will be given personal cancer plans, named neighbourhood care leads and clear end-of-treatment summaries so that no one feels abandoned after their treatment.
For too long, those with rarer cancers have seen little to no progress for many of their conditions. They told us we need a special focus on these cancers, and our plan sets out how they will benefit from the deployment of genomics, early detection and the development of new treatments. That was asked for by patients and will be delivered by this Government. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her campaigning in memory of her late sister Margaret. We should also remember that the late Tessa Jowell raised this issue in 2018, and her family have campaigned ever since.
Our plan also gives pride of place for children and young people. We will improve their experience of care at every level, from hospital food to youth worker support and play support. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for his campaigning on that point. Our children and young people cancer taskforce asked for support with travel costs, because when someone’s child has cancer, the last thing they should worry about is how they will pay for their train ticket. Today, I can announce that we will fund those travel costs.
Alongside rare and less common cancers, we will make research for children and young people a national priority. I take this moment to thank the children, young people and families who made up our children and young people cancer taskforce. It was a pleasure and a privilege to meet them earlier this week. I thank the many families and loved ones of people lost too soon who continue to fight to make change for others. I am so grateful to them, and I want people to hear their voices as they read the plan, because it is rooted in the voices of patients, families, clinicians and charities. It will turn cancer from one of this country’s biggest killers into a chronic condition that is treatable and manageable for three in four patients. It delivers the ambition of the 10-year health plan, embodies this Government’s three shifts and sets a clear path towards earlier diagnosis, faster treatment and world-leading survival rates by 2035.
This plan does not belong to the NHS, and it does not belong to the Government; it belongs to us all. We all must play a part in making it work. Over the past year, I have met the patients, families, carers, clinicians, researchers, cancer charities and voluntary groups who all contributed to our plan. This Government is on their side. We wrote this with them, and we cannot deliver it without them. Let us do it together. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. May I say right at the outset that we share the ambition to improve cancer survival and outcomes? Almost every family in Britain has been touched by cancer, and patients deserve timely diagnosis, treatment and proper support. I also recognise the Minister’s personal experience and the commitment that she has clearly brought to this agenda. We on the Opposition Benches wish her every success for the future. I also join her in thanking all those who have taken part in the shaping of this plan. It makes a big difference when we hear the voices of patients and families who have been through these experiences.
The national cancer plan sets out major commitments, including on early diagnosis, improving performance against cancer waiting time standards, the faster set-up of clinical trials, and the national roll-out of targeted lung screening. It also talks about modernising services through technology and innovation. Cancer Research UK has said there is “much to welcome” in the plan, but it is right for it to say that delivery, funding and accountability will determine whether patients see change. Too often, plans sound impressive on paper but fall short when it comes to clear published delivery milestones and accountability. In many respects, this plan mirrors the ambitions of the 10-year NHS plan: it is strong on aspiration, but light on the detail of how change will actually be delivered on the ground. My first question is simple: when will the Government publish clear, funded milestones showing how and when patients will see improvements in the next year or two?
We welcome investment in diagnostics, technology and innovation. It is also right to recognise that this plan builds on the significant expansion of diagnostic capacity delivered by the last Conservative Government, including the roll-out of more than 160 community diagnostic centres. Earlier diagnosis on this scale is only possible because of that foundation, but technology is only meaningful if it translates into real capacity and quicker treatment for patients. That is why radiotherapy matters. Radiotherapy UK is right that it is a core part of modern cancer care, but it relies on up-to-date equipment and a skilled workforce. My second question is this: will Ministers set out how the plan will expand radiotherapy capacity in practice, including equipment replacement and the workforce, so that patients can benefit in reality, rather than the plan just being something written on paper? Are we learning the lessons from the Danish example? They invested in radiotherapy and saw significant improvements over a period of years.
That point brings me on to the workforce. The success of this plan depends on cancer nurses, radiographers, pathologists and oncologists who are already under immense pressure. We have heard big promises before, but less clarity on delivery, so my third question is this: where is the fully funded long-term workforce plan to deliver the staffing needed to expand diagnostic and treatment capacity and to make sustained improvements, including in neighbourhood health centres? Will the Government explain clearly who will staff them and how they will be funded? Blood Cancer UK has highlighted the importance of ensuring that blood cancers are properly recognised in planning and that patients receive consistent support from the point of diagnosis, including access to a named healthcare professional. That underlines why delivery and accountability across the system matter so much to patients.
I also welcome the commitments in this plan to children and young people. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who I know did some incredible work in this area. Having worked in children and young people’s hospices, I will never forget the journey that those children and their families go on, and I am really grateful to the Government for having a big section on that in the plan.
My fourth question is about life after—and at the end of—treatment. The plan rightly talks about improving quality of life and support after treatment, including personalised support and rehabilitation; we all want people to live longer, but for many patients and their families, hospice and palliative care are essential. Yet hospices across the country are under severe pressure, with many now in crisis, exacerbated by recent Government tax rises hitting staffing and running costs. Hospices are also notably absent from today’s statement. Will the Government urgently convene a crisis meeting with the hospice sector and set out what immediate steps they will take to stabilise services and expedite delivery of the palliative care plan?
We will support any serious, deliverable reforms that improve earlier diagnosis, speed up treatment, strengthen the workforce and improve patient experience. But we will also hold Ministers to account on turning long term ambitions into real improvements now, because we want to see patients getting the care that they need.
Ashley Dalton
I thank the right hon. Member for his statement and questions, and particularly for his personal wishes.
Overseeing delivery is absolutely crucial. It is great that we have written a plan, but what matters is delivering it. We started delivery even before we had finished writing this plan; we are not waiting. We have already put £200 million directly into cancer via cancer alliances. We have recruited 2,500 more GPs. We have already put in place 28 cutting edge radiotherapy machines and are rolling out lung cancer screening. We have opened more community diagnostic centres at evenings and weekends. We said we would deliver 2 million more appointments; we have already delivered 5 million more appointments. And we have put £25 million into the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s brain tumour research consortium.
Steps are already being taken, but it is really important, as the right hon. Member points out, that we are held to account and that people keep our feet to the fire on delivery. That is why we are setting up a brand new cancer board of charities and clinicians, which will oversee the delivery of this plan and keep our feet to the fire.
On workforce, we know how important it is to make sure that the cancer workforce is grown and developed, not only in terms of numbers but in having the resources and the support to use their skills to the utmost. The workforce plan that the Government are developing will also include cancer and will be published this spring.
I was delighted to hear the right hon. Member mention rare cancers and children and young people. This is the first ever cancer plan with a chapter on rare cancers, and the first ever cancer plan with a chapter on children and young people, and I am really proud of that.
On radiotherapy, as I said, we have invested £70 million into 28 new linear accelerator—LINAC—radiotherapy machines. We have also listened to stakeholders in the radiotherapy community. We are investing in new technology, including those radiotherapy machines, and in AI to assist the oncology workforce to reduce the time it takes to plan and then deliver treatment. By April next year, we will streamline the process to make it easier for radiotherapy centres to use cutting edge stereotactic ablative radiotherapy—SABR—which is crucial to many patients. We will also ensure that the payment system associated with this treatment incentivises rapid adoption.
The right hon. Member mentioned hospices, something that I know is very close to his heart and his experience. We are delivering the biggest investment in hospices in a generation. We have provided £100 million to upgrade buildings, facilities and digital systems, and we are giving a further £26 million to children’s and young people’s hospices, ensuring that they can continue offering specialist, compassionate support. More broadly, we are developing a palliative care and end of life modern service framework for England. That is currently being developed alongside our stakeholders, with a planned publication date of autumn 2026.
I hope that addresses most of the issues raised by the right hon. Member, but I am more than happy to speak with him further after the debate.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I really welcome this plan, and the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister and right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in putting it together. I will just raise one credit and one request to go a bit further.
First, when I had my cancer treatment eight years ago, I thought I knew my way around the NHS, but it is a completely confusing organisation for anyone involved in it. One thing that really helped me was having a specialist nurse appointed at the beginning. That specialist nurse got my chemotherapy ready on a Monday before I came down to London, and then on a Thursday when I came back. That sort of organisation and help is vital, so I really welcome that proposal.
Secondly, when I had my stem cell transplant for myeloma, my own stem cells were harvested and used, but many young people with complicated blood disorders need stem cells to be donated. So will the Minister work with the Anthony Nolan trust—I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on stem cell transplantation and advanced cellular therapies—to ensure that more young people donate their stem cells so that other young people can have a life to look forward to?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, for his expertise and for all that he has shared from his experience to help us develop this plan. I note how important specialist nurses are, but we are also doing more to help people navigate the NHS. I know exactly what it is like; I think I have in my Filofax—I am that retro!—about 38 email addresses and phone numbers of the various people I have to contact in order to project manage my treatment. We are going further and ensuring that the NHS app can handle all that information. Cancer patients will have the ability in their hands, or in their pockets, to manage scans, appointments and test results directly through the NHS app.
I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences is already looking at the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) raises around blood products and donations, and is working with the Anthony Nolan trust on those. I will be more than happy to work with my hon. Friend further on those issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for her personal experience that has gone into this plan. After the Conservatives failed to invest in our NHS, it is no surprise that cancer survival in the UK is still around 10 to 15 years behind leading countries, with worse survival rates for some cancers than Romania and Poland. I am therefore pleased that this Government listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and brought this national cancer plan to life, because cancer touches everyone.
One of my residents, a mum with a young family, discovered a lump in her breast. Despite attending the one stop breast clinic on four separate occasions, it took two horrendous years for her to be diagnosed with breast cancer. When she was finally diagnosed, the cancer was aggressive and required a mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. That is why I welcome the Government’s target on meeting all cancer wait time standards by 2029, but the aim to halve the backlog in three years’ time is not ambitious enough. Will the Minister go further and back a Liberal Democrat plan to write into law a guarantee for all cancer patients to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral?
The focus on ending delays in cancer care is a step forward, but funding 28 new radiotherapy machines is not enough when the treatment is so cost effective and successful. We need to end radiotherapy deserts, so will the Minister extend her ambition to 200 extra radiotherapy machines?
The Minister says that the plan will turn the NHS app into a gateway for cancer care, but how will she support older people and the digitally excluded? The plan promises to drive up productivity, end the postcode lottery, expand NHS diagnostic capacity, introduce personalised cancer plans and more. That is optimistic and will require more investment to increase NHS capacity, but without clear funding and capacity building plans, is it realistic?
Labour was right to put patients at the heart of this plan and incorporate the Liberal Democrat’s calls for a specialist cancer nurse for every patient. We costed for 3,000 extra cancer nurses; how many additional cancer nurses does the Minister believe are needed?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the plan’s annual summary of progress will be reported in the House for Members to scrutinise?
Ashley Dalton
We listen to a lot of people on the need for a cancer plan. I want to take this opportunity to say that our friend Nathaniel Dye, who sadly died last week from stage 4 bowel cancer, challenged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bring forward a cancer plan when we were in opposition. The Secretary of State made that commitment, and we have brought forward the plan 18 months after coming into government.
The hon. Lady mentions the NHS app, which we understand is not necessarily relevant for people who are digitally excluded. One reason we are bringing that forward is to open up capacity within the rest of the system, so that those who can use digital tools can do so. That will free up capacity for the one-to-one, face-to-face support that many people need, but every cancer patient will get support under this plan, whether that is through the app or through their named lead clinical specialist in their neighbourhood, who will support them throughout the process, including after treatment. We are working with NHS England to identify the appropriate number of people for the cancer workforce, and we will be able to announce more about that as the workforce plan develops.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Three hundred and eighty-eight days ago, the words were uttered to me, “You have stage 2C skin cancer.” I have had 388 days of scans, operations and treatments that did not need to happen, because preventive care could have stopped me getting skin cancer. That is why today’s statement is so important. Action 30 in the plan focuses on melanomas and skin cancers, and it means a huge amount to me personally that the Government have taken this issue so seriously. My ask of the Government is that when we undertake the reviews into UV and preventive skincare, we should look at the examples of Australia and other countries that take this seriously, so that we can ensure that our young people and adults know how to stay safe in the sun.
Ashley Dalton
I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing in this area while going through treatment for skin cancer. Action 30 is really important, and we are also committing in this plan to tackling under-age sunbed use. We are committing to look at what more we can do to combat dangerous sunbed use, and to promote prevention when it comes to skincare in the sun. We will explore what more we can do about that, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to do so.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
While cancer incidence in Lincolnshire is about average, premature mortality is higher than average, and we only have to look at a map of England to see the north-south divide and the rural-urban divide. I want to ask about prostate cancer. I do not want to get into a debate about national screening, because that has been well aired, but it is not generally known by men that any man over the age of 50 can go to his GP and demand a prostate-specific antigen test. It seems to me that, as part of this programme, we should encourage all men every year to ask not just for a PSA test, but for a general blood test. Women should do similar. Irrespective of national screening programmes, everybody should do that, given that survival rates for conditions such as prostate cancer are incredibly high if there is early detection. Is that not something that we should be encouraging?
Ashley Dalton
I agree with the right hon. Member that prevention is absolutely key. We cannot prevent all cancers, but we can do much to prevent cancers from being caught late and to get to them when they are more treatable. We encourage all eligible people to access the tests and screening that are available to them. Through the new NHS app, each individual will be able to get a personalised risk factor to identify what they may be at risk of, and to nudge them towards which tests and screenings they should ask their GP for. That is something that we are looking to develop for all cancers, including prostate cancer. We are also expanding access to the life-extending prostate cancer drug abiraterone—I had to practise saying that; I can say mine, which is capecitabine. That will get thousands more men effective treatment earlier, which can significantly improve their chances of long-term survival. Through this plan, we intend to prevent and catch cancer early. Included in the plan is raising awareness of cancer across all communities to ensure that people access the screening and early tests that they are entitled to.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
This Tuesday would have been my brother Alex’s 54th birthday, but sadly we lost him to cancer last year. That is why I am really proud that this plan will revolutionise treatment, care and research into cancer, as well as focusing on rare cancers, such as the one that killed my brother. Although I pay tribute to the doctors and nurses who were responsible for looking after my brother, I think it is fair to say that sometimes people with cancer get treatment but not care. One of the most exciting things about this plan is the section on getting cancer treatment to fit around people’s lives, because Alex spent too long waiting for letters and being his own advocate—a professional patient. Will the Minister please explain what more we are going to do to ensure we not only treat the symptoms but care for the patient?
Ashley Dalton
I commend my hon. Friend for the campaigning that he has done in his brother’s name in the area of rare and less survivable cancers, including brain tumours. We are putting patients at the centre of this plan, which says not only that every patient will have a personalised cancer treatment plan, but that patients will be at the heart of deciding those plans. Alongside their clinicians, they will have a role to play in deciding what treatment works for them. I know personally what that means. When I got my diagnosis, the immediate suggestion was that I would have intravenous chemotherapy. I was able to engage with my oncologist and say, “I’m not sure that that works for my lifestyle. I want to be able to live my life.” We were able to work together to find the right treatment that fits in with my lifestyle, and which allows me to come to work and do this job. That is what we want for every single cancer patient in this country. Their treatment should be about not just keeping them alive, but extending and maintaining their quality of life.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The league table of NHS trusts shows that the percentage of patients starting treatment for cancer within 62 days in Mid and South Essex is 21%, which puts it bottom of 121 trusts. Can the Minister say what additional help will be given to the Mid and South Essex NHS trust to recruit the additional staff it needs, and to help it to meet the targets that she has just set out?
Ashley Dalton
The trust to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is the trust where I had my primary cancer treatment, so I am acutely aware of the challenges. We have set a really clear and simple ambition: to get cancer patients the timely care they need, and to meet all waiting time standards by the end of this Parliament. That means that by March 2029, 80% of patients will get a diagnosis or the all-clear within 28 days, and 85% of patients will start their treatment within 62 days of referral. Some people have asked me why the figure is not 100%. It is not possible to make it 100%, because not everybody’s cancer is simple or easy to identify, and sometimes it takes longer. We want to ensure that the only reason for delays beyond 62 days is the complexity or specifics of someone’s cancer, not the inability of a trust to meet the targets.
We are going to cut waiting times by giving trusts and cancer alliances detailed practical information and granular data on individual cancer types so that we can highlight real-time pathway insights through a federated data platform, and by streamlining the cancer metrics so that we can shine a light on unwarranted variation in care. We are providing information and best practice, thereby taking the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. We are linking up professionals and clinicians across the UK, so that they can share their best practice. Trusts can help and support each other to reach the targets.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
What a brilliant plan, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it to the House this afternoon. However, cancer trials need clinical academics, and we have a crisis in clinical academic recruitment, retention and funding. Does she agree that we must find ways to encourage young clinicians into academic and research roles?
Ashley Dalton
Yes, I do agree, and we are working on that. We are establishing the cancer trials accelerator programme to increase the speed, scale and reliability of cancer trials, and we will use the new health tech access programme to make it quicker. We will also be supporting the development, through the workforce plan, of all the clinicians required, including academics.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
This weekend, I got the devastating call about my brave and wonderful sister Dawn, loving mother and carer to Ella, who, after a dash to A&E, was diagnosed with late-stage pancreatic cancer and given just three to six months to live. What links less survivable cancers is their late diagnosis. Does the Minister agree with my amazing sister Dawn and me that we need to be more proactive about early diagnosis of less survivable cancers, such as through annual screening of those with a family history or high-risk genetic factors, to improve the ability to detect and remove tumours early and improve the five-year survival rates—sadly, hers is not—to over 50%?
Ashley Dalton
I offer the hon. Member my deepest condolences on the news that she has shared with the House. I share her concern that we have to reach others. Some less survivable cancers can be tackled if they are caught early, and we have specifically committed in the plan to reducing significantly the number of rare and less survivable cancers that are diagnosed in an emergency setting, which she described as happening to her family. Primary care is where most people first raise concerns. GPs rarely see rare cancers, because they are rare, so we are rolling out AI-driven decision support tools to help GPs think cancer sooner, think cancer earlier and make decisions about referral more quickly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, thank the Government for bringing forward this cancer plan. I visited York Against Cancer’s Leveson centre last Friday, and I really welcome the holistic care it gives to cancer patients. I want to highlight prevention. We know that four in 10 cancers are preventable, and the right interventions can be transformative, particularly for people from low socioeconomic communities. Will the Minister talk a little bit more about the public health approach that will be taken? In York we have seen a 30% cut in our public health budget over the past 10 years, which means less resource is available to prevent cancers.
Ashley Dalton
Prevention is a key part of this plan. As I have mentioned, we are doing an awful lot on that—for instance, on illegal under-age sunbed use. We are also eliminating cervical cancer through HPV vaccination and tackling obesity. Fundamentally, we are creating the world’s first smoke-free generation with our groundbreaking Tobacco and Vapes Bill. We do not ignore the communities hit the hardest, and the cancer alliances are promoting new schemes to enable young people to catch up on vaccinations, such as HPV, that they may have missed. We are tackling harmful alcohol consumption by introducing new mandatory health warnings and nutritional information on alcohol labels. We have reformed the public health grant in recent years—we have wrapped it up—and many places have seen an overall increase. We are also giving local authorities more flexibility in how they use their public health grant and, for the first time in many years, multi-year settlements so that they can plan.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will know that this statement is on a very important, sensitive and sometimes personal subject, but I remind them that after this we have two debates that are also important, so please keep questions short.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Further to the exchanges about radiotherapy, I understand that the national figure for access to radiotherapy is 53%, which itself does not seem particularly high. However, the figure for my Brigg and Immingham constituency, which falls in the Yorkshire and the Humber region, is only 35%. Could the Minister give some assurance to my constituents about progress on increasing that figure, and when does she think we can reach the national average?
Ashley Dalton
Through the spending review, providers have been allocated £15 billion in operational capital for local priorities and £5 billion to support the return to constitutional standards on radiotherapy. Responsibility for purchasing new machines sits at local level, and we expect local systems to continue to invest in new machines to meet the ambitious targets and to meet their local needs.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I really welcome the national cancer plan and the Minister’s clear personal determination to bring it to fruition. Does she agree that local innovations are going to play a key part? Such an innovation is the prehabilitation service in Colchester, which gets patients ready for treatment before their treatment begins. Would she and her team like to visit that and other local services to see the impact for herself?
Ashley Dalton
Yes, I do agree. This plan is about ensuring that wraparound care is there from the very beginning, and I would be more than delighted, if my diary allows, to visit the service that my hon. Friend mentions.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Yesterday, for World Cancer Day, I hosted here in Parliament Walk the Walk, a national charity that I am proud is based in my Woking constituency. It has raised over £146 million to fight cancer and to help people live healthy lives. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is no longer in his place, but will the Minister ask him to choose his favourite bra and join me on a Walk the Walk—with he in his favourite bra and me in mine—so that we can raise awareness for “mannogram” testing? Will she also ensure that mammogram testing is extended to the under-40s and the over-70s?
