House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
The Government are committed to ensuring patients can access timely, high-quality care wherever they live in the United Kingdom, while recognising ongoing challenges. We are working with the NHS and devolved Governments to improve digital interoperability, streamline cross-border billing and support more joined-up care.
David Chadwick
Powys has no general hospital, so my constituents are dependent on access to English hospitals for the treatment and operations they need. However, last July, Powys teaching health board made the decision to extend waiting times for Powys patients awaiting operations, with the result that many have now been waiting years, often in agonising pain. Will the Minister meet me, Powys teaching health board and the new Welsh Health Minister to ensure Powys patients get the funding and treatment they need?
Preet Kaur Gill
I would welcome a meeting with the hon. Member. As he knows, decisions about waiting list management in Wales are matters for the Welsh Government, but I agree that patients in border communities should be able to access care as quickly and conveniently as possible.
John Lamont
For my constituents in the Scottish Borders, accessing NHS treatment can sometimes be more complicated than it should be. Some residents in the Scottish Borders are registered with GP practices in Northumberland, but their medical records are not always shared properly between NHS services in England and Scotland. The SNP Government refuse to allow reciprocal care, so will the Minister urgently work with the Scottish Government to ensure my constituents can be properly treated as close to home as possible?
Preet Kaur Gill
I am aware of the concerns that the hon. Member raises. NHS organisations on both sides of the border are working together to improve access for patients. NHS England is working closely with NHS Scotland to improve the compatibility of patient records. I believe that they must do much more and I would be happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
We know that some patients prefer not to use online services. Online tools complement rather than replace existing routes, such as telephone or walk-in access. The GP contract requires online access to be available during core hours, which eases pressure on phone lines and reception staff as non-digital routes to access care. Under this Government, patient satisfaction with GP access has risen from 61% to 75%.
Dr Mullan
I understand why making use of the NHS app and online appointments is sensible and works well for many patients, but I cannot be the only MP to have heard from constituents—you may even have heard from your constituents, Mr Speaker—who struggle with that. They may not have a smartphone. I have met many elderly patients who simply cannot make use of online forms and too often GP practices do not make it easy for them to make appointments by telephone or by walking in. It is important that the Government make it crystal clear to all our GP providers, who I know are doing their best, that no matter how far we go with digital innovation, our patients must always be able to access primary care through traditional routes, such as making an appointment by telephone or by walking in.
Stephen Kinnock
I am in violent agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is quite unusual. We are clear that patients should not be digitally excluded. The contract is clear that patients should always have the option of telephoning or visiting their practice in person. All online tools must always be provided in addition to, rather than as a replacement for, other channels for accessing a GP. In the past year, since April 2025, some 11.5 million more GP appointments have been delivered.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the staff at Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, particularly in the older persons assessment and liaison ward, where elderly patients are transferred from A&E and supported to either return home or transfer to different wards, another example of where Harlow is leading the way. How can we work together to support patients, like those on the OPAL ward, to access primary care if they are not confident in using some of the online tools that have been mentioned?
Stephen Kinnock
Once again, my hon. Friend has done a great job promoting Harlow, as we are all familiar with him doing in the House. We are improving GP access across the board. We have over 2,000 more GPs since July 2024 and we are launching a £102 million fund to build more clinical space in over 1,000 GP practices across England. A lot has been achieved, but a lot more needs to be done.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This Labour Government were elected to build an NHS fit for the future. As Secretary of State, I am accelerating modernisation, but health inequalities start long before people access the NHS, so our focus on prevention in the 10-year health strategy is crucial, as is the work of this Government to address wider inequalities, including in housing, air quality and getting more people into work.
Perran Moon
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Oversimplified indices of multiple deprivation scores do not reflect the difficulties in caring for people in rural and remote coastal areas such as Cornwall. The Government are committed to neighbourhood health, but funding is getting caught up in integrated care board management structures and not flowing to GP practices, which should be delivering the care. How can the Government ensure that neighbourhood funding does not get held up by ICBs and flows to where it has the highest impact?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Funding must not be held up; it must get to the frontline to help patients, his constituents and people across the country. We are supporting ICBs to work differently with providers to identify and meet the needs of their communities on a new population-based approach. We are also reviewing the outdated GP formula for the distribution of funding to ensure that, for the first time in two decades, it will accurately reflect need and ensure that deprived communities get their fair share.
Will Stone
I represent some of the most deprived parts of Swindon, yet residents are having to travel across town to get access to healthcare. What is the Secretary of State doing to address that?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that the current model of care works least well for some of those experiencing the greatest disadvantage. I am pleased that we have joint commissioning arrangements of more than £28 million in place between the NHS and Swindon borough council, which will help to tackle issues for those most at risk. As I mentioned in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), we are reviewing the funding formula for the resources of GP practices for the first time in two decades. That is a crucial step to ensuring that we have a fairer distribution of resources across the country.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Health and Social Care Committee’s most recent report into healthy ageing highlights the unacceptable 20-year gap in healthy life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas of the country. It also points out that physical activity can be as effective, if not more effective, in treating the ailments of older life than pharmaceutical intervention. That is why we recommend that the Government target the least active groups to narrow that gap and embed activity into clinical practice.
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. We are yet to have our first conversation, so let us have our first meeting, in which we might discuss this issue and more, as well as how to embed tackling inequalities into the whole of the national health service.
James Murray
I look forward to working constructively with the hon. Lady in her role as the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. She is absolutely right to point to the importance of embedding prevention and healthier lifestyles in the way that we approach healthcare in this country. Although we talk a lot and passionately about the NHS, health is not just about the NHS; so many determinants of health start long before people access the NHS. In our 10-year health plan, there is a huge focus on tackling obesity, smoking and ensuring that people have more active and healthier lifestyles, because that is the way to reduce pressure on the NHS and ensure that people across the country live healthier lives.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
West Sussex county council’s health and adult social care scrutiny committee has concluded that the closure of Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington “constituted a significant variation” in services. Given the statutory requirements for consultation—promised, but never delivered—when can residents expect a decision on my call-in request?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the situation in her constituency. For all of us as MPs, our first job is to raise matters that pertain to our constituents, and healthcare is among the most important services that they receive. I will ask my team to look further into the points that she raises and get back to her.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that state-funded healthcare should be provided to all children based on clinical need, not economic or educational status?
James Murray
It is an essential part of our NHS and its founding principles that the NHS is available to all on the basis of need, not their ability to pay. That is a fundamental principle that we in the Labour party support. I know that some Opposition parties have been moving away from that recently and seeking to privatise the provision of our health service and move to an insurance-based model, but Labour Members believe that all people, including children, must get healthcare based on their need rather than their ability to pay.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he therefore share my concern at reports that some children are being turned away from state-funded healthcare because they are not attending a state school? Will he look into those reports and ensure that he makes provision for children who are not attending state schools to receive the healthcare they need?
James Murray
I am surprised by the hon. Lady’s remarks, because where a child goes to school should have no bearing on their ability to access NHS services. If she would like to write to me with further details, I would be happy to look into that matter.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), recognised an appalling culture of medical misogyny and basic, everyday sexism within the NHS. As such, it was extremely disappointing to see that the new women’s health strategy was inferior to the men’s health strategy. The men’s health strategy received 60% more funding for new initiatives and has a named academic network, a formal research mandate aligned with the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and a commitment to publish a one-year accountability report with named, responsible organisations and formal timeframes for every action. It also commits specific funding to trials and pathfinders. As it stands, the women’s health strategy has none of those things. It contains no specific, measurable, time-bound target to reduce the backlogs in endometriosis care, nor does the NHS 10-year plan include endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome or fibroids in its prevention agenda. Can the Secretary of State explain why?
James Murray
The renewed women’s health strategy was a really important achievement under the previous Secretary of State, which updated the approach of this Government and reflected the differences in healthcare that women too often receive. If I might offer a personal reflection, since I have become Secretary of State, one issue that many women have raised with me is that they do not feel the health service adequately listens to them, takes their pain seriously, or gives them the right pathways to get the treatment they need. That must change, and this Government will change it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
This Government are committed to delivering the five-year, cross-Government suicide prevention strategy, and have published NHS England’s “Staying safe from suicide” guidance. Although progress has been made, we recognise that there is more to do and will continue to drive delivery of the strategy.
Liz Twist
The strategy said that it would
“reduce the suicide rate over the next 5 years—with initial reductions observed within half this time or sooner”.
However, we have now passed the halfway point, and sadly, those initial reductions have not been achieved. What is the Government’s plan to ensure that target is achieved by the end of the strategy?
Preet Kaur Gill
First, I commend my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning to improve mental health and prevent suicides—I know this is personal for her. We have made progress on implementing the strategy, including launching the near to real-time suspected suicide surveillance system to detect trends earlier. We have also committed £3.6 million in support for middle-aged men for areas that need it, ensuring that it is co-produced with families and local partners so that it is accessible. We plan to update the strategy, which will consider the evidence, the progress so far, and where there are opportunities to go further, but I would welcome my hon. Friend’s input into this very important work.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Early intervention saves lives, yet far too often support arrives only at the point of crisis, especially for young people in our education system. Will the Minister support the Liberal Democrats’ calls for a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school as well as mental health hubs in our communities, so that fewer young people reach that point of crisis?
Preet Kaur Gill
Yes. This Government have already recruited 8,500 mental health support workers, and more than 10,000 schools already have a mental health support worker. There is much more to do—we have to ensure young people are not left on a waiting list. We know that many face crisis before they can access care, and I would be keen to hear a bit more from the hon. Gentleman about the work he is doing locally on this issue.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Further to the last question, my constituent Emma Webb’s 16-year-old daughter Brodie tragically took her own life in 2020. Since then, Emma has worked tirelessly to raise thousands of pounds for charity, raising awareness of suicide prevention and launching DoItForBrodie, a project that aims to break down barriers. Can I invite the Minister to pay tribute to the work that Emma is doing, and to say more about suicide prevention among young people and children?
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important question, and I pay tribute to Emma. In the renewed women’s health strategy, we have committed to improving mental health support for women and girls. We must help women and girls to access mental health support in ways that work for them. We are promoting collaboration to improve women’s knowledge and healthcare professionals’ understanding of many women’s relationships and the barriers they face. There is much more to do, and I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend and to hear from Emma about what more we can do in this space.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In rural areas such as South Devon, agricultural workers and isolated young people often face distinct acute mental health crises, yet local mental health provision is stretched to breaking point. What specific targeted support is the Department providing to rural health boards to ensure that suicide intervention services reach isolated rural workers who cannot easily access standard workplace mental health schemes?
Preet Kaur Gill
The hon. Lady raises some important challenges, and the women’s mental health strategy will deal with some of them. Work is under way to develop a more comprehensive offer to address the critical issues that many young people transitioning to adult services face, including bespoke guidance in the revised Mental Health Act code of practice. The Government are also funding early support hubs, which provide free, open access to mental health support for young people up to the age of 25. Under the new developmental service specification, children and young people’s services will no longer be required to transfer or discharge a young person on their 18th birthday, where clinically appropriate.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
For 2026-27, NHS mental health spending is forecast to reach a record £16.1 billion, representing a real-terms increase compared with the previous year. That is supported by £473 million in capital funding over the next four years, including investment in new mental health emergency departments and community-based mental health centres. Dorset is one of the places across England to benefit from an expanded urgent and emergency mental health offer, with new mental health emergency departments planned.
Lloyd Hatton
This summer, two new state-of-the-art mental health facilities are opening in Dorset: Chaddesley House in Poole and Seastone in Bournemouth. That is thanks to continued investment from this Labour Government. However, the Forston clinic in the west of the county requires fresh investment to upgrade worn-out hospital buildings. Will the Minister meet local NHS bosses, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and me to discuss securing the investment needed to finally upgrade the Forston clinic?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right that his constituents will be able to access care at the new facilities in Poole and Bournemouth thanks to the Government’s investment in the new hospitals programme, but there is more to do. We are committed to addressing poor-quality NHS infrastructure and ensuring that facilities such as Forston clinic are safe, comfortable and capable of high-quality care. That is why we are investing £30 billion over five years for the maintenance and repair of the NHS estate. We would be delighted to meet the hon. Members and local NHS leaders to discuss the issue further.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his comments about Forston, which some of my residents use. Evidence suggests that half of mental health conditions are established by age 14, and three quarters by age 24. In Dorset, our rates of hospitalisation for self-harm are almost twice the national average for 15 to 19-year-olds. I recently met Anya, a student at Lytchett school and deputy Member of Youth Parliament for Dorset. She has launched her “Health in Mind” campaign to ease young people back into school following periods of mental or physical health issues. It is so inspiring to see the work that she is doing, but will the Minister meet me and Anya to hear more about her campaign and to see how we can reintegrate children more successfully back into school after ill health, particularly mental ill health?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to Anya for the outstanding work she is doing. We are providing early intervention for children’s mental health and wellbeing by rolling out mental health support teams to every school by 2029. We are also investing £13 million to pilot enhanced training for staff so that they can offer more support to young people with complex needs such as trauma, neurodivergence and disordered eating. If the hon. Lady writes to me with further details of Anya’s work, I am sure that we can continue that conversation.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
This Government’s focus on shifting from hospital to community will benefit millions of people and increase access to care. This shift is underpinned by new community diagnostic centres that now deliver faster, more accessible care at 109 sites, 12 hours a day, seven days a week. By 2030, we will have opened 120 new neighbourhood health centres. This expansion will transform community access for those who most need it.
Robbie Moore
Back in 2023, the Conservative Government signed off £3.4 million for Keighley to build a new health and wellbeing hub to improve care in the community. We have plenty of brownfield sites and funding is secured, but we are progressing at a snail’s pace, with progress being made incredibly slowly. We are now in mid-2026, and no planning application has yet been submitted. Will the Secretary of State meet me so that we can unlock the project and get it delivered?
James Murray
This may not be the first project initiated under the last Government that has not exactly run ahead at the fastest pace possible. We need to ensure that neighbourhood health provision is delivered as quickly as possible across the country. Our plans to increase the number of neighbourhood health centres will focus on areas with below-average healthy life expectancy, ensuring that rural towns and deprived areas receive help most rapidly. Part of that will involve the shift from hospital to the community to prevent ill health before it occurs, as I mentioned in an earlier response.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Last year I campaigned with the community and local councillors to save the Crystal dementia centre in Stourbridge. The centre provides community support for dementia patients and their carers, employs dementia advisers and assessors, and offers day services to many local people. Sadly, however, since we saved the centre Dudley council has sought to close it by stealth, preventing new assessments and preventing new users from joining. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a disgraceful way for the council to act, which goes against the Government’s mission to provide quality care close to home, and will he meet me to discuss the matter further?
James Murray
It does sound concerning that that decision has been taken. I urge all councils to work with their local integrated care boards and other parts of the NHS system to ensure that healthcare of that kind is provided in areas where people can access it, as part of our plan to make certain that healthcare is available throughout the country.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
Too many men lead too much of their lives in poor health and face barriers to access to health services. We have published England’s first ever men’s health strategy to get men speaking about their physical and mental health, and we are getting on with implementing it. From partnering with the Premier League to investing in the men’s health community fund, we are meeting men where they are, and helping them to lead longer, healthier lives.
David Reed
The NHS itself says that prostate cancer often has no symptoms at first, and Prostate Cancer UK says most men with early prostate cancer have no symptoms at all. The Government’s TRANSFORM trial exists because current detection methods are recognised as inadequate. Why does Government messaging still point men towards early symptoms that they are unlikely to have, while cancers that could be cured are becoming cancers that cannot?
James Murray
Let me be really clear in my advice to any man who is worried about prostate cancer, whether he has symptoms or not: go and discuss it with your GP. Testing is available when GPs recommend it, and I would recommend to no man that he should worry about it in silence, sit at home and fret about what might be going on.
The wider, targeted screening programme to which the Government have agreed is based on the evidence from weighing up the benefits of screening versus the harm that it can cause. We know that, at present, if cancerous cells are identified and treatment follows—for example, removal of the prostate—it leads to permanent urinary incontinence in 20% of cases and in two thirds of cases to permanent erectile dysfunction.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
We inherited a decades-old system whereby patient voice was divorced from decision makers, with more than 20 organisations offering a place for patients and users to share feedback. The Health Bill will put the views of patients and users at the heart of decision making, ensuring that that directly informs those responsible for commissioning locally, and we will create a new patient experience directorate in the Department to ensure that patient and user insight directly shapes national policymaking.
Steve Darling
The abolition of Healthwatch will see the NHS and the Government effectively marking their own homework. Can the Minister please give some assurances about how the Government will ensure that the voice of those with learning disabilities, complex needs and dementia is heard?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the variety of needs that local commissioners need to take account of. That is exactly what the Health Bill will try to do, not by outsourcing that role to an outside body but by putting those views at the heart of what all commissioners do, which includes making sure that under-represented or often unheard voices do have a voice.
Munira Wilson
When Boots decided to close two pharmacies in Hampton, leaving a large number of elderly and vulnerable residents without local pharmacy provision, Healthwatch Richmond played a crucial role in ensuring that we got a new community pharmacy in the area. That locally led patient voice cannot be replaced by officials in Whitehall or our local ICB, which is about to suffer cuts of over 50% in its operating budget. If the Minister is really serious about championing patients, will she think again?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady raises an interesting example of somewhere where local commissioners have failed to provide a service or recognise when a service disappears. They can do that by using very different voices, rather than outsourcing that responsibility. Through the Health Bill, we have to make sure that commissioners do their job properly, which includes taking account of patient voice at a very local level.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Replacing Healthwatch will mean that, ultimately, patients will not have confidence in the commissioners. We have just heard one example, and I can offer many examples from York. Healthwatch York, which is phenomenal and is led by Siân Balsom, has produced reports that have brought about change. I plead with the Government to review clauses 64 and 65 of the Health Bill to maintain Healthwatch. It should not be an either/or. We need commissioners to engage with the patient voice, but we also need Healthwatch to have the independence to advocate for patients.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about her local healthwatch. There are certainly examples of where this approach works well in local communities, and we need to understand those. However, it does not work well everywhere, and it means that local commissioners are not empowered and are not held accountable for their job of making sure that the patient voice and experience is held locally. There is also nothing to stop ICBs undertaking that role as they see fit in their local communities in the future, rather than our dictating how they should do it through one particular body.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
While I support the Government’s desire to drive out bureaucracy from the NHS and simplify systems for patients, Healthwatch Hartlepool has done an outstanding job in ensuring that patients’ voices are heard as systems and services are improved. What can the Minister do to ensure that local expertise is retained in any new system?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. If that works well for his local system, there is nothing to stop it. How the ICB undertakes its role has to be determined locally to make it most effective for local circumstances, and it can undertake that role as it sees fit.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Over 85% of waiting list removals are made as a result of patient care, and since the end of the pandemic, unreported removals have been below pre-pandemic levels. Record levels of elective activity are being delivered by NHS staff, enabling us to cut waiting lists and meet our interim target of 65% of patients being seen within 18 weeks—the highest performance in over four years.
Graham Stuart
People in Beverley and Holderness want high-quality and speedy care, not massaged waiting list numbers that suit Labour narratives. Of course, Mr Speaker, you will remember that the last Labour Government had form on this as well, because the National Audit Office repeatedly found that the numbers were manipulated when waiting lists were similarly put on a pedestal. The Minister has the new Secretary of State by her side. Can she reassure people in Beverley and Holderness that we will have genuinely improved healthcare, rather than widespread manipulation and the cleansing of waiting lists to suit political purposes?
Karin Smyth
If anyone has forgotten, the last Labour Government left the NHS in a better state than it was in under successive Governments. That is not in dispute in terms of waiting list targets or, indeed, patient satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman might want to look again at the record.
The point that the Conservatives seem to be intent on following up forever is an important one. Some 85% of the activity is a result of direct patient care. Validation, both clinical and clerical, is a long-standing routine practice of waiting list management. At roughly 15%—it was slightly higher before the pandemic—the rate is no different now from what it has been before, so it is not the case that something different is going on here. What we are doing is making sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents—I appreciate that there are many other local problems in his system at the moment—can be clear that we have the right people on the right list for the right care in the right place by the right clinicians. That is what we are determined to do.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for her work in reducing waiting lists for GP referral to first treatment, and they are genuinely coming down. She will be aware, however, that that statistic does not capture the entire picture, particularly for people who require subsequent follow-up care—for example, women with endometriosis or women waiting for breast reconstruction following mastectomies. Could she say a little about any plans she has to capture those waiting lists?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is someone who does understand the way waiting lists are managed and so on. We do not have any plans to add any new targets to those to which we have already committed to give confidence to the British public that we can fix the NHS and get waiting lists down. However, he raises an important point about how we support patients to understand where they are in the system and where their care will be provided. Part of our commitment in the elective reform plan, which we outlined last year, is that patients are kept up to date about where they are being treated and why they are being referred to perhaps a more local service, and we will continue to try to do that.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Last month, the Health Service Journal reported that the elective waiting list target was met largely—largely—because a record number of patients were removed from waiting lists in March without receiving treatment. Can the Minister tell the House how many patients were removed in March and what happened to them, and whether she is satisfied that they definitely did not need treatment?
Karin Smyth
As I have said, I am still a bit perplexed about why the Conservatives are perpetually highlighting their inadequate management of the health service, and the idea that patients are simply referred to a waiting list and then left there for a couple of years, which is what happened on their watch. It is important that patients know why they are on a waiting list, and obviously that they get the best clinical care as quickly as possible.
I do not have to hand the exact figure for March, which will be published as part of the normal process of publishing the waiting list figures. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that completed pathways were 5.9% higher in the 21 months from July 2024, when we took office, to March 2025 than in the previous 21 months. Patients, as they deserve, are getting the right care in the right place under this Government.
Dr Evans
It is not just the Conservatives who are raising this issue; it is patients and the Health Service Journal. The answer is that 350,000 people—a city the size of Coventry—were wiped off the waiting list with no treatment, and that is 100,000 more than the month before. If there is genuinely nothing to hide, the Government should not worry about putting out the figures. Will the Minister commit to a review to find out what has happened to those 350,000 patients, or does she believe that waiting list targets should be met by removing patients from the figures rather than actually treating them?
Karin Smyth
This is an established way of managing waiting lists and waiting times. We are making sure that there is adequate clerical and clinical validation of the lists, and that patients are treated where they need to be, which may often be closer to home and in more local circumstances. Of course, we have committed to greater transparency than there was under the previous Government, and we will continue to provide that. I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am obviously very happy to look at anything arising from it. We are confident in the data that is coming out—as I have said, this is standard practice—and the figure is roughly 15%, as it has been over many years.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
Health visitors play a vital role in supporting babies, children and families. Under the previous Government, the number of health visitors fell significantly, which is why this Government have taken action. The upcoming professional strategy for nursing and midwifery will set out a bold direction of travel to strengthen health visiting across England. We have already made improvements with all post-birth health and development reviews now completed for over 80% of children nationally, which is the highest level since recording began.
Mr Charters
I recently gave evidence to Baroness Amos’s national maternity inquiry, sharing the trauma that my wife and I endured. Even as she carried her own burden after the birth, she was my rock, but the NHS was not. I was invisible. No one asked about me and I was left to carry it alone for months. Will the Minister please ensure that health visitors recognise dads and other non-birthing partners, check in on their mental health, and help them to access support so that no more dads are forgotten when families need them the most?
Mrs Hodgson
I thank my hon. Friend for being so brave and willing to share his and his wife’s birth trauma, and to talk about the lack of support afterwards, not just with Baroness Amos and her review but with the House today. I know personally how hard it is to do that, but I also know the huge difference it can make to Government policy. I am happy to commit to him today that the Government will absolutely look closely at all the findings in Baroness Amos’s review, and work with the national maternity taskforce to translate the recommendations into action. I am also pleased to confirm that we have recently updated our national health visiting guidance to include a high impact area on family mental health, with a clear focus on supporting both mothers and fathers.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is not just the number of health visitors that needs to be improved. Women report to me that they have skipped appointments due to negative experiences with health visitors, especially around breastfeeding. Will the Minister commit to improving the training of health visitors, so that women receive the best quality care?
Mrs Hodgson
Yes, I will. We are busy working on the 10-year workforce plan. The training of all the NHS workforce, including health visitors, is a big part of that. In my new position as public health and prevention Minister, I am particularly interested in the work of health visitors, especially with regard to supporting rates of breastfeeding. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the results of the breastfeeding survey were released last week and they showed substantial improvement.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
This Government are rebuilding England’s broken NHS dentistry system. The dental recruitment incentive scheme encourages dentists to work in underserved areas. Data on the scheme’s effectiveness will be published later this year. We are taking steps to increase the supply of dentists. For example, last week I was very proud to announce the first sustained expansion of dental school places since 2007, backed by £11 million a year. A total of 50 dental school places a year have been allocated.
Lisa Smart
My constituent John, who is from Bredbury, has been in touch because like so many others his local dentist is going private and for many families in my constituency, private dentistry simply is not an affordable option. Research by the British Dental Association found that 96% of practices are not accepting new NHS patients and the golden hello, worth £20,000 over three years, is not adequately compensating for a contract that loses them money every day. The scheme just is not working. It has recruited two dentists—two!—in the whole of Greater Manchester, neither of whom is in my constituency. What more can the Minister do to ensure that my constituents get the dentists they need, where they need them?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and she is absolutely right to raise the issue of the contract. The fundamental problem is that the units of dental activity system is a contractual system that does not work for NHS dentistry. That is why we had the absurd situation when we came into office in July 2024 of a £392 million underspend on NHS dentistry, because dentists were not incentivised. We are changing that. I have got the underspend down to £36 million. There is still a very long way to go and we need to reform the long-term contract to incentivise dentists to do NHS dentistry.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Access to NHS dentistry remains too difficult in rural and coastal communities such as South East Cornwall, where residents face long travel times and limited provision. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what next steps we can take to improve local access?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, as we know, there are areas in the country that are known as dental deserts. We have to fix that. It comes back to the fundamental issue of how we incentivise dentists to do NHS dentistry regardless of where they are in the country. There are particularly acute pressures in constituencies such as the one she so brilliantly represents, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss them further.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
We know that men are less likely to seek mental health support and that suicide rates are higher in men, and we are taking action to address that. Through our men’s health strategy, we have launched a partnership with the Premier League to improve mental health literacy. The suicide prevention support pathfinders programme will invest up to £3.6 million in areas where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide—the north-west being one area with some of the highest rates.
Mrs Blundell
I welcome the publication of the men’s health strategy, especially the measures in it designed to improve mental health outcomes. In a report that I recently sent to the ministerial team following an event I held with local charities and mental health service users, it became clear that the recommendations of the strategy need to be implemented quickly. What practical steps are being taken to implement those measures, especially in areas such as mine, where deprivation continues to affect the health of men and boys?
Preet Kaur Gill
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s report and thank her for all her work on behalf of her constituents. Locally, NHS and council partners are supporting delivery through services such as Thrive, Think Ahead and talking therapies, alongside community initiatives such as Male Health Survivors @ The Dale, and Andy’s Man Club Rochdale, supporting men’s mental health. We also have a mental health call for evidence, which is live until 12 July, seeking practical examples to tangibly improve outcomes and inform our mental health strategy. I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend on what more we can do.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The suicide rate among men in Cumbria is twice the national average. There are a whole range of reasons why that is so, but one of them is clearly bound up in isolation and rurality. Would the Minister be willing to meet me and the Farmer Network as we seek to deliver mental health answers for people struggling? Some 25% of farmers are below the poverty line, often isolated and dealing with transition at times of enormous stress and anxiety with nowhere to turn. Would the Minister agree to meet so that we can address this particular cause of the appalling tragedy in our county?
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. We of course must not overlook the needs of farmers. Our men’s health strategy has invested an extra £3.6 million in suicide prevention work in the most deprived parts of England, where men face the greatest risk of suicide. We are partnering with the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide initiative, to meet men where they are on their terms, so that they do not suffer in silence. I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman to hear more about the issue.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The NHS modernisation Bill will clarify and strengthen accountability in the NHS. It ends the fragmented accountability that we inherited on coming into government, and the reforms will restore clear democratic accountability, with the Secretary of State directly accountable to Parliament and the public. We will enhance local autonomy, ensuring NHS organisations are good partners and deliver for their local populations.
Lewis Cocking
We need more local accountability in the NHS. In Broxbourne we have seen thousands of new houses built, but when I and local Conservative councillors have pushed for new healthcare facilities to cope with the new demand, we have been refused. Can the Minister explain who will be accountable for that under the Government’s new system?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman highlights a situation familiar to many of us. One of the many problems that we inherited from the last Government was the fragmented landscape, so I thank him for his question. A key part of the responsibility of integrated care boards is commissioning for their populations to improve access to healthcare and reduce inequalities. For the first time, ICBs will be held accountable through the outcomes framework.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Jules Fielder from Hastings was diagnosed with stage 4 terminal lung cancer after doctors missed her symptoms, mistaking them for tennis elbow. As a non-smoking young woman, she did not meet the stereotype of what lung cancer patients often present with, but she was determined to channel her own tragedy into change. She campaigned for better, earlier awareness of symptoms among clinicians and members of the public, and she took that message to everyone she could. Together, we convinced Boots to roll out on-shelf awareness labels in the cold and flu medicine section to raise better awareness. Sadly, Jules passed away last month. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all of Jules’s campaigning, and commit to continuing her vision in the Department of Health and Social Care by ensuring we use every possible avenue to raise better awareness and catch cancer earlier?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that example of tremendous public service in the face of adversity. We are sorry to hear of Jules’s passing, and our thoughts are with her friends and family. My hon. Friend highlights the way in which people can access and determine outcomes and the fact that it is the responsibility of those working in local health services—in this case, the ICB in particular—to involve people and use their experience to drive the change that we want to see as part of the Health Bill.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
The NHS matters deeply to me, to every one of my colleagues and to people right across the country. That is why we are not wasting a second in driving delivery and pushing forward with extending prostate cancer screening to protect men at most risk, appointing a new national maternity adviser to give every woman and baby a safe birth, and accepting the Mann review recommendations to rid the NHS of antisemitism and all forms of racism. Last week, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care, I took the NHS modernisation Bill through its Second Reading. As Secretary of State, I am determined to accelerate modernisation and build an NHS that is fit for the future.
Josh Babarinde
Following power outages at Eastbourne district general hospital that left operations and birth services suspended, hospital bosses submitted a strategic bid for more than £10 million to the estates safety fund to urgently fix the problem, which was rejected. How does the Secretary of State expect our hospital to provide consistent and safe care to patients if the power goes out?
James Murray
I am aware of the issues at Eastbourne district general hospital. Patients, staff and visitors deserve better than power cuts and electrical failures, which is why this Government have set out a credible and deliverable plan to deliver the new hospitals programme. I would gently remind the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that many of the problems that the NHS estate faces today stem from its being starved of £37 billion of capital investment in the 2010s, when the Lib Dems were in government.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The single patient record will give clinicians timely access to a single trusted record so that decisions can be made more efficiently, avoiding duplication, allowing them to spend more time with patients. The system makes all information on a patient accessible in a single place and will allow the sharing of patient data among different settings, as my hon. Friend outlines, and provide more flexibility in where services are made available.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), to their places.
The Secretary of State was in the Treasury when it imposed VAT on compassionate access medicine programmes, which provide some patients—especially children with cancer—with a vital last chance to access treatment. The policy has already led to the closure of one scheme. Will he now commit to abolishing this tax before any more follow suit?
James Murray
One thing I learned when I was in the Treasury is that decisions about tax are taken by the Chancellor at fiscal events, so I am certainly not going to start taking decisions about taxation in my new role at the Dispatch Box today. The broader point is how important it is to ensure that we have the medicines that we need for the future. That is why this Government are investing so much in research, development and innovation, to ensure that we have the drugs and medicines we need for the healthiest possible population in the future.
Stuart Andrew
I am sorry, but that was simply waffle. This matter needs decisive action now; these drugs are absolutely critical to some children. This cancer drugs tax has already closed one scheme, and companies are making real-time decisions now about whether to continue programmes in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State must urgently get the Treasury to exempt compassionate use medicines permanently, so that the patients in most need can get these vital drugs, which, in some cases, are simply their only hope.
James Murray
I have explained the position about decisions on tax. More broadly, it is critical that we have the medicines of the future that we need. One of my very first visits as Secretary of State for Health was to a company that is using AI to determine new opportunities for medicines and drugs to tackle cancers and some of the other illnesses that people face. Making sure that we are investing in businesses—British businesses—to drive that innovation is crucial, not just to the future health of our country but to economic growth.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very important matter. My sympathy is with the Lake family, and I commend them for their advocacy on this issue. I am acutely aware of the matter, having met the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and her constituents about this issue last week, in a very moving meeting. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is working with partners to see whether it is possible to set up a multi-condition evaluation, so that not only MLD but other rare conditions can be assessed alongside the existing screening programmes.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
A damning report by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has estimated that more than 15,800 deaths were associated with long waits in emergency departments in 2025—I think we all agree that figure is an outrage—but the Government still have not published reliable data on long waits and corridor care despite promising to do so by the end of May. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government are trying to hide? Will they adopt Liberal Democrat calls to end corridor care within a year by freeing up beds throughout hospitals and in social care to end the blight of excess deaths in overcrowded accident and emergency departments?
James Murray
Let me be clear that corridor care is unacceptable and undignified and we are committed to eradicating it. We have begun by getting specialist teams to go into the worst offending trusts to ensure that we are getting rid of corridor care in those places. The NHS now has a national definition of corridor care for the first time ever. We will publish data on that shortly, because the first step in getting a grip of the problem is to be open and transparent about its scale.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she did formerly as a care worker. The Government inherited a social care system in desperate need of reform. We are taking action, including by providing over £4.6 billion of extra funding for adult social care by 2028-29 and developing the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers. Baroness Casey will submit her first report this year with recommendations on the further action we should take to move towards a national care service.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Stephen Kinnock
As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the fundamental long-term reform of the dental contract is vital to incentivising dentists to do NHS dentistry. I am pleased by how we have really put downward pressure on the underspend. As a result of that, we are on track to deliver more than 2.5 million extra dental treatments than in the same period before the general election.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Mrs Hodgson
People with Parkinson’s disease should receive support tailored to their individual needs, as symptoms and progression vary. The NHS provides specialist multidisciplinary NHS care informed by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and improvement programmes such as Getting It Right First Time. People with Parkinson’s will benefit from our wider work to strengthen community services, reduce waiting times and improve co-ordinated, person-centred care closer to home. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department will continue to meet regularly with Parkinson’s UK to ensure that their voices are heard.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Stephen Kinnock
Importantly, we have the £102 million utilisation and modernisation fund to enable more GP primary care estate. We have also committed to delivering 120 more neighbourhood health centres by the end of this Parliament, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s integrated care board has put in an expression of interest for that scheme. I am, of course, prepared to discuss that with him further.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Karin Smyth
I commend my hon. Friend for her experience in this area. She tempts me to look at amendments in that space, but we do not have plans for that at the moment. The changes we made to NHS England placed the responsibility regarding health inequalities in all our policies firmly at the Secretary of State’s door. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about her other ideas on that. The Bill transfers that responsibility to the Secretary of State and we have no plans to make any changes in that area.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Stephen Kinnock
As I have said to hon. Members across the House today, there is a fundamental challenge around the dental contract. Units of dental activity do not work as a way of incentivising dentists to do NHS dentistry, so that, fundamentally, has to be fixed. I am proud that, thanks to the measures that we have put in place, 2.5 million additional courses of treatment have been delivered, compared with the same period before the general election.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Last year I had the opportunity to witness a transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedure, which is a groundbreaking procedure for people who require valve changes. What I saw was quite incredible, and I recommend that all hon. Members go and see the procedure in St Thomas’ hospital. The patient, who was 82, had been bedbound for weeks, but after that 20-minute surgery they were fit enough to be discharged later that day and to look after themselves. That has a massive impact, not just on the patient’s life but for our NHS and the wider economy, as illustrated by Heart Valve Voice’s optimal pathway report. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that NHS systems identify patients and treat them?
Mrs Hodgson
I am aware of my hon. Friend’s significant work in this policy area, and she is absolutely right about the huge potential of TAVIs. Rising national TAVI activity and improved “Getting it right first time” pathways are part of our approach to reduce health inequalities and support more timely, equitable care. Through that work, the Government are committed to strengthening consistency in the diagnosis and treatment of heart valve disease, building on progress already made.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The relocation of Frimley Park hospital in my constituency is a £1.8 billion project, but none of the costs of the essential infrastructure to enable the new site to go ahead have been costed or budgeted for. The chief executives of the hospital simply have said that those costs will have to come from the new hospital programme contingency fund. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is no way to start a project of such size, scale and significance, and will he meet me to address those concerns?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is persistent in raising this issue—he has also raised it with me in the lunch queue. It clearly matters to him, and indeed to hon. Friends on my side of the House—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) that he should not walk in front of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) when the Secretary of State is answering him. Please show each other respect.
James Murray
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath can rest assured that this Government are focused on the new hospitals programme, which is now credible and deliverable after what we inherited from the previous Government, and that we will get those hospitals in place.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
On Thursday I will chair the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis’s first evidence session of our inquiry into endometriosis in the workplace. We will look at the experiences of women living with the condition and at the lack of timely treatment for chronic symptoms and how this impacts them in the workplace. Will the Secretary of State commit to reviewing our recommendations, once they are published later this year?
Mrs Hodgson
I commend my hon. Friend for her great work and that of the APPG in highlighting the importance of endometriosis and the impact it can have. We would be delighted to continue our close engagement with her and the APPG on this topic. We will consider the APPG’s findings carefully when they are published, as part of our ongoing work to improve diagnosis, treatment and support for women with endometriosis.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Epsom and St Helier hospitals need urgent funding now, not just patchwork repairs. In 2024, 600 operations were cancelled due to ventilation issues and the situation is only going to get worse, so will the Minister address the backlog of hospital repairs now to ensure that patients and staff have safe and modern facilities in Epsom and Saint Helier hospitals?