Ashley Dalton
Ministers quite like making promises from the Dispatch Box on behalf of our Front-Bench colleagues, but in this case I think I will just gently encourage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to join the hon. Member, if he is able to do so—I look forward to seeing the photographs.
We are exploring opportunities for breast cancer screening. There are difficulties in early screening because of dense breast tissue, but we are expanding screening where it provides support. In particular on breast screening, we are monitoring the emerging evidence from BRAID—breast screening risk adaptive imaging for density—trials, which target programmes at women with greater risk. We are also considering the findings from the £11 million EDITH—early detection using information technology in health—trial, testing how cutting-edge tools can be used to catch breast cancer cases earlier, particularly in younger women, like me, for whom a mammogram was not successful because of dense breast tissue.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I join others in thanking the Minister for all the work on the national cancer plan. Last week I was lucky enough to visit the brand-new NHS community diagnostic centre on the national health innovation campus at Huddersfield University. Diagnostic radiographers are being trained on the second floor of that building. I also welcome the work of Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS foundation trust, which is ranked as one of the best performing trusts in the country for meeting cancer waiting times. How will we learn from that best practice across the country?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting such amazing work happening in her constituency. From the very beginning, we have said that this Government’s approach is to take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. Using the NHS app and the new national co-ordination of activities, we hope to share some of that best practice a lot more widely.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the plan. I see the Minister’s commitment to it, and in the interests of all our constituents, I absolutely hope that it works and comes through. In the last Parliament, I did a lot of work on the all-party parliamentary group on minimally invasive cancer therapies—the group no longer exists—which, notwithstanding the commitment to innovation and technology that the Minister has outlined, is one area I have not heard much about. Could she outline to the House how this plan will bring through faster, and on a less of a postcode lottery basis, the new minimally invasive therapies?
Ashley Dalton
Harnessing technology right across the cancer landscape is what this plan is about. Where it is appropriate for less invasive treatments to be used, we are looking to explore how we can roll them out across the country, regardless of postcodes. Lots more people are surviving cancer with treatment, but what is important is that the side effects of invasive cancer treatment can be significant—I know: I have several of them—so, where possible, we want to use innovative, less invasive treatments so that people can live longer, more fruitful and less painful lives.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her powerful statement. There are clearly differences in cancer treatment depending on where someone lives, whether a rural or coastal community. My semi-rural constituency sits on the edge of three hospital trusts, leading to difficulties such as those highlighted by a constituent who attended my coffee morning earlier this week. She spoke of the difficulties she faces in getting consistency in her cancer treatment, as she sees a Leicestershire GP but gets care from the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS foundation trust. Will the Minister set out more on the neighbourhood element of the treatments addressed in the national cancer plan?
Ashley Dalton
The cancer plan sets out policies that have been developed specifically to tackle geographic inequalities in cancer care, with increased medical training places in rural and coastal areas, improved data transparency on the quality of care and performance of trusts, and investment in cancer alliances that proactively support local communities, while treatment support from neighbourhood care leads will help people to navigate their cancer pathways. Cancer outcomes should not be dependent on someone’s location in the country, so we are working to bring postcode lotteries to an end. We are using the NHS app so that patients can manage their cancer treatment themselves. More widely—this relates to what we announced in the summer for the 10-year health plan—single patient records will also allow patients to access services more easily, particularly across different ICBs.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the Department have a procurement strategy to ensure security of supply of medical radioisotopes, which are so critical for diagnosis and treatment? Could the Minister provide details of the co-operation and assessments made by her Government with the Welsh Government on Project ARTHUR, the isotope reactor scheme at Trawsfynydd?
Ashley Dalton
I understand that the right hon. Lady has already met the Minister for health innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), to discuss these issues, and that he will continue to work with her on them and to explore them further.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on this excellent plan and invite her to congratulate Young Lives vs Cancer, which has long campaigned for the travel fund for children and young people with cancer. I have joined the charity in its campaigning and am absolutely delighted to see the travel fund in place. Can she confirm that she will continue to work with Team Margot and Anthony Nolan to increase stem cell donation from people from ethnically diverse communities, where there is a shortage, in memory of Margot, who died from leukaemia aged two?
Ashley Dalton
Yes, I can confirm that we will continue to work with cancer charities. I am particularly delighted with the work we have done with Young Lives vs Cancer and other young people’s cancer charities, which have brought amazing insight and basically written the chapter on children and young people with cancer with the team. I would be delighted to continue that work.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I was the first MP in this Parliament to call for a national cancer plan back in October 2024, so I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for publishing the plan. There are some good things in it: the concentration on children and young people’s cancers; the concentration on rare and less-survivable cancers; and more desperately needed screening. Targets in the plan are also to be welcomed, but if they are to be met, there is a need for workforce expansion, especially in oncology, pathology, radiology and clinical nurse specialists. The extra cash that the Secretary of State has obtained for the plan from the Treasury is not enough to achieve all his ambitious plans right away. How will the Secretary of State and the Minister get from the Chancellor the money needed to make this plan a success?
Ashley Dalton
As I have already stated, the workforce is key. The workforce plan will be published in spring this year. As of November 2025, there are now 70% more staff in the key cancer professions of clinical oncology, gastroenterology, medical oncology, histopathology, clinical radiology, and diagnostic and therapeutic radiology than in 2010—we are starting to make inroads, although we know there is further to go. We will be driving that forward through this plan and the workforce plan, due in the spring.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my constituents, including Melissa from Guisborough, who campaigns on lobular breast cancer, Georgia from Hemlington, who campaigned on cervical cancer, and Peter from Coulby Newham, who campaigns on prostate cancer. What assurances can the Minister give them that resources will be put into communities like mine to tackle health disparities and make sure that everyone, no matter where they live, can get the cancer care they deserve?
Ashley Dalton
I commend the campaigning work of my hon. Friend’s constituents and say to them that their voices run through this plan; they have written this plan with their campaigning activity as much as we have. The James Cook university hospital in my hon. Friend’s constituency has had funding for two new LINAC machines—medical linear accelerators—which is helping to ensure that people get access to treatment. The plan will ensure that postcode and geography will not get in the way of the treatment people receive, and I look forward to working further with my hon. Friend and his constituents on how we can make that a reality.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on this excellent piece of work. It is crucial to my residents in west Norfolk, where we have statistically the worst hospital in the country at the Queen Elizabeth in King’s Lynn—not in a big city, but in a rural part of west Norfolk. I ask the Minister to reassure my residents that unlike what happened under the previous Government, who created a postcode lottery in which many more rural communities missed out, this will be a truly national cancer plan that covers all parts of our great country.
Ashley Dalton
We recognise that the provision of cancer services varies significantly across the country. This plan sets out how we will end that variation by bringing healthcare to the community and ensuring that everyone, no matter their postcode, has access to high-quality cancer care. I want to assure everybody that cancer outcomes should not be dependent on someone’s location in the country and that we will make timely access to high-quality diagnostic and treatment services a reality for anyone and everyone who needs it.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I welcome the statement and the plan, and salute the Minister’s bravery; I wish her very good health.
My constituents do not get a particularly good deal: when measured against the 62-day target, 47% meet the target for radiotherapy, 62% for drugs and 73% for surgery. However, looking at just the first treatment masks the true picture, as a combination of treatments is often crucial to survival, and if people wait six months for their second treatment, it is really poor. Will the Minister consider bringing in measurement of secondary treatments? We know that radiotherapy can reduce a tumour and that surgery comes later, but if someone has to wait six months for surgery, they are in trouble.
Ashley Dalton
Yes, we are aware of that. We are looking at the existing metrics and at what we can do to improve them to ensure that they are actually making a difference to people’s outcomes.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
In welcoming the national cancer plan, I want to pay tribute to my phenomenal Auntie Hillary, who passed away in September 2020. A GP practice manager, her selfless focus on ensuring that her elderly and vulnerable patients were okay during the first lockdown meant that she put off getting the early symptoms of her own cancer checked out; she got rapid treatment, but sadly it was too late. Will my incredible hon. Friend confirm that the direction and investment set out in this plan will ensure that hundreds of thousands of families a year will be celebrating all-clears, not mourning losses?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and offer my condolences on the loss of his Auntie Hillary. Yes, this plan is designed to ensure that an extra 320,000 people at the end of the course of the plan will have had their lives saved or be living well with cancer after their five-year diagnosis. We want to make sure that everybody gets that opportunity, regardless of where they live.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I welcome the national cancer plan, and in particular the Minister’s focus on early diagnosis and ending the scandal of postcode inequality. Cancer Research UK has highlighted that limited funding could significantly impact on progress against the plan, so can the Minister assure us that she is allocating funding in order to meet her own rightful ambitions, and say whether she is engaging with Cancer Research UK and others in the sector on the funding that is needed?
Ashley Dalton
Yes, I can confirm that, but it is not always about throwing extra money at things. It is about using the resources that we have in a better, more targeted way to be more impactful. I have worked with Cancer Research UK from day one of developing this plan and it has run right the way through it. We continue to work with the organisation as we move forward to make the plan a reality.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
This week marks 17 years since my mum died of lung cancer. She was just 58, and I was just 15. Last week, when I visited a local lung cancer screening service in Bracknell and heard how it is using AI to speed up diagnosis, it was personal. Can the Minister say a bit more about what we are doing to roll out schemes such as that to make sure that more families like mine do not have to suffer the loss of a loved one to this terrible disease?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Lung cancer has impacted on my family as well. Yes, we will be rolling out lung cancer screening nationwide by 2030, because we know that it has a huge impact on outcomes. I have seen how amazing the AI tools are at identifying discrepancies in lung CT scans. I found out that I had an untapped talent, as I was quite good at identifying those discrepancies as well. AI means that we can catch lung cancers sooner. They are often not caught until they are at stage 3 or 4. Using AI means that we can get them at stage 1 or 2, we can treat people early and we can save lives.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome the Minister and thank her for presenting this national cancer plan. Her conviction, enthusiasm and passion for the subject are clearly seen from the Dispatch Box. She talks about regional disparity, but we also have disparity within constituencies. My constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr operates 20% below the national average, so I am pleased that the Minister will be addressing that. It has been reported that 64 radiotherapy machines are running over their 10-year lifespan, which has cost the NHS 87,000 appointments. We know that we have 28 new machines. What will the Government do to get more new machines?
Ashley Dalton
As I have set out, we have already invested £70 million in the new LINAC machines, and we are using AI to support oncologists to use those machines more effectively. Through the spending review, we are providing £15 billion in operational capital for local priorities. It is down to local ICBs and local trusts to identify what they need and what they want to purchase in their areas, but we are providing the support and guidance to help them do that.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I wish to thank NHS cancer teams in Sunderland for doing such incredible work in my constituency. Other Members have mentioned the unacceptable variation in NHS performance against waiting times, and I commend the Minister’s focus on that. Can she say a little about the variation in waiting times by tumour site? In November last year, 82% of skin cancers were tret within 62 days, but for gynaecological cancers, the figure was only 58%.
Ashley Dalton
This is a key issue. Some cancers are an awful lot easier to get at, and so they are a lot easier to diagnose sooner. We are looking at how we can roll out screening wherever appropriate and increase access to tests such as liquid biopsies, which I talked about in the statement, so that people can get their diagnoses sooner.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I thank the Minister for her announcement today. At the end of the day, cancer will affect one in two of us—those are the statistics now. May I also thank colleagues for highlighting the difference in treatment between rural and urban areas? In Wales, we do not even have a plan yet. Without urgent action, there will continue to be inequalities and long waiting times for the people of Wales. That is why, with input from the European Cancer Organisation, Plaid has developed its own cancer plan. What does the Minister make of the decision of Welsh Labour colleagues not to implement a plan in Wales, and why do we not have parity with the rest of the country?
Ashley Dalton
I can assure the hon. Member that we are working with our Welsh counterparts to make sure that there is equity of access to resources and to information, and we will continue to do so.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The reality is that if someone lives in a big city with access to a university teaching hospital, their access to cancer treatment will be different from those who live in a town or small city like Carlisle, where we face challenges in recruiting and retaining specialist consultants. Does the Minister agree that this plan, combined with the pioneering approach to training doctors at the new Pears Cumbria School of Medicine, will begin to fix those inequalities that my constituents experience?
Ashley Dalton
That is absolutely the case. This plan will support people in my hon. Friend’s constituency by expanding access to community diagnostic centres and personalised neighbourhood-based cancer care. We are also focusing on recruiting more cancer specialists for rural and coastal areas, and are supporting that through the workforce plan.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Minister’s statement, which I found quite emotional. I know that many of her friends are pleased to see her making it today. She said that cancer mortality is higher and survival is lower in Britain compared with other European countries. What that means is that cancer patients such as Charlotte Montague have to go abroad to seek treatment themselves and then come back and advocate for that treatment to be incorporated in the NHS. What will the plan do to bring Britain more in line with European countries, so that people do not need to go abroad to seek treatment?
Ashley Dalton
We are learning from comparable countries. By looking at what they have achieved, we have begun to put together this plan. We want to make Britain the place to come to for clinical trials of new innovative treatments. We are looking not only to learn from other countries about the treatments they already offer, but to have our own home-grown new treatments and innovations through our clinical trials accelerator in the UK.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on this ambitious and much-needed plan. She met my constituent, Lorraine. Lorraine lost her daughter Milly and set up Milly’s Smiles, a charity that offers to families arriving at hospitals across the country a welcome pack of essential items to help them on their journey. I know that she will welcome the reference to improving non-clinical and supportive care for children in the plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only by working together with charities, families, researchers and the health service that we will deliver on this plan for everybody across the country?
Ashley Dalton
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It was my pleasure to meet Lorraine. I will, if I can, say very quickly that when we met her, she was explaining to officials how she did not have what she needed for her daughter when they were sent to the specialist care unit straight from A&E. One official said, “Why couldn’t you go and get what you needed?” We all looked at him and said that nobody was going to leave that child. That is why this cancer plan recognises the importance of wraparound care for children and young people, so that parents can support their families best.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on this excellent and ambitious plan. If we are to achieve its targets, improvements need to be made on delivering earlier and better diagnosis, particularly for cancers with extremely low survival rates, such as acute myeloid leukaemia, which has a five-year survival rate of just 22%. In my West Dunbartonshire constituency, 46 people have lost their lives to leukaemia in the past five years. I have lived with leukaemia over the past 18 years. Can the Minister confirm that, as part of this plan, improvements will be made in the survival rate for acute myeloid leukaemia?
Ashley Dalton
As my hon. Friend knows—I do not need to tell him this—brain tumours, leukaemia and other less stageable cancers cannot be assessed in the usual way, so we need different measures to understand how early they are being caught. That is why this plan commits to the regular publication of data on emergency cancer diagnoses as a key indicator, exposing where these cancers are picked up too late so that we can drive earlier detection and focus attention where it is most urgently needed.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Minister saw yesterday at first hand the amazing care and support that Maggie’s centres provide to not only patients and survivors but their families. What role will charities and voluntary organisations such as Maggie’s play alongside the NHS in delivering improved care for cancer patients and their families?
Ashley Dalton
Organisations such as Maggie’s play a crucial role. That is why we chose to launch our national cancer plan at a Maggie’s centre yesterday. We cannot do this alone. Charities, support organisations, family groups, and the tiny little charities run from a back bedroom by the family of somebody who suffered a very rare cancer, all have a role to play in how we bring forward the cancer plan. I am most proud of the fact that this is not the Government’s cancer plan but the country’s cancer plan. Every voluntary-sector community organisation and charity has a role to play, and I look forward to working further with them all.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for this excellent plan. In 1989, my wonderful mother Margaret passed away from bowel cancer. She died about six weeks after she was diagnosed. She had not wanted to go to her GP because she did not want to be a burden on the already overstretched NHS. Will the Minister join me in encouraging anyone who fears that they might have bowel cancer to see their GP, and will she provide assurances to those people regarding screening and early diagnosis for bowel cancer?
Ashley Dalton
We have extended NHS bowel cancer screening to cover people from the age of 50, and between now and 2028 we will be increasing the sensitivity of the faecal immunochemical test—otherwise known as the FIT test—and rolling it out nationally by 2028. Combined with increased uptake, that will deliver 17,000 earlier diagnoses by 2035 and save almost 6,000 lives.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
This plan gives so many people so much hope, and it was great to see it delivered with so much passion and energy. It is clear why the Minister is really respected by many people right across the sector. I have to say that I have never seen a statement delivered with so much energy—more of that, please. I also thank the Minister for her leadership and for supporting my Rare Cancers Bill from her very first day in office. She has found a place in the plan for my Bill, and I really do thank her for that.
I have three questions. Will rare cancers be recorded and reported separately as part of the plan? What influence will the cancer board have over the delivery of the plan? I think that point is quite important. Lastly, others have spoken about community organisations. In Gorgie in Edinburgh South West, we have the House of Hope, led by Lisa Fleming. She delivers a fantastic support service for women who have a breast cancer diagnosis. The next time the Minister is in Edinburgh, will she visit Lisa and her team?
Ashley Dalton
I commend my hon. Friend on all the work he has done, particularly on the Rare Cancers Bill, which the Government are delighted to support. Not only does this plan have the first ever chapter on rare and less-survivable cancers, but we will be appointing the first ever clinical lead for rare cancers, whose job it will be to make sure that rare cancers are properly counted, registered and that we continue to deliver in this area. I would be delighted to visit the House of Hope next time I am in Edinburgh.
Economic Security
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee. Liam Byrne will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the Minister, though they may well be on the Front Bench. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Let me first express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this short statement today as the Business and Trade Committee publishes the Government response to our flagship report on economic security, which was published in the summer last year.
I want to start not with Committee papers but with people—with workers and businesses. It was just in April last year that we found ourselves in this place on an unusual Saturday sitting to ensure that British Steel was kept alive. Not long thereafter, our agencies were supporting the high street retailer Marks & Spencer as it suffered one of the worst cyber-attacks in our country’s history. Not long thereafter, the Exchequer was required to underwrite the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain to the tune of a billion pounds as it suffered a cyber-attack of unprecedented proportions. All of that took place while our allies in Holland were battling over Nexperia chip supplies and our allies in America were battling China over rare earth restrictions.
Five shocks but one message: economic security threats are now a concern to this country’s security. The message from our Committee is that those threats are going to multiply significantly in the years ahead. The combination of AI-powered weapons, the advent of hostile states, the reality of unpredictable allies, and the need for us as a country to mobilise something like £100 billion of new foreign direct investment means that the threat surface confronted by our businesses is about to multiply exponentially.
That is why we need new economic security defences. If we have learned one lesson from Russia’s illegal invasion in Ukraine, it is that economic security is the foundation of national security. Just as we need a whole-of-society approach to defence, so too do we now need a whole-of-society approach to our economic security.
That is why the Business and Trade Committee undertook its review last year. Our conclusions were stark: we found that the institutions, policies, posture, funding, laws and regulation that we now have in place means that this country does not have an economic security regime that is fit for the future. We set out to provide a blueprint for how the Government can overhaul the system that we have in place.
We recommended, like our allies, putting our regime on a statutory basis with a cross-Government Minister for economic security and a proper centre for economic security at the centre of Government. We then made a number of recommendations, including on how we can improve the diagnosis of threats that we confront, how we develop the sovereign capabilities that we need as a country, how we diversify our supply chains and sources of critical minerals, how we defend our critical national infrastructure against new perils, how we deter those seeking to damage us economically, and—crucially—how on earth we are going to dovetail the efforts of His Majesty’s Government, the private sector and the work of this country and our allies around the world. Those were the recommendations that we made to Government, and today we published the Government’s response to our report.
Let me start by saying to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), on the Front Bench that we welcome the constructive tone that the Government took in response to our report. We realise that this is a novel, fast-moving field of policy, and where we end up at the end of this Parliament will be very different to where we are today. The Government have clearly accepted four of our recommendations and partially accepted 11. But I lament that they rejected 10 of the recommendations. For the benefit of the House, let me canter through them very quickly.
What we felt was good about the Government’s response was that there are some clear principles that will guide our economic security policy for the future. We had lacked those until today, so I am glad that we now have them in black and white. We welcome the commitment that the Government have made to stronger alliances. We welcome the promise of tougher deterrents to bad actors, particularly from Companies House, and we welcome the slightly half-hearted commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of this field of policy in the future.
In some areas, the Committee concluded that the Government have made some progress but not gone far enough. First, although there is a promise to improve forecasting of future threats led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we felt that the commitment was a little too vague for our taste. Secondly, we are sorry that the national exercising programme does not have a clear commitment to bring together the public and the private sector to wargame the kind of threats that we know will come together. We are not going to face one threat after another; they will compound and hit us all at once. That is why we need business and Government to be working together to scenario-plan for the future.