James Murray
Under this Government, we have increased capital investment in our NHS estates, including hospitals. Under the previous Government, that was sorely lacking, which stored up the problems we are experiencing today. There is a huge amount that we need to invest in, to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future, but we also need to reform the service, which is why modernising the NHS is a key priority for me and this Government.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
At the beginning of the year, Blackpool had the worst 12-hour A&E waiting times in the country, but thanks to the tireless work of local NHS staff, that has been reduced by 43%. However, we face some of the biggest challenges in the country with health inequalities, deprivation and the 21 million visitors that come every year, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and the chief executive officer of our hospital to talk about what support we can get to bring these numbers down, so that residents in Blackpool can get the care they need?
James Murray
I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend to tackle health inequalities in his area. As he rightly highlights, our investment in the NHS and in the wider health of the nation is specifically about tackling health inequalities such as those that he raises, which affect the life chances of his constituents.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The crisis in social care is particularly bad in my constituency on the Isle of Wight, partly because of our unique geography but also because the Government have reduced funding to our local authority. Our council is now looking at discharging patients to the mainland, away from family and friends, which is completely unacceptable. Will the Government recognise our unique challenges as an English island and help provide a social care solution that recognises the challenges that we face?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member and I have discussed this issue, and I absolutely recognise the need to ensure that social care is provided in the most convenient way possible to his constituents and as close as possible to home. Obviously we are fixing a broken system, but we have delivered £4.6 billion more in funding, we are delivering the fair pay agreement, and we are working hard to ensure that we get adult social care back on its feet and fit for the future.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
My constituents were delighted to see the opening of the Great Sutton medical centre, but it has brought into sharp focus the need for an urgent upgrade of GP practices in Ellesmere Port town centre. I have submitted an expression of interest to the neighbourhood centre programme, and I wonder whether the Minister would agree to meet me to discuss that further.
Stephen Kinnock
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has submitted that expression of interest. We are now assessing proposals against criteria that include: a fit with our national neighbourhood health strategy; sound estate planning; deliverability; sustainability; and, critically, local need. We will be prioritising areas where there is low life expectancy and higher deprivation. I would be delighted to meet him to talk about his expression of interest and about our programme for revolutionising care in our country through the shift from hospital to community.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Unpaid carers play a crucial role in supporting so many people who need to draw on social care, thereby supporting our health service and our formal social care system, but they tell me that they are under immense strain and need more support. They are, of course, more likely to be women and to be older. Does the Minister recognise the urgent need for more respite care for unpaid carers, and will he take action to provide it now, rather than waiting a few years for the Casey commission?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that unpaid carers are the lifeblood of our care system, and we pay tribute to them for the compassion that they show. I was very pleased yesterday to accompany the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to the launch of the new paid carer’s leave consultation document. I am also pleased to chair the cross-ministerial group that will produce an action plan for unpaid carers, addressing exactly the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned about respite care.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Last week the Supreme Court overturned the previous Cheshire West judgment on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, throwing the sector that cares for people with learning disabilities and/or autism into what it has called “chaos”. There is significant concern that, without further clarification as to whether someone who does not have mental capacity can consent to deprivation of liberty, vulnerable people will be put at significant risk. Will the Secretary of State listen to calls for—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have to get through the questions from others, so Members have to help me by asking shorter questions.
James Murray
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government respect the Supreme Court decision. We are considering it carefully, and will set out updated guidance shortly.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Waiting times for cataract operations in my constituency are rising hugely because the local ICB and its AI system have stopped offering services through all the advertised providers, and the ICB has scrapped its contract with Specsavers, meaning that only GPs can diagnose the problem. Will the Minister have a look at the local problem and intervene so that we have the widest and best range of providers to reduce those waiting lists?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that getting the link between high street optometrists and secondary care working more effectively is vital. That is why I was pleased to announce the £20 million e-referral investment earlier this week. We are also working on a single point of access, to get the digital interface working far more effectively. He is right that we should be focusing on that more; there is a lot more to do.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Particularly for people with a very low body mass index or an eating disorder, the use of app-based fitness classes for hours of ultra-high-intensity exercise every day can lead to addiction. When I wrote to one brand to ask about implementing access limitation tools in its app, it was dismissive. Will the Secretary of State consider reviewing whether such tools could be mandated to support those with eating disorders?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue—it is an important angle on a problem of which we are all aware, but in a slightly different context, given some of the modern features that are available on the devices in our pockets. I will look into it further and pick it up with him in due course.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Many Members in this place will be all too familiar with the trauma of a miscarriage; for some, the tragedy occurs more than once. Scotland is the first nation in the UK to implement a miscarriage patient charter, based on the so-called Tommy’s graded model of miscarriage care. Will the new Secretary of State—I welcome him to his place—outline whether the Westminster Government are considering replicating that system in the rest of the UK?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that incredibly sensitive and important issue. As a Government, we want to ensure that, through the NHS, we are supporting women who suffer miscarriages and their families. We will make sure that we have the right provision to support them, and that the NHS and wider health system are there for them when they need that help.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Dudley has high levels of deprivation and health inequality. That is why I am campaigning to bring healthcare to Dudley town high street. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can leverage the 10-year plan to reduce health inequalities in Dudley, and does he agree that we need a healthcare hub?
James Murray
I definitely agree that my hon. Friend is a formidable champion for her constituency. She is absolutely right to raise the importance of easily accessible healthcare in places such as high streets. I am keen to ensure that the 250 neighbourhood health centres we have announced—with 120 by 2030—are delivered as quickly as possible. That is part of our plan to ensure that healthcare gets right into every local neighbourhood and community. I look forward to discussing that further with my hon. Friend.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
May I have a meeting to discuss my parents, carers and babies Bill, which affords support to the Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme?
Mrs Hodgson
We know that the earliest stages of a child’s life are critical for their development, and the Government are committed to supporting families to give babies the best start in life. We are investing over £900 million in the Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme to create an integrated, accessible system of support for families. I particularly look forward to considering the merits of the private Member’s Bill that the right hon. Gentleman will present to Parliament, and I do indeed look forward to meeting him to discuss that further.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
There are half a million coeliac sufferers in the UK, but there is little understanding of the condition, which is massively underdiagnosed. Can I invite everyone here—even you, Mr Speaker—to the drop-in session that I am doing on Tuesday 16 June with the campaign? In particular, can the campaign have a follow-up meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), as she has been a long-standing advocate for the campaign and gets it?
James Murray
It is welcome that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour has raised this matter in the Chamber, drawing it to the attention of many Members on both sides of the House. I do not want to speak on behalf of my fellow Minister, but I am getting a nod from her—we will be happy to pick this up with my hon. Friend in future.
North Belfast: Violent Attack
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on reports of a serious violent attack in north Belfast involving a foreign national, and the implications for public safety, immigration enforcement and community cohesion.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Shortly after 10.30 pm last night, a man in his 40s was subjected to a horrific, sustained knife attack on a street in north Belfast. He is in hospital in a serious condition, having suffered very severe injuries. I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with him and his loved ones at what must be a time of unimaginable distress. The response from the Police Service of Northern Ireland was immediate. A man in his 30s was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. He remains in police custody, and the PSNI is continuing to investigate. It has declared this a critical incident.
Amid the horror of what happened, we also saw something extraordinary. When confronted with scenes of terrifying violence, members of the public did not walk on by. Instead, a number of them stepped forward and, at immense risk to their own safety, intervened to pull the assailant away and protect the victim until the police arrived. To those individuals, I would like to say this: you showed the very best of humanity, and you have the profound gratitude of this entire House.
This was a horrific and brutal attack, and the PSNI is seeking to provide support and reassurance to the local community. The Chief Constable, to whom I have spoken twice this morning, and his officers have our full, unwavering support as they pursue their inquiries. I would also like to repeat their appeal not to share or repost footage of the attack out of respect for the victim’s family.
I echo the words of the Prime Minister this morning that there is no place for such violence on our streets. All of us have a responsibility now to urge calm and let the police do their job.
Gavin Robinson
Mr Speaker, may I first thank you for granting this urgent question? The attempted murder in Belfast last night was chilling. What has been seen by thousands already across the country cannot be unseen. It was medieval—the systematic mutilation and attempted slaughter of a citizen of Belfast on our streets. My prayers are with the victim. I praise the brave man who, with a hurl in his hand, intervened to save his neighbour’s life, and this House should praise him too.
What occurred last night will have profound implications for community cohesion in this country. This needs to be a time for honesty, openness and truth. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his Government recognise that uncontrolled immigration needs to end? Will he confirm that the Government need to reassure and protect our population, who for too long have had their concerns ignored?
Knowing that the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and I share a concern that there could be violence, I express my wish and our collective desire for calm, but community cohesion lies on the precipice. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the actions last night in no way reflect or represent the values of our nation, and that the victim belongs in Belfast but the attacker does not? Having abused the privilege of our nation, the perpetrator—living in the UK under a five-year visa—needs to be convicted and deported on the first flight out with a one-way ticket.
Hilary Benn
First, the footage that many people have seen is, indeed, truly horrifying. On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, as he will be well aware, any foreign national who abuses the hospitality of this country to commit crimes should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them. We need to allow the criminal justice process to take place. On his question about net migration, as he will know, it is now down 82% from the peak reached under the previous Government.
I would most particularly echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in appealing for calm, because we have seen previously in Belfast in August 2024 and in Ballymena in 2025 what happens after horrific incidents. When there is disorder on the streets, it is the communities that suffer; it is innocent people who suffer and whose lives can be put at risk. That is why all political leaders—all—have such a solemn responsibility to urge the calm that I have called for in my response to his question today.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for asking this urgent question. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have visited Belfast on several occasions, and I have been struck by the incredible community spirit of that incredible city. What we witnessed last night was the worst of humanity but also the best of humanity; it is incredible that bystanders came to the aid of an individual suffering a brutal attack. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the PSNI will be given every resource it needs to conduct a swift investigation and ensure that all facts are shared with the public? Can we also ensure that those brave people who rushed to the aid of one of our own countrymen are given the honour and reward they deserve for representing the best of humanity?
Hilary Benn
I know from the conversations I have had with the Chief Constable this morning that the PSNI is, of course, as the House would expect, treating this with the utmost seriousness and pursuing its inquiries. We need to let the police investigation and, in due course, any criminal justice process take place. I am in favour of as much information being shared as soon as possible, and I can report to the House that the PSNI will be holding a press conference in approximately five and a half minutes’ time to provide more information about the incident. I join my hon. Friend in expressing the hope that the bravery we saw on the streets of north Belfast last night may, in due time, be recognised.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in condemning this dreadful attack. Last night’s attack in north Belfast was horrifying, appalling and deeply disturbing. This was a brutal act of violence that will send shockwaves through the local community and cause huge concern across the city, Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the victim, whose condition has been described as serious. I also pay tribute to the PSNI and the members of the public who displayed remarkable courage in stepping in to confront the attacker before the police arrived.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland must be given the time and space to carry out a full and thorough investigation, and those responsible must face the full force of the law. However, given the understandable public concern surrounding the incident, it is vital that the facts are established and we have the transparency that people deserve. Can the Secretary of State confirm the immigration status of the attacker? If, as is reported, the attacker is a foreign national, what steps will the Home Office take?
The facts should be put on the public record urgently to avoid speculation and prevent an information vacuum, which the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has warned about. If there have been failings on our borders, this will be yet another reminder that we do need stronger borders, which is why we believe it is time to leave the European convention on human rights. I encourage all who have evidence of the attack to come forward and support the PSNI in its investigation. I join the Secretary of State and all communities in condemning this horrific attack.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the tone in which he expressed them, because I think it is very important that we act responsibly in these circumstances. I agree, as I have already indicated, that information should be made available to the public. To answer his very specific question, the proper procedure is for the PSNI to be in contact with the Home Office, which I know it has been, in order to establish the facts around the individual. As I say, it is proper that the police provide those, as they are leading the investigation, and I anticipate that more information will be made available shortly by the PSNI. That is the right and proper approach. However, I do not agree with what he said about the European convention on human rights. It is very important. We have it because it protects the liberty of all of us.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The reports from Kinnaird Avenue are deeply distressing. My thoughts are with the victim and his family. I pay tribute to the residents who did the extraordinary thing of running towards danger, intervening to restrain the attacker and helping to protect another person’s life. I also thank the police officers and paramedics who responded with such speed and professionalism. Their actions almost certainly saved a life yesterday evening.
What I know of north Belfast is that it is a community that has worked hard to build trust across long-standing divides, and residents will be as horrified by this attack as the rest of us. Will the Secretary of State reassure residents that they will be kept safe in the days ahead, confirm that the PSNI has the support it needs to maintain a visible presence, and make it clear that no one should exploit one individual’s actions to cast suspicion on a whole community?
Hilary Benn
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said. I know that the PSNI is working hard to provide reassurance to the local community and to make arrangements for that reassurance to be visible in the face of those who, let us be frank in this House, will wish to use this terrible event to stir up trouble and disorder on the streets of Northern Ireland. I say that because we have seen it before. We do not wish to see it again. That is why all community leaders, politicians and others have such a responsibility to call for calm, as he so eloquently did.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his well-chosen and wise words, and for his answers. Tensions are inflamed, and I am aware of protests planned throughout my constituency. I am also aware that many of those who intend to attend do so not because they are frightened for their families alone, but because they feel that their fears are ignored when they make a good and grand statement. How can the Secretary of State and this Government ensure that people from Portavogie to Newtownards know that their right to peacefully protest is respected and, more than that, that their Government—my Government—will make changes for safety reasons as a matter of urgency?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Member in reasserting the right of every citizen of our country to protest peacefully, but we have seen in the past that there are those, provoked by others, who have sought to use that opportunity to then promote violence and disorder. I join the hon. Member in saying that of course everyone has the right to express their view through peaceful protest, but if we want to support the PSNI, the last thing people should be doing is stretching its resources across Northern Ireland to deal with protests that are not going to help anyone, and that are not going to assist in the furtherance of the investigation so that the perpetrator can be brought to face justice. That is the way we do things in our country, is it not?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
We are all shocked by the sheer savagery of this attack. Indeed, the only bright spot in this orgy of violence was the brave intervention of local citizens, whose courage we salute. What I want to know, and what I know that my constituents want to hear, is what will be done to stop the importation of an alien culture that thinks it is appropriate to try to behead someone within the United Kingdom.
On the immigration status of this person, did they hold a visa before they came to the United Kingdom? Did they obtain a visa having come illegally to the United Kingdom? I think we are entitled to know. This House should be getting its information from the Secretary of State, not from a chief constable’s press conference. The House is entitled to know, because truth and transparency are the greatest antidote to rising tensions, so can we have the answers?
Hilary Benn
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman used the words “alien culture”; what exactly is he referring to? What the British people have had enough of is anyone, from wherever they come and whatever their background, who seeks to commit violence against citizens of the United Kingdom. That is what we together are strongly opposed to.
There is a proper procedure that needs to be followed in relation to the release of information. It is a live investigation and it is right and proper that the police lead on that, which is why it is the police who have been in touch with the Home Office and will provide further information. As soon as I am able to update the House, I will do so. I am in favour of as much information as possible being provided, once process has been followed to make sure that it can be confirmed.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
While I agree with virtually everything the Secretary of State said in his opening response, I really am baffled by his refusal to share with the House a piece of simple information. Did this person come legally into this country and have a five-year visa because he came legally, or was he given the visa after entering the country illegally? The information will come out sooner or later, and we have learned from similar terrible incidents that the longer it is withheld, the worse the rumour mill goes into action.
Hilary Benn
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, but it is very important in these circumstances to be absolutely sure about the facts before they are released. The proper vehicle for doing that is the PSNI being in touch with the Home Office, which is what has been happening this morning. As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, the police originally said they believed the perpetrator to be of one nationality, but it may well turn out that he is in fact of another nationality. That demonstrates the point I am trying to put to the House: it is important that the police lead on that so that the full facts can come out, and then they can be made available to the House and to the country.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Of course, the Secretary of State will know the answer to this question: did the assailant enter the United Kingdom as an illegal migrant or asylum seeker?
Hilary Benn
Until I am in a position, by talking the—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question; will he do me the courtesy of allowing me to answer it? Until I am in a position to have that information confirmed, I cannot confirm it to the House. As soon as I can, I will, but, as I have already explained, the PSNI is leading on answering the very legitimate question that the hon. Gentleman has asked.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) described the incident as “medieval”. It was not just medieval: what we saw happen on the streets of the United Kingdom was pure evil. While tribute has been paid to those members of the general public who stepped in and the emergency services that responded, may I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that those members of the general public who stepped in will be recognised and will not be persecuted or prosecuted for the actions they took in regard to attacking that individual? I encourage the Secretary of State to come forward and fill the vacuum of information, because he knows more than he is telling the House at this minute about this incident.
Hilary Benn
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was an act of pure evil. I am surprised he suggests that there is any possibility that those who came to the aid of the victim should be at risk of prosecution, because they were trying—[Interruption.] Judging by the footage, they were trying to save the victim when the attacker was trying to inflict great harm upon him. My judgment, having looked at that, is that what they did was proportionate and fair, but that is for others to judge. It is important that they are recognised. I have already indicated to the House that as soon as I have information that is confirmed and that I can be sure of, I will inform the House.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Tens of thousands of people are horrified at the circulation online of the video that the Secretary of State has alluded to. He quite rightly congratulates the members of the public who intervened—whether it was a hurl bat or a cricketing bat, they took action—but as tension rises, we now need to see Government action to restrict and inhibit people arriving in this country illegally, some of whom carry out actions like we saw on the streets of Belfast last night.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the action that the Government are taking to deal with illegal migration. I have also made clear to the House the steps that we take if anyone, however they came to the country, or whether they are from this country, commits a criminal offence: they will face due process. Any foreign national, regardless of how they came, who abuses our hospitality and commits crimes can expect to be deported at the end of their sentence.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My thoughts are very much with the victim of the horrific attack last night, and I echo the calls for calm in our communities. Communities in Northern Ireland are angry: they are demanding answers and they deserve answers, but sadly I do not feel they are getting those answers today. It is not lost on the people of north Belfast who in this place today is speaking up for working-class communities that are very concerned about uncontrolled immigration and the fact that mayors will not even say how many houses they have full of immigrants.
Was this individual known to the authorities? How many others from the same country are currently being accommodated in Northern Ireland? How did they enter the UK? What actions are this Government taking to prevent the abuse of our immigration system, including via the land border with the Republic of Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Member that the public are right to be angry about what they witnessed in that appalling video and what they will have heard about the attack that took place. I will endeavour to come back to her on some of the questions she has asked but, as I have already indicated to the House, other answers will be provided in due course once the facts have been checked. It is really important that the facts are checked before information is given to the House, because I would not want to stand here and say something that turns out not to be the case. Checking the facts thoroughly is a responsibility on me before I inform the House, and that is what I intend to do.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I echo the sentiments of other Members and send my thoughts and prayers to the victim of this horrific attack. May I also extend my gratitude to those in the local community who bravely intervened? We must all encourage calm at this most troubling time and prevent tensions from being further inflamed. To that end, does the Secretary of State agree that we must not let the heinous actions of one person be taken as an opportunity to taint an entire community? We should not and must not attempt to fill the gaps in the story while the police investigation continues to deliver justice to the victim and their family.
Hilary Benn
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think back to those who were attacked in the wake of the terrible events in Southport and in Ballymena. We know that in Northern Ireland certain individuals were attacked who had nothing to do with any of it, simply because of the colour of their skin. That is not what this country is about. We must identify an attacker and follow due process in due course after investigation, but we must not cast aspersions on a whole community. Many people from all backgrounds contribute so much to our national life.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Following on from that question, I also give my deepest sympathies to the victim and his family, and pay tribute to the bystanders who intervened in this horrific case. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as he has already expressed, crime and heroes come in all different hues and colours? We saw that on the train in Cambridgeshire and with the stabber of the Saudi student in the picturesque streets of Cambridge last year. It does not matter which background people come from. It is the responsibility of Members of this House to temper the inflammatory remarks so that we do not see actions like those last week in Southampton, where innocent police officers have had to go into hiding.
Hilary Benn
We all have a responsibility, by our actions and our words, not to inflame and, as I indicated in answering the original question from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), we all have a responsibility to plead for calm in these circumstances. That is the right thing to do on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Calm is essential after this horrific, brutal attack—we all know that. The Secretary of State has referred to further information coming out as we speak. Will he commit to return to the House, later today if possible, to update us on the important information about the suspect, and any other information?
Hilary Benn
I am very happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that I will report to the House in an appropriate form as soon as I am able to do so.
Middle East
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
With permission, I will make a statement on the middle east—first on the Iran conflict and Lebanon, and secondly on the situation in Palestine. May I apologise to the shadow Foreign Secretary, to you and to the House for the delay in sending across a copy of the statement?
This weekend, we saw worrying and dangerous escalation, with Lebanese Hezbollah continuing to fire into northern Israel, Israeli strikes against southern areas of Beirut, and the direct exchange of missiles between Iran and Israel, presenting one of the most dangerous moments since the fragile ceasefire was agreed. Over the last 48 hours, we have made clear the need for urgent de-escalation, because a resumption of conflict is in no one’s interest. I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister on Sunday evening to convey that point directly.
Both Israel and Iran have indicated that they have ended their strikes, which is welcome, but there was some reporting, just before I entered the Chamber, of strikes again this morning. It is vital that we have a diplomatic way forward to end the conflict in Lebanon, reopen the strait of Hormuz, restore regional stability and prevent Iran from ever developing or obtaining a nuclear weapon.
As we have previously made clear in the House, Israel’s recent escalation in Lebanon was reckless and disproportionate, and it deepened the humanitarian crisis that has already seen more than a million Lebanese people driven from their homes and thousands killed. We strongly condemn Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel, including its northern communities. At Iran’s instigation, Hezbollah—a proscribed organisation—is dragging Lebanon into a war that is against the interests of its people and its Government. It must end these dangerous attacks and disarm. The US-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon must be properly observed by all parties.
We want to see a swift and successful conclusion to the ongoing talks between the US and Iran. We need an agreement that gets the strait fully open with no tolls or charges. Last week, I discussed this issue with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in China and Foreign Minister Jaishankar in India. Every country has a stake in freedom of navigation, and the UK will continue to speak up for that across the world. In partnership with France and other countries, we stand ready to play our part once agreement is reached to support de-mining and provide reassurance to shipping through a multilateral maritime mission. With cost of living pressures at home, we need a lasting settlement that delivers peace and stability in the region and the full restoration of global trade.
Let me turn to Palestine. Nine months ago, at the UN General Assembly, I confirmed the UK’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. We did so, alongside partners, in recognition of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and to defend the viability of the two-state solution. We did so as part of a wave of international diplomatic energy in support of peace in the middle east. It was a crucial moment of hope that we could end the violence and suffering and begin to build a better future of lasting peace and security for Palestine, Israel and the wider region, but today the situation is bleak and the viability of the two-state solution remains in grave peril.
Let me turn to Gaza. The ceasefire remains formally in place, but it is being regularly violated. Since October, more than 900 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed. Some 1.9 million Palestinians remain displaced and dependent on humanitarian aid, and aid is down this year, not up. Some 90% of water and sanitation infrastructure has been destroyed and not rebuilt. There are families without shelter and a public health crisis, with rodent infestations and communicable disease, and we are currently at barely half the level of the 4,200 trucks a week promised in the 20-point plan.
Israel’s registration law continues to severely restrict the operations of international non-governmental organisations, while key crossings remain closed. It is a total moral outrage that children are still going hungry while food that they need rots on shelves because aid agencies cannot get it in. Meanwhile, Hamas decommissioning has not yet started, and they retain a tight hold on areas of Gaza. Instead of the phased withdrawal of Israeli troops, Gazans are restricted to just 40% of the territory and are unable to access their land beyond the yellow line.
We urgently need new international energy, new pressure and new action to resuscitate the 20-point plan. For the UK, that means pressure in three priority areas. First, increased aid is urgent and must be unconditional. Despite all the challenges, UK aid is making a difference on the ground. Last year, we provided more than £80 million of humanitarian and early recovery funding, with funding protected again this year, enabling 650,000 people to receive food and improving access to water, sanitation and hygiene for 300,000 people.
UK support for mine clearance has enabled 45 acres of land to be made safe for community use and helped to clear 24 key sites, including medical facilities. Today, I can announce a further £1 million to support mine-clearance efforts, but some UK aid is still stuck in warehouses, including in Jordan and Egypt. Humanitarian support is a fundamental right—it cannot be bartered against other aspects of the peace plan. The Netanyahu Government must recognise their urgent humanitarian responsibility to open crossings and end the arbitrary restrictions so that the UN, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and international non-governmental organisations can fulfil their lifesaving mandates.
Secondly, we continue to press for the decommissioning of Hamas weapons to get under way. Hamas must destroy their terrorist infrastructure and weapons production sites as a first step towards full demilitarisation, and we have offered UK technical expertise to support this. Meanwhile, Israel must deliver on its commitments to withdraw.
Thirdly, we need practical support and the access that was promised for the transitional Palestinian National Committee. There are still too many obstacles in its path, and it is still not operating within Gaza itself, which makes it easier for Hamas to retain their hold. We have offered practical support to the committee as it endeavours to fulfil its mandate, and we will lead international calls to support it in co-ordination with the Palestinian Authority, because Palestine should be run by Palestinians.
That brings me to the west bank. Following the ceasefire agreement, I warned that sustained peace would not be possible without a comparable effort to protect the viability of Palestinian statehood and rights in the west bank. Instead, we have seen the opposite. Last week, a seven-month-old baby—his name was Sam Abu Haikal—was killed in his mother’s arms after the Israel defence forces opened fire on a family car in south Hebron. The UK supports the calls for an immediate and transparent investigation and robust accountability. Over the weekend, a gunman in Israel opened fire, with one killed and five injured—an attack that, shockingly, was applauded by Hamas.
We have also seen rising and incredibly disturbing settler violence, with Palestinian families and communities driven from their homes, brutally beaten while farming their own land. There have already been 950 violent incidents this year; in April, settlers shot dead two Palestinians while attacking a school, one of whom was a boy of 14. The UK condemns this shocking violence that terrorises Palestinians, and many Israelis are horrified by what they are seeing from settler extremists. The Netanyahu Government have condemned some settler violence, but that rings hollow when there is scant accountability and when the agenda of the hard-line settlers has now become intertwined with the approach of this Israeli Cabinet.
As such, let me set out what new action this Government will take. First, I am announcing a new wave of sanctions to target the networks that are supporting this violence—organisations including the Farms Association, which fundraises for illegal outposts that act as strongholds for settler aggression; Ahavat Gilad, which serves as the Farms Association’s financial conduit; and Artzenu, which has fundraised for military equipment for armed settler squads. This is the fourth package of sanctions against extremist Israeli settlers under this Labour Government. We have targeted some of the most notorious individuals, the most significant settler entities, and the extremist figures in the Israeli Cabinet who are inciting these acts. Today’s measures mean that the UK is second to none among international partners in targeting those who are facilitating and inciting settler violence.
We are also going further. On 22 May, the Prime Minister led a group of other world leaders in warning businesses not to bid for construction tenders for E1 or other settlement developments. However, this is not just about construction contracts, so today, alongside the Department for Business and Trade, I have strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clear and unambiguous that British citizens and businesses should not conduct any economic or financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements. Alongside my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary, I have also written today to the Charity Commission for England and Wales, requesting that it open an investigation into evidence of UK charities having links to illegal settlements. The Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), will meet the commission’s chief executive officer tomorrow, because no UK charity should be supporting or enabling these breaches of international law.
The principles we are acting on are, I believe, widely supported across this House. We believe that settlements are a fundamental barrier to peace and a flagrant breach of international law, and that violent settler groups should not be profiting from the land they have seized from Palestinians. We also believe that we must continue to distinguish and protect trade with people and businesses across the state of Israel, trade that reflects long-standing and important ties between our countries and communities. We will continue to co-ordinate our approach with close allies and look at further concrete steps to counter settlement expansion and promote peace and security.
Finally, let me address our support for Palestinian governance. We are keeping up the pressure on the Palestinian Authority to deliver their vital reform commitments on education, welfare payments and elections. We are expanding direct practical help to the PA to reform and deliver effective government for their people, drawing on the deep expertise of the UK envoy for PA governance, Lord Michael Barber.
However, the PA face an enormous fiscal and healthcare crisis because the Israeli Government have a stranglehold on the Palestinian economy, including by withholding $5 billion of Palestinian tax revenue. That means that schools and health facilities struggle to stay open for more than one or two days a week. An effective PA is directly in Israel’s interest, so it is both utterly wrong and incredibly short-sighted for the Netanyahu Government to seek to undermine them at every turn. The UK has stepped up our efforts in support, alongside our support for reforms. This year, we provided the PA with funding that helped 5,300 health workers to sustain frontline services. Today, I can announce that we will provide at least £10 million further to support the Palestinian Authority to pay salaries over 2026, bolstering their ability to function and helping dedicated health professionals to do their essential work across hospitals, clinics and maternity services. Our focus will be to build more effective, more democratic and more accountable governance, and to reinforce the unity of the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as inseparable pillars of the state of Palestine.
International pressure and partnership on the ground have been vital over the past 12 months, so later this week, I will travel to Paris along with other Foreign Ministers in advance of the peacebuilding conference. That conference will bring together Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups alongside international partners dedicated to advancing the two-state solution, because the momentum of last year must be reinvigorated for the sake of peace and security for all.
I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is now over 100 days since this conflict began, yet Iran continues to pose the most dangerous and significant threat to the middle east, peace and security and the interests of Britain and our allies and friends in the region. In recent days, we have seen the most appalling Iranian attack in Kuwait, causing injury and death at Kuwait International airport, and we have seen Iran launch missiles towards Israel. It continues to obstruct the movement of goods through the strait of Hormuz, seeking to hold us all to economic ransom; it refuses to end its nuclear weapons programme; it carries on oppressing its citizens, having butchered thousands already this year; and it continues to sponsor and support terrorist proxies throughout the region, causing bloodshed from Lebanon to Yemen and Gaza. It has shown no interest at all in pursuing peace, and it laughs in the face of sanctions.
No one in this House should have any shred of sympathy for the Iranian regime, which has caused so much terror and has blood on its hands. Iran has been the root cause of immense suffering in the middle east for far too long, in places where it has no business whatsoever—as the President of Lebanon has said in recent days, Lebanon is not Iran’s country. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether British assets in the region were involved in any interception efforts over the weekend, and what does this latest attack mean for our defence posture in the region?
It is all very well for the Government to call on Iran to exercise restraint, but that has never stopped it from carrying out its hostile attacks, which keep on increasing. Will there be any material consequences for Iran from Britain, such as a new wave of sanctions to further ratchet up the pressure? We on the Conservative Benches have been calling for new sanctions to prevent senior figures in the despotic Iranian regime parking their wealth in London, and to ensure that Britain cannot be a sanctuary for the forces of repression if those linked to the regime seek to flee Iran. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to taking both those actions?
As I said in the House last week, Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah must be disarmed. It has caused immense suffering in Lebanon and Israel. We need to see UN Security Council resolution 1701 implemented in full, and Hezbollah must comply. When I raised that in the House last week, the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said in response that
“it must be the Lebanese Government who disarm Hezbollah.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 1189.]
He is absolutely right, but he did not say what support Britain is giving to the Lebanese Government now, because we all know that they cannot do it on their own. Are the Government going beyond the traditional support that Britain has offered the Lebanese armed forces—for example by offering technical and intelligence assistance? The Foreign Secretary said nothing in her statement on disarming Hezbollah, so can she tell the House what the Government are doing?
More broadly, we hope that the ceasefires in the region can lead to a sustainable end to the conflict without a resumption of fighting, but we all know that the situation remains incredibly precarious. Specifically on the Iran ceasefire, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what involvement, if any, the Government are having behind the scenes in mediation efforts? Has she personally seen the outline of the apparently “close” peace deal or had any input into it? Has she discussed it at all with Secretary Rubio?
The Foreign Secretary has today announced a package of measures on the west bank, Gaza and the 20-point peace plan. We all want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. In particular, she has made important points on aid and the fact that humanitarian aid and support are not getting through. What critical discussions have the Government been having with the parties involved to see progress in this area? Can she tell the House what the changing guidance on trade will mean in practice? What are the practical effects of the sanctions announced today?
The Foreign Secretary has mentioned asking the Charity Commission to investigate certain charities. What evidence has prompted that particular request? Will she be asking the Charity Commission to investigate charities in the UK that are supporting Iran and terrorism? Is the £10 million for the Palestinian Authority new money or is it from existing resources that are already allocated? Can she update the House on the steps being taken to reform the PA and stop the pay-to-slay mechanisms?
Iran is not alone; it is backed by the authoritarian axis that we all speak about too much in this House. The Foreign Secretary has just been to one of those states—China—in a desperate attempt to get economic crumbs to bail out Labour from its disastrous handling of the economy. The House is fully aware of China’s role in supporting Iran, including by providing offensive capabilities. The FCDO press release following the Foreign Secretary’s visit states that she
“stressed the urgency of reopening the Strait of Hormuz without tolls or charges, preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran and maintaining stability in the wider Middle East.”
Did China’s Foreign Minister show any willingness to put pressure on Iran to reopen the strait and to stop the illegal and reckless attacks that we are seeing? Did the Foreign Secretary raise concerns over China’s enabling of Iran’s offensive attacks?
There was no mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement or the press release from the Foreign Office of Jimmy Lai, which raises significant questions for his family. Did she call for his immediate release and for an end to his politically motivated show trial? Did she threaten consequences if that did not happen?
Finally, and without wanting to segue on to something too far away from the middle east, the Foreign Office also claims that the Foreign Secretary urged China “to end economic support” for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but will any undertakings be forthcoming? China is a critical enabler of Putin’s war, and we cannot simply turn a blind eye to that.
Yvette Cooper
Let me begin with the points that the shadow Foreign Secretary raised on Iran. We agree, I think, on the dangers and risks from Iran. We have seen the threats and the unprovoked strikes against the Gulf and against our Gulf partners, as well as attacks on civilian infrastructure and energy infrastructure and the operations and attacks through proxies across the region and more widely, including the attacks on Israel. That is why we have extensive sanctions against Iran, and why we have always been clear that under no circumstances must Iran be allowed to get or develop nuclear weapons. The UK, along with France and Germany, led the approach to the snapback restoration of sanctions against Iran in the autumn at the United Nations. We have also, because we recognise some of the threats from not just Iran but other state-backed organisations—including threats here in the UK—been working intensively, led by the Home Office, to draw up state threats legislation that we hope will pass swiftly through the House.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the business advice. There can be no doubt that it is not just about the construction of the E1 settlements—we must discourage any settlement and any involvement of businesses in the construction, as several world leaders have said—but goes more widely. In the business advice, we are clear that we are against any economic or financial activity in those illegal settlements, because they undermine the prospects for peace and security for Israel and Palestine alike.
The shadow Foreign Secretary returned to the potential for an agreement about the strait. We desperately want to see an agreement. We are keeping in close touch with all those involved, including the mediators. I have had many discussions with Secretary of State Rubio. We are not direct participants in the negotiations—that is directly for the US and Iran and the mediators—but we are doing anything we can do to support that process and to pursue a settlement that ensures not simply a partial opening of the strait, but the full recognition of the principle of freedom of navigation and the underpinning of international law. As a maritime trading nation, we should always champion that principle. I have raised that issue directly in China and in India, and I specifically discussed with them the importance of maintaining unconditional support for freedom of navigation. In those discussions, including in China, they have recognised the importance of having no tolls on the strait of Hormuz. I have urged them to put any pressure they can on Iran to comply and to come to an agreement.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Jimmy Lai. Of course I raised Jimmy Lai. We want to see him released urgently, and we have made that position clear in this House, and I made that position clear again with the Chinese authorities. We will continue to do so. I will also be keeping in close touch with Jimmy Lai’s family, because we take the case so seriously.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Russia and Ukraine. I have to be honest that we have a difference of view with China on this one. We have been clear about the importance of our total solidarity with Ukraine and its people, because ultimately, Russia’s threat to Ukraine’s security is also a threat to Europe’s security and the UK’s security. I have made those points clear to the Chinese Government. As part of my visit, I also raised those issues directly with the Indian Government, who also take a different view from the UK on this crucial issue of Russia and Ukraine. We will continue to make those points.
It is important, as part of our security, that we engage with some of the biggest countries around the world on those global security issues. It is not simply about economic or trading relationships; it is about our security. Our security is strengthened if we engage with, for example, China on these issues, whether on the strait or on issues to do with Russia and Ukraine. We will raise those differences and disagreements not only because it is in line with our principles and in line with our commitment to international law, but because it is in the interests of our security and keeping people safe at home.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I share the Government’s condemnation of the illegal settlements that are systematically destroying any prospect of a Palestinian state. Of course, settlements do not build themselves; they require money, insurance and trade, and I therefore welcome the changed guidance to British citizens that they should not conduct any economic or financial activity in the settlements, but the question really is, “What happens if they do?” Currently, the truth is that British companies are bankrolling annexations one settlement at a time. If the Government can recognise that settlements are illegal, why do they not just issue a ban on all trade in goods and services with the settlements, rather than more guidance? Are we in danger of doing too little, too late?
Yvette Cooper
We are clear about the fact that settlements are illegal and are undermining peace. We do not want trade with illegal settlements, and we want to deter support for those settlements. Such support includes financial engagement, and it also includes the charitable organisations that should not be engaging either. That is why we have set out new sanctions today, and stronger business advice. Of course we distinguish between illegal settlements and trade with businesses and organisations across Israel, and we will also continue to work with allies across the world on this. I recognise the points that my right hon. Friend has made, and I know that countries that have looked at this have also found it hard to deal with some of these further issues in practice, but we will continue to work with allies to establish what practical arrangements can ensure that we stand up for international law and against the illegal settlements that are endangering peace.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
The steps announced by the Government today are important and right. British businesses and charities have to know that engaging with or sustaining settlements in the west bank is illegal and unacceptable. The updated business risk guidance is therefore correct, but it is overdue—the Dutch Government issued a similar discouragement notice in 2006, 20 years ago—and also insufficient. The Government should have used this moment to announce specific sanctions on British firms that enable or finance the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. Will they move to review sanctions much more regularly and bring new packages to the House every month, and will the Foreign Secretary finally heed Liberal Democrat calls to ban all trade in goods and services with the illegal settlements?