We welcome some of the progress on critical minerals, but frankly we do not think that the money or strategy put in place is up to scratch, so the Committee concluded in a report it published earlier this week that one of the inquiries we undertake this year will be an inquiry into critical minerals security. In the field of cyber-security, we do not think that the recommendations on software and cyber-security standards were really heard, and we would like to see more progress on mandatory reporting of cyber-ransom attacks. We did not feel that the Government have yet made a clear commitment to developing anti-coercion systems or instruments. We welcome what the Ministers have said about the need to get something in place. Our allies already have that infrastructure in place. We welcome Ministers’ recommendation that they will listen to us in this House and our Committee, but we would like a little more specificity from them.
Finally, we simply do not think that there has been enough progress on controlling foreign subsidies. The Competition and Markets Authority has been endlessly consulting on that for the last two years. At a time when Chinese industry is six times over-subsidised compared with European industries, we do not think that there is a strong enough regime for policing a level playing field in competition and that imperils our manufacturers. We do not think that the Trade Remedies Authority is fit for the modern day and we believe that significant reform will be needed.
We most lament the instances where the Government rejected our recommendations. As a cross-party Committee, we felt that we had some common-sense proposals for Ministers to consider. We regret that there is no clear plan to overhaul Government co-ordination and leadership, as there was for counter-terrorism policy after 7/7 and, indeed, for economic security policy back in the 1920s and 1930s.
There is a resistance to publishing a clear list of the sovereign capabilities that we will need as a country. I understood from Defence Ministers at the time of the defence industrial strategy that there would, indeed, be a clear list of sovereign capabilities that we as a country would need to develop. Today’s Government response says that no such list will be published.
We regret that the managing public money framework will not be updated to take into account the need for investments in resilience. The Government response said that the current regime was adequate. That is clearly a nonsense. When ministerial directions are needed to ensure the subsidies that were delivered to British Steel or the underwriting that was delivered to the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain, it is quite clear that the managing public money framework does not give Ministers or officials the right framework for balancing the security needs of our country and the growth objectives of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister.
We remain concerned that the tax incentives for improving the resilience of small business are not adequate. We lament that there is no backstop for the cyber insurance market and we regret that there is no extension of the brilliant Pool Re to provide that insurance for the future. It is also quite obvious to us that the pay scales for our frontline specialists in the war on economic crime are simply not adequate.
We look forward to continuing the dialogue constructively with Ministers and I welcome the tone that they struck and the progress that we have made. However, let me conclude with this. Over the last year, as we have set about our work, we have heard consistently from our allies fears and concerns about the economic security regime in this country. We have heard loud and clear from them that they worry that the UK is the weak link in the western defence when it comes to economic security. If we believe, as I think we should, that economic security is the foundation of national security, that is not a position that can go on. The fact that our allies tell us on the Committee that they worry that we are the weak link is not something that our country should put up with, and it is not something that this House should ignore.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman, with his Committee, has given a thoughtful series of recommendations. On his specific point about trade remedies and countries that are over-subsidising, such as China, and the electric vehicles flooding our and European markets, how much of that is being led, in terms of joined-up Government, by a foreign policy that just does not recognise economic security and which prioritised, as in the Prime Minister’s recent trip to China, trying to reset relations with some countries while regarding economic security as an inconvenient truth?
Liam Byrne
It is an open secret in this House that every day, every week, there is some controversy between the growth Departments and the security Departments in government. If we are to stand on our feet in the years ahead, we have to make sure that our industry is fighting fit and not undermined by unfair foreign competition.
We were grateful to the OECD, whose representatives met the Committee in Paris last week. They set out in black and white the sheer scale of over-subsidies in China—that Chinese industry is subsidised six times more than industry in Europe tells us that the playing field is not level. Yet the CMA has been consulting, without conclusion, on control of foreign subsidies for almost two years. We heard loud and clear from allies in Europe that the divergence of UK policy on China from that of Europe may indeed confound the ambitions of some of us to draw closer to the European Union in future. I know that is not a view that is shared across the House, but it should give Ministers pause for thought.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work on the Business and Trade Committee, of which I am a proud member. Does he agree that an increasingly competitive and uncertain world defines the UK’s sovereign capabilities, and that supporting them through the national wealth fund is vital to strengthening our industrial resilience and securing our supply chains—including critical minerals—to protect the British economy?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is right. I salute her work on the Committee, which is far stronger for her contribution. The bottom line is that the Government has said, in strategy after strategy, that sovereign capabilities are important and that they need to be developed. What we have in the response that has been published today is a clear statement that those capabilities will remain secret, that we will publish a few of them in the defence industrial strategy and maybe if a defence equipment plan is ever published, we might see more in there too.
The point here is quite stark. If we are to ensure our economic security is stronger in future, we have to mobilise the private sector and private sector investment consistently and at scale over a long period of time. It is impossible for us to mobilise that money unless the private sector knows where to invest. If we keep the list of sovereign capabilities secret, how on earth will we send the right signals to the private sector to invest in the future?
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for an excellent report that speaks to some very real issues. We have an opportunity later this year when the defence readiness Bill comes before Parliament for consideration. Does he have any recommendations on what he would like to see in that Bill, and are he and his Committee talking with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that some of that gets into the Bill?
Liam Byrne
When we published the report, we sought to compare the regime that we have in this country with the regimes that are in place among our allies in Japan, Europe and the United States. It became clear that, unlike our allies, we have a loose collection of strategies—some might unfairly label them strategy by stapler—that are basically collated together but which lack any statutory basis to ensure consistency and persistence over time.
Again, we must remember what we are trying to do. We are trying to ensure that public and private sector are able to work together on big risks over a long period of time. If we leave policy unpredictable, inconsistent and subject to the changes of wind each day, we cannot provide that signal. Ensuring that there is a proper statutory basis for economic security in the way that the hon. Member suggests and our allies have actioned would be a significant step forward in the Bill that he refers to.
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Charlotte Cane on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when tabling three written parliamentary questions to the Treasury and one written parliamentary question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. When I tabled those questions, I inadvertently failed to declare a relevant interest: the receipt of hospitality from the Jockey Club. That was in breach of the rules and I apologise to the House for this error.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. There will be no further points of order on this issue.
Road Safety
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Anna Dixon, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered road safety.
Road safety is a personal issue for me. My grandfather Herbert Bilsby moved to Ilkley in 1952 to take up a post as a geography teacher at Ilkley grammar school. Aged 62, he was looking forward to retirement: more time to enjoy his passion for hiking; more time to spend time with his grandchildren; and more time to visit family in Australia and Zambia. He never got that time.
On 6 December 1969, my grandfather was driving with my grandmother to deliver Christmas presents to her family at the family farm in Cumbria. Just north of Hellifield on the A65, he got stuck behind two lorries—a common experience even today. He saw an opportunity to overtake and pulled out. At that moment, the lorry pulled out, and my grandparents’ car was pushed off the road and into a stone gatepost. My grandfather was killed outright, and my grandmother suffered head injuries. That fatal collision shaped my family’s life. I never knew my grandfather. My grandmother was widowed and disabled. My dad moved jobs, and he and my mum moved to Ilkley where I was born and raised. My mum then continued to care for my grandmother for nearly 30 years.
It was a time before seatbelts were compulsory, before sections of the A65 were widened to create overtaking lanes, and before airbags. Today’s cars and roads are safer than they were in 1969 thanks to new laws, investment in our roads and the use of technology in the design of cars. Yet, four people still die on our roads every day and 76 more are involved in collisions that leave them with serious injuries. In my own constituency of Shipley, 180 people were injured in road collisions in 2024 and one person tragically died. Across the country, over 1,600 people were killed and nearly 28,000—yes, 28,000—people were seriously injured on our roads. Road collisions happen in a split second, yet their impact can be life-changing and felt for a lifetime. Parents lose their children; partners lose their soulmates; the unborn miss out on knowing their relatives—the human cost of road collisions is colossal.
But it does not have to be that way. A wealth of evidence shows us what the causes of death and injury are—we know what to do. Through the work of road safety groups, researchers and the police, we understand there are five causes of deadly crashes—the fatal five. They are speeding, antisocial driving, mobile phone use, alcohol and drug use, and not wearing a seatbelt. We must continue to tackle the fatal five if we are to reduce the death toll on our roads.
Ahead of the road safety strategy, I wrote to the Minister calling on the Government to include harsher penalties for speeding, to strengthen post-test requirements to protect newly qualified drivers, to lower the maximum legal drink-drive limit and to introduce points for passengers not wearing seatbelts. I therefore very much welcome the many measures in the road safety strategy, which the Government are now consulting on. Those measures include a minimum learning period for learner drivers; lowering the drink-drive limit; reviewing penalties for drink and drug driving offences, including—importantly —bringing in new powers to suspend licences for those suspected of committing serious driving offences; introducing penalty points for not wearing a seatbelt; and taking tougher action on those who fail to stop and report collisions, those who drive unlicensed or without insurance, and those with no MOT.
The strategy also addresses the growing problem of illegal number plates—so-called ghost number plates—which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) has campaigned for extensively. She was sorry to not be here today for the debate, but I am sure she would join me in congratulating the Government on taking action on this issue. The Government’s strategy is the first of its kind in a decade, and it sets out a plan to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 65% by 2035.
In West Yorkshire, a more ambitious goal has been set as part of “Vision Zero”, striving for zero deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 2040. It was launched in 2023 by our Labour West Yorkshire mayor, Tracy Brabin. “Vision Zero” brings together the combined authority, local authorities, emergency services, National Highways, victim support services and road safety campaigners, and it is producing results. In just the first year of the strategy, 7,500 dangerous drivers were brought to justice, almost 40,000 fixed penalty notices for traffic offences were issued and 13,000 children across West Yorkshire were part of an innovative educational project.
I pay particular tribute to Alison Lowe, the deputy mayor for policing and crime in West Yorkshire. Under her guidance, the combined authority and West Yorkshire police have taken a proactive approach to improving road safety. Alison, whose own sister was killed by a speeding driver, has listened to the community and effectively targeted police resources. West Yorkshire has introduced community concern sites. These are locations flagged by local authorities based on data and community feedback that receive greater police attention. This innovative scheme has led to 467 new enforcement locations, and over 46,000 speed offences were detected in less than a year.
Another successful example from West Yorkshire is Op Snap, which allows the public to submit dashcam footage of driving offences. There were almost 9,000 submissions just in the second half of last year, and 70% resulted in further action being taken. I hope the Minister can set out how good practice such as that in West Yorkshire can be supported and spread to other parts of the country.
This is only the beginning; far more needs to be done to end deaths on our roads. In 2024, young drivers aged 17 to 24 were involved in 11 of the 40 fatal collisions in West Yorkshire—around 20%, despite making up a much smaller share of road users. I would like to see stronger measures to protect newly qualified drivers. I was interested to see that the Northern Ireland Infrastructure Minister recently announced plans to introduce graduated driver licensing. GDL has already been adopted by other countries with success. Victoria, Australia introduced it in 2007 and, by 2013, saw fatal collisions reduced by 30%. I welcome the Government’s proposed mandated learning period for new drivers, but why not be more ambitious? There is good evidence from other countries. Why should young drivers in Northern Ireland get protections that young drivers in the rest of the UK will not? I urge the Minister to remain open to look at other effective measures to support young and novice drivers, such as limits on the number of passengers and restrictions on night-time driving, which we know from evidence have the biggest impact on reducing death and serious injury.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
That ambition is fantastic, and I wonder whether we could be more ambitious on the drive-drink limit. Pilots cannot fly if they have any alcohol in their system. Why is it not the same for drivers?
Anna Dixon
I agree that it is important that we consult the public on looking to reduce the drink-driving limit to the lowest possible level, and the Minister has heard the hon. Member’s remarks about a possible zero tolerance to drinking alcohol while driving. I hope that on this measure and others the Minister will agree to meet me, other MPs, campaigners and families affected, particularly on the issue of young drivers, to discuss such additional measures, which have widespread public support.
Road safety is also a local issue for residents across the Shipley constituency, who regularly raise road safety issues with me. Residents in Harden and Cullingworth are terrified by rural roads being used as racetracks. Parents in Baildon and Burley in Wharfedale are concerned about their kids crossing the road. School leaders in Cottingley and Wrose are concerned about parking and dangerous driving outside schools. Working with the local police, Bradford council’s highways team, local Labour councillors and West Yorkshire’s deputy mayor, we are making some progress, with new speed cameras on Bingley bypass, local speed watch in hotspots of community concern, the introduction of a 20 mph zone in Menston, reduced speed limits between Bingley and Shipley, and the installation of speed awareness signs.
But there is only so far we can go locally, and that is why I am pleased that this Labour Government are taking action to make our roads safer. The road safety strategy is ambitious and comprehensive. It takes a systems approach and includes all road users. I urge the Government to move swiftly to implement the measures they are consulting on, and I hope the Minister will set out in her response which ones will need primary legislation and when she expects parliamentary time to be given to implement them.
People up and down the country continue to be killed and seriously injured by dangerous driving. As the campaigning organisation RoadPeace and others have identified, dangerous driving is no longer a rarity but an embedded cultural phenomenon. Many people feel able and entitled to drive dangerously, and do not fear the consequences of their actions. That must change so that other families do not suffer the life-changing impact of a fatal road collision, as my family did.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will know that two debates are scheduled this afternoon, which will necessitate a very tight time limit of three minutes from the get-go.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who made a powerful speech, particularly in relation to the impact of dangerous driving on her family.
As the hon. Member said, more than 1,600 people tragically lost their lives on our roads in 2024, and 60% of those fatalities happened on rural roads such as those in North West Norfolk. Indeed, there has been a worrying rise in road casualties in Norfolk: in 2024, a 17% increase took the number of people killed or seriously injured to 555. I welcome the publication of the Government’s road safety strategy, and the ambition to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035. However, a few things are worth highlighting.
Awareness of the highway code remains far too low, and people do not refresh themselves on what is in the code—that must be improved.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Driving instructors and cyclists in my constituency have contacted me because they are concerned that experienced drivers are not aware of the 2022 changes to the highway code. Does the hon. Member agree that a campaign for greater awareness among experienced drivers would be welcome?
James Wild
I agree. In the context of the debate, and following contact from constituents, I have been refreshing myself on the highway code, which I admit I had not done before even though I should have done. Awareness is important.
Speeding continues to be a major cause of accidents. However, many residents, Speedwatch groups and parish councils tell me that the process for reviewing or reducing speed limits on dangerous roads is too slow and too expensive, so I look forward to the Government’s new guidance on setting local speed limits, which I hope leads to genuine improvement.
Change needs to be driven by evidence, and in that context I refer to the proposal to reduce the drink-driving limit. Offences are typically caused by people who have greatly exceeded the limit, not by people who have had just a pint, so we must consider that proposal very carefully.
Young people are already waiting too long for driving tests, so I am concerned about the proposal to put in place a minimum six-month learning period. People who take intensive courses can be good drivers. The proposal could make the situation worse.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
James Wild
I will not, given the time available.
A number of constituents who ride horses have contacted me with concerns about a lack of driver awareness and the prevalence of speeding and dangerous driving. They face heightened risk, particularly given the limited number of bridleways. The roads connecting bridleways have become more dangerous, too, with over 3,000 incidents in 2024, 80% of which were attributed to drivers passing unsafely. That is unacceptable, and it is why I support the proposals introduced by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), which include setting a required speed and distance for passing horses, and teaching equestrian safety in driving education. I hope that the Government will look favourably on those proposals.
I turn now to a topic that I have raised repeatedly in the House: sentences for driving offences, which must be tougher. In 2022, Parliament legislated for a maximum sentence of life in prison for death by dangerous driving, but sentences remain far too short, as was demonstrated in a case in which three members of a constituent’s family were killed. Dangerous driving should also result in longer disqualification. Less than 1% of those convicted of dangerous driving were banned from driving for life. Will the Government commit to a review of the sentencing guidelines for all dangerous driving offences, and consider how the Sentencing Council is applying those guidelines to reflect what we in this House consider necessary?
I am grateful to have had this opportunity briefly to speak about this important topic, and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my points.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Backbench Business debate on road safety. I welcome the Labour Government’s new road safety strategy.
In my remarks, I will focus specifically on Sharlotte’s law—a campaign that began with a tragedy in my constituency. Sharlotte-Sky Naglis was only six years old when she was killed by a driver who was drunk and under the influence of drugs—someone who should never have been behind the wheel. Sharlotte, who lived in Norton Green, was a bright, happy child with her whole life ahead of her.
The perpetrator was taken to hospital and was in a coma. Under the current law, a blood sample can be taken from an unconscious person—and in this case a sample was taken—but it cannot be tested until the individual gives consent. The fact that the current system relies on consent being given by the suspect meant that the investigation was held up. For Sharlotte’s family, that delay made an awful and impossible situation even worse. It slowed the process down, delayed answers and put off accountability while they were trying to grieve for their daughter.
That case shows that justice delayed is justice denied. When such serious cases are held up, the families and victims suffer the most. Sharlotte’s law matters, as it aims to fix gaps in the road traffic law so that those who kill or seriously harm others while driving under the influence cannot gain from delay, and so that the justice system can work quickly and fairly.
Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, I have raised this case in Parliament and spoken about the matter regularly with the Minister, who I thank for her continued engagement. However, I must be clear that the real strength behind the campaign has been Sharlotte’s mum, Claire, whose work has been tireless. In the face of unimaginable loss, she has shown true strength and dignity, driven by the idea that no other family should have to go through what hers endured.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the danger to our county in not taking this issue seriously. I know that he shares my horror about the case of my constituent, who was knocked down as he took his daughter to school in December 2025. Luckily, he pushed his daughter away, and he was not killed, but it was very close indeed. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging Staffordshire county council finally to get a grip and ensure that roads in our constituencies are made safe?
David Williams
I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning hard on this matter—we have discussed that case. I absolutely encourage Staffordshire county council to take action.
The Government’s consultation on road traffic offences really matters. It gives us a real way to learn from cases such as Sharlotte’s, so that victims and families are put first. I therefore encourage people across Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove, Staffordshire, and indeed the whole country, to take part in the consultation and support amendments to the law. I also urge colleagues from across the House to back the aims and principles behind Sharlotte’s law. If we get this right, Sharlotte-Sky Naglis will be remembered not just for the tragedy of her death, but for the change that her legacy brings, and justice will no longer be delayed for families who deserve better.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
A year ago in my constituency, Lewis Knox, aged 16, Fergus Ward, aged 17, and Jordan Cameron, aged 17, went off the road and died—no other car was involved. It was an enormous shock for the area. Lewis Knox’s father, Alan, is the head of the ambulance service in the area. He and his wife, Elizabeth, are calling for graduated driving licence schemes, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon).
When I was a young lad, I drove like a complete idiot. I have four sons, and I am fairly certain that they did the same. For young men—young boys—this is a particular problem. When they drive, they show off—bravado and all that sort of thing. The statistics are horrifying. Approximately one in five new drivers are involved in an accident within their first year of driving, and drivers under the age of 24 make up 6% to 7% of licence holders but are involved in 22% of fatalities and serious injuries.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
We spoke about the graduated driving licence scheme in a Westminster Hall debate and referred to the situation in Western Australia and Victoria. Does the hon. Member agree that the lessons we can learn from there have absolute relevance to the situation here?
Mr MacDonald
All the evidence shows that graduated driving licence schemes work extremely well in reducing the number of serious incidents.
I have one more statistic to finish with. In 2024, 1,602 kids aged between 17 and 24 were killed or seriously injured in Great Britain. According to international figures, if we introduced a graduated driving licence scheme, that number would drop by about 30%, so it is well worth the Minister considering this.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
In my constituency, road safety is now the No. 1 issue raised with the police. Just in the last year we have seen fatalities, injuries and countless near misses across Rossendale and Darwen. My inbox is filled with emails from people telling me that the roads just do not feel safe, which is why I warmly welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, and we now must turn its ambition into reality.
Let me begin with delivery. Road safety is, by necessity, delivered locally. Road safety partnerships are theoretically the main forum for this, bringing together councils, police forces and other services. Some partnerships, such as the one in Warwickshire, have shown the success that this model can bring; chaired by the PCC, they have the political backing to deliver the change we need. However, in too many parts of the country these partnerships are without that buy-in, with councils and police forces siloed and unwilling to meaningfully share resources. That is very much the picture in Lancashire, with the result being an underfunded and reactive approach to road safety that relies on outdated processes and fails to listen to our communities.
To give one example, William Cartwright, an 11-year-old boy in my constituency, did not feel safe crossing a very busy road on his way to school and launched a petition asking for a zebra crossing to be built, which gained over 1,400 signatures. Despite the mass of evidence showing that the community did not deem the road safe, the Reform leadership at the county council rejected the proposal because they said too few people had been killed or seriously injured there to merit an intervention.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that there does not need to be a certain number of incidents outside a school gate, or indeed on any road, in order for local councils to intervene? It is a myth that we need to bust.