Last September, the Government took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. That was the right thing to do, and a step that Liberal Democrats have been advocating for almost a decade. However, the Israeli Security Cabinet is moving fast to expand legal rights for land purchases in the west bank, while settler violence towards Palestinians continues. The UK’s complicity in enabling the growth of illegal settlements runs deep. On Sunday, the Great Israeli Real Estate Event is coming to London. Properties in illegal settlements in Gush Etzion are being marketed alongside properties in Israeli cities. This is Palestinian land being advertised, bartered and sold on the streets of our capital. Will the Government intervene to ban the event unless assurances can be given that no properties in illegal settlements will be advertised?
Let me return to the subject of the wider region. Hezbollah has continued to strike northern Israel, but the latest exchange of fire between Israel and Iran following Israeli strikes on Beirut shows just how precarious the regional ceasefire is. Talks on moving towards a peace settlement cannot be derailed. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that actions by the Israel Defence Forces in Lebanon, directed by Netanyahu, are materially undermining the chances of reaching a wider peace settlement? What actions are the Government taking to address that?
Liberal Democrats have long called for the proscription in the UK of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Government have now committed themselves to legislating during the current Session, so will they engage with Members on both sides of the House to see whether this legislation can be put forward immediately and fast-tracked into law?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, including his comments on the importance of the recognition of the state of Palestine. We should always be clear about the fact that there is no alternative to a two-state solution if any peace and security are to be established in the region, which is why it is crucial that we work to maintain the prospects of such a solution now.
The hon. Member referred to the sanctions regimes. We are not just looking to continue to increase the number of targeted sanctions, but looking at potential ways in which to strengthen the overall sanctions regime. We have been one of the leading countries in the world in respect of sanctions relating to the illegal settlements. As the hon. Member will know, we are one of the few countries that have sanctioned individual Israeli Cabinet Ministers who have been inciting the extremist behaviour and supporting the settlements. In recent weeks we have also seen the most shameful behaviour on the part of one of those Cabinet Ministers, involving the Gaza flotilla and the treatment of people there.
The hon. Member raised the wider issue of going further in respect of the trade issues. Let me repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry): we have made it very clear that we do not believe there should be trade with the illegal settlements. We have given clear and extremely strong advice, and we will continue to work with allies across the world on the most effective way to maintain this. It is also important that we differentiate between trade with illegal settlements and trade with businesses and organisations across Israel.
As for the threats from Hezbollah, it has been devastating for the people of Lebanon to see Hezbollah, as an Iran-backed proxy, hijack their chances of peace. However, we—including my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, who has raised the matter in the House as well—have also expressed our deep concern about the Israeli escalation in Lebanon, and the dangerous impact of that on the Lebanese people. We want the settlement between the US and Iran to be swiftly reached, and no one should be undermining or destabilising the prospects for that settlement.
Finally, the hon. Member mentioned state threats in the UK. I can tell him that we are moving at a rapid pace to address that. As he will know, this is something about which I personally feel very strongly, having commissioned last year the advice from Jonathan Hall which led to the recommendation that we need new legislation to protect us against state threats. We will be introducing that legislation swiftly, and will be seeking to work with other parties to try to get it through Parliament as rapidly as possible.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Last week, tenders for the expansion of the unlawful E1 settlements were launched, involving nearly 3,500 housing units, directly flouting international law and also putting the viability of a Palestinian state at risk. Moreover, as we have heard, on the 14th of this month there will be a real estate deal in London, which is about marketing the purchase of Palestinian land in the occupied west bank, including the Gush Etzion settlement—again, flouting international law, in this city. I welcome this morning’s updated and strengthened guidance warning businesses not to engage, and I welcome the additional sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has outlined, but we know that at least 43 businesses have been previously engaged in the expansion of settlements. What will be the consequences if they decide to ignore the guidance, and go ahead with becoming involved in these illegal expansions?
Yvette Cooper
I would warn any businesses against associating themselves with potential breaches of international law, and also against becoming involved in a process that is undermining peace and security for the region. As for the operations in London, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), we will pursue any issues that we can raise relating to anything that might be in breach of the law. However, I think that organisations, including businesses—and particularly charities, in respect of which we have additional enforcement powers—have a moral responsibility not to support the illegal settlements that are not only in breach of international law but are undermining regional security and peace.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I agreed with the Government’s decision, which I supported from day one, to stay out of this totally counterproductive war. I hope that we have all learnt our lesson and that we are never going to listen to liberal imperialists or neocons, with their endless wars over regime change in the middle east, all of which have been a disaster—Syria, Libya, Iraq and now Iran.
What influence do we have on the Trump Administration? They are the only people who Netanyahu cares about. I can see the wonderful Justice Secretary, a chum of the Vice President, sitting next to the Foreign Secretary. Is there any way the Foreign Secretary can convince the Trump Administration in her conversations with Secretary of State Rubio that, although we are not naive about Hezbollah and Hamas—we know they are horrible organisations—we could at least start to detach the Palestinian people from these organisations if the Trump Administration were absolutely firm that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the west bank must stop now? We have to stop the total destruction of Gaza and the appalling suffering. We have read this very day about people in Gaza getting cancer and dying in agony. What influence do we actually have on the Trump Administration?
Yvette Cooper
The Father of the House is right. We took a different view to that of the US and Israel at the start of this conflict, and we did not get drawn into offensive operations against Iran. We did take defensive action to support Gulf partners when they were under attack from Iran, but we took a different view at the start of this conflict, and I believe that was the right thing for the UK to do and was in the UK’s interest.
The US remains a close security partner and ally, and I have many conversations with Secretary of State Marco Rubio about a whole range of different issues, not just in the middle east but across the world. We were involved in many discussions with the US in the run-up to the adoption of the 20-point plan and the Gaza peace process last autumn, and it was US leadership that got the final agreement to the 20-point plan. However, the plan is at risk of falling apart right now, which is why we are engaging with not just the US but partners across the world. We will be having the peacebuilding conference in Paris on Friday, because we need to restore the energy and commitment to the 20-point plan, which is being flouted repeatedly and dangerously across Gaza every single day. We urgently need humanitarian aid and support for families in Gaza, but we also need the restoration of energy behind the 20-point plan.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the measures that she has announced today, but I want to come back to her strong advice to businesses that we should not conduct any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements, rather than having an outright ban. We know a ban is possible, because we did it for illegally occupied territories in Ukraine, and we know it is the right thing to do, because when it comes to trading in ivory, firearms or narcotics, we ban it outright. We know that anything less than a total ban risks the UK aiding Israel’s repeated violations of international law. Is it not time to move beyond strong guidance and advice by taking meaningful, proportionate action and having an outright ban?
Yvette Cooper
We share the view that the settlements are illegal and undermine peace. We want to prevent trade with illegal settlements and discourage anyone, including UK businesses as well as those from around the world, from supporting those settlements. That is why we are using our sanctions regime to target some of the issues around the settlements, and why we are looking at other ways of strengthening our sanctions regime. We will continue to work with allies across the world on this matter. Other countries have also looked at these issues and what more can be done, and have found that some of the practicalities are complex in this area, but we will continue to work with allies.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
President Trump spoke to the BBC yesterday and said that his relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu was such that:
“If I tell him to do something, he does it.”
It is all very well for the British Government to make contingency plans, such as with the multinational planning conference at Permanent Joint Headquarters Northwood at the end of April, but that will be a mere displacement activity if there is no peace deal. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to encourage Washington to demand restraint from Tel Aviv in Lebanon, to help bring about a peace deal and an end to the blockade of the strait of Hormuz?
Yvette Cooper
We have continual discussions with the US Secretary of State, and we have continual engagement with the US Administration on the support for reaching a peace settlement. That includes the full and unconditional reopening of the strait of Hormuz and, of course, preventing Iran from getting a settlement. We have also discussed with the US the importance of the ceasefire in Lebanon, and of not allowing what is happening in Lebanon to destabilise the wider peace agreement. I have had those discussions with the US Administration, and it is notable that the US brokered the ceasefire in Lebanon. That continues to be violated, but it is essential that the ceasefire is respected and holds in order to make it possible to get the wider settlement in place.
The multinational maritime mission is explicitly designed to help restore global shipping as rapidly as possible; it is not a substitute for a peace settlement. We need to get the settlement in place and commitments to the reopening of the strait, but then we need practical measures, including reassurance on shipping and de-mining, to make sure that it opens.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
Israeli Ministers have reconfirmed what we have all known: it is their intention to settle Jewish settlers in southern Lebanon, as they have done in the west bank and are doing in Gaza. The E1 project will bury the idea of a Palestinian state forever. This is something that many of us have known for a long time, and we are seeing—in real time—ethnic cleansing and war crimes being committed as part of the greater Israel project.
This Sunday, there will be a real estate event on UK soil that will openly sell land in the illegal west bank settlement. It is really sad that the shadow Foreign Secretary talked a lot about Iran but did not have a word of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people. Can we please put an outright ban on trade with settlements, stop selling arms to Israel and strengthen the International Court of Justice? Its judges are routinely being threatened by the US Administration.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that the Justice Secretary brought in new restrictions on arms sales to Israel because of our concerns about ensuring that we always stand up for international law. We have been one of the world’s leading countries in introducing sanctions, including on individual Israeli Government Ministers. She refers to some of the concerns about expanding illegal settlements, and I agree with her about the dangers of the E1 project, which is clearly illegal and damaging to peace.
I am also troubled by some of the comments that we have heard, including from Prime Minister Netanyahu, about Israel trying to take over 70% of Gaza and having a permanent divide there. That would fundamentally flout and overturn the 20-point plan that Israel signed up to, alongside Hamas and countries across the world. It is vital that the Israelis respect the 20-point plan and withdraw from Gaza as part of the agreement. That is why we want to restore the international effort and energy to implement the 20-point plan.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Those clinging to life in Gaza and scratching an existence in the west bank merely occupy different circles within the depths of the inferno. Any relief is dependent on the policy of Israel, and that in turn would require pressure from its principal ally, the United States of America. What is the Secretary of State’s estimate of any prospect of that?
Yvette Cooper
We need Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian aid to Gaza. It is just horrifying that families are going without the food and medical support that they desperately need. I have discussed this many times, including with the US Administration and of course directly with Israel. Immediately after the 20-point plan, there was an increase in aid as a result of the international commitment, but since the start of this year that has plummeted again. That is why I believe we need the international energy restored behind the 20-point plan and the commitments made as part of it to get aid back in.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I want to thank the Minister for the middle east for agreeing with me last week when I referred to the forced displacement of people by Israel as a war crime, and I am grateful for that. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her sterling work in raising the issue of charities, which was reflected in the statement.
I want to press the Foreign Secretary when she says that
“businesses should not conduct any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements.”
There must be consequences for that. Those activities are criminal, and we have the architecture in this country with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. What conversations is the Foreign Secretary having to ensure that the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority are giving guidance to their members? Importantly, what conversations is she having with the National Crime Agency, because until such time as those companies are prosecuted and convicted of their crimes, I am afraid this is not going to bite?
Yvette Cooper
We have clearly set out the strengthened business advice, but we are also strengthening our sanctions regime to directly target organisations, including international organisations, deliberately facilitating and funnelling resources to illegal settlements where we have seen really disturbing settler violence. We are looking at ways to strengthen our sanctions regime, and we will go further in setting out new sanctions and pursuing sanctions enforcement.
We will also continue to work with allies across the world, because this is an issue that no one country can tackle alone. We have been leading on action across the world, but given that this trade is very often international in scale, the more that we can build international consensus around this, the more impact we can have.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I do not seek to offend the Foreign Secretary, but how can we lecture businesses in the United Kingdom about morality when we are witnessing a genocide? Even if they are considering only the risk of a genocide, the Government should take steps to prevent that, such as cutting off all trade, and we still supply components to the F-35 programme. We recently witnessed five British citizens being tortured, sexually assaulted and dumped in Greece. A seven-month-old child was murdered in the hands of his mother, and no doubt an investigation will conclude that that child was a shield. Why does she not sanction the leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and what will the Government do to prevent this show business sale, in London on Sunday, of illegal properties there?
Yvette Cooper
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), we will pursue any angle we can against operations taking place here in the UK. It is important to be clear that we have very much led the way with the sanctions that we have imposed. Most countries obviously do not sanction individual members of the Israeli Government, but we have done so because we were so appalled by the incitement by those individuals.
As the hon. Member will know, one of those Ministers was involved in the shocking flaunting and just the most disgraceful promoting of what were really disturbing ways of treating human beings on the flotilla that did not meet the basic standards of humanity. He also referred, as I described in my statement, to the really distressing case of a baby just seven months old being killed. That is why we will continue to pursue sanctions, and we will continue to pursue other options with allies across the world.
The other thing we need to do is build the same sense of international consensus that we had in the autumn on the 20-point plan for Gaza. There was only partial consensus on the west bank at that time. We and other countries recognised the state of Palestine as part of that, so there was that strong commitment, and the 20-point plan refers to the transition to the Palestinian Authority and links with the future state of Palestine. However, we need to strengthen the international consensus built in the autumn to cover a much wider area—not just Gaza, but also the west bank—with a broader regional security framework. We have seen the power we have when we get international consensus together, but individual countries acting alone do not have such an impact.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the dedication and commitment of the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east in trying to advance this issue in line with the will of this House. Only too sadly, it is no surprise to many of us that, while the eyes of the world have been largely focused on Iran, we have seen the abuses continue and get worse in Gaza and the west bank. That is a deliberate strategy of the Israeli Government. We often talk about settler violence, but this is state-supported settler violence, not the acts of individuals alone. So I welcome the advanced package put forward today, including in relation to the Charity Commission, but also in moving our sanctions from individuals to groups.
This is not just about aid going in, but about justice for Palestinians and for the west bank and about building a wider peace. What judgment will the Foreign Secretary make about whether the sanctions go far enough, and when will she come back to the House and tell us whether we will go further? Does she agree with me that this is a cause for justice, and one whose time needs to be taken more seriously?
Yvette Cooper
I do agree with my hon. Friend. What is going on is being talked about as, in effect, annexation of parts of the west bank. It is not simply about a small rogue group going against the intentions of the Israeli Government. The E1 settlement has been authorised and promoted by the Israeli Government, yet it is illegal. It goes against any prospects for peace and security in the region. Frankly, it is ultimately damaging for the security of Israel as well as for peace, security and justice for the people of Palestine. That is why we will continue to pursue this issue.
However, I think we have to combine two things: what we can do with our own sanctions regime, working with our closest allies on such measures and on applying pressure; and promoting the wider international consensus and energy that we briefly had in the autumn—it had built up over many months—and that we must rebuild now.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that repeatedly saying that a terrorist group must do something does not make it happen? When she says that Hezbollah
“must end these dangerous attacks and disarm”,
does she expect this to happen voluntarily, and if not, how does she expect it to be brought about?
Yvette Cooper
Hezbollah is a dangerous terrorist organisation. It is undermining the security of the people of Lebanon. We support the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese armed forces in taking action against Hezbollah. We are providing them with direct support, including funding and capabilities support, because we believe it is hugely important that they should be able to do this with international support. We also think, frankly, that Iran should be putting pressure on its proxies, rather than using proxies to escalate tensions and to escalate activity, so we are putting pressure on Iran to put pressure on Hezbollah.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Frankly, the measures announced today, while necessary, do not go anywhere near far enough. They will not stop the genocide in Gaza, they will not stop the war crimes in Gaza, and they certainly will not stop the continuation of illegal settlements. What real, concrete measures can the Foreign Secretary announce here today? She stated earlier, to a number of colleagues who asked the question, that she wants to see an end to trade with illegal settlements. Well, that is in her gift, because she can stand at the Dispatch Box today and announce a ban on trade with all illegal settlements. Why will she not do that?
Yvette Cooper
We are announcing these sanctions, which go further than ever before in targeting the organisations that are effectively facilitating, promoting, encouraging and developing illegal settlements. We want to continue to go further on sanctions and look at ways to strengthen our sanctions regime, so that we can go further and can put on additional pressure. Look, individual countries can take particular action on things such as sanctions in different ways—the trade issues we have discussed and so on—but the biggest impact will be made by building an international coalition and consensus. That is what happened in autumn around Gaza. That has been lost or reduced since then. We must rebuild that again, but this time we must ensure it includes the west bank as well as Gaza.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I was recently on a cross-party visit to Israel and Palestine. We met the Norwegian Refugee Council and talked about the issue of dual use items, where the Israeli Government do not let certain items into Gaza because they argue they can be used for terrorist purposes. That includes situations where young children are able to leave Gaza to get hearing implants in countries such as Jordan, but are then not allowed back into Gaza because the component parts are considered to be dual use items. What pressure can the Government bring to bear on the Israeli Government to prevent the weaponisation of this issue against the Gazan people?
Yvette Cooper
We have raised exactly this issue many times directly with the Israeli Government, the Civil-Military Coordination Center and the US Administration, because the hon. Lady is completely right: we are ending up with basic medical equipment being turned down because somehow it could be treated as dual use, or tent poles for basic shelter being turned down because somehow they could be dual use. That is deeply damaging and they are different standards to the ones that applied even 12 months ago. Even when there were previous ceasefires, we managed to get a lot more aid and support through. That is why it is crucial that aid is not weaponised. It is a basic human right and we will continue to argue strongly for an increase in humanitarian aid.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I welcome the new package of important sanctions announced by the Foreign Secretary. As I raised with Government Ministers last week, and as I discussed with the Foreign Secretary last night, last week I submitted a formal complaint to the Charity Commission about 32 UK charities that have over the past five years funnelled some £28 million to illegal Israeli settlements. The research into that was conducted jointly with Israeli human rights organisations. They include UK Toremet, which currently has a live donation page to Artzenu, which the Foreign Secretary has just announced sanctions against. I welcome the fact that she has raised this issue with the Charity Commission. I would say that it was made aware of these issues in July 2025 but has done nothing so far. Can she be clear that we are not just looking for an investigation, but a ban? In reference to the letter that I and 140 other Labour colleagues sent her this week, on a ban on trade with Israeli settlements, can she also now say that we will look to move towards a ban, on top of the guidance that she has issued?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the work my hon. Friend has done on how charity systems are abused to funnel support to illegal settlements. She has rightly raised that issue not just with me but with the Culture Secretary and directly with the Charity Commission. The Minister for the Middle East will be meeting the CEO of the Charity Commission tomorrow to pursue exactly this issue to ensure there is a thorough investigation. Some evidence suggests that rules are being broken. We should not end up with UK gift aid being funnelled to illegal settlements. That clearly breaches all the standards that anybody across the UK would expect there to be, as well as the Charity Commission rules, which is why it is essential to look at this. On the wider issues around trade, we do not want trade with illegal settlements. That is why we will continue to look at strengthening the sanctions regime and work with allies across the world.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
We welcome the new sanctions, but the issue of illegality goes much deeper than these now-sanctioned organisations. The illegal settlements in the west bank are state sponsored, state financed and state protected. That is also the case for the settler violence that inevitably follows, which is carried out with almost complete impunity. Why have the Government chosen to sanction these particular organisations, but decided not to take further action against the Netanyahu regime in the face of its state-sponsored illegal settlement policy?