Andy MacNae
Absolutely; I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. It is outdated guidance, and it is used as an excuse to avoid taking the action that people need to see.
It does not have to be this way. Neighbouring authorities—we have heard about the example of West Yorkshire—proactively listen to schools and their communities. That community-led approach must become our baseline, because listening to communities is vital. Partnerships also need resources to deliver the change we need; too often they are constrained by low levels of funding. Allowing councils to retain the fees from road offence fixed penalties, which in some cases raise millions of pounds each year, would make a real difference if ringfenced locally.
Nationally, we must be strategic and dynamic with our interventions, aiming for the greatest impact by focusing on higher-risk groups. An empowered road safety board and the new road safety investigation branch could be vital in keeping policy responsive. It would be good to hear from the Minister when the board will be established, what its powers will be and whether she expects it to meet more regularly than once a year.
With speeding being a key factor in 56% of all fatal collisions, this is an area where targeted action is essential. The Minister has committed to update the guidance on speed limits and enforcement, and the need for that is urgent. Just last week I was with residents on a road notorious for speeding, looking at three wrecked cars on the spot where a fatality occurred last year. Everyone knew it was only a matter of time before we saw another crash. They had spent the year calling for speed cameras, yet nothing was done. The message here is clear: communities know where the risks are, and we need to listen.
That is why last month I launched a road safety campaign in Rossendale and Darwen, calling on Lancashire to adopt a new road safety approach that properly resources our road safety partnership and acts to identify and address high-risk roads before incidents occur. Our survey has already had hundreds of responses, and this coming weekend I am hosting roundtables across the constituency to bring together residents, councillors and police to identify the high-risk areas and discuss how we can make them safer. I really hope that Lancashire county council will now listen to residents and work with me to deliver safer roads and save lives.
To conclude, we must end the road safety postcode lottery. Strong national leadership that sets clear expectations will be essential in supporting delivery for every community. That needs to be complemented by steps to genuinely resource delivery on the ground. If we can get this right, the road safety strategy and the lives it saves will be a legacy of which we can all be proud.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this important debate.
Since 2018, there have been 1,506 casualties on our roads in South Cambridgeshire and 34 fatalities, which we all know is 34 too many. Road safety is often discussed in terms of behaviour, speed or enforcement—issues we have heard much about today—but for many of my constituents, the danger begins with the road surface itself. Potholes, worn carriageways and crumbling edges are not just a sign of successive Governments’ failure to invest in our roads and highways but a real safety risk, particularly for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and drivers forced to swerve to avoid damage. I hear regularly from constituents whose tyres have blown, wheels have cracked or bikes have been thrown off balance because of the unsafe roads beneath them.
This is a recurring nightmare for all councils. I want to take this opportunity to place on record the work of Cambridgeshire county council, which, as the highways authority, is doing everything it reasonably can in very difficult circumstances. Just last night the chair of highways, Councillor Alex Beckett, was out checking the round-the-clock patching of potholes on Cambridge Road in Great Shelford village, following repeated calls from residents and local councillors highlighting just how dangerous this road had become. In the same village, Farhan Hussain, an award-winning curry takeaway owner for whom I recently presented an early-day motion, found a different way of raising awareness: he went viral with a video of himself placing the largest naan in East Anglia in a pothole. To be fair, the council did get it mended within the week.
Under Liberal Democrat leadership, the council’s investment in capital maintenance has more than doubled, and it is delivering tens of thousands of pothole repairs every year. The council is also challenging contractors who do shoddy work, and work that does not meet the right standard is being redone at no extra cost to the taxpayer. However, even with that effort, this situation is untenable. Cambridgeshire’s roads were not designed for the volume of traffic they now carry, let alone the growth planned for the Greater Cambridge area. This is where the Government must take responsibility.
Local councils are legally required to keep roads safe, but they cannot do so without fair, long-term funding. It is like an old pair of trousers—the limited funding given to councils is forcing them to patch the patches, rather than buy the new pair of trousers that is needed. I urge the Government to recognise that proper, scheduled resurfacing is safer, cheaper and longer lasting and will keep people safe on our roads.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this important debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. With over 1,624 people killed in collisions on our roads in 2023, something simply needs to change, and today that has come to the forefront.
I welcome the Government’s announcement of a new road safety strategy, which is much needed and has the potential to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 65%. The proposals in the road safety strategy will address a number of issues that my constituents raise with me regularly, particularly the new guidance on local speed limits and enforcement. The issues of speeding and unsafe junctions routinely come up in my constituency work, and they directly affect constituents, whether it is speeding on Lead Road in Greenside, through the village of Dipton, or along the A694, where residents in Ebchester have been campaigning for safer road crossings and better speed enforcement. These issues plague the daily lives of my constituents and cause real concern, so it is welcome that the road safety strategy will look at them. It would be great to know how residents can have a greater and more meaningful say on the concerns they have about the roads in their communities.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
There are schools and nurseries in my constituency, such as Jigsaw nursery on Wrexham Road and Delamere Academy, which is just off the busy A556, where children have to navigate fast-moving traffic. Does the hon. Lady agree that proximity to schools and nurseries should be treated as an essential consideration when determining safe speed limits on roads?
Liz Twist
Yes, of course. I believe that that is an important factor in setting speed limits, and it is certainly something that affects my constituents as well as those of the hon. Lady. There are also other places where we must take account of speed limits.
I want to speak briefly about one particular aspect of road safety that was raised with me by my constituents, John and Karen Rowlands, who lost their son Andrew in a road collision in 2020. The driver of the car was underage, uninsured and unlicensed. Sadly, that situation is all too common, and families are left to pick up the pieces, while dealing with unimaginable grief, due to the fact that the laws of our roads, and those affecting vehicles, have not kept up with changing times. Right now in the UK, car insurance costs £562 a year on average, while the penalty for being caught driving without insurance is only £300. The mismatch is simply outrageous.
I welcome the announcement in the road safety strategy that the Government will look again at tougher action against those who choose to drive unlicensed or without insurance, and those with no MOT. A stronger deterrent will help to stop such unlawful practices, and go some way towards preventing further tragedies like Andrew’s.
I believe, as do the Rowlands family, that to improve road safety we must also look at car ownership. Although the correct checks are in place within the car dealership industry, it is simply too easy to buy a car online, with no prior checks taking place on the person purchasing the vehicle or on the vehicle itself. While the deterrent of tougher action is welcome, that loophole still has the potential to cause irreparable harm on our roads. Online car sales are linked to crime, allow unsafe vehicles to remain in circulation, and enable people who do not have a licence to purchase and use cars on our roads. I welcome the fact that the Minister has met the Rowlands family, and will be doing so again shortly.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I wish to open my contribution to the debate with a tribute to a young man from Pwllheli who was killed in a hideous two-car collision on the Porthmadog bypass just days before Christmas. While we await the inquest, I hope it is some comfort to his family that so many people in our home community want to see changes to the law as a memorial and mark of respect for the life of Mathew Hardy. He was 34 years old and the only child of Simon and Glenys. Mathew’s partner, Mari, is expecting a baby in three months’ time—too many lives shattered by irreplaceable loss. While many of us treat the right—the license—to drive a car with a familiarity verging on contempt, such tragedies remind us how dangerous vehicles can potentially be for all road users. Heaven knows, as Mathew’s father says, that people lose their gun licences, their guns and gun paraphernalia at any suggestion of police concern, but people keep their driving licences far, far too easily.
It is a sad fact that inexperienced young drivers remain disproportionately at risk of being killed or injured on the roads. We had the tragic case in my constituency of Harvey Owen who was a passenger in a car driven by a friend, along with two others, all of them teenagers, who lost their lives in 2023 when their car came off the A4085 near Llanfrothen and overturned in a ditch. Harvey’s mother Crystal—I am sure many Members will know her—is campaigning for graduated driving licences.
Northern Ireland has just committed to a full graduated driving licence system from October this year, which includes post-test restrictions that are designed to reduce exposure to high risk situations, such as carrying peer passengers. Evidence from other countries shows that graduated systems significantly reduce young driver casualties, and they save lives. Safer roads mean fewer accidents, and they also mean lower insurance premiums for young people, which is a message the Government should engage with. The Government should monitor Northern Ireland’s approach as a pilot for the rest of the UK.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
My colleague in the Scottish Government, Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, has indicated a strong willingness to engage with the UK Government and other relevant bodies to trial things such as graduated licences and other road safety measures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is something the UK Government could proactively engage with to make positive progress across the home nations?
Liz Saville Roberts
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful suggestion. It is interesting that we are all talking along the same lines.
I welcome that the road safety strategy includes consultation on proposed changes to penalties for motoring offences. For families who have lost loved ones to repeat drink-drive and drug-drive offenders, it is incomprehensible why those drivers do not lose their licences at the point of providing a positive test. At the very least, that should happen automatically at a second or further offence. Such a policy would ensure that there was swift preventive action when there is clear evidence of risk.
My last example is that of Amanda Peak, who lives in Brithdir, near Dolgellau. She lost both her sons, Arron, aged 10, and Ben, aged eight, and her husband was badly injured. The driver who inflicted this on the family was drunk and driving at speed. Amanda begs the Government to bring down the alcohol limit and to address sentencing. When the drunken driver was sentenced, Amanda was told that this man would not even have been sentenced to imprisonment if he had killed only one child. Imagine that—it took two children to be killed for this man to be sentenced to imprisonment. I urge the Minister to meet lobbyists and to meet families as well, because this might well be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a change that will benefit very many people’s lives.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Prior to my role as a Member of Parliament, I was pleased to serve as a Norfolk county councillor for 12 years. In Norfolk, each time somebody is killed or seriously injured within a council division, the relevant councillor is informed. Clearly, nobody ever wanted to receive such an email, but all too often a message would arrive in my inbox. I recall vividly the email that informed me of the tragic death of 15-year-old Salvador Modke, on London Road in Thetford.
Salvador stepped out on to a crossing, just a short distance from his home, on a Saturday afternoon. He was hit by a car and tragically killed. The coroner’s report detailed evidence that had been received during the inquest, highlighting that the crossing contained minimal facilities for pedestrians and no signs on the approach to alert drivers. I pay tribute to Salvador’s family and friends who lobbied for safety improvements in the area following his death. I am pleased that Norfolk county council will be using money provided by the Government to undertake a full assessment of safety measures. I will do whatever I can to ensure that money is found to enact whatever recommendations are made.
As a member of the county council’s transport committee, I would routinely review performance indicators that tracked the number of people killed or seriously injured on the county’s roads. It was always a statistic of great concern, with a significantly high number of incidents. Sadly, the most recent Department for Transport data released in November indicates that road casualties have risen more in my county of Norfolk than anywhere else in the country, with the number of people killed or seriously injured rising from 470 in 2023 to 555 in 2024.
It is worth noting that across the country, 10 times as many people die on rural roads as on motorways. The view of road safety charity Brake is that rural roads are the most dangerous roads for all users. Many do not have cycles lane, pavements or bridleways. Many rural roads are narrow, with blind bends and limited safe places to pass. There is often much that obstructs the driver’s view and, all too often, there are animal collisions, particularly with deer. Deer are a constant risk around Thetford forest, in my constituency, which is the UK’s largest man-made forest.
Worryingly, in a Brake and Direct Line survey, 68% of drivers said that they felt it was acceptable to drive above the speed limit on a rural road, and nearly half of drivers said that they had driven faster than the speed limit on a single-carriageway rural road in the past year. Drivers are openly admitting to speeding on the most dangerous roads. I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, and I ask that serious thought be given to the specific circumstances and opportunities to improve safety on our rural roads.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. After the next speaker, I am going to have to drop the time limit to two minutes, because there is a very important debate on Gaza that I would like to start by 3.30 pm.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this important debate and sharing her own family’s story. I dedicate my speech to a close and dear friend, a councillor in Richmond upon Thames, who lost her adult son in a road traffic collision on the A31 in Hampshire just before the new year. I am thinking of her and all her family as I make these remarks.
Every life lost on our roads is tragic, so I welcome the publication of the new road safety strategy. It is vital that we explore how our roads can be made safer so that lives can be saved. Young people are disproportionately involved in road traffic accidents. Drivers aged 17 to 24 represent just 6% of licence holders but are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions, so I am pleased that the Government have recognised that that statistic must be addressed.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
May I join the hon. Member in what she says? Just last month, three young members of the community in Bolton, in the constituency next door to mine, lost their lives in a road traffic accident. A 17-year-old and two 18-year-olds were killed, as well as one of my constituents, Masrob Ali, who was 54 and out there working as a taxi driver.
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; it is tragic to hear about all those lives lost.
Consulting on measures to reduce the number of accidents involving young people is a really positive step. Not only is it vital for the obvious safety reasons, but it will make driving more affordable if insurance companies subsequently reduce their fees for 17 to 25-year-olds if they are involved in fewer accidents.
The THINK! campaign was launched at the turn of the millennium and presented a strong message to young adults about the dangers of drink driving, but 17 to 24-year-olds are still involved in a disproportionate amount of cases. As we have heard from other contributions, in the UK it is still seen as somewhat acceptable, especially among young people, to drive while over the limit.
However, drunk drivers can also be confident drivers, who, after three pints, would rather not have the inconvenience of having to book a taxi or leave their car parked elsewhere overnight. There can be lots of reasons why people think that it is acceptable to drink and drive. Will the Government commit to examining the perceptions of drunk driving, along with exploring the use of new preventive technology?
We should also examine road safety through the lens of everyone who uses our roads. Last Friday, I met a constituent who had been hit by an e-bike being ridden on the pavement. While e-bikes should certainly not be ridden on pavements, my constituent was actually very understanding of the fact that the reason why so many riders choose to do so is that they are so concerned about the dangers of cycling on our roads.
The 2007 national safety camera programme provided guidance that cameras typically should be installed only on stretches of road that experienced at least three deaths or serious injuries in the past 36 months. I have heard from other Members that that guidance can be overridden locally, but will the Minister commit to re-examining the guidance? Anyone who cycles will tell us that there are stretches of road and corners that present specific dangers to them, but experienced cyclists will anticipate that and consequently not suffer serious injuries. We need to encourage more cycling, particularly in our cities, and improving road safety for all road users is a huge priority in ensuring that that can happen.
Reviewing the guidance on safety cameras could really go a long way in encouraging all our road users to use the roads more safely. We want to see our roads safe for all users and to reduce the number of deaths on our roads.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I very much welcome the steps that our Labour Government are taking to improve road safety. From record funding to improve road conditions to the publication of the road safety strategy last month—the first of its kind in a decade—there is a clear commitment to deliver on our manifesto commitments and set out vital reforms to make our roads safer, particularly as the UK has slipped from third to fourth in Europe’s road safety rankings.
One of the key issues that I will highlight is tackling drug driving. Data from the Department for Transport shows that although alcohol remains the leading cause of impairment-related collisions, the gap between alcohol-related crashes and drug-related crashes has narrowed over the last decade. Between 2014 and 2023, the number of drivers killed in fatal collisions with drugs detected rose by more than 70%. I welcome the Government’s decisive steps to give the police additional powers to act at the roadside, including immediate licence suspensions to remove dangerous drivers from our roads, as well as the commitment to explore alternative testing methods such as saliva-based testing and improved processing, including increased roadside testing.
In the short amount of time that I have, let me say that road safety must include pavement safety. I really welcome the work that our Government are doing to bring forward measures to tackle the enforcement of hugely inconsiderate pavement parking. Many of my constituents tell me about the danger it poses, particularly for people who have children in pushchairs, use wheelchairs, or are visually impaired and use a guide dog. They often take the risk of walking into the road simply to go about their day.
The existing legislation restricts the powers of local authorities outside London and Scotland. When will the Government introduce interim secondary legislation, so that local authorities can enforce against unnecessary obstructions on the pavement? I encourage all my constituents to sign my petition on pavement parking.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this debate. I also thank Alan Faulds and Melanie Mitchell for inviting me to a Safe Drive Stay Alive event last week, where emergency service workers shared real-life experiences with local secondary school children about working at collisions and dealing with the aftermath of what has happened.
As a parent, it was John Galloway’s contribution that I have thought about most this last week. John told the story of what happened in 2001 to his son, David, who was then an 18-year-old with his entire life in front of him. He was involved in a road traffic accident—one that was entirely avoidable. John detailed the accident and how David was hospitalised for two years, as well as the pain and heartbreak that John and his wife felt, and continue to feel. It was full of raw emotional trauma.
David then came on to the stage in his motorised wheelchair, and John explained how he struggles with swallowing and must now be fed through a PEG—percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy—in his stomach. After the event, I had the honour of speaking with the Galloway family. The Galloways have been attending Safe Drive Stay Alive for nearly two decades now. They go and share their story because they do not want other families to experience the pain they have.
Safe Drive Stay Alive costs around £36,000 a year to run—Clackmannanshire council provides £3,000, Falkirk council £5,000 and Stirling council £10,000. The rest must be made through donations from local businesses and individuals, and I give credit to Air Products, which has a site in Alloa, for getting behind the campaign and making a donation. The three councils are facing financial issues, and when we consider the fact that each road death in Scotland costs approximately £2.8 million, they feel that they might not be able to step up and fund Safe Drive Stay Alive going forward. We really cannot put a pound sign in front of that.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this debate.
Parish councils across my constituency have been raising the alarm on road safety for years. In Bradley, residents and councillors continue to push for a reduction in the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph, and for action to stop inappropriate heavy goods vehicle traffic on the really narrow village roads. Despite clear signage, 44-tonne articulated vehicles still pass through regularly, causing severe damage to road surfaces, verges and drainage, worsening potholes and flooding, and creating a real danger to pedestrians, as Members have said throughout this debate.
In Eccleshall and surrounding villages, speeding hotspots are repeatedly raised on routes such as the A519 through Slindon, where multiple accidents occurred in a single summer, and on rural narrow lanes near schools and homes, where there are no pavements at all.
I also want to highlight the experience of one of my constituents, Diana Kynaston, who is a motorbike rider from Stafford. For motorcyclists, potholes and crumbling road edges create a serious threat to life and limb. She has highlighted the route between Doxey and Astonfields industrial estate, where uneven surfaces, deep potholes and damaged corners force sudden manoeuvres and increase the risk of losing control, particularly for learner riders. I have heard reports across the constituency—from Norbury to Cold Meece, and from Bishop’s Offley to Great Bridgeford—about potholes going long unrepaired, and this includes stretches of major roads.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my other constituency neighbour for giving way—there is a theme about the quality and condition of our roads in Staffordshire. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the situation in her constituency, and I just want to make it clear that the same situation is also happening in Newcastle- under-Lyme and other parts of north Staffordshire.
Leigh Ingham
Something that all Staffordshire MPs have in common is our absolute despair at the state of our roads. The Government have allocated additional funds, which is really important and will make a significant difference to what we can achieve. However, to put it in perspective, Staffordshire is the slowest authority at repairing potholes. If a snail started off in Stafford town centre when a pothole was reported, it will have moved 22 kilometres by the time the pothole is repaired, which is ridiculous.
I ask the Minister what mechanisms the Department has in place to ensure the additional road maintenance funding is being used effectively by councils and is translating into safer, better-maintained roads, and how it supports local authorities to take a joined-up approach to road safety that includes both speed and road maintenance. When funding rises—which I am very grateful for—but safety does not, how can the Minister tackle that in her role?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Just two weeks after my election, I was contacted by my constituent Julie. Her husband Kevin was a devoted husband and grandfather, and was dedicated to keeping us safe on our roads as a traffic management officer. On the morning of 26 February 2022, Kevin was parked up in a closed lane, completing checks between junctions 14 and 15 of the M6. While he was there, a stolen Audi travelling at over 100 mph and being actively pursued by police entered that closed lane and collided with Kevin’s vehicle, killing him instantly.
Julie was told that the police pursuit had been authorised to protect the public and that although officers were aware of a coned-off section of the motorway, that did not feature in the risk assessment because there was no indication that road workers would be present, but Kevin was present—he was authorised to be there and was working. Julie has never sought to apportion blame, but has consistently asked for answers about the protocols and lack of communication that led to Kevin losing his life. In her words,
“Kevin looked out for everyone’s safety, but who was looking out for his?”
A member of the public stopped in the same place where Kevin was working would rightly be considered at serious risk, yet Kevin’s only physical protection was plastic cones, and he had no radio link to the regional operations centre.
I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, which recognises that road workers are among the most vulnerable people on our roads and commits to harnessing technology, data sharing and improved enforcement to protect them. Julie believes that a simple message on the gantry signs could have saved Kevin’s life, but there is currently no requirement for communication between the police and National Highways when it comes to traffic control officers, as there is for those working on repairs. My team and I are engaging with National Highways about this issue, but it would be very welcome if the Minister would also consider it.
I pay tribute to Kevin’s widow Julie, and thank her for her courage in repeatedly telling his story. I urge the Government to work with families such as Julie’s to make sure those who put themselves at risk to keep us safe are respected and protected.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome today’s debate on road safety, which is a subject of deep concern in Colchester and across Essex. In our county, we have seen a year-on-year increase in deaths on our roads, rising to 58 in 2025—too many of those have been young lives. In Colchester, we are marking a terrible anniversary at present: the moment that four young people lost their lives in a single crash. In April last year, an 18-year-old was killed on the A12. In the previous September, a 13-year-old was struck and fatally injured on Mersea Road. The deaths of these young people must be a call to action.
Residents regularly raise concerns about the A12 and the A120, where frequent incidents and congestion contribute to these horrors. I would like to highlight the need for better road infrastructure and traffic management on those stretches. As an Essex MP, I am committed to working with Essex Highways and Essex police to develop measures set out in the road safety strategy, particularly the mandating of safety technologies in new vehicles, taking tougher action against drink and drug driving and improving driver testing and learning periods, especially for young drivers.
Linsey Farnsworth
Dave, a driving instructor in Amber Valley, contacts me regularly about road safety—he is a passionate advocate. However, he is concerned about the consultation in the road safety strategy on a three-month or six-month minimum learning period. Does my hon. Friend agree with Dave that structured training and lesson time is just as important as a minimum time period?
Pam Cox
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am sure the Minister has heard that point and will respond to it.
Far too many people die on our roads—we really must act to save lives. I will close by asking the Minister what new funding will be available to help us in that key endeavour.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Road safety is one of the top issues that constituents write to me about. That is why I took the opportunity to hear from nearly 1,000 Bracknell Forest residents on this issue over the summer, as I conducted my summer campaign on road safety. Those conversations and speaking with many incredible charities and organisations in Bracknell Forest and beyond impressed on me the need for greater action on uninsured drivers.
Those who drive uninsured are statistically more likely to be involved in road accidents, as well as to commit other risky offences on the road, including hit-and-run incidents and speeding. Towards the end of last year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to bring in tougher measures, and I thank the Minister for listening to my constituents and launching a consultation on a review of the motoring offences framework, which has not been updated since 1988.
Uninsured driving was not the only issue raised with me by residents. Speeding is a concern for so many who use the roads responsibly. They see it happening, and they know that they and their loved ones are put at risk by this dangerous behaviour. In fact, more than 70% of respondents to my road safety survey agreed that people drive too quickly down residential and main roads in Bracknell Forest. I am therefore pleased that the Government are publishing new guidance for setting local speed limits and updating guidance on the use of speed cameras and red-light cameras.
I pay tribute to the work already undertaken by Thames Valley police on vehicle offences more generally. Vehicle crime in Bracknell Forest is down 14% compared with the end of 2024, and I know that our local policing team has been working hard to crack down on offences including illegal car meets and uninsured driving. We have already heard from many Members about potholes, so I will quickly welcome the nearly £17 million invested by this Government in our local roads over the course of this spending period.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate? I congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who secured it, on her powerful speech. She, like many other Members, rightly focused on the appalling human cost when road safety goes wrong. So many Members spoke powerfully with stories from their own lives or from their constituents of people who have lost their lives or been injured and the impact that has on families—that has to be where we start from—and the emergency services.
On road safety, we must start with our own human shortcomings. Few of us are, generally speaking, the skilled and wise drivers and road users that we often tend to think we are. It remains to be seen whether driverless cars will save us from ourselves. In the meantime, we need to tackle a whole range of factors, as well as the fatal five factors that the hon. Member for Shipley outlined in her introduction. We need to address culture and attitudes to speeding and drinking.
A number of hon. Members referred to a particular problem with how young people, in particular young males, can drive. We need to think about the design of our roads and the lack of safe walking and cycling infrastructure. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, the A417 and A338 are very busy A-roads. They have no viable alternative for people cycling and lack cycle paths, as would be common in Germany, the Netherlands and many other places. Potholes and poor road surfaces are the bane of all road users’ lives, and there is a link there to wider policy, given that upper-tier council authorities are seeing more than half their budgets consumed by statutory requirements such as adult social care. Road safety links to a lot of other policy areas.
We need to think hard about enforcement, whether that is cameras or the human interface. We need to continue to expand cycle training, particularly the Bikeability programme for young people, and we need better training and support for new drivers, particularly young ones. The recent Government announcement on pavement parking is welcome, but I hope the Minister will say something about how she intends to implement that. I note that Lord Blunkett in the other place tabled an amendment on that subject.
We must, however, look to ourselves as well as to others. Pedestrians should think carefully before crossing the road at an inappropriate place, and we all need to get out of our phones and look around us. Cyclists need to be consistent in obeying rules and signals and respecting pedestrians, and drivers need to have good vehicle maintenance and be mindful of the power of their vehicle. Nobody should want to be the cause of the human harm we have heard about today, and we should all think about that the next time we attempt to behave badly on the roads.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
First and foremost, I thank Members from across the House for taking part in this debate, and I particularly pay tribute to all those mentioned who tragically lost their lives or faced life changing injuries in road accidents. It is right that we do all we can to stop such terrible incidents occurring again in the future.
The ability to travel in our cars and on the roads is integral to the vast majority of people’s everyday lives. Not only is it the most popular form of transport, but it is a lifeline for many people, so all motorists and every other road user, whether they are lorry drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or others, deserve safe journeys.
In considering the Government’s road safety announcements, the Opposition support and welcome some elements of the strategy, while the effectiveness of other measures remains in question. We strongly support measures such as stronger fines for those who commit egregious offences and action to combat ghost number plates. However, the overwhelming sentiment, which I hope the Minister adopts when putting into practice the policies set out in the strategy, is about enforcement. One of the worst things to hear when there has been an accident is that it involved people breaking existing laws, putting themselves and others in danger.
Unfortunately, since the Government released the strategy, we have seen further decreases in police officer numbers, with a decrease of more than 1,300 officers between September 2024 and September 2025 and further decreases occurring before that date. How can we expect the Government to enforce our wide range of existing road laws, let alone new ones, if there are insufficient police officers? It would be useful to know what discussions the Department has had with the Home Office to ensure that sufficient officers will be allocated to police our existing road laws and any additional ones the Government might bring forward. Also, I understand that the Government’s police performance framework says that there is a target to “decrease” the number of
“People killed or seriously injured in road traffic collision”,
but does not actually say what that target will be.
To improve enforcement, we must have a targeted response to problem drivers, who put everyone on the road at risk. One issue that demands an even greater focus is drug driving. The Government’s consultation acknowledges that some police forces are arresting more drug drivers than drink drivers, and that there has been a steady increase in the number of people convicted. Although that represents some progress, I would call on the Government to go further. Data shows that, in 2023, 22% of deceased drivers tested positive for impairment drugs, an increase from 11% in 2014. Among the youngest cohort of drivers—those most likely to get into terrible accidents—the vast majority of cases involved illegal drugs only. While there are sensible proposals within this strategy about testing and looking at further fines, the Minister must work with the police to ensure they are doing more to target drug driving and not relying on tests after the fact.
In addition, I hope the Government strongly consider any further measures that stop those committing these terrible crimes on our roads from being able to avoid punishment, whether that be due to testing or statutory limits, which, in particular cases, have enabled those who have committed the worst crimes on our roads to avoid the full weight of the law.
To conclude, for road safety measures, I believe that the Government must bring drivers with them in any changes and measures that they take. Where drivers do not feel that those road safety measures actually help them—such as with 20 mph limits—they will not take them seriously. This is a strategy that must be delivered, and delivered well, but with drivers, not just against them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Minister, who I am told is aware of how much pressure there is on timing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for her powerful and moving speech in opening today’s debate, and thank so many Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful and heartfelt contributions. I wish we had more time for the debate; I know I will not be able to respond to all the points raised, so I will endeavour to write to people if I do not manage to answer their questions today.
It is evident from the discussion that road safety is a subject that affects everyone. Members have shared the effect of road collusions on their constituents and on themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is one of too many people who have lost family members on our roads, and I extend my sympathies to her and to all constituents whose tragic cases have been raised by hon. and right hon. Members. I have met many bereaved families, and it is without doubt the hardest part of my job, but I will continue to do so.
I am proud that this Government have published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, which sets out our vision for a safer future for all. Although Britain has some of the safest roads globally, the last 10 years of complacency mean that our road safety record has dropped. As we have already heard, four people are killed on our roads every single day. It is not acceptable, which is why we have set ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65%, and by 70% for children, by 2035. The strategy is rooted in innovation and underpinned by the “safe system”, which recognises that although driver error is inevitable, deaths and serious injuries on our roads are not. A new road safety investigation branch will analyse data to identify causes of danger, and to generate safety solutions, in order to cut deaths and serious injuries.
Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), have spoken about the need for action to reduce speed. We will update guidance for local authorities, which have the power to set speed limits on their roads, to inform decision making at local level. It is for councils to determine what measures are appropriate, because they have local knowledge. It is right that they focus on areas of highest risk, which may be where fatal collisions have occurred, but there is nothing to stop them implementing road safety measures elsewhere. I can assure the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) that we have already committed to updating the guidance on speed camera deployment.
The enforcement of road traffic law is the responsibility of individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners, taking into account the specific local problems that they face. We are investing in additional police officers, with 3,000 to be recruited by the end of March and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. Like my hon. Friend for Shipley, I pay tribute to Alison Lowe, the deputy mayor for policing and crime in West Yorkshire, for her personal commitment. Last month I visited West Yorkshire to see at first hand the work being delivered, and last week I joined the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to talk about our strategy and how we can work together.
Tragically, as we have heard, young drivers are over-represented in the number of people killed and seriously injured, and crashes involving young drivers also result in deaths and serious injuries among other road users. This issue was raised by numerous Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), and the right hon. Member—I will probably murder the name of her constituency—for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).
Graduated driving licences vary around the world, as does how they are implemented; there is not one standard type. For England, Scotland and Wales, we are consulting on introducing a minimum learning period to ensure that learner drivers get the necessary time and training to prepare themselves for a lifetime of safe driving. We have to strike a balance between protecting young people and impacting their opportunities to get to work, education and social activities. We already have a two-year probationary period for all novice drivers once they have passed their test, and we are now seeking views on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers in England and Wales. I am very aware of the recent announcement in Northern Ireland, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned. My officials regularly meet their counterparts in Northern Ireland, and I have asked them to keep me updated on the progress and on the impact of the measures once they have been implemented.
At the other end of the spectrum, drivers aged over 70 account for around 24% of all car drivers killed in 2024. That is why we are consulting on mandatory eye tests for drivers in this age group, and we are also exploring cognitive testing. As well as improving safety, these measures could support families to broach difficult conversations with older relatives who are still driving.
Drink-driving continues to cause too many deaths and injuries. The drink-drive limit has not been lowered since it was first legislated for in 1967, and our understanding of impairment has developed. To support a shift in social acceptability, we will work with our THINK! campaign and alcohol brands to encourage people to choose drinks with 0% alcohol content. Drug-driving has also increased, without sufficient measures in place to curtail it, so we are consulting on alternative methods of testing for drug driving and on licence suspension for those suspected of the most serious offences. There is so much more I would like to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but may I just say that we are seeking opinions on tougher penalties for motoring offences? usbI thank my hon. Friends who raised those issues, in addition to raising the issues of pavement parking and vehicle safety.
Although the Government are leading the charge, this will be a collective effort in partnership with local authorities, the industry, the emergency services, communities and the devolved Administrations. I assure everyone in this House that action is beginning now to make our roads safer, as we put the commitments in the strategy into place. I will chair a new road safety board that will be set up in the coming months to support and monitor the commitments, and we will announce further details of its membership and other arrangements in due course.
Finally, as hon. Members are aware, many of the measures on which we are consulting will require primary legislation, and we intend to bring this forward when parliamentary time allows. However, where we can deliver change faster through secondary legislation, we will do so. I encourage hon. Members to respond to our consultations. We will listen to this feedback, alongside evidence and recommendations from the Transport Committee’s inquiry.
I again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, and I look forward to updating the House when we have considered the findings.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered road safety.
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Brendan O’Hara, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I put on record my thanks to the Speaker’s Office for working so hard to ensure that we have time for the debate this afternoon? Given the pressure on time, and in order to allow as many Back-Bench speeches as possible, I will not take any interventions.
In his book, “One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This”, the Egyptian-Canadian novelist and journalist Omar El Akkad wrote:
“The moral component of history, the most necessary component, is simply a single question, asked over and over again: When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power? What makes moments such as this one so dangerous, so clarifying, is that one way or another everyone is forced to answer.”
That question will have to be answered. That may not be today or even this year, but at some point all of us, particularly those who hold positions of power or have a public platform, will have to answer that fundamental question: which side were we on? Were we on the side of justice, or did we side with the powerful?
When asked, each of us will have to answer: did we speak up for the tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children who were killed; did we use our platform to actively oppose the forced displacement of millions of Palestinians from their homes and communities as they were reduced to rubble, and condemn unequivocally the collective punishment imposed on an entire population when the basics necessary to sustain life—water, electricity, food and medicine—were deliberately withheld from them; or did we, either by what we said and did, or by what we did not say and did not do, side with the powerful, look away because it was in our political or financial interests so to do, and give political cover and legitimacy to the Netanyahu regime as it carried out its genocide while our Government supplied it with the weapons and military intelligence to do so?
The Hamas attack of 7 October was utterly appalling, and no right-thinking person could excuse or condone what happened that day. Neither, however, could any right-thinking person excuse or condone the Israeli response, which has been not just disproportionate, but brutal and relentless. Israel’s response has been carried out in such a systematic manner that, in my opinion, no reasonable person could deny that what we have witnessed in Gaza over the past two and a half years constitutes genocide.
The Government have denied, and continue to this day to deny, that it is a genocide. It is a decision that the Government will have to explain, and with which they will have to live. Today, however, I am not here to play ping-pong with the Government on the legal definition of what does and does not constitute genocide.
Instead, I want to focus on the mountain of evidence that says there is at least a serious risk of genocide occurring, and that serious risk should have triggered the UK’s legal obligation to act under the terms of the genocide convention, as explained by the International Court of Justice in its 2007 Bosnia ruling—an obligation that comes into effect long before any determination of genocide has been made by a court. The standard of serious risk is designed to be an early warning that ensures that states and international bodies act to prevent a genocide from occurring. In the case of the Palestinian people of Gaza, the UK has clearly and undeniably failed abjectly to meet its legal responsibility when alerted to there being a serious risk of genocide.
When the UK signed the genocide convention in 1948, it promised to prevent and punish this most heinous of crimes. Now, with more 71,000 people dead and 200,000 people injured, Gaza reduced to an uninhabitable wasteland, its population in the grip of a man-made famine and its medical infrastructure obliterated, hundreds of journalists murdered, water and electricity used as a means of coercion and punishment, food and medicine denied to the starving and the dying and the repeated forced displacement of millions of civilians, it is surely beyond any dispute that the minimum requirement for the UK to act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide has been met.
Arguably the most damning indictment, however, is that more than 21,000 children have been killed by the Israel Defence Forces since October 2023. Let us not forget that in November 2023 the UK Government formally intervened in the case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar at the ICJ to argue for changes to the definition of genocide that included lowering the threshold when damage was inflicted on children. If it is appropriate for the UK to intervene to protect children from the bombs and bullets of the Myanmar military, why is it not appropriate for it to intervene to protect Palestinian children from the bombs and bullets of the IDF?
Of course, genocide is not and never has been about numbers. The numbers killed, while shocking, do not in and of themselves necessarily prove genocide; there are other methods, including
“deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
That is why it is important that we look at what else has happened in Gaza since October 2023. Over the past two and a half years, Israel has obliterated the agricultural sector; the fishing industry has gone; the road network has been wrecked; agricultural wells have been demolished; most crop land and greenhouses have been rendered unusable; the vast majority of livestock have been killed; and the vitally important and culturally significant olive tree crops have been targeted and destroyed.
Such is the devastation that a Guardian journalist on board a Jordanian air force plane wrote:
“Seen from the air, Gaza looks like the ruins of an ancient civilisation.”
And he added that Gaza was razed by an Israeli military campaign that has left behind a place that looks like the aftermath of an apocalypse. That does not happen by accident, and it is impossible to view this as anything other than a premeditated attempt to erase Palestinians from their land by making it impossible for human life to survive.
By any measure, collectively, all of that constitutes unimpeachable evidence that there has been a serious risk of genocide. And that should have triggered a UK Government response to prevent that becoming a full-blown genocide, but is has not. It is not as if the Government can say that they did not know or that they were unaware, because, time and again, statements made from that Dispatch Box, including from the former Foreign Secretary and the current Prime Minister, have conceded that they knew exactly what was happening, but they have chosen to do nothing about it. They have accepted and have publicly condemned the siege tactics, the denial of humanitarian assistance, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, the use of evacuation orders, the denial of water, food and electricity, the targeting of journalists, the destruction of healthcare, the astronomical number of civilian casualties, and the deliberate dehumanising of the Palestinian people.
In their own words, the Government have denied undeniable proof that war crimes are being carried out, that mass atrocities are being carried out, and that civilians are being denied the basics to maintain life. A quick trawl of Hansard will reveal that as far back as January 2024, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said that
“85% of the population are displaced and millions face the risk of famine.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 622.]
Two months later he said that
“famine in Gaza is imminent... but what distinguishes the horror in Gaza from what has come before is that is it not driven by drought or natural disaster; it is man-made.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 806.]
And in May 2024 he said that
“aid is reportedly being blocked and northern Gaza is now in full blown famine”.—[Official Report, 7 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 443.]
A year later, in May of 2025, he openly acknowledged Israeli war crimes against the civilian population when he said:
“The whole House should be able to utterly condemn the Israeli Government’s denial of food to hungry children. It is wrong. It is appalling.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 927.]
And then he continued that
“what we are seeing is inhumane, it is deadly and it is depriving Gazans of their human dignity.—[Official Report, 21 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 662.]
It is there in black and white. The Government have acknowledged it. And the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition in October of 2023, acknowledged that serious risk, saying:
“Civilians must not be targeted. Where Palestinians are forced to flee, they must not be permanently displaced… International law is clear. It also means that basic services, including water, electricity and the fuel needed for it, cannot be denied.—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 593.]
And as Prime Minister he said:
“We continue to see mounting evidence of appalling atrocities against civilians and unacceptable restrictions on humanitarian access.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 806.]
There are so many more examples of the Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary and other Ministers admitting from that Dispatch Box that Israel was using food as a weapon of war, that it had manufactured a famine, that it was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, that it was committing war crimes, and that it was stripping Gazans of their human dignity. Yet it remains the official position of the UK Government that none of that—none of it—meets the threshold for there being a serious risk of genocide.
I ask the Minister whether we are being asked to believe that, even when the Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, said:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed… We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly”.
Did that not trigger within the Government the thought that perhaps there was a serious risk of genocide? Finance Minister Smotrich said:
“Gaza will be entirely destroyed; civilians will be sent to...the south…and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries.”
Did that not trigger the thought that, perhaps, there was a potential risk of genocide occurring? The Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, said:
“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”.
Did that not suggest to the UK Government that perhaps Israel’s response to the atrocities of 7 October was going to be disproportionate, brutal and illegal; and that continuing to sell weapons and maintaining a “business as usual” relationship with Tel Aviv might put us in grave danger of breaching our obligations under the genocide convention?
Despite Israel making its intentions unambiguously clear from the very start—that it was going to ethnically cleanse Gaza, would do so using whatever means necessarily and would do so indiscriminately—it appears that the UK Government made the political choice to deliberately ignore their obligations so that they could continue a business-as-usual relationship with Netanyahu’s Government.
I will finish where I began, with that powerful quote from Omar El Akkad:
“When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power? What makes moments such as this one so dangerous, so clarifying, is that one way or another everyone is forced to answer.”
This UK Government and the Government who preceded them have chosen to side with power over justice, and history will judge them accordingly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Because I want to get everyone in before we finish at 5 pm, all Members are on a three-minute speaking limit.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for bringing forward this most important debate.
This is a debate on an obligation to assess the risk of genocide. Who could disagree with that? There has been a terrible war in Gaza, and although there is a ceasefire, loss of life continues. It was sparked by the 7 October attack in 2023 and the taking of the hostages, which was the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. This was not a war of Israel’s seeking. The aims of the war were to secure the release of the hostages and to prevent Hamas from ever repeating their attack, which they had promised to do on many occasions. As the Chief Rabbi said,
“If Hamas lays down its arms there will be no fighting… If Israel were to lay down its arms there would be no Israel.”