Yvette Cooper
As I set out earlier, the UK has introduced sanctions against individual members of the Netanyahu Government, something that very few countries across the world have actually done. We believe that is the right thing to do because of the seriousness of what they have done and the seriousness of the situation around illegal settlements. The hon. Gentleman is right that this is about international law more widely, but also, specifically, the peace and security of the middle east. We know that there is no alternative to the two-state solution, but ultimately, to make progress on Gaza, as we did for a brief period in autumn, we need to build up international consensus and not just look for what individual countries should do.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Let us just imagine that, this weekend in our capital city, there was a “great Russian real estate event” selling off Ukrainian land. Quite rightly and without hesitation, the Government would move to ban such an illegal event. This weekend in London, there is the Great Israeli Real Estate Event, openly advertising the illegal sale of land in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories. Given that the Government rightly recognised the state of Palestine, surely we should now move to ban this event, which is selling off land illegally in Palestine.
Yvette Cooper
We are pursuing that particular event. If we find any cases where there are breaches of UK law, we will also pursue them. The wider issue is that nobody in the UK should be advertising illegal settlements. Nobody should be pursuing illegal settlements. No businesses or organisations should be getting involved in them. We have shown our willingness and determination to impose sanctions on organisations that do, just as we have set out today. We will continue to do further sanctions where we have the opportunity to do so, because support for illegal settlements is wrong.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
One of the most depressing things about these statements is the profound damage that they do to British national interests and our standing in the world through their pathetic delusion. On Gaza, could the Foreign Secretary confirm that she is aware that in the last two weeks Israeli Ministers have made clear their desire for the mass emigration of Palestinians from the territory, and that we should see the stranglehold they have imposed in that context?
Could the Foreign Secretary also confirm that the meagre sanctions that the previous and current Government have imposed so far have had absolutely no impact on the conduct of anybody in Israel, let alone the Israeli Government, and that the current wave of what she is calling sanctions are not actually sanctions but asset freezes? That means that unless the organisations or individuals targeted have assets in the UK, the measures will have no impact. In fact, the regime that she has chosen to bring them in under does not even include goods and services, so as we are all still free to sell those organisations or individuals bricks and mortar, corrugated iron or insurance, the measures are unlikely to have any impact whatsoever on what is going on in the west bank.
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear that having an impact on what happens in Gaza and the west bank depends on building international consensus and taking multiple actions. The right hon. Member complains about what this Government have done, but he should consider for a second the things that we have done that his Government refused to do. We have restored and increased funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, suspended arms licences for use in Gaza, dropped the challenge to the International Criminal Court jurisdiction, suspended trade negotiations with the Israeli Government, and introduced four packages of sanctions on violent settlers, including sanctioning Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir—leading the first group of countries to do so.
This Government have led diplomatic efforts at the UN, launched a medevac scheme for sick Gazan children and their families—helping to get students into the UK—and supported UK field hospitals in Gaza, treating hundreds of thousands of Gazans. We are funding mine-clearance operations and providing more than £129 million in humanitarian assistance this year—and then protecting that in each year of the spending review. Most importantly, we took the historic decision, which his Government refused to take for years, to recognise the state of Palestine as part of the inviolable right of the Palestinian people. That was the right thing to do.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. We know that over 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza, and 21,000 have lifechanging injuries. We made a commitment that will bring around 300 children to the UK to have urgent surgery to aid them. Last week, I met two of those children. They had two specific pleas. First, we should expand the scheme and bring over the 4,000 children who are waiting and need our medical care. Secondly, children can bring only one parent; they want both their parents to be with them. Having their family around them will help with their healing. Can we ensure that their families can come too, so that those children are safe, mentally as well as physically, as they get the support they need?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for her representations around the medevac scheme, which I strongly support. I know of and have looked at cases where children have been able to bring more family members than that. If she has individual cases, then she should raise them, but I know there are many cases where children have come with both parents from Gaza. We will make further announcements in due course around the medevac scheme. There are also many children who may not have the most life-threatening conditions but who still desperately need medical treatment and support that they are not getting in Gaza. One of the greatest priorities is to rebuild healthcare facilities in Gaza and to treat as many children as possible.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
At the moment, the Palestinian people are allowed to occupy only 40% of the Gaza strip, and that figure will go down to 30% next month if Netanyahu has his way. Israel is bombarding—through settlers and its own violence—the people of the west bank, and it is also now occupying a large part of southern Lebanon. The House needs to know exactly what the nature of the security relationship is between Britain and Israel. What information is shared, what weapons are supplied, and why are we still supplying parts for F-35 jets knowing full well that those planes are used in acts of genocide against the Palestinian people?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member will know that after the election we introduced new and strong arms export controls to cover anything that could be used in operations in Gaza, including anything that might breach international law. We have been clear about that.
The right hon. Member raises the issue of the yellow line in Gaza, which I am deeply troubled about. We have heard Prime Minister Netanyahu talking about trying to seek 70% control of Gaza, when the 20-point plan involved full withdrawal. I am worried that there are attempts under way to make that yellow line permanent, and to condense the land available for the Palestinian people in Gaza into an ever-smaller area. That fundamentally goes against the agreements in the 20-point plan, which were endorsed by Hamas, Israel and countries across the world. That 20-point plan needs to be upheld, and it includes the withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza as part of its implementation.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement confirming that she has strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clearer and unambiguous. To labour the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), however, we know that settlements are illegal, so why are the Government only publishing guidance to businesses? We do not simply issue guidance to stop businesses trading in ivory, illegal firearms or narcotics—we ban them, as we have banned businesses from trading with illegally occupied Crimea. The Foreign Secretary stated that it was complex, but why is guidance enough when it comes to illegally occupied Palestinian land, but not illegally occupied Ukrainian land? Will she please be clear and unambiguous in her response?
Yvette Cooper
The Government are clear that part of what we are doing with this package of additional sanctions is targeting businesses and organisations that are facilitating the operations in the illegal settlements. We believe that the sanctions regime needs to be strengthened to allow us to go further in different areas, and we need to work with other countries on that. It is obviously important to distinguish between what is happening in the illegal settlements, and trade right across Israel; the specific issue we are targeting is about settlement goods and the illegal Israeli settlements. Other countries have been looking at that and have found some of the practicalities challenging. I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made, and the concerns raised around this issue. We continue to look at what more can be done, and to work with international partners.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary explain the “multi” bit of the multinational maritime mission, because so far all I see are contributions from France and the UK? In particular, she said that she had spoken to her interlocutors last week in China and India. One is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the other is a member of the G20, and both of them stand to suffer far more than the UK and France do from a cessation of trade in oil, gas and fertiliser. What assets will China and India be providing to this multinational maritime mission?
Yvette Cooper
China and India are not part of the multinational maritime mission. We have been doing two things to maintain the principle of freedom of navigation. With France, we have been developing the multilateral mission. There are other countries ready to provide assets, some of which have been set out and some of which will be announced in due course as they are needed. We have also convened countries—including the 40 that I convened before Easter—to raise the consensus around and continue to defend the principle of freedom of navigation. The Chinese ambassador also attended a similar event in Paris, chaired by President Macron and the Prime Minister, so we are engaging with those countries on the principle of freedom of navigation, but the maritime mission is a much narrower group of countries, predominantly—but not entirely—European.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Once again, British citizens taking part in the Global Sumud Flotilla—a peaceful aid mission to break the illegal blockade of Gaza—have been severely mistreated by the Israeli Government. This is beyond dispute, with video evidence of a far-right Israeli Minister mocking activists while they are bound and on their knees, as the Foreign Secretary referred to earlier. The Italian Government have opened an investigation into the incident and the EU is expected to vote on sanctions next Monday; I am sure the Foreign Secretary agrees that British nationals deserve the same protections and robust response. Will she therefore confirm her earlier response that the offending Minister remains under sanctions, and will she set out what further actions will be taken specifically to stand up for those British citizens?
Yvette Cooper
Like my hon. Friend, I was appalled to see how people were being treated in that video. It did not meet the most basic standards of humanity and respect for other human beings. It is particularly shocking that not only was that mistreatment happening, but it was being promoted and flaunted by an Israeli Government Minister. I can confirm that the Minister, Ben-Gvir, is sanctioned by the UK Government; we were one of the first countries to sanction him, and we will continue to do so. The behaviour shown in that video evidence, as well as other things that he has said and done, provides clear justification as to why we are right to do so.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Apart from the Netanyahu fan club on the Tory Front Bench, most right hon. and hon. Members condemn the appalling and murderous actions of his far-right regime. However, the Foreign Secretary surely recognises that Netanyahu is laughing behind his hands as Israel easily bypasses the flimsy trade and arms sanctions that the UK Government have introduced. She talks about building an international consensus, but is it not time to take stronger action and, in building that consensus, to propose the introduction of international peacekeepers into Gaza to ensure the peace, stop the bloodshed and get the humanitarian aid in?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will know that the 20-point plan included the development of an international stabilisation force that was effectively about bringing peacekeepers into Gaza. That has not yet happened, partly because there simply has not been enough progress in certain areas, as well as in respect of the humanitarian aid, which is just basic.
We have promoted the argument that the decommissioning of Hamas’s weapons needs to reflect the experience in Northern Ireland. Some of the processes are not simple, but we need to get them started—it is essential to get that started. We also need a practical approach to allowing the Palestinian committee to start to operate in Gaza, and to providing the support and training for Palestinian police to be able to operate in Gaza. We have to get those security conditions right so that we can bring in the ISF where other countries have said they would be willing to do so, but getting to that point requires more commitment and energy, particularly from the Israeli Government, but also more broadly, as part of the 20-point plan, so that we can reach the point the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the fourth package of sanctions against the groups supporting the extremist Israeli settlers. I also welcome the strengthened guidance that no UK businesses should have any financial or economic links with illegal settlements—although many of my constituents would prefer to see an outright ban, because they are seeing the continued expansion of illegal settlements. Just last week, Minister Smotrich announced more than 2,000 new homes in and around Jerusalem, Nablus and Hebron. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an absolute violation of international law and that it does nothing to secure a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine?
Yvette Cooper
The expansion of the illegal settlements is not only deeply wrong, because Palestinians are being forced from their own land, sometimes in the most brutal of circumstances, but deliberately designed to try to make it impossible to ever get to a two-state solution. That is the purpose for some of those involved, and we should be very clear on that and call it out for what it is. That is why it is so important not only to strengthen the condemnation of the illegal settlements and the expansions, but to be clear that we cannot stand back and allow what could effectively become an annexation. That needs to be linked to the 20-point plan. My point has always been that we will not sustain the ceasefire in Gaza that was rightly brokered by the US in the autumn, or achieve peace and security for Palestine and Israel, if we end up with such devastating consequences for the west bank and if we do not have a track to get to a two-state solution.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In the face of consistent, sustained and systematic war crimes, violations and abuses by the Israeli Government, the Secretary of State has today announced further piecemeal sanctions and guidance, which go nowhere near acknowledging the reality that the most important sponsor, financer, protector, supporter and cheerleader of that illegal settlement expansion is the Israeli state itself. Sanctioning a few organisations ignores the reality of where the power lies in this situation. Is it not long past time for this Government, who say they are concerned about this issue, to use all their limited power, influence and leverage to take action against the Israeli state itself, starting with Netanyahu, with genuine, full and comprehensive sanctions and a full ban on any engagement with settlements?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because we are so deeply concerned about the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the responsibility of the Israeli Government to uphold the 20-point plan, which is not happening at the moment in Gaza, to withdraw from the illegal settlements in the west bank and to lift their chokehold on the Palestinian Authority that we have taken action, including sanctions and leading the way internationally. We are one of the few countries in the world to have sanctioned individual Israeli Government Ministers, including for the way they have argued for incitement and effectively encouraged the expansion of the settlements.
We are going right to the heart of the Israeli Government with the actions we have taken, alongside other measures, including financial and development support for the Palestinian Authority and recognition of the Palestinian state for the first time, which was historically the right thing to do. If we are to deliver results, the other thing we need to do is build international consensus. That international leadership and action is what delivered the 20-point plan in the autumn, and that is what we will do again as part of the peacebuilding conference in Paris this week.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have noticed that this statement has been going on for quite some time. I ask Members to keep their questions short and the Foreign Secretary to keep her answers shorter.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Earlier this month, an Israeli soldier shot dead a seven-month-old baby, Sam Fahd Abu Haikal, and wounded his parents in the occupied west bank. UNICEF reports that, far from being an accident, violence against Palestinian children has reached levels not seen in decades. Given the difficulty that even the United States, Israel’s closest ally, has in restraining Netanyahu’s actions across the middle east, when will the Government bring in stronger measures, including sanctions, and do more to ensure that those committing war crimes face accountability under international law?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend rightly raised the deeply distressing case I mentioned in the statement of a seven-month-old baby killed in his mother’s arms. He was also right to highlight the number of Palestinian children who have lost their lives. The problem is that even where there has been either investigation or condemnation by the Israeli Government, there is often impunity and a complete lack of accountability. It is vital that where there are such cases and issues, there is proper investigation and accountability.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
As I mentioned to the Minister for the Middle East last week, not all of the Shi’a community in Lebanon support Hezbollah or Iran, and the majority do not support violence; they want to live in peace like all of us, whatever country we are in.
The Foreign Secretary will know that the Amal movement is a Shi’a political movement. While it is not a benign movement, it is probably a better interlocutor than Hezbollah to work with in rebuilding the whole nation of Lebanon—subject to conditions—which will of course include the important Shi’ite community. What more can the Government do to increase the capacity building of political parties and movements that want to move away from armed violence and struggle?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member is right that we need an inclusive process in Lebanon that brings all groups and communities together but excludes Hezbollah, Iranian-backed proxies and terrorist and extremist groups. The group that he mentioned is led by Speaker Berri, who met my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East as part of his recent visit. We will continue to engage with that movement and more widely with the Lebanese Government about the importance of bringing all communities together so that the Lebanese people are not exploited by Iran.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
A prohibition must be brought in to finally deal with British firms such as JCB, which for decades has been involved in settlement construction and the demolition of Palestinian homes. The Secretary of State has not confirmed why a full ban on settlement goods has not been brought in. When she says that the practicalities are too complex, the British public see only a Government dragging their heels. Will she clarify what those practicalities are? Once again, why is it possible to have a full ban for occupied Crimea but not for the occupied west bank?
Yvette Cooper
Today, we have introduced new, strong sanctions against organisations that are operating, fuelling funds or trading in the illegal settlements. We have different sanctions regimes, including geographic and thematic regimes. We believe that the regimes need to be strengthened, and we are looking at ways to do that that give us more flexibility to respond to different circumstances.
Obviously, in the case of what is happening in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, we want to be able to target the illegal settlements and the trade and activity there, but we do not want to impact on the long-standing, legitimate trade that runs right across Israel with organisations and businesses and provides links between communities. Other countries that have looked at how to do it, and what mechanisms to use, have found it challenging and raised different practical issues, but we continue to look with our international allies at what measures could be strengthened to address exactly those issues and to promote the cause of peace and security.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. What exactly are the Brits going to contribute to the multinational maritime mission in terms of hardware? Has Ukraine offered up its two Sandown-class mine-clearing vessels and crew, which are currently in Portsmouth?
Yvette Cooper
The multinational maritime mission is led by the UK and France. We have set out and been looking at particular assets that can be provided as part of the mission. It is, of course, multilateral—the point is that it needs to include a range of different countries. We have had discussions with Ukraine, as have many Gulf countries, because of its particular expertise in drones and modern technology in terms of air defences, and support has been provided for some of the Gulf partners.
The precise assets used in practice will depend on what is needed at the point at which—we hope—settlement will be reached. One of the points discussed as part of the settlement is whether Iran will do the de-mining, which would clearly be most effective because it laid the mines in the first place. We would like Iran to do it first, if that is possible.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, and in particular the fresh wave of sanctions she announced, as well as the new measures against British businesses and charities that fund and support illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine. This morning, I and other MPs met former members of the Israel Defence Forces who served in Gaza, and they gave us some pretty shocking testimony. They told us that their rules of engagement were to allow the killing of more than 20 civilians for every Hamas commander targeted—sometimes up to 300 civilians per commander. They also said that they were given shoot-to-kill orders for any adult male of military age within a designated area, including unarmed men, and that there was a systematic demolition of civilian homes. What role can the UK play in amassing evidence to hold Israel to account for what are clearly war crimes in occupied Palestine?
Yvette Cooper
The account that my hon. Friend provides is deeply disturbing. We know that there has been systematic disregard for civilian life. We have seen the huge numbers of people killed in Gaza, including huge numbers of children. At different stages in the conflict, we saw people shot at while queuing for the most basic food. People who were desperate to feed their families ended up being shot at and losing their lives. There has to be accountability and there have to be investigations. There also has to be peace and stability. We must ensure that as part of the implementation of the 20-point plan, we get back on track so that Palestine can be run by Palestinians. That, in the end, is the best way to keep them safe.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Secretary of State in her statement—in her own words—talked of Netanyahu’s condemnation of settler violence as being “hollow”. Will she allow the Great Israeli Real Estate Event to proceed on UK soil this weekend? If she does, could she not be accused of the same thing?
Yvette Cooper
We are pursuing that issue. We do not want any illegal settlements to be advertised in the UK and we do not want any businesses to be engaging with that.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions and guidance that the Secretary of State has set out. Given the scale and pace of settlements, can we ensure that the sanctions are regularly reviewed? I agree with colleagues that a ban on settlement trade should be looked at again.
The London property conference sounds really concerning. What sanctions will be put in place if property is being sold on occupied land?
Yvette Cooper
We will continue to keep all our sanctions under review and to build on the sanctions regimes we have in place. We have led the world on sanctions and done more on this than most other countries around the world. Wherever possible, we have built partnerships to involve and include other countries to get them to sign up to similar sanctions as well, because, frankly, that is the best way to have an impact.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
A constituent wrote to me as he was deeply concerned that the British public had been misled about the UK’s involvement in the US conflict with Iran. His sister lives next to RAF Fairford and reported 24/7 use of the base by US bomber flights in May after the ceasefire. Residents were experiencing constant aircraft movements and noise, with little or no respite. Constant use of the base does not appear to be consistent with facilitating
“specific and limited defensive action against missile facilities”.
Will the Foreign Secretary reassure both the House and my constituent that RAF Fairford was used exclusively for defensive strikes against Iran, that no RAF planes or drones have conducted reconnaissance over Palestine or Lebanon and shared that intelligence with Israel, and that the truth here is not being concealed from the British public?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that RAF Fairford is a US base. We were clear at the beginning of this conflict that we would not support the use of the base for offensive action against Iran as part of the conflict. Once Iran started to strike Gulf partners, including their civilian infrastructure—their airports and other assets—and to put lives at risk, including those of British citizens, we provided support for air defences directly. UK assets provided that support and we enabled basing support for US operations. That was the right thing to do to defend our partners who were facing Iranian strikes. There is a difference between the offensive approach and the defensive approach, which is the one we have taken.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
In Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon, Israel continues to violate international law with total impunity. I welcome the Secretary of State’s actions against individuals and networks that enable settler violence, but it just does not go far enough. Why will she not at least commit to banning all trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and introduce a comprehensive sanctions regime against the Israeli state?
Yvette Cooper
We have strongly distinguished between the illegal settlements and the Israeli state. We also distinguish between the illegal settlements and businesses in all parts of Israel that have long traded across the world, including with the UK, many of whose owners or investors may strongly disagree with things that the Israeli Government are doing or with illegal settlements and settler violence. It is important to separate out Israeli businesses more widely and the specific issue of illegal settlements.
We do not want to see trade with illegal settlements, we do not want to see UK businesses operating within those settlements, either in financial or economic activity, and we certainly do not want to see them supporting construction contracts for the E1 settlement. That is why we have introduced this new wave of sanctions to target the organisations that have been most strongly linked with facilitating and funding those most linked with settler violence.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is grave and that renewed international energy and focus are required if the level of humanitarian aid flowing into Gaza is to be increased with the urgency the situation demands. With that in mind, will she ensure that increased international co-operation and immediate action to ameliorate the situation will be a key priority of the discussions held in Paris later this week?
Yvette Cooper
Yes, that will be a priority for discussions in Paris. The other thing that the Paris event will seek to do is to bring together Palestinian and Israeli civil society groups. As well as trying to reinvigorate the international coalition and energy behind the peace process for not just Gaza but the west bank, the event seeks to bring together civil society groups from Palestine and Israel to stand together for peace.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Though I appreciate that the ban on trade with illegal settlements may be complicated, it is our moral duty to overcome those complications. Conflict creates very serious issues for some of the poorest countries in the world, which cannot withstand the energy and food crisis shocks, and that creates a risk of further conflict and instability—for example, in sub-Saharan Africa. What steps has my right hon. Friend taken with international allies to address those risks, and might she give us an update on the situation in Sudan, where further atrocities are taking place?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend that the closure of the strait of Hormuz is having an impact on oil across the world, as it is on fertiliser, including for sub-Saharan Africa. Some states, according to their level of dependency on different supply chains, are particularly heavily affected by that impact on the global economy. We are closely monitoring which countries are affected and directly raising that with the World Bank and other organisations, while making sure that our official development assistance and aid support reflect those issues. On Sudan, we continue to work closely with the international community and we will be having further such meetings shortly, because this continues to be the most horrendous humanitarian crisis and we need that international energy around Sudan.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary will know that the ongoing violence continues to take a horrific toll on civilian populations across Lebanon, Gaza and the wider region. Given our legal obligations under the strategic export licensing criteria, what assessment have the Government made of the risk of UK-supplied components being used in violations of international humanitarian law? Will the Government publish those assessments so that they can be properly scrutinised? Will they now take the decisive step to halt all arms exports to Israel?
Yvette Cooper
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we make ongoing assessments. We take immensely seriously our obligations relating to strategic export licences under international humanitarian law and ensure that assessments continue to be made. That is one of the reasons we suspended arms exports to Israel in a series of areas soon after this Government came to office—it was exactly because we took that so seriously—and, as I understand it, why we also published legal advice at that time.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I add my voice to others across the House in urging for stronger actions on Israeli war crimes. Fertiliser is a key issue, not just in my constituency but across the world. I have spoken to a lot of local farmers who are deeply concerned that not only do they feel the pinch already, but that that will shortly pass on to UK consumers and drive up the already spiking cost of living. Will the Foreign Secretary outline some steps that she is taking to make sure that more fertiliser is available in our part of the world and, indeed, across the world to combat global hunger?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and he is right to champion the farmers in his constituency. The closure of the strait of Hormuz risks impacting on the cost of living right across the globe. That is why we have made the reopening of the strait central to what needs to be achieved in a peace settlement. It has to be full and unconditional, and not just a partial reopening, because it is so important to get the fertiliser, the oil and the different commodities flowing again. We must also look further at our economic security and supply chains more widely, because we should be seeking, internationally, to avoid choke points where any country can hold the global economy to ransom in the way that Iran has done.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am sorry to say that the sanctions and actions announced today will not prevent Israel from continuing to act with impunity and committing one war crime after another. On Friday, I received a reply from the Foreign Office to a letter that I sent three months ago on the UN commission of inquiry findings that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. In that reply, the Minister for the Middle East stated:
“as soon as this Government took office, we ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, which has continued to conclude that Israel is not committed to upholding IHL in Gaza.”
Why, in the light of that assessment, are the Government still limited to giving statements of concern, rather than taking meaningful actions to prevent further atrocities and breaches of IHL?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because of that review, which was commissioned immediately after we came into government, that we suspended a whole series of arms export licences. We took practical steps, just as we have done in providing additional aid and support, and in introducing whole swathes of sanctions—this is our fourth round in this area—and we will continue to do that.
To get overall impact, however, we need an international coalition; no one country can do it alone. The impact that was felt in the autumn to achieve the 20-point plan for Gaza took countries from around the world coming together. That is what we need again, and that is why we need to drive this through international diplomacy and activity, as well as through the actions that we in the UK take.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we need to help the Palestinian Authority is the opposite of the approach that she has rightly outlined for British companies, individuals, organisations and charities regarding the illegal west bank settlements? By that I mean that we need companies, individuals and others to be encouraged, and indeed empowered, to help the Palestinian Authority with rebuilding, economic development, governance and more. As she has said, that would “reinforce the unity of the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as inseparable pillars of the state of Palestine” which would be in support of the global alliance to implement a two-state solution, which I hope she can reiterate that we support.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s points, because in order to have a state of Palestine, we need to support the Palestinian Authority to become a functioning and effective state. That includes funding, but it also includes pressure, because the Israeli Government are currently withholding Palestinian money, and that money needs to be restored to it. We need to be able to support the Palestinian economy as well.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I welcome the update on the new and co-ordinated sanctions announced by the Foreign Secretary today. According to the United Nations, its figures show that violent incidents perpetrated by illegal Israeli settlers in the west bank reached an all-time high last autumn—for the shameful reason that the attacks reach their peak when there are fresh olive harvests to destroy. This behaviour is state sanctioned, and settlements are state sponsored and state financed. This Government accept that the settlements are illegal, so why have they chosen not to end trade with illegal Israeli settlements once and for all?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because of our deep concern about the illegal settlements, and also about the escalating scale of settler violence, that we have introduced the new sanctions, which go after the organisations that have the greatest impact in terms of funding and organisational support for the settlers, where we have seen these serious problems. We have also strengthened the issues around business, because no businesses from the UK should be trading or engaging in economic activity in these illegal settlements. We will continue to work with international allies on what more can be done, both around illegal settlements and around the wider peace process. I say again that we will make progress on this wider peace process only in conjunction with our allies and partners.
Bill Presented
National Security (State Threats)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Shabana Mahmood, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Secretary Jo Stevens, Secretary Douglas Alexander, Secretary Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis, presented a Bill to make provision for the designation of bodies involved in foreign power threat activity; to create offences relating to bodies designated under this Act; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 12) with explanatory notes (Bill 12-EN).
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Tuesday 9th June 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill 2026-27 View all Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 9 June 2026 - (9 Jun 2026)
00:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 90 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:45 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 94 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:58 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 157 / Noes: 287 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
Under the Order of the House of 21 May, we shall now move to the Committee of the whole House. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clause 52
Compensation scheme regulations
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 7, page 34, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Compensation scheme regulations must include provision which specifies that payment of compensation may be made until any written estimate under section 54 (4A) is laid before Parliament.”
This amendment works with Amendments 8 and 9 so as to require regulations to specify that payment of compensation cannot be made until the Secretary of State has published a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of the steel undertaking, provided to them by the independent valuer.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 52 and 53 stand part.
Amendment 8, clause 54, page 35, line 25, leave out “may—
(a) require or permit”
and insert—
“must—
(a) require”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 9, page 35, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) The regulations must—
(a) provide that the independent valuer prepares and submits to the Secretary of State a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of that undertaking, including but not limited to—
(i) contamination of land, water or air attributable to the undertaking’s operations;
(ii) compliance with environmental obligations imposed by or under any enactment; and
(iii) remediation or restoration costs that are contingent or prospective;
(b) provide that the Secretary of State must publish and lay any written estimate provided under this subsection before Parliament.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 6, page 35, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) the anticipated effects of—
(i) external tariffs on UK industry; and
(ii) the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, as set out by Part 5 of the Finance Act 2026 on the value of a steel undertaking.”
This amendment would require consideration of external tariffs and the implementation of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, when conducting a valuation of the Steel undertaking.
Clauses 54 to 57 stand part.
Amendment 20, clause 58, page 39, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”
This amendment would only allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the NAO had concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers.
Amendment 22, page 39, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not in any five-year period provide financial assistance under this section of an amount that exceeds £1 million per employee of the steel undertaking.
(1B) The number of employees of a steel undertaking for the purpose of subsection (1A) is the number of persons employed on the date the financial assistance was first provided.
(1C) ‘employee’ has the meaning given by section 230 (Employees, workers etc.) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”
This amendment would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over 5 years.
Amendment 24, page 39, line 24, at end insert—
“(4A) Financial assistance under this section may not include funding provided by the National Wealth Fund.”
This amendment prevents money from the National Wealth Fund being used to provide financial assistance under this Act.
Clause 58 stand part.
Amendment 4, clause 59, page 39, line 29, insert at end “and,
(b) compensation paid under any compensation scheme regulations made under section 52.”
This amendment requires the Government to report on the compensation paid under any compensation scheme regulations made under section 52.
Amendment 10, page 39, line 31, leave out “12” and insert “3”
This amendment together with Amendment 14 would increase the frequency with which the Secretary of State must make reports about financial assistance to every three months.
Amendment 11, page 39, line 33, leave out “12” and insert “3”
See explanatory note for Amendment 13.
Clauses 59 and 60 stand part.
New clause 6—Parliamentary scrutiny of Financial Assistance—
“(1) Before providing any assistance under section 58, the Secretary of State must lay a proposal for providing the financial assistance (‘the proposal’) before Parliament.
(2) No financial assistance may be provided under section 58 unless the proposal has been laid before Parliament.
(3) If, within the period of 90 days after the proposal has been laid, a select committee of the House of Commons makes any recommendations with regard to the proposal, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the recommendations before providing any financial assistance.
(4) The proposal must include—
(a) details of the nature and amount of the financial assistance,
(b) the intended beneficiary or beneficiaries of the financial assistance,
(c) the expected purpose and effect of the financial assistance,
(d) any conditions, repayment arrangements, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities attaching to the financial assistance, and
(e) any other information the Secretary of State believes it is necessary for the Committee to have in order to complete its consideration of the proposal, subject to the restrictions in subsection (3).
(5) The proposal may not include information which, if it were made public, may damage—
(a) national security;
(b) fiduciary duties; or
(c) commercially sensitive interests.”
This new clause prevents financial assistance being provided until 90 days after information about the package of financial assistance being made available to a Select Committee of the House of Commons for its consideration.
New clause 12—Financial assistance: limit—
“Financial assistance of a total value of no more than £2.5 billion may be provided under section 58 of this Act before 15 August 2029.”
This new clause would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Act.
New clause 13—Financial assistance: England and Wales—
“Where financial assistance is provided to steel undertakings in England under section 58 of this Act, an equivalent to the total amount of financial assistance provided to steel undertakings in England must be made available to steel undertakings in Wales.”
This new clause requires equivalent funding to be provided to steel undertakings in Wales compared to those in England.
Clauses 61 to 64 stand part.
New clause 7—Impact assessments—
“Before exercising any power under this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment on the proposed exercise of that power.”
This new clause would require an impact assessment to be published before the Secretary of State exercised any of the powers under the Act.
New clause 4—Limit on expenditure on financial assistance and compensation—
“(1) The total amount of compensation paid by the Secretary of State under Part 2 and financial assistance paid under section 58 is limited to—
(a) £500m, or
(b) an amount so authorised by resolution of the House of Commons, whichever is higher.”
This new clause prevents the Secretary of State from paying more than £500m in financial assistance and compensation under the Act, unless the House of Commons passes a resolution authorising them to do so.
New clause 9—Duty to try to find a private sector purchaser for any nationalised steel undertaking—
“Where a steel undertaking has been subject to the principal transfer power under this Act, the Secretary of State must—
(a) make all practicable efforts to find a private sector purchaser for the steel undertaking; and
(b) lay a report before Parliament every six months which sets out progress made towards finding a private sector purchaser for the steel undertaking.”
This new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to seek a private sector buyer for any steel company that has been nationalised, and report to Parliament on progress made every six months.
New clause 10—Report on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent six months, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament which sets out the impact that nationalisation of any steel undertaking under this Act has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.
New clause 11—State aids—
“The Secretary of State must not exercise the powers in this Act so as to grant any advantage through state resources on a selective basis to any organisations that could potentially distort competition and trade, including any advantage that might be granted to steel undertakings subject to a transfer power over comparable privately-owned steel undertakings in the United Kingdom.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to maintain a level playing-field between nationally owned and privately owned steel businesses.
Sarah Olney
We heard throughout yesterday’s debate from Members across the Committee about the importance of steelmaking as a vital strategic sector in the UK, and no doubt we will hear about it again today. We rely on the sector for essential parts of our national infrastructure, for transport and for advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking and the industry more broadly create thousands of good jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities, and in increasingly uncertain times, it is essential to support our defence industry.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches therefore broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector, and we note that it is in that spirit that British steel producers also support these measures. We need to see more ambition and clarity in the delivery of the steel strategy—for example, when it comes to boosting domestic production to meet 50% of domestic steel demand, further incentivising the use of British-made steel in the private sector and managing the transition to electric arc furnaces.
I wish to speak in favour of amendments 7, 8 and 9. These would strengthen the treatment of environmental liabilities in relation to the steel undertaking and ensure that they were explicitly identified and accounted for before compensation payments were made. They highlight the principle that the true financial position of an undertaking cannot be properly understood without a clear and transparent assessment of its environmental liabilities. By accepting the amendments, the legislation could work as a package to ensure that environmental liabilities were not only considered but formally assessed, published and laid before Parliament.
In particular, the amendments would require an independent valuer to prepare a written estimate of the environmental liabilities associated with the undertaking, including contamination of land, water or air; compliance with environmental obligations; and current and future remediation or restoration costs. That would ensure that the full environmental cost of the undertaking’s operation was properly captured, including liabilities that might not yet have crystallised but were none the less foreseeable. Crucially, the amendments would link the process to the timing of compensation payments, specifying that compensation could not be paid until the environmental liabilities estimate had been produced and presented, and ensuring that taxpayers were not left to pick up the bill for any environmental damage caused by the company’s previous owners.
Furthermore, I wish to speak in favour of amendment 6. This amendment would require that when carrying out a valuation of the steel undertaking, consideration was explicitly given to the impact of external tariffs and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. It reflects the reality that the value of a steel business is not determined solely by its internal operations and that it is also significantly influenced by international trade conditions and environmental policy frameworks.
The previous Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and interim last-minute packages. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and they erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel. This legislation should be much more ambitious on an improved agreement with the EU for steel exports. Given the international nature of the steel market and the growing importance of carbon-related border adjustments, it is reasonable that these factors should be explicitly included in valuation methodologies. Amendment 6 would help to ensure that any valuation was not artificially insulated from key external drivers of cost and competitiveness. It would also provide a more accurate basis for decision making.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am interested in what the hon. Member has had to say on amendment 6. She spoke specifically with regard to steel making. Has she also had representations about the impact of these tariffs on UK manufacturers who make things out of steel, as well as on steel stockholders? Is it her intention through the amendment to get further information on that, or is that not its purpose?
Sarah Olney
That is not the specific purpose of the amendment, but I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. I know that the Minister has heard about this issue on a number of occasions, throughout the debates on this Bill and during the urgent question last week in the Chamber. I would like to take this opportunity to reinforce the point that has been made on multiple occasions across this House about the tariff regime and the changes that are coming in. I have spoken to a number of manufacturers about the very real concerns right across the sector about the changes in tariffs. I know that the Minister is focused on that, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving us another opportunity to raise concerns with the Minister, which I know he has heard.
Amendment 5 would extend the Government’s reporting obligations to include progress on negotiations with the European Union—
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that amendment 5 has not been selected and so would be out of scope for this debate.
Sarah Olney
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair. I will reframe my remarks slightly, because they relate to the intervention that I took.
Steel producers in the UK are heavily integrated into international supply chains, and continued access to frictionless or improved export arrangements is vital for sustaining jobs and production. From 1 July, the Government will limit tariff-free steel imports. Although in many ways that will support business, there is a lack of certainty about costs and the impact on downstream manufacturers is still opaque.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Perhaps I can give the hon. Lady a moment to gauge where she is in her notes while I take her back momentarily to amendment 7. She spoke about the importance of steel to our defence industry, which is therefore central to European security and to deterring the threat of Russian rearmament, but amendment 7 would produce significant procedural barriers and slow down our ability to use the Bill. Does she agree that such amendments risk causing serious impediments to supply-chain security, particularly for our defence industry?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for underlining the real importance of the steel industry to our defence industry and the heightened importance of sustaining our defence industry, and all the companies and the jobs associated with it, in this time of heightened global instability. Liberal Democrat Members certainly believe that support for our defence industry is paramount at this time, but it is important that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise all the costs associated with the proposed undertaking should the Government choose to exercise the powers in the Bill. That is the purpose of amendment 7.
Clause 52 will give the Secretary of State broad powers to establish compensation arrangements linked to the exercise of transfer powers, including transfers of shares, property rights and liabilities. Amendment 4 would require the Government to report not only on the existence of compensation schemes under the clause, but on the compensation actually paid under those schemes.
My new clause 6 would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of any future financial assistance. It would require, before any assistance is provided, the Secretary of State to lay a detailed proposal before Parliament, setting out the nature and amount of assistance and the intended beneficiaries, the purpose and expected effect, and any associated conditions, including repayment terms, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities.
In a similar vein, new clause 4, in my name, would introduce parliamentary oversight, and compel the Government to bring forward a resolution for any expenditure by the Secretary of State under part 2 that exceeds £500 million, which is roughly equivalent to the annual cost of keeping the Scunthorpe plant running, based on the publicly available figures. The clause reflects the principle that, where significant public funds are being committed, there should be clear parliamentary control and oversight of the overall financial exposure. By setting a defined limit, it would ensure that expenditure does not escalate beyond what has been explicitly agreed by Parliament without further democratic approval. The measure is designed to ensure a balance between enabling necessary intervention and maintaining proper oversight of the total level of public expenditure involved. I urge hon. Members to vote in favour of the new clause.
Steel is a valuable sector with far-reaching benefits across the UK for critical infrastructure projects, defence and the future of renewable energy. The steel industry is vital to so many of the UK’s national strategic priorities. The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s pace and urgency in taking action to assist the steel industry, but there is a significant need for greater transparency and accountability relating to how these measures will be exercised. There is potential in the Bill to improve training opportunities for steel exports, and I urge Ministers to consider our proposals on that matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Perkins
Thank you very much, Madam Chair—that was a pleasant surprise.
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, but I will take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s steps in the Bill, which build on the steps that we took with the emergency legislation that ensured a future for Scunthorpe. We all recognise that steelmaking is part of our national security. Without steel capability, we are simply unable to be truly independent in military terms or in many other terms. The commitment of the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to ensuring a future for British Steel is not only sensible and ambitious, but a welcome change from the policies that were pursued by previous Prime Ministers over too many years to mention.
At a time when there has been such huge pressure on the public finances, it is tremendously welcome that the Government are stepping forward with £2.5 billion to boost the steel industry, along with the important measures relating to those with expertise in the industry, which is a complicated sector. It is therefore very welcome that the Government’s efforts in these areas are being led by those with such expertise in the sector.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the opportunities from an electric arc furnace, but does he recognise the vital importance of keeping blast furnace primary steelmaking capability, which can only take place in Scunthorpe?