Genocide is a legal description of the intentional, systematic destruction in whole or in part of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as defined by the 1948 UN genocide convention. The concept was defined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer from Lviv/Lwów/Lemberg—much in the news—in the aftermath of the war. I first heard of Lemkin in the marvellous book “East West Street” by Philippe Sands, who will deliver tonight the Alf Dubs lecture in Battersea.
“Intent” is the crucial word. Britain and its allies are not accused of genocide for the strategic bombing of Germany, despite the hundreds of thousands who were killed. It is a matter for a court to decide on genocide, and despite the many debates about it in this Chamber, we can all agree that this is not a court.
We know that there has been massive loss of life and destruction in Gaza, but I simply cannot believe that it was the stated intention of the Government of Israel to completely destroy the population of Gaza. We do not have any means of independently verifying anything, since we are left to rely on news from the Hamas-led Health Ministry and the Israel Government’s spokespeople. I directly asked the President of Israel, Mr Herzog, twice about allowing in independent journalists, such as those from CNN or the BBC, and I was twice informed that it was too dangerous. Is that still the case? I doubt it now that there is a ceasefire.
The word “genocide” has been used to rally protest all over the world, but we have seen where some of that has led. If we allow this most significant of words to be bandied about with such certainty, do we not risk undermining the words that are needed to describe the Holocaust, which was the intentional and systematic murder of 6 million European Jews by the Nazis; the Rohingya being expelled en masse, raped and slaughtered; the Uyghurs being subjected to mass internment, forced sterilisation and cultural erasure; or the mass murders in Rwanda?
Genocide is a quite specific crime, and frankly it is not my belief that this was the intent of the Israel Defence Forces. But I do agree that there is an obligation for this to be assessed.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
We are witnessing in Gaza a catastrophe that was not only foreseeable but preventable. For over two years, the UK Government have hidden behind legal sleight of hand while a genocide has unfolded in Gaza. The definition of genocide set out in article II of the genocide convention is precise. It involves specific acts
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
First, article II(a) prohibits killing members of such a group. As of January of this year, 71,500 Palestinians have been killed, including 570 aid workers and 1,700 health workers. That is not collateral damage; it is the destruction of a people and it is sickening.
Just yesterday, during the current supposed ceasefire, the BBC reported that at least 20 Palestinians, including several children and a paramedic, had been killed and almost 40 others wounded in Israeli strikes in Gaza, according to hospitals in Palestine. The response from the Israel Defence Forces stated that they had carried out “precise strikes”—so precise, apparently, that they had to further state,
“The IDF is aware of the claim that several uninvolved civilians, including a medical staff member, were hit in the strike.”
That is a familiar trope that they have used throughout the conflict. If those were the reactions of our own military, the standards we would apply in investigation and response would be rigorous and likely lead to court martial because it is not even close to our, rightly, highly robust rules of engagement rooted in moral integrity.
Secondly, article II(b) prohibits
“Causing serious bodily or mental harm”.
We know that over 143,000 people have been injured, with many maimed for life, and the population has been subjected to torture and arbitrary detention. Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly, article II(c) prohibits
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”.
Amnesty International has found that Israel has systematically destroyed life-sustaining infrastructure, including water, sanitation and energy grids. By creating a so-called buffer zone, Israel has razed 59% of agricultural land in that area and, as of last month, 81% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, and all the while it has severely restricted vital aid and supplies. This is the deliberate erasure of the means of survival, which has led to widely reported and verifiable famine.
When Israeli leaders describe Palestinians as “human animals” and speak of “flattening Gaza”, and then proceed to destroy 19 hospitals and block essential aid, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is the “intent to destroy” the group, as per the definition. Even now, despite the UN commission of inquiry finding in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide and Amnesty International confirming that the genocide continues despite the October ceasefire, the UK refuses to act.
History will judge this Government and this Parliament for their—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I am honoured to serve as co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group.
We face a stark legal reality: the UK’s duty to prevent genocide is triggered the moment a serious risk becomes evident. The International Court of Justice made that clear in January 2024. Judge Joan Donoghue stated that the Court found
“a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention.”
The Court issued provisional measures directing Israel to prevent genocide—measures that Israel has ignored.
Words matter too. Israel’s President Herzog declared,
“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible.”
Under international law, such statements are evidence of intent. The UN commission of inquiry confirmed that the ICJ’s provisional measures placed all state parties on notice of a serious risk of genocide in Gaza, triggering legal obligations on third states, including the UK. As its chair, Navi Pillay, stated,
“Israel has flagrantly disregarded the orders for provisional measures from the International Court of Justice…and continued the strategy of destruction of the Palestinians in Gaza.”
Yet in September 2024, UK Government lawyers concluded that there was no serious risk of genocide occurring. That defies the Court, the commission and the law.
The UK itself has argued that genocide is not limited to killings, but includes forced displacement, serious bodily or mental harm and deprivation of food, particularly when children are targeted. Despite that, the UK has failed to acknowledge the risk, failed to respond to the ICJ or the commission and failed to act as it has elsewhere. I ask the Minister what evidence would be required to accept the risk of genocide if neither the ICJ nor the UN commission of inquiry suffices, and why, when the UK has argued that acts against children and forced displacement are indicators of genocidal intent, it has not applied that standard here.
History will judge whether we acted when the warning signs were crystal clear. I urge the Government to acknowledge the risk and meet their legal duty to prevent genocide.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
All of us are here in this Chamber because of the horror we have at the events of 7 October, and the atrocities that have taken place thereafter and that continue to take place. Many of us are also here because of a profound sense of shame—shame at the way the last Government and this Government have conducted themselves throughout this entire affair. Among the many shames that we will all have to bear is the Government’s reluctance to vigorously and assertively participate in the international rules-based order which we built to prevent exactly this kind of eventuality.
As other Members have said, I do not understand what the Government think the ICJ was doing when it ruled that there was a plausible case for genocide. Did they not think that it was triggering exactly the obligations that other Members have mentioned? Those obligations are not rhetorical; they are operational, real, obligatory. We have to act to prevent; we cannot facilitate. Yet time and again, the British Government have done absolutely nothing. From arms to intelligence sharing and diplomatic cover, we have continued as normal.
I am left wondering what it is this country stands for, because it is not just on this obligation that there has been nothing. On the torture convention, even when the reputable Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has just published a report saying that Israel is running
“a network of torture camps”,
there has been nothing from the British Government, notwithstanding their international obligations. On the settlements in the west bank, a hundred parliamentarians wrote to the Government and the ICJ has ruled, yet the Government have done the bare minimum they could get away with to enforce those obligations. There are even the individual cases we have seen on our telephones and on social media: Dr Adnan al-Bursh tortured to death; Hind Rajab, who the world heard as she lay dying in a car, left alone at the age of six; the ambulances ambushed; the hospitals flattened; the schools crushed. Even when British citizens are slaughtered—surely we have an obligation to them if we do not feel that we have one to anybody else—the Government have done nothing. This is a monstrous abdication of duty.
In this regard, the law is not unclear. The facts are not hidden. Daily, we hear Israeli Ministers boasting about what is being done in Gaza. What is missing is political will. It is about time that the Minister and his superiors realised that history does not just judge what Governments do; it judges what they allow.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We have seen UK recognition of Palestine become a reality and a Gaza ceasefire under Labour, but still 70,000 Palestinians have been killed—a figure now accepted by Israel—including 500 people since the ceasefire. We have seen repeated forcible displacement and whole neighbourhoods gone. Is this genocide, like Srebrenica and Rwanda? The ICJ will take years to determine that, but the UN commission of inquiry and the International Association of Genocide Scholars say yes. How does Joe Public decide? With 37 non-governmental organisations, including Oxfam, effectively banned and international media excluded, the external mechanisms that should help us make that assessment are gone. Targeted measures are rendering it impossible to judge. The civilian/combatant line is blurred given the deaths of women and children, making the IDF claim that it always minimises casualties questionable.
The very risk of genocide raises Britain’s obligations under the 1948 convention to prevent genocide or risk complicity.
Although we have allowed children to travel to the UK from Gaza for medical care, and allowed students in, we have also seen Gazan hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, universities and refugee camps destroyed. That biblical devastation is man-made.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
We are here to discuss genocide. As my hon. Friend says, 20,000 children have been killed, 95% of hospitals have been destroyed, and food has been blocked to the point of famine. Does she agree that the House of Commons—and, indeed, the world—cannot stand by and let that happen?
Dr Huq
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He used to work for Save the Children, which has also been de-registered—the shame of it. We must act.
There has been a systematic discrediting of the UN. United Nations Relief and Works Agency buildings have been destroyed, and Francesca Albanese has been accused of being a witch and sanctioned by the US. And what has been proposed in place of the UN? The Gaza board of peace, headed by Donald Trump, which costs $1 billion to join. The board has zero Palestinian representation, but Putin, the President’s son-in-law and Netanyahu all have seats, and its founding charter does not mention Gaza. The UK must not give that vanity project any credence.
Extremist Israeli Ministers have been sanctioned and 30 arms licences suspended, but, as the facts worsen on the ground, we must ramp up our support for real peace efforts, as opposed to grubby real estate deals that are void of international law and bypass Palestinians. Even the ceasefire negotiators were bombed in Qatar. Of course, the acts of Hamas on 7 October must be condemned, but Netanyahu’s war cabinet has since gone way beyond self-defence. Starvation, and the erasure of the international presence to gather evidence on what might or might not be a genocide, must set off alarm bells and requires urgent action for us to be on the right side of history. We must say no to the board of peace. We need a toughened sanctions package and arms embargo, and a full ban on trade in settlement goods—not just the present situation of tariff reductions.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The recent events we have seen unfold in Gaza have been horrific. They are without doubt some of the worst atrocities to have taken place in modern times, carried out by Israel and centred in one small region. The targeting of civilian infrastructure has caused maximum suffering for the civilian population. Medical professionals have been imprisoned. As recently as last month, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that 1,700 aid and health workers have been killed.
Now, during a period of ceasefire, the Israeli Government continue to severely restrict the entry of nutritious food, medical supplies and materials to repair and rebuild civilian infrastructure, and over 400 Palestinians have been killed. Palestinians continue to face famine and forced displacement. Their homes are flattened and their friends and family killed.
Upwards of 250 journalists have been killed. Entire news crews have been wiped out by airstrikes and targeted shootings. The people sent to the frontlines to document and report are struck down beside those they tried to help. I urge the Government to take proactive steps to secure the release of Palestinian medical professionals held in Israeli prisons—they should be free to care for the injured and sick—and to guarantee the safety of journalists reporting in Gaza. Without people to document the unfolding events in conflict zones, we are left without the evidence necessary for reconciliation, civilians are left without the first safeguard of international law, and aggressors feel a sense of immunity.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Israeli Government have committed a genocide in Gaza, and that those responsible must be held to account. Looking forward, we have a responsibility to protect those in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Government have been too slow in reacting to events in Palestine and the west bank. They must step up to their duties under international law by acknowledging the risk of genocide.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Questions of genocide are among the gravest that Parliament must consider, and I thank the many constituents who have written to me in advance of this debate. In the case of Gaza, the International Court of Justice ruled two years ago that there is a “real and imminent risk” of genocide. The Court is still deliberating, with a final judgment expected next year, but in the meantime, this risk requires action.
In the short time I have, I would like to focus on one of those actions. There is a strong case for the Government to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements on the west bank. No further legal judgment is needed to do that. Although global attention has focused rightly on Gaza, settlement expansion, land confiscation and violence have continued on the west bank and in East Jerusalem. More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed there, and economic activity linked to settlements risks undermining the UK’s long-standing position on their illegality and on the viability of the Palestinian state. The Minister has been clear that settlements are illegal, and I thank him for meeting me to talk about this previously.
The mechanism exists to do this. The UK-Israel trade agreement already differentiates settlement goods, denying them preferential tariffs—postcodes are already provided to show exactly where goods come from. The Government should now consider moving from differentiation to prohibition, using legal tools already available under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, as we have done in relation to Crimea. There is legal precedent, and there is the technical ability to do it.
Palestinian civilians—Palestinian children—have endured extraordinary suffering, displacement, hunger, trauma and loss. They are entitled to not only charity but the protection guaranteed under international law. A ceasefire alone is not enough. The absence of bombs is not the presence of justice. Without reconstruction, accountability, justice and a viable political and economic path, the suffering will continue.
I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the UK will now support the collection and preservation of evidence of war crimes that will be needed for the justice system to do its work, and when the Government will introduce the legislation that is needed—perhaps secondary legislation—to stop trade with illegal settlements on the west bank, in line with the UK’s stated policy and international legal obligations.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The question was asked at the start of this debate, “Whose side are we on?” Let me make something very clear: I am on the side of the people who suffered one of the most horrendous terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023, when their citizens were raped, burnt, taken into captivity and killed in cold blood, and their killers boasted about it and stuck it on the internet. I am on the side of those people who since then have suffered the most sectarian abuse because they are Jews and happen to live in this country.
Members have asked how we can ignore the ruling of the International Court of Justice. First, it has not said there was any intent. Secondly, the judge who decided in that case was twice a candidate for Prime Minister of Lebanon, with the support of a terrorist group, so I do not think we can see the International Court of Justice as an independent body here.
The fact is that Israel took every attempt to reduce the civilian casualties in Gaza. One only has to look at the ratio of civilian casualties in Gaza to those in Iraq or Afghanistan and the actions that Israel has taken, even putting its own soldiers at risk by leafleting, telephoning and using UN co-ordination to say when it will strike and withdrawing some of its strikes when it did. Who put the civilians in harm’s way? Hamas made it quite clear that civilians being killed would put blood into the veins of resistance. That is the kind of enemy Israel is up against. Even if there were an investigation, I do not think it would find that Israel was reckless in the way it has responded to a terrorist attack on its own civilians.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
There is never any justification to kill the number of civilians that have been killed. This is a genocide, and it is not just the ICJ that said it. What about the UN special rapporteurs, UN independent experts, the UN commission of inquiry, and Amnesty International? What about Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and the 600 senior lawyers in the UK, including Lady Hale and Lord Sumption, and many others who call it a genocide?
Sammy Wilson
Hamas would disagree with the hon. Member, because Hamas boasted that the killing of civilians would help to increase the resistance and put some fire into it. Before accusations are made against Israel, let us look at the record of Hamas on putting civilians in harm’s way, and basing their rockets and firing points in hospitals, schools, civilian infrastructure, and therefore inviting the retaliation, based on the fact that Israeli armed forces had to take action. The rules of engagement were such that even the former supreme chief of NATO was able to observe that when it came to the way that Israel engaged the enemy in Gaza, its standards were higher than what we would have expected even of the British Army in such circumstances.
My concern is this: the motion, and this demand—
Sammy Wilson
No, I will not give way. This demand will be used to justify the intimidatory marches that we see week after week throughout the United Kingdom. It will be used to justify the barricading of Jewish businesses, the banning of Jewish students and academics from universities, and even the banning of Israeli sports fans from sporting events in the United Kingdom. This is part of the campaign to justify the sectarianism, which is now creeping into the debate in the United Kingdom—
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for laying out so powerfully the extent to which our Government have failed in their responsibilities to assess the serious risk of genocide, and our legal obligation to act under the genocide convention. Since the latest US-brokered so-called ceasefire took effect, Israeli forces have killed more than 500 Palestinians. The genocide is far from over.
Comrades from across the House will rightly speak about accountability today, so I will focus on our complicity. I am extremely concerned by the Government’s apparent move towards unblocking the already insufficient 29 out of 350 arms licences to Israel that were suspended in September 2024. It was the Government’s own assessment that there was a serious risk of British-made weapons being used in violation of international law, yet on 12 January 2026, in an interview with The Jewish Chronicle, the Secretary of State committed to revisiting both UK-Israel trade discussions and the decision to pause arms export licences, adding that the two matters were “intrinsically linked”. Such a claim is entirely at odds with the Government’s legal obligations under the UK’s own strategic export licensing criteria and international law, including the genocide convention. In addition to the continuous supply of spare parts enabled by the F-35 carve-out, last month three new F-35s were transferred from the UK RAF station at Mildenhall to Israel. Palestinians continue to be failed by our Government, and the Government must not renege on their arms export control criteria now that Gaza is away from the front pages.
If the Government were to weaken their commitment to international law in order to secure a trade deal, that would frankly be shameful. I said in June during my Adjournment debate that this Government’s approach to export licensing was deeply troubling. Seven months after questioning the Minister’s claim about so-called third-country re-exports, I am still awaiting a response. This week I have written again to the Government about the changes to arms licences and the F-35 transfers. I sincerely hope that a reply will come more promptly.
The testimony of Mark Smith, former diplomat and policy adviser at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, sheds light on the disturbing level of access and influence that the arms industry holds over Government decision making. That influence buys Government complicity, and makes a mockery of international law to safeguard profits. As he put it,
“the system is not designed to hold itself accountable—it is designed to protect itself at all costs.”
I once again call on the Government to suspend all arms exports to Israel.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for getting this debate and to all those who have spoken in it. We are having this debate against a background where 71,000 people are known to be dead in Gaza as a result of Israeli bombardment, with many thousands of bodies lying under rubble that will no doubt become the foundations of the casinos and hotels that the Trump plan is visiting on the people of Gaza.
I had the privilege of attending the South African application under the genocide convention at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. It was a deeply moving experience hearing the South African application and the bravery with which they put it and thinking, “This is the country that threw off the yoke of apartheid and had the courage then to stand up for the Palestinian people, facing genocide as they are.” The conclusion by the eminent judges was that there was a credible case that genocide had been committed, and they are going through many details on it.
Following that, last year I introduced a ten-minute Bill in the Chamber calling for this country to set up its own tribunal of investigation on its participation in arms sales to Israel and the bombardment of Gaza. Unsurprisingly, it was blocked. Through the Peace & Justice Project, I then established our own independent Gaza tribunal, which we held over two days in Church House Westminster. I was joined by Shahd Hammouri and Neve Gordon, who assessed a great deal of detailed evidence.
In the one minute and 15 seconds left to me, I cannot go through that evidence, but I will simply say this. There was powerful evidence of doctors in tears because they did not have the equipment to deal with the horrendous injuries that they were asked to deal with in hospitals without electricity, anaesthetic, antiseptic or even clean water. The legal evidence given and the evidence given by former Foreign and Commonwealth Office official Mark Smith was very powerful, as was the evidence about the supply of weapons to Israel through RAF Akrotiri. The matter has now been taken up by a group of UN member states in the Hague convention, who will carry on with it.
Let me conclude with this. As was pointed out earlier, this country was involved in supporting and establishing in the 1920s the International Court of Justice. We pride ourselves on being the custodians of international law and order. This country is making itself complicit in the genocide of the people of Palestine by its supply of weapons. It is time to stop.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for bringing forward this vital debate.
To many of us, it has always been abundantly clear that what is taking place in Palestine does indeed constitute a genocide. Since the Israeli attacks began in 2003, more than 70,000 people have been killed and entire bloodlines have been wiped out. We have witnessed targeted attacks on civilians and journalists, the forced displacement of people from their homes, the obstruction of humanitarian aid, the weaponisation of starvation and the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools and universities. Taken together, those actions demonstrate a clear and deliberate attempt by the Israeli Government to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land.
Since the ceasefire was announced in October, hundreds more Palestinians have been killed. Aid continues to be blocked from entering the region, and there are severe restrictions on the number of sick and wounded people permitted to leave for medical care. Let me be clear: even if Israel had fully complied with the ceasefire agreement, ceased all attacks today and allowed the unconditional flow of aid into Gaza, none of that would undo the suffering already inflicted on the Palestinian people or negate the fact that what has taken place constitutes a genocide.
It is vital that we use the correct language. History will not describe what is unfolding in Palestine as a war, an invasion or just an occupation; it will describe it as a genocide. The questions that future historians will ask are, “Why did the international community fail to recognise it? Why did we do nothing to stop it?” There is a growing body of evidence and a clear consensus among UN experts, human rights organisations and genocide scholars that Israel has committed and continues to commit acts of genocide. The UK has a legal obligation not to aid or assist violations of international law, including a duty to take all possible measures to prevent genocide once a risk has been identified, yet we continue to sell arms to Israel that are undoubtedly being used to attack civilians. I therefore hope that, when the Minister responds, he will explain why the Government believe that it is acceptable to continue the sale and trade of arms that aid Israel’s actions, including with illegal settlements.
It is our moral duty, as a nation with historical responsibility in the region, and as advocates for human rights, to ensure that the Palestinian people are granted the justice, freedom and dignity they deserve.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for securing this important debate, and I highlight that this is only the second time that a Backbench Business debate on Gaza has taken place in this Chamber.
The reaction of the UK Government since they came into office has been, at best, supine, or at worst, grossly negligent. They have responded to UN independent international commissions of inquiry in other contexts, such as Ukraine—and rightly so—but they have failed to do so on Gaza. Back in September 2025, the UN’s “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory” found that Israel had committed a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
On 2 October, as part of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I voted in favour of a resolution on the “devastating humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. Paragraph 8 of the resolution referred to the UN Human Rights Council’s finding that genocide was taking place, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and it highlighted the obligation of all state parties to prevent genocide under article 1 of the UN convention. Would the hon. Gentleman also welcome a comment from the Minister on the UK’s response to that Assembly resolution?
Seamus Logan
I completely agree with the hon. Lady.
In recent days, we have learned that the IDF has admitted its role in the death of at least 70,000 Palestinians. Meanwhile, Secretary-General António Guterres warns us that, as we enter 2026, the clock is ticking louder than ever, with conditions on the ground in Palestine remaining perilously fragile.
Only yesterday, a UN committee mandated to promote the realisation of Palestinian rights reaffirmed calls for a two-state solution, which Secretary-General Guterres endorsed as the only viable path towards achieving long-lasting peace and security between Palestine and Israel. However, in this context, at least another 449 men, women and children have been killed by Israeli forces during the so-called ceasefire.
Why can the UK Government not see what the UN can? Why do they accept the UN’s reports on Ukraine, but not Gaza? Why do they not accept the conclusions of UK-based lawyers, including Supreme Court justices, who signed a letter to the Prime Minister in May last year to confirm that a genocide is being perpetrated?
I wish to turn to the letter that I and 57 other parliamentarians have signed, led by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), explaining to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that we are extremely concerned by the Government’s apparent move towards unblocking arms licences to Israel, which they had suspended in September 2024, and the transfer of new F-35s from a British airbase. This is at odds with the Government’s international legal obligations, including the genocide convention. I hope the Minister will be able to explain that decision, given the ongoing violation of the ceasefire by Israeli forces in Gaza, which is continuing the genocidal horror of these past two and a half years.
When talk of peace involves the perpetrators of violence and not the violated—not the voices of those who have lost so much on all sides—war crimes will go unpunished and festering wounds of injustice will lead to further conflict. The Prime Minister, as a former human rights lawyer, must understand that. Why then, given everything that we know, and all that we have witnessed, do his Government remain in a state of ambivalence on assessments of genocide under international law in Palestine? Does the clue to the answer lie in this Government’s protection of trade and diplomatic ties to Israel and the US?
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
What the Palestinian people have endured is cruel, inhumane and completely unacceptable. We know that, last year, it was an Israeli Government blockade that led the United Nations and others to declare a famine in Gaza. We know that the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu for war crimes. We know that more than 90% of the homes across Gaza have been damaged or destroyed.
The UN’s “Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory” concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza strip under the 1948 genocide convention, and human rights organisations such as the International Association of Genocide Scholars—which has already been mentioned—Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Oxfam have expressed the view that genocide has been committed by Israel under international law. Israel has also recently revoked the licences of 37 international NGOs.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
From working with the Norwegian Refugee Council, including my constituent Amelia Rule—who is its head of shelter and settlements—I know the vital work that charity is doing. As my hon. Friend has said, though, in January it was banned from operating in Gaza, along with 36 other NGOs and aid organisations. This move is plainly an attempt by the Israeli Government to circumvent international institutions and accountability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and the international community should attempt to use all their influence and leverage to push for that ban to be rescinded, so that aid organisations such as the Norwegian Refugee Council can continue their lifesaving work?
Warinder Juss
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
It seems quite clear that the reason the licences have been revoked is to prevent aid from going through, which leads to the assumption, at least, that there might be a risk of genocide taking place.
The UN genocide convention requires states
“to prevent and to punish”
genocide. I will repeat the definition in article II of the convention, which is that genocide is any act
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”—
I emphasise the words “in whole or in part”—
“a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
We cannot stand by and pretend that it is for an international court to decide whether or not genocide has occurred in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and we cannot turn a blind eye as innocent Palestinian people continue to suffer. We are fortunate to have enough distinguished lawyers in this House to decide whether there is at least a risk of genocide having occurred and to conduct that risk assessment, as has been requested in this debate. When do we decide that enough is enough? When do we decide that enough innocent people have been killed and enough suffering has occurred for us to consider that an ally of ours, Israel, may be committing genocide under international law, and to take decisive, concrete action to prevent that genocide by the Israeli Government?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing today’s debate. In June last year, I secured a debate in Westminster Hall on the same topic, and the arguments that I set out at length then still hold; indeed, they have been deepened and strengthened by events since. The Green party has long been clear that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza constitute genocide, but I agree with the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) that it is important to be clear about language, so I will make very specific arguments with respect to the genocide convention.
Under the convention, the UK has a legal obligation to assess the risk of genocide, and to act to prevent it when that risk is clear. Article I specifies that the contracting parties undertake
“to prevent and to punish”
genocide. By definition, prevention has to happen before an event has happened, or before it is completed; it cannot wait for a court case after genocide has conclusively taken place. Does the Minister therefore accept that the UK has a duty under article I of the genocide convention to prevent genocide when a serious risk is identified?
Article II sets out a range of acts that, if
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”
a specific group, constitute genocide. Five acts are specified; only one of them needs to be occurring for it to be concluded that genocide is taking place, and there is very widespread agreement that at least four of those acts are happening in Gaza. They include
“Killing members of the group…Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”
and
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
What else is cutting off water and preventing the delivery of food, lifesaving medicines, fuel and power? The fourth is
“Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.
The wholesale destruction of healthcare in Gaza is clear evidence that this is occurring.
It is not just me or the International Court of Justice who says that; the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Médecins Sans Frontières, Amnesty, B’Tselem, Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, the UN commission of inquiry and hundreds of British lawyers say it, as we have heard. Why does the Minister not accept the conclusion of that wide swathe of people that genocide is indeed taking place, or at least that there is a plausible risk, which therefore entails his obligations under article 1?
Article III(e) of the genocide convention specifies that complicity in genocide is punishable. Let us be clear about UK complicity: we have the export of arms, including F-35s, the sharing of intelligence and continued participation in settlement trade, which is participation in the proceeds of crime—that is, land seizure. What more evidence do the UK Government need that genocide is taking place and that we are complicit in it before they take the long-overdue actions that are in their power?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this debate and for so clearly and accurately setting the scene. The awkward truth for many in this Parliament is that genocide has occurred in occupied Palestine for decades, and the silence from the international community has allowed and enabled Israeli Governments to persecute and oppress the Palestinian people. It has emboldened Netanyahu and his murderous regime to commit the genocide that we have all witnessed in Gaza.
Israel commits different types of genocide. Last November I was fortunate enough to be in the west bank, and I heard of the cultural genocide that is taking place, with students and lecturers unable to go to university because of roadblocks and checkpoints. I heard about the universities, colleges and schools that have been flattened throughout Gaza, with lecturers now giving classes in tents as makeshift classrooms. How on earth do we expect Gaza to be rebuilt when Palestinians are unable to be educated?
Netanyahu’s Government have also by design crippled the Palestinian economy by impacting on Palestinians’ ability to trade, making them reliant on Israel for goods, produce and, ultimately, their very survival. Israel uses economic terrorism as a tool of subjugation. With the seizures of Palestinian farms, and by making it almost impossible for those who remain to trade, Israel impoverishes Palestinians. There is a concerted international effort to normalise Palestinians’ reliance on Israel to be the provider of lifesaving aid, while making it near impossible for Palestinians to be self-sufficient, driving Palestinians to starvation.
As well as this collective punishment of Palestinians, another goal of this broader plan is to impose capitalism through the imperial project that the Israeli Government promote. That is all wilfully aided by western democracies. Shame on any Government of any party of any nation who have allowed and been complicit in these awful atrocities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If interventions are made, not all colleagues will get in. Please consider that.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this crucial debate. As he said, any person of conscience can and must condemn both the illegal actions of Hamas on 7 October and the illegal actions of Israel in its response for the 850 days since that horrific day.
Despite the plausible risk of genocide inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian people having been identified by the ICJ, the UN and multiple other agencies and experts, successive UK Governments have consistently refused to acknowledge that risk, and they have failed in their obligations to take immediate, proactive measures to prevent a genocide of the Palestinian people.
Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back Hind Rajab, her six family members or the two paramedics who tried to save her. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the 2,700 family bloodlines wiped out at Israel’s hands, or the relatives of more than 6,000 sole survivors. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions genocide or not, it will not bring back the parents of a new generation of Palestinian orphans created through Israeli slaughter, such as the three-year-old Wesam, who was left with a lacerated liver and kidney after an Israeli airstrike that killed her five-year-old brother, her pregnant mother, her father and her grandparents.
Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the almost 300 journalists assassinated for trying to report Israeli war crimes in real time. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the more than 100 Palestinian hostages executed in Israeli detention centres in the last two and a half years. I regret that I do not have time to pay tribute to each and every individual murdered by the genocidal Israeli regime, who will not be affected by this Government’s decisions.
The point is that accepting the irrefutable and serious risk of genocide would oblige the UK to hold Israel accountable. It would save lives in the present by creating legal obligations for the UK Government to cease arms exports, impose sanctions and prosecute those committing war crimes.
I end my speech with a quote from Francesca Albanese:
“The ongoing genocide in Gaza is a collective crime, sustained by the complicity of influential Third States that have enabled longstanding systemic violations of international law by Israel. Framed by colonial narratives that dehumanize the Palestinians, this live-streamed atrocity has been facilitated through Third States’ direct support, material aid, diplomatic protection and, in some cases, active participation.”
The UK has aided and abetted this genocide—
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The reason we are here is that there is a profound responsibility on us, as Members of Parliament in particular, to ensure that our Government act in accordance with international humanitarian law. There are two questions that we need to pose time and again. First, what evidence would it take to convince the Government that there is a risk of genocide? That means evidence not that there is genocide, but that there is a risk of genocide. Secondly, what process should the Government use to determine that?
On the first question, I am absolutely perplexed as to why the evidential methods that we have used in the past, when we have determined that there have been genocides, are not simply being accepted by the Government at the moment, given the loss of life—the 70,000, as has been said—and the way in which the genocide has been perpetrated. There are the attacks on health workers and doctors, with 1,700 killed that we know about, and at least 100 who have been imprisoned, tortured, denied access to medical facilities, and even to their own families.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
John McDonnell
No, I cannot accept any interventions.
There is also the number of journalists killed—more than 300—because part of this genocide is to prevent the reporting of the genocide. And, yes, there is the forced movement of people, with 9,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons, 100 of whom have died in the past two years. That is the evidence we present time and again. It is the same kind of evidence we have used in the past to determine genocide, so why is it not acceptable now?
The second question is about the process. I will just say to the Minister that time and again we have had these debates. People have lost confidence in the process that the Government are using to arrive at their determination of whether there is a risk of genocide. I am afraid that not only have Members of this House and the wider public lost confidence in the internal processes, but that is what is forcing people out on to the streets and into forms of direct action, because they have lost confidence in the Government’s own objective assessment.
I therefore suggest this to the Minister: why not establish an independent commission? Use people such as Philippe Sands and others, and let the House determine who sits on that commission, so that they can report back to the Minister on the evidence available. I think that the Government, once they see the evidence, will have to accept that there is at least a risk of genocide, and that will have to determine their actions. Some of those have been set out today: the end of trade, the end of the arms sales, and the prevention role that we have to play in securing peace and justice for the Palestinian people—and yes, for the Israeli people—for the long term.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Since the beginning of this latest catastrophe, following the horrors of 7 October, those of us who have been asking for balance, respect and nothing more radical than a justice-based international order have been castigated, and some of us have even been criminalised. We are now 26 months into this horror, and we are still asking for the same thing. We are pleading for the principles on which we as a country agreed following two wars—after humanity confronted its own capacity for evil and promised, “Never again.” We built structures to ensure that this would never happen again, yet Gaza has stripped away any remaining illusion that this rules-based order still exists.
Let us be clear about what we are discussing today. As defined in international law, genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a people because of who they are. Measured against this definition, the Government’s position on Gaza is not cautious; it is morally incoherent. At least 71,000 Palestinian men, women and children have been murdered. We have witnessed this in real time, yet we are told to wait and not to jump to conclusions. Where were the systems that were meant to guide us when humanity crossed the line once more?
Let us start with the media, the purveyors of the truth. Foreign media are not allowed into Israel, so what has happened? Three hundred Palestinian journalists have been killed. One of them was Anas Al-Sharif. Before he was murdered, he said:
“I never once hesitated to convey the truth exactly as it is…hoping that God would bear witness against those who stayed silent in this world”.
Staying silent is precisely what too many people have done.
What of the international rules-based order? The International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide case. Advisory opinions have been issued, and the law is trying to work, yet when the International Criminal Court seeks accountability, which is what it has done before, the response is not support but hostility. Sanctions are imposed, and threats are made. In fact, our Foreign Secretary allegedly threatened the ICC’s chief prosecutor by saying that accountability would be like dropping a hydrogen bomb. I ask plainly: are international courts only legitimate when the accused are Africans?
Journalists have been killed, courts have been intimidated and international law has been subverted to feed a genocide. More than 1,500 aid workers have been killed. Surgeons have been crying in front of the children they are trying to save. If they were in this country, they would be able to save those children, who are dying right in front of them. This is just daily life in Gaza, and we have no political will.
I will end with this. This weekend I watched “The Voice of Hind Rajab”, which is about a six-year-old who became the voice of the children of Gaza. She was trapped in a car with her family. She cried out to the world that night, “It’s getting dark. Please come and save me.” Nobody came for her. It is getting dark for the world, and we must lighten up the world for them.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this important debate. Like many Members, I have received many emails from my constituents, and I speak today to give a voice to their concerns.
It is difficult to put into context the sheer scale of death and destruction that we have seen in Gaza over the last two years. We all know the figures: one in every 33 people has died since the start of the assault, and over 90% of homes have been damaged. As the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) highlighted, behind the statistics are real human stories. We have heard from doctors in Gaza who have been operating without anaesthetic and performing emergency C-sections on women without painkillers, and there has been a rapid increase in child mortality. We have heard of children who have been shot by snipers not once, but twice. It is sometimes easy for us to become desensitised to what we are seeing, but we must not stop calling it out.
The world-respected peace charity Doctors Without Borders has been banned from operating in Gaza and the occupied west bank following its refusal to hand over a list of its staff. What does it mean if lifesaving organisations that carry out work in war zones are being banned? The UK must be very clear about this. As a signatory to the genocide convention, we have a legal obligation to call out and prevent genocide, as do the other 153 states that ratified the treaty. For the treaty to be effective, and for us to stop not just this but future genocides, we must speak with one voice. We must listen when the United Nations tells us that
“Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.”
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a Select Committee Chair, for giving way in this important debate. As she points out, one in every 33 people in Gaza has been killed and one in every 14 has been injured. Does she agree that the sheer colossal scale of the assault on the Palestinian people demonstrates the mass and indiscriminate nature of the action, and indicates a clear risk of international law violation and genocide?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important intervention. I think that is what we are all trying to get at, and Members from right across the House want answers on that.
It is imperative to listen and act when such respected bodies speak with one voice. It is vital to our ability to stop future genocides. Genocide is not something we can recognise only when it is politically convenient; we must call it out, without fear or favour, whenever and wherever it is occurring. What we are seeing in plain sight in Gaza meets the definition of genocide. I urge the Minister to listen to the powerful voices from across the House—in the way he has listened to us on the many occasions when he meets us to hear about our constituents’ concerns—because there must be a reckoning for what is happening before our eyes, and history will judge us for anything less.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Andrew George to speak for two minutes.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) on bringing this issue to the House. I was worried that we would concentrate primarily on the jurisprudence—on the merits of the arguments over whether the threshold in the definition has been reached. We are politicians and do not have—I certainly do not have—the skillset to make such an analysis. I find that arguments are advanced, as they were by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley)—very eloquently, of course—that engage in the political sophistry of the issue itself, and that worries me.
The bottom line is that what has been happening in the middle east is appalling, and the level of death and destruction has shocked the world. Of course, the horrors of 7 October 2023 were absolutely appalling, but we all need to reflect on the overwhelming response of the Netanyahu regime, which has taken such advantage of the opportunity for retribution. This is not just about the mass murder in Gaza itself but, as Members have said, about the murder of our aid workers, including Cornish aid worker Jim Henderson. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said that the strikes have been careful, but they have not been careful; the strikes have been indiscriminate and certainly amount to clear murder.
I just hope that the Government will stop doing the minimum they can get away with—stop the trading, stop the excusing, stop the support of the Israeli regime—because it is in the interests of the international world order, of the Palestinians and Palestine, and of Israel itself to get this sorted.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you very much. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to speak for just a few minutes.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
What we have witnessed in Gaza is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. It has been a catastrophe both for the hostages who have endured Hamas’s brutal captivity and for the millions of Palestinian civilians whose lives, homes and communities have been devastated by Israel’s military offensive, so let me be absolutely and unequivocally clear about the Liberal Democrat position. Alongside global NGOs, aid organisations, Israeli human rights organisations and the UN commission of inquiry, we consider there to be credible evidence that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza during the military campaign have amounted to genocide. For the avoidance of any doubt, Hamas are a terrorist organisation whose crimes on 7 October were acts of mass human atrocity that we continue to utterly and categorically condemn.
Given that reality, what matters now is accountability on all sides, which is why access to Gaza for journalists and human rights organisations is so fundamentally important. I am reminded that British journalist Ed Vulliamy exposed the existence and brutality of Serb- run detention camps in Bosnia. His reporting later contributed to the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, forming part of the evidentiary record for prosecutions that included findings of genocide. It is imperative, therefore, that we do not allow evidence in Gaza to disappear, damage to be cleared away or truth to be lost before accountability can be pursued.
However, accountability in itself is not enough, and that must sharpen our focus on what is required to move beyond the repeated cycles of violence. Only genuine progress towards a two-state solution can deliver lasting security and dignity for Palestinians and Israelis, so the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to rule out ever participating in Trump’s board of peace. Reconstruction must be co-ordinated by the United Nations with the involvement of the Palestinians, who have been excluded from Trump’s proposals. Aid must be allowed in at scale and rapidly. Hamas must be disarmed; there is no place for a genocidal terror group to take part in Palestine’s future. The UK should ban all trade with illegal Israeli settlements. Finally, the UK must deepen its engagement with the Palestinian Authority following the recognition of the state of Palestine.
International law underpins our shared liberal values and, indeed, our British values. It exists to constrain power, uphold accountability and protect civilians across the world. I urge the Government to act now.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Before turning to the legal issues, it is important to begin with the fundamental moral reality of this conflict. I want to be clear: we welcome the release of the surviving hostages, who returned home to Israel after more than 730 days in captivity. They were abducted by Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, and held in utterly unimaginable conditions. We pray for the health and recovery of those who survived and for their families as they attempt to rebuild their lives after such trauma. With the return of the final hostage, our thoughts are also with the families of all those who will not be returning alive.
This conflict arose from the brutal massacre of civilians on 7 October 2023—the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history and the worst pogrom against the Jewish people since the second world war. If the current ceasefire is to lead to a long-term and sustainable peace, one principle must be non-negotiable: Hamas must no longer hold power and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Recent reports of violence between Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza underline precisely why Hamas cannot be part of Gaza’s future. Hamas govern through terror and repression and prioritise their own survival over the welfare of Palestinian civilians. The suffering in Gaza is directly linked to Hamas’s choices and their governance.
Much of today’s debate has focused on allegations of genocide, so let us be clear: we do not believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. That was the position of the previous Conservative Government and, to my understanding, it remains the position of the current Government. I hope the Minister will reaffirm that clearly in his response. Every innocent life lost is a tragedy, but the Israel Defence Forces do not deliberately target civilians; Hamas, in contrast, embed themselves in civilian areas, store weapons in schools and hospitals and use civilians as human shields. Israel’s stated objective is to dismantle an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that threatens its very existence; Hamas’s objective is the destruction of the state of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.
It has long been the British position that determinations of genocide are matters for competent courts, not unilateral political declarations. That is fundamental. I ask the Minister to confirm that that remains the Government’s position and whether he accepts that genocidal intent is not abstract in this conflict. The Hamas charter and the language routinely used by Iran and its terrorist proxies call openly for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Should we not be unequivocal in calling out those terrorist and genuinely genocidal ideologies, rather than misapplying that most serious of legal terms? It is precisely because genocide is the gravest of crimes that the term must be used with care, discipline and legal precision. The genocide convention was never intended to be reduced to a political slogan or applied without rigorous assessment of intent, evidence and context. To dilute that standard is not to protect international law but to undermine it.