Mr Perkins
Yes, I do. I should say to the hon. Gentleman that I had the opportunity last night to predict that he would be the leader of Reform by the time we went into the general election, and I stand by that. We would normally expect to see a party leader in the House of Commons. We never see the Reform leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in the House of Commons, which is why I predicted that it would be the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice)—but I am getting distracted and will return to his question.
I am absolutely committed to doing everything we can to decarbonise, but in certain sectors doing so would be to deindustrialise. There is no sense in allowing blast furnaces only for imported products and not looking after that ourselves. I welcome the Government’s drive and direction, but I absolutely want to see that future for Scunthorpe. We should look at ways that we can use greener gases rather than pursue anything against that.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Nuclear is going to play a role in cheaper energy for households, and I welcome the Government’s announcement there will be an array of small modular reactors that will have to be made out of British steel. Equally, I regret the fact that offshore wind turbines are being built not in this country; they should be built here, out of British steel.
When I worked in the oil fabrication industry, we had thousands of trained welders. Today, we do not have so many people who could actually work with British steel. Does the hon. Member agree that, in parallel with doing the good work in the Bill, we should be thinking about keeping these skills, which are crucial to the future? If we do not have them, we will not use British steel.
Mr Perkins
I agree 100% about the importance of protecting skills, which has been a huge priority of mine throughout my time in this House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that skills have been lost from the sector, as we tragically and foolishly allowed the steel industry to be stripped away, as he rightly pointed out, by the Conservative party. That has been tremendously damaging to our national security, our economy, our industry and, as he rightly says, the skills base in this country.
I am very supportive of what the Government are doing in this Bill. I would like to take the opportunity to speak, as I did a moment ago, to a question raised with me that is somewhat parallel to the narrow terms of the Bill, but is relevant to amendment 6 and to amendment 5, which has not been selected. We are—absolutely sensibly—taking measures on the tariffs to prevent the dominance of the Chinese steel industry, which sells steel at ludicrously cheap prices and is attempting to get all other countries to lose their steel industries so that we will then all be dependent on China. However, we have to be careful that we do not cause unintended consequences for British manufacturers that use steel and for our international competitiveness. We do not want to end up in the position of, for example, rolled bar, where we do not have reliable and strong provision of that here in the UK. We need to tread carefully with this. I know the Minister is on this, but I take this opportunity to come back to that point.
I have already written to the Secretary of State about a manufacturer in my constituency that makes transport ramps out of steel, and three other companies in the constituency are more directly involved in steel stockholding and have products manufactured out of steel, and they are all deeply concerned about where we currently are on this.
I know we have the current plan for 1 July—that is not far away at all. If we do not get this right, the consequences could be extraordinarily serious. I know that is on the Minister’s list and that it is prominent in his mind, but I add my call to all those others who say that we need to tread extremely carefully. With that, it remains only to say well done to the Minister and the Government for their continued backing of steel, and I look forward to seeing this—
Mr Perkins
I was just about to finish, but if my hon. Friend thinks that it cannot wait, I will happily bring him in.
Mr Bailey
My hon. Friend has been speaking about the steel strategy in the round. I wish to echo his remarks about the lower part of our defence sector, but there are also our small and medium-sized enterprises that make things that are not necessarily identifiable as tangible defence things. We need to ensure that we understand the types of steel that they require and the consequences of the tariffs on them. It is also important that we understand the steelmaking strategy as a whole, so from ore all the way through to direct reduced iron. We need to ensure that in gaining our sovereignty, we can create more reliable partners and separate some of the places that produce ore from the production that has traditionally been done in China. Does he agree that is something we must ensure is encompassed in this? That is why I am concerned about some of the amendments that have been tabled.
Mr Perkins
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who clearly speaks with great knowledge on these subjects. He makes an important point, once again raising the importance of this whole area of legislation to the defence industry and to sovereign capability. The reality is that our defence industry is crucial economically, for jobs and for our national protection, but also for exports. We should absolutely welcome those British manufacturers making things here and selling them across the world. If we inadvertently cause them to be less competitive, we will rue the day, so we need to tread carefully. But his point about ore and those amendments is well made.
I will sit down now, but I tell the Government that they have my absolute support on this approach to the nationalisation of British Steel, and I ask the Minister to respond to the points I have made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Yesterday we discussed amendments in which we sought to rein in some of the unfettered powers that the Secretary of State is taking for himself in this legislation. Today’s amendments are about trying to rein in the unfettered liability and financial risk that this legislation puts on the taxpayer.
For example, amendment 20 would allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the National Audit Office has concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers. The amendment is obviously about making it clear that these powers are not a blank cheque, that they must be constrained, justified and used only when strictly necessary. We cannot have industrial improvisation when the British taxpayer is being asked to pick up the bill. It is not fair that hard-working taxpayers should be forced to pay for a potential failure of Ministers who think they are able to defy the realities of this market.
Amendment 22 would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over a five-year period. It would also fix the employee count at the point that support begins, with “employee” being defined by section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendment would ensure that financial assistance is targeted, proportionate and provides value for money. If the Government believe in this intervention, as they clearly do, they should be willing to set limits on it, because without such a cap we are simply asking taxpayers to sign up to an unlimited liability.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
Would the shadow Minister consider that putting a limit on this, when the financial support would only be provided in an emergency, when absolutely necessary, might be unwise and might lead us to having to recall Parliament yet again to take the necessary action?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I take issue with where the hon. Member is coming from on that, because by putting a sensible and finite limit on the amount per employee—and I will speak later to another amendment where we propose an overall limit—we are talking about the amount that has been set by the Chancellor through the spending review envelope. I do not think she really wants to say to the Committee that there should be completely unlimited budgets for this intervention. She herself would know that in any intervention we ought to go in with a wise idea about what is a reasonable spending limit.
Amendments 10 and 11 would increase the frequency with which Parliament is told about the amount that has been spent. Currently, as it is framed in the legislation, the Secretary of State must make a report to Parliament only every 12 months. We are suggesting in these amendments that reports about financial assistance should come every three months. We are talking about substantial and significant sums of public money, so we do not think that annual reporting would be sufficient. Quarterly reporting would ensure that Parliament can properly scrutinise how much money is being spent and how much is being done in closer to real time. It is essential that financial exposure is monitored closely and transparently. We do not want costs to escalate without people being able to notice them, and we want Ministers to remain accountable for public spending.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I have both been Ministers; we know that a written ministerial statement is not a complicated thing to do every three or four months or whatever it is. I struggle to see what reason there could be not to give Parliament that transparency, for the simple sake of a piece of paper tabled once every three months, to ensure that taxpayers’ interests are protected.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know the Minister to be an extremely reasonable man, so I am sure he will agree with our amendment.
New clause 12 would place a firm cap on the total financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill, limiting it to £2.5 billion. As I am sure the hon. Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash) and other Members know, that is the limit that has been set for the steel strategy, so to reach that limit would mean that this intervention used up the entire amount allocated to the overall steel strategy. The new clause would set the limit up to a specific date in 2029.
As our explanatory statement makes clear, the purpose is simple: to limit the total financial exposure under the Bill. At the moment, the way the Bill is phrased means that it is a completely open-ended financial commitment. We think that a cap of this nature, which would ensure that Ministers had to prioritise their spending decisions rather than continue to inject funds without clear limits or outcomes, is a very sensible thing to do, and I urge everyone to support it.
Mr Perkins
The hon. Lady is making a very important and interesting point. In the steel industry over recent years, we have seen foreign companies buying British firms, then closing them down and leaving us without this capability. Would anything in new clause 9 prevent that from happening again? Having forced the Government to seek this buyer, is there anything in it to stop that buyer coming in and just closing the business down, meaning we lose that sovereign capability?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We are looking at a Bill that the Government’s own impact assessment says might have a bit of a “chilling effect” on inward investment into the sector. We should all want to have inward investment into our economy. If someone who we regard as an excellent owner of this business should come in and make an offer that is attractive to the Government, I absolutely think the Government should be prepared to take that seriously. We do not want this to be a permanent state of affairs; we want it to be a journey to a thriving steel sector, which may well involve investors coming in from overseas.
Mr Perkins
I think the hon. Lady is in the same place as the Government, in that they want to see an excellent private sector partner at the earliest opportunity. The point I was trying to make is that she would be compelling the Government, in new clause 9, to seek this provider, and we have seen what has sometimes happened previously. Is she saying that, ultimately, we must do whatever the market decides, or is she basically supporting the Government’s position that this sovereign capability must remain in the UK and that we will work with other partners, but they will not be able to shut down British steelmaking as they have done in the past? Will there be any provisos in the new clause?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman seems to be conflating two issues. Last year, when the emergency legislation was introduced and Parliament was recalled on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, we did not stand in its way, but what we are asking for in the new clause is for Parliament to be kept informed. Let us agree that we all want to be kept informed about how the discussions are going and to find out what the Government are thinking about their exit plan. I made the point yesterday about the public interest test that it is very unclear whether, once the Secretary of State determines that it is in the public interest for this particular site to be owned by the taxpayer, there will ever be the potential for it to change to different state.
Richard Tice
The shadow Minister seems to be implying that, essentially, the business should be up for sale at any moment, almost at any price. It is incredibly destabilising for any business and its employees to suffer that uncertainty. What is required is a period of stability and investment, with a strong vision. She previously made comments about relying on auditors at the National Audit Office to make a strategic judgment about what is in the sovereign national interest. With the greatest of respect to auditors, it is experienced businesspeople—including the Minister—who understand the industry and who can make a much stronger judgment about what is required to retain primary steelmaking in this country, with that sovereign capability, than a bunch of auditors.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I actually think the hon. Gentleman is also agreeing with me on this point. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister and his expertise in this industry, but I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he too thinks that it will take business nous and investment into this business to bring it back to a state where it is making money. I also heard him say that he would therefore not object to hearing a report to Parliament every six months about the progress being made, so I look forward to him supporting this amendment in the Lobby later. We want our Ministers to actively work towards returning the business to private ownership, so we want to hear in Parliament about that ongoing progress and to be able to hold Ministers accountable and ask them questions on exactly that from time to time.
New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament every six months on the impact that nationalising steel undertakings has had on inward investment into the UK. I mentioned earlier that the Government’s own impact assessment worries about the potential for a “chilling effect” where Government are taking assets into public ownership in the way that this Bill allows. During its history, the UK has very much relied on being seen as a stable and predictable environment for inward investment. Expropriating and nationalising private businesses sets a precedent that could deter future investors, not just in the steel sector but across the wider economy. The new clause would ensure that Parliament received a regular, transparent analysis of how these interventions were affecting investor confidence and capital flows into the UK economy. We all hope that they would not be adversely affected, but we would want Parliament to know, and this new clause would ensure that any damage to our reputation was identified, understood and addressed early.
New clause 11 would prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers in the Bill to grant any selective advantages through state resources that could distort competition. It would ensure that nationalised steel undertakings were not unfairly advantaged over privately owned ones. Without this safeguard, there is a real risk that nationalised entities could receive preferential treatment, whether through subsidies, contracts or regulatory advantage, undermining fair competition within the domestic steel sector. If private firms believe they will be placed at a disadvantage compared with state-owned competitors, that risks deterring further investment in UK steel and related supply chains.
To conclude, these amendments are about bringing discipline, transparency and balance to a Bill that, as drafted, risks being too broad, too costly and too unconstrained. They would ensure that any intervention was properly assessed, carefully limited and consistently scrutinised, while protecting taxpayers, competition and investor confidence. If the Government are serious about supporting the steel industry, they should also be serious about accountability, value for money and a credible long-term plan, and these amendments are designed to deliver exactly that.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a huge pleasure to speak in a debate on a Bill to nationalise British Steel, reversing one of the many mistakes of the Thatcher Government in the 1980s. I will speak against new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), which would seek a private buyer for the nationalised British Steel company.
It is absolutely right that the Government are taking action to nationalise British Steel and set out a clear strategy to strengthen domestic production. While the strategy will safeguard our steelmaking capability, we must recognise the realities facing the downstream steel sector, which has been impacted by having to compete with the unfair terms of international markets and by being consistently starved of investment. Many such businesses, including those in my constituency, depend on imported grades and products that the UK simply does not produce and that are regularly used in our defence force, the automotive industry and construction.
I also oppose new clause 11, which would require the Government to create a level playing field between nationally owned and private sector businesses. While I support in principle the use of quotas and tariffs to back British Steel, we must avoid unintended consequences for the downstream industry. Sudden or poorly calibrated changes risk undermining downstream firms. These businesses are vital in constituencies such as mine, and supporting domestic production must not come at the expense of the wider steel ecosystem. I have discussed these matters extensively with the Minister on several occasions, and I look forward to welcoming him to Stourbridge in the coming weeks to meet a local steel company.
Downstream companies have expressed legitimate concerns about the present proposals. I sincerely thank the Minister for engaging with me and them on these issues, but can he confirm whether, in cases where particular steel grades are not currently produced domestically, including zero-carbon grades, the Government intend to allow exemptions from the proposed tariff and quota regime? The most recent stance is that tariffs and quotas will be reviewed in 12 months’ time, but I really fear that that will be too late for some businesses. Will he consider transitional arrangements at the very least to offer some stability to the downstream industry?
I will also speak against new clause 12, which would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill. While supporting British Steel, we cannot ignore the climate crisis. Our steel industry must be driven towards green, decarbonised production. On that point, the steel strategy states an ambition to transition to carbon-neutral steel production with electric arc furnaces when market conditions allow. It is worth noting that SSAB in my constituency, which is part-owned by the Swedish Government, imports zero-carbon steel from Sweden, where such steel—its only by-product is water—has been produced using electric arc furnaces since the 1980s.
Following the Government’s introduction of an investment debt rule in 2024, I encourage the Minister to consider what further flexibility there could be to use a similar investment method to enable the transition away from coal-based steel production. I hope that he will reflect on those points and continue to engage well with the industry. With the right decisions, I believe that we can secure a competitive, resilient and low-carbon steel sector for the future.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
There is those three lions on my shirt, our NHS, the joy of holding a brolly over a barbie on another washed-out bank holiday Monday, that sweet smell of fish and chips on a Friday, a Mr Whippy on the beach, strawberries and cream at Wimbledon, His Majesty the King, the pageantry of trooping the colour, nil points at Eurovision, Fifa Ultimate Team, “Strictly” at Christmas, a “Gavin and Stacey” special, Monty Python, that Geri Halliwell dress, Phil Mitchell, James Bond, KSI, corgis, Larry the cat, Ant and Dec, accents, having that main character energy—and steel. Steel is to the UK what Yorkshire tea and Yorkshire puds are to God’s own county, what hotpot is to Lancashire and what black cabs are to London. It is about us. It is about what makes us and drives us. It is about pride.
Before I turn to new clauses 12 and 4 and amendments 20 and 7, which I am against, I want to begin with Martin Welch. Today marks 48 years since Martin began working at Scunthorpe steelworks, and he is now its longest-serving employee. That is 48 years of skill, graft, and loyalty to an industry that has helped to build this country. Martin has also been a champion of safety for his coworkers, standing up for people who are doing difficult, skilled and sometimes dangerous work. When we debate steel, we are debating people like Martin, families like his, and communities whose working lives, pride and futures are bound up with the future of British steel.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He has just made the point that I wanted to make, which is that we surely cannot make an ideological decision that it is always right to put national assets of sovereign capacity back into the private sector when, over generations, private industry has singularly failed to make the steel industry flourish. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Lee Pitcher
I absolutely agree. This is not about heritage or the sentimental value of steel, although those things are of course important. Steel means something to people in their hearts, but, with a business brain, this is just about doing the right thing for the industry and for our country, our people and our communities.
Steel is part of who we are. It is in the homes we need to build, the railways we need to renew, the energy infrastructure we need to deliver and the defence capability we need to protect our country, and it is in the skilled work, pride and industrial strength of communities that have already given more than enough to Britain. This debate is not only about a steelworks; it is about whether Britain is prepared to act like a serious industrial nation again. For too long, we have been too casual about losing the things that make us strong: factories, skills, supply chains, ownership and industrial capacity. We have allowed strategic British assets to pass out of British hands and then pretended that ownership does not matter. It absolutely does.
In Dunscroft, Hatfield, Rossington, Thorne and Moorends, people know what happens when a major industry is allowed to collapse. They do not need a lecture in industrial policy; they and their families have lived through it, and their towns still live with the consequences. The loss of coalmining was not just an economic event but a social rupture. It damaged local economies because it damaged confidence. It damaged pride and the sense that the country valued the people and the places that powered it. That damage is still visible 40 years later.
When people say that the Government intervention is too bold, too risky or too ambitious, I say that they need to look at the cost of not acting. Doing nothing is not free. It has costs for jobs, skills, supply chain resilience, industrial communities and national capabilities. It leaves Britain less able to build, less able to defend itself and less able to stand on its own two feet. That is not prudence; that is managed decline, and I did not come into this place and into politics to manage decline.
This Bill says that when a foundational industry is at risk, when thousands of skilled jobs are at stake, and when national resilience is on the line, the Government do not have to stand aside and hope the market sorts it out. The market has not sorted this out. Decades of decline, under-investment and foreign ownership have brought us to this point. The choice before us is not between some perfect private sector solution and public ownership. The real choice is between responsible public action now or allowing a vital national capability to disappear. We cannot allow that.
Some of the amendments before us seem to start from the idea that Government intervention is dangerous. I disagree: the danger is delay and timidity. The danger is pretending that rigid caps, lengthy processes and automatic routes back to private sale are the same thing as responsibility. Managed risk is not recklessness; managed risk is leadership. If we keep doing the same safe things, we will keep getting the same results. Those results are the decline that people keep voting for us to change—the change that I come to this House to be part of.
This is a time to be bold and to step up. This is a time to take well-managed risks in the public interest. There are times to seize the bloody obvious and deliver for the country, and this is one of them. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the families across my constituency who depend on those jobs, for the industrial communities that know exactly what happens when the Government walk away, and for the future strength of this country, I support this Bill. Britain needs steel, Britain needs British assets in British hands, and Britain needs a Government with the confidence to act in the national interest.
This Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. It turns the tide on 40 years of ideological self-sabotage. That is why amendments that would delay, dilute, cap arbitrarily or force a route back to failed models should be resisted. This Bill deserves the support of the Committee today.
Pamela Nash
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). What a passionate speech—I hope I can do half as well as him.
At the outset, I should state that I am a long-term and proud member of Community trade union. I thoroughly welcome the Bill, which takes additional steps forward from the legislation we passed last year. I am especially happy that the Bill is UK-wide and covers Scotland, too.
I want to touch on my concerns regarding new clauses 4 and 12, which seek to limit the level of financial support that the Government can provide. Given that the provisions in the Bill are designed to be used only in emergency and necessary situations, such amendments seem unwise. Over decades, we have seen Conservative Governments let down the steel sector time and time again by failing to support and invest. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Conservatives are seeking to bring into the Bill unnecessary and debilitating restrictions that are based on politics rather than the needs of the steel sector.
Mr Perkins
When I asked the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), about this point, it was instructive that we heard her resort