There is much more I would like to talk about today, not least the current humanitarian situation. However, being conscious of time, I will conclude by saying that the Abraham accords remain a credible pathway to regional peace and that Saudi normalisation with Israel is central to that effort.
The Conservative party is clear about the future we seek. We are committed to a future in which terrorism has no place and Hamas are permanently removed from power. We are focused on what comes next: a safe and secure state of Israel and a Gaza that is rebuilt, governed responsibly, free from terror and capable of offering its people stability, dignity and hope.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) on opening this debate and on his contribution as the chair of the APPG. I thank every Member who has spoken with such clarity and conviction. These are incredibly important questions at a moment when questions of international justice are very much discussed, so I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I really do insist on accuracy in these questions.
To answer the question straightforwardly, as I did at length on 15 September in front of the Business and Trade Committee, the British Government have conducted an assessment on the risk of genocide in accordance with our international legal obligations. As I said yesterday, or the day before, from this Dispatch Box, we consider our international legal obligations to be of the utmost priority. Many hon. Members have asked me to attend to my conscience over the course of the last 90 minutes. I am confident that I, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole are serious about our international legal obligations and serious about the process and rigour that underpin them. I have confidence in that judgment not only because of the extensive scrutiny that it has received from the House, but because these questions have been tested by our own courts—most recently by the Court of Appeal in November and before that in September, when it considered the process of assessment explicitly.
Mr Adnan Hussain
The problem that we have is this question of accountability and transparency. Our domestic courts do not have the right footing to test whether the Government have truly got this right. It therefore falls to this House—to us as Members of Parliament—to assess whether the Government are right. The problem is that we do not have the details. We do not have the methodology. Who assesses it? At what time and date was it done? Will the Minister commit to at least disclosing that information?
Mr Falconer
I think I answered something like 105 questions related to these issues in front of the Select Committee in September. I am always grateful for the opportunity to describe matters in the House in greater detail, but, given the shortness of time, I might just turn to a few other questions of accuracy.
First, the International Court of Justice as not yet made a finding of genocide. It has made provisional orders. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about the scourge of antisemitism, but I do not agree with the question that he raises about the independence and impartiality of the ICJ. It is a vital international institution. We need to see it do its work. We undermine it if we seek to jump to the end of that process. It will be for the Court to make a judgment. It is, of course, for the Government to consider our obligations and to make an assessment of risks, which we have already done.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Given what Minister said about adherence to international law, will he just put on the record why the Government have not responded to the advisory opinion of the ICJ for over 18 months now? Is it because the consequence of that response is that there would have to be sanctions against settlements, which are illegal under international law?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has paid close attention to these matters both over the past 18 months and before. I will answer his question, but we are under the pressure of time.
Let me also be clear, for the sake of accuracy, that it is simply not credible to suggest that the policy of this Government in relation to these issues is the same as the policy of the last Government. That, I am sure, was obvious from some of the remarks of the shadow Foreign Minister. I have stood at this Dispatch Box to recognise the Palestinian state and to announce sanctions three times, including against Israeli Ministers. Does that mean that the obligation on this Government to do everything that we can to address the horrors of Gaza is discharged? No, it does not, but we do the House no service if we pretend that the policy that I have been responsible for as the Middle East Minister was the same as the policy under the Conservative Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) asks a good question about the ICJ advisory opinion. Over the course of the last 18 months, the British Government have clearly made a fundamental change on their view of the legal position in relation to Israel and Palestine. We now recognise Palestine. It is in the context of Britain having changed its policy very significantly that we want to ensure that we respond to what is a far-reaching advisory opinion with the rigour and seriousness that it deserves. I know that I am testing my hon. Friend’s patience and the patience of the House with that answer, and I am sure that I will return soon to this Chamber, but I would not want to give the House or the public the impression that we have not taken significant steps in the course of that 18 months.
I would also like to bring to the attention of this House some of the recent developments in Gaza. These legal questions are incredibly important, and they have been considered by both the courts and the relevant Select Committees.
Fleur Anderson
On recent developments, my grandfather fought for our country in Palestine. There are reports that the IDF has destroyed a cemetery in Gaza containing graves of allied troops from both world wars. Would the Minister condemn that?
Mr Falconer
I would. From my own constituency, there are two privates—Private William Jordan and Private Wilfred Ogden—both in that cemetery who have now had their graves defaced.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Mr Adnan Hussain
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier on in the debate I referred to several organisations and individuals. Due to time constraints, I was unable to do so with full accuracy. In the interests of clarity and to keep the record of this House correct, I now seek to set the record straight.
I referred to the International Court of Justice. I clarified that it has found a plausible risk of genocide, triggering the clearest legal duty on all states to prevent it. I then referred to UN special rapporteurs, UN independent experts, and the UN commission of inquiry. They have all warned of genocidal acts and catastrophic intent. I referred to the 600 lawyers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. No doubt, the record is now clarified. We cannot continue the debate. It is now 5.1 pm, and the debate is now over.
NHS Dentists
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to an issue that affects millions of British people and families right across our country: the current state of NHS dental services throughout the UK.
Our NHS dentistry, from which I and so many others in North Down have benefited, as have countless people across our United Kingdom, was founded on the basic principle—indeed, I would call it a promise—that everyone regardless of income, background or postcode should be able to access essential dental care when they need it. It is a foundational pillar of our wider health system and a critical measure of our nation’s public health. Every Member of this House would do well to ask where that basic principle and promise now stands in Britain in 2026.
Our NHS dentistry is under severe and unsustainable strain. I want to speak plainly about where we are, why and how we have reached this point, how it is affecting both patients and professionals alike, and, if we are truly serious about saving NHS dentistry for future generations, what must be done if it is to be resolved.
Across North Down, Northern Ireland and, indeed, the whole United Kingdom, the picture is deeply disturbing and for too many, painfully familiar. Finding an NHS dentist has become increasingly difficult. My constituents in North Down, like so many in England, Scotland and Wales, are joining waiting lists that stretch for months and in some cases even years. Some are ringing multiple practices in their area only to be met with the same response: “We are not taking on NHS patients.” Others are told that their only option is to go private or travel long distances simply to access basic dental care.
I would love to tell the House that this is a marginal problem that affects only a small minority, but it is increasingly becoming the lived reality of British families, older people and children in towns, cities and rural communities across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The reality in Britain is that fewer practices are offering NHS appointments, there are growing backlogs for routine check-ups, and increasing numbers of patients are turning up with dental pain and infection at GPs or accident and emergency departments—places that were never designed for dental care.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member consider that part of the problem as to why dentists do not offer NHS appointments is because contracts have not been updated and perhaps they feel that when they do NHS work they are not properly paid?
Alex Easton
That is certainly one of the major issues that needs to be addressed. Shockingly and frighteningly, people are resorting to DIY dentistry because their pain is so great and they simply cannot afford treatment. No MP can sleep easily in 2026 when British people are pulling out their own teeth at home.
Our NHS system is under pressure. Why is this happening? Is the reality not that funding has not kept pace with demand or with the cost of prioritising high-quality dental care?
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this important debate. In Amber Valley, recruitment and retention continue to be the main barriers to NHS dental access, despite £240,000 of additional funding that I have managed to secure from Derbyshire locally. Does the hon. Member agree that the Minister should set out how the new NHS dentistry contract will include concrete, funded measures to increase the workforce so that my constituency and his, and those up and down the country, will finally see a material improvement in access to NHS treatment?
Alex Easton
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing that funding. I totally agree with all her sentiments. Maybe you can give me a clue how to get that funding as well for Northern Ireland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Not “you”, Mr Easton—it was not me that you were referring to. You have lots of time, so enjoy it.
Alex Easton
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all understand that there are regional differences in how dental contracts work across our UK nations. However, a common theme is identified: many of our NHS dentists feel that they are being asked to do more to address complex needs with resources that simply do not match the reality on the ground. My research indicates that in some parts of the United Kingdom, the very way that dentists are paid actively works against the long-term interests of patients. The current system rewards quick, high-volume work rather than the kind of long-term, preventive care that is essential if we are serious about keeping mouths in Britain healthy.
Many of our newly qualified dentists tell me that the NHS contracts are inflexible, overly bureaucratic and in many cases financially unsustainable for anything beyond the most basic level of service.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The hon. Member is making a strong case. The number of dentists leaving the NHS across the UK is driven by chronic underfunding and the failed dental contract. Last month, the Minister suggested that long-term fundamental reform might only be introduced from 2027 onwards. Does the hon. Member agree that that reform must be brought forward as soon as possible and that we need clarity on when? Does he also agree that the one-third cut in real terms of the dentistry budget that we have seen since 2010 must be reversed by this Government?
Alex Easton
I agree that reforms need to be brought forward a lot quicker.
What is the result? I will tell hon. Members what it is: we are seeing a growing number of dentists reducing the amount of NHS work, handing back NHS contracts altogether and leaving the profession earlier than they intended. I do not, for one moment, accept that that is a question of dedication or commitment. Our dentists, dental nurses, therapists and practice staff put in a hard shift day after day in a system that too often feels stacked against them. Their burnout is real; their morale is low. They are left apologising to patients, not only in North Down but right across the United Kingdom, for a system that is not of their own making and not under their control.
There is a human cost here. This must never be reduced to a dry debate about contracts and budgets, because behind every statistic is a person. Let us think of the elderly person in a British care home struggling to eat properly because they cannot get regular dental visits and their dentures no longer fit; the British parent trying desperately to get their child seen for a broken tooth, only to be told that their nearest NHS dentist is many miles away; or the low-income British citizen—the person who never missed an NHS check-up—now being told they can only be seen privately, at a fee far beyond their means.
Let me be absolutely clear: dental health is not a luxury; it is integral to our overall health and wellbeing. The facts are stark. Poor oral health is linked to heart disease, diabetes, respiratory infections and complications in pregnancy. Untreated tooth decay can cause severe pain, days lost from work or school, and a serious blow to confidence and mental health. Let us be honest: inequality runs through this story like lettering in a stick of rock. People on low incomes and those living in our most deprived areas are more likely to suffer the consequences of poor oral health and less likely to be able to escape them. Regrettably, the British reality in 2026 is this: children from our most deprived communities are still far more likely to be admitted to hospital for tooth extraction under general anaesthetic than anything else—an experience that is traumatic and, in many cases, entirely preventable.
I recognise that health is a devolved matter and that the four nations of our United Kingdom have taken different approaches to organising and funding NHS dentistry. In Wales, new contract models focused on prevention and patient-centred care are being piloted. Yet, as I understand it, patients still report serious difficulties in finding an NHS dentist and securing regular check-ups.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Is the hon. Member aware that the east of England is the only region of the UK that has no dental school, which severely impacts the availability of dentists? Will he join me in pressing the Government and the Minister to do all they can to expedite a proposal by the University of East Anglia to open a new dental school in the east of England to help address that recruitment and supply issue?
Alex Easton
The hon. Member makes a valid point, which I urge the Minister to pick up.
In Scotland, efforts have been made to reform the system and expand free dental care for certain groups, but workforce challenges persist, as do the difficulties of sustaining practices in rural and remote areas. In England, some of the most acute access problems are reported. Many practices say that the current contract does not reward preventive care, nor does it adequately reflect the complexity of modern dentistry.
In Northern Ireland, we have our own contractual framework. The concerns we hear, however, are strikingly familiar: rising costs, mounting workforce pressures and an unsustainable gap between what the NHS pays and what it actually costs to provide care. Northern Ireland is at a crossroads in NHS dentistry. We see a steady erosion of NHS dental provision, more practices moving to private models, longer waiting times at those practices that remain in the NHS, greater pressure on community dental services and growing inequalities between those who can pay and those who simply cannot. But it does not have to be like this.
The lessons we draw for Northern Ireland are equally applicable across the rest of the UK. Let us work with dentists, patients, commissioners and independent experts to design a modern contract and funding model that can reward prevention and continuity of care; recognise the complexity of treating people with additional needs and vulnerable groups; support high street NHS practices as the backbone of accessible care; and provide a clear, attractive pathway for young dentists to enter and remain in NHS-focused practice. This House can shape what is needed in Northern Ireland and apply those principles right across the UK.
To conclude, let me underline some urgent UK-wide actions. First, we need a realistic, sustainable funding settlement. Let us address this with honesty: if we truly desire a meaningful NHS dental offer, this Parliament must fund it.
Secondly, we must move beyond temporary uplifts and crisis top-ups and design a long-term settlement. The real question before us is, are we prepared to put NHS dentistry on a stable footing not just for this Parliament, but for future generations?
Thirdly, we must reform the dental contract with a new model that prioritises prevention; encourages regular check-ups, fluoride use and early intervention; creates clear incentives to take on new NHS patients; and rewards quality with a focus on outcomes and patient experience, not just on volume and throughput. Children, particularly those growing up in poverty, could benefit from school and community-based prevention schemes. People with disabilities and complex needs could access specialist attention and the longer appointments that they require. Older citizens, including those in care homes, could receive routine, dignified dental healthcare. We also need a credible solution focused on workforce planning that is based on real need, not short-term firefighting, as well as training pathways that support and prioritise NHS services, and effective retention measures so that experienced staff are not driven out of the system.
The decline of NHS dentistry is not inevitable. We must answer these questions honestly. Are we prepared to drift into a future in which NHS dentistry is an optional extra, while the majority are pushed towards private care, or do we commit clearly to inclusive and universal NHS dentistry in which cost is not a barrier and postcode lotteries do not determine success? Let the UK lead in addressing this problem. Let this House reaffirm for the whole country the enduring British principle that good dental care is not a luxury but a right and entitlement of every British citizen.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. I thank him for his work to raise awareness of the challenges facing dental patients in his constituency and across the United Kingdom. It is vital that we work together, across the four nations of the United Kingdom, to tackle the long-standing problems that adults and children have been facing in accessing an NHS dentist when they need one. I also thank other hon. Members and hon. Friends for their powerful contributions to the debate. I know that access to dentistry is a matter of continuing concern for Members and their constituents.
The concerns Members have raised support the many testimonies I have heard directly from patients, dentists, members of the wider dental team, and their representatives. In July 2024, we inherited a dental system in crisis. That is evident in the adult oral health survey of 2023, which provides the first picture of adult oral health in England for more than a decade, and shows poor oral health in adults. Among adults with their own teeth, over two fifths—41%—showed evidence of obvious decay, 93% had some form of gum disease, and 19% had one or more potentially urgent dental conditions. This Government are determined to fix that.
Our 10-year health plan confirms our commitment to transforming NHS dentistry so that it is fit for future generations. We have established a platform for future success by reducing the NHS dentistry underspend from £392 million in 2023-24 to just £36 million. The decrease in underspend is leading to an increase in NHS dentistry, but I absolutely accept that there is still a long way to go. Over the past 18 months, the Government have made great strides in improving NHS dentistry, not just for patients but for the dental workforce delivering oral care to our nation. My immediate priority when taking up this ministerial post was to ensure that people who need an urgent dental appointment are prioritised and able to access the care that they need quickly. It is essential that we direct care towards those who need it most.
We all have a duty to reduce health inequalities, which are sorely felt in NHS dentistry. That is why, since last April, we have been making extra urgent dental appointments available to ensure that patients with urgent dental needs can get the treatment they require. Those extra appointments are available across the country, and are more heavily weighted towards the areas in which they are needed most. We are also incentivising high street dentists to offer further appointments in order to maximise availability for those in need of urgent care.
We recognise that access to NHS dental services remains a challenge in certain parts of the country. In addition to our urgent appointments, integrated care boards are recruiting dentists through the dental recruitment incentive scheme—known as the “golden hello” scheme. That initiative offers a financial incentive to encourage dentists to work in underserved areas for a minimum commitment of three years.
This Government have heard dentists’ concerns that they do not think the current dental contract is fit for purpose. Talks are under way, including with the British Dental Association, to scope our plans for potential changes. We remain open-minded and keen to consider how different payment models could best improve the delivery of care to dental patients. In reforming the dental contract, we want to focus on matching resources to need, improving access, promoting prevention and rewarding dentists fairly. We also want to enable the whole dental team to work to the top of their capabilities.
But reforming the dental contract is a significant challenge, and there are no quick fixes or easy answers. That is why in our 10-year health plan, we committed to fundamental reform of the dental contract by the end of this Parliament, with significant steps in 2026-27. Talks are under way with the British Dental Association, and we are making progress on these matters.
In addition to delivering fundamental contract reform over the longer term, we have already made significant progress through our 2026 reforms. We held a public consultation last summer on changes to the current NHS dental contract to address the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams said they were experiencing. The Government’s response, published in December, took account of the views of the dental sector as well as people with lived experience. Our reforms will utilise the existing dental contract to deliver the right care to the right people, while incentivising dentists to provide more NHS care. By prioritising patients with the greatest needs and making more efficient use of dentists’ time, the changes will ensure that the NHS dentistry budget delivers value for money for the taxpayer.
From 1 April, we will start to implement the reforms. For the first time, we are introducing provisions in the dental contract to embed urgent dental care appointments, making it easier for patients to access this care. We are increasing payments to dentists to deliver that care from £42 on average to £75 for that unit of dental activity. We are providing new treatment pathways for patients with complex treatment needs, paid at a set fee of around £250 or £700 depending on the pathway, while enabling and encouraging dentists to deliver more preventive care. These reforms will make full use of the existing dental contract, to ensure that patients receive the right care at the right time, while creating clear incentives for dentists to provide more NHS care. As I say, they will kick in from 1 April.
England has more than 38,000 registered dentists, of whom 10,700 are full-time equivalent general dentists delivering NHS care. As we take forward our reform programme to rebuild NHS dentistry, we are clear that strengthening the workforce is key to achieving our ambitions. This Government are committed to publishing a 10-year workforce plan to set out actions to create a workforce that is ready to deliver the transformed service set out in our overall 10-year health plan.
We are taking steps to increase the capacity of our dental workforce. As announced in our 10-year health plan, we will make it a requirement for newly qualified dentists to practise in the NHS for a minimum period. We intend that minimum period to be at least three years. That will mean more NHS dentists, more NHS appointments and better oral health.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the Minister for highlighting the need for the dental workforce to be strengthened. We have a dental desert in East Anglia. The University of East Anglia stands ready to open a new dental school. It has permission from the General Dental Council but is awaiting the funded undergraduate dental places that will be needed to start training new dentists from 2027. Can the Minister set out how those places will be made available on the basis of regional need, so that dental deserts such as the east of England can start to build a sustainable dental workforce?
Stephen Kinnock
I congratulate the University of East Anglia on its accreditation through the GDC as a dental school. That is a huge step in the right direction, and we strongly support it. The next step is that the Office for Students has to allocate places. The Government have not funded any new dental school places since 2007. I am fighting hard for those dental places to be made available. We are quite close, I hope, to being able to share some positive steps on that. The OfS makes the decisions about allocating the places, but it does take advice from Ministers. My counterpart in the Department for Education and I will be sending a letter to the OfS, with some advice on how it should make decisions about where dental places should be made available, and the fact that UEA has a new dental school is an important factor in those considerations.
I welcome the General Dental Council’s recent announcement confirming the appointment of a new provider for the overseas registration exam—the ORE. The new arrangements are set to more than double the annual number of dentists able to join the register via that route, and it represents a significant step forward in addressing workforce shortages and NHS patient access. I met the General Dental Council at the end of last year to discuss its comprehensive plan to address the current ORE waiting list, and to urge it to get that waiting list sorted, because frankly the backlogs were not acceptable. We are looking at an increase in the supply of overseas qualified dentists joining the GDC register. I expect the measures to be taken by the GDC to deliver substantial improvements to the international registration processes, enabling increased numbers of overseas qualified dentists to join the register more swiftly and efficiently.
We know that prevention is better than cure. Alongside urgently needed reforms to treat existing poor oral health, I am committed to improving oral health in this country, not just for children, but the wider population too. Water fluoridation is an effective public health intervention for reducing the prevalence of tooth decay and improving oral health inequalities. Under this Government, we will see much needed expansion of water fluoridation in the north-east of England, with further feasibility studies for other parts of the country.
We are already investing in integrated care boards to support supervised toothbrushing for three-to-five-year-old children, and our innovative partnership with Colgate-Palmolive will support up to 600,000 children to develop good oral health habits for life. We are working with all sectors of the food industry to make further progress on reducing levels of sugar in the everyday food and drink that people buy. This is to ensure that it is easier for people to make healthier choices. Oral cancer and periodontal diseases are directly caused by tobacco. Dental teams and local stop-smoking services can work collaboratively in a variety of ways.
We have already made important progress, but I accept that there is still a lot more to do and a long way to go. We are determined to ensure that everyone who needs an NHS dentist can secure one. Delivering that ambition will take time, and it is vital that we put in place solutions that work for both patients and the dental professionals who care for them.
Question put and agreed to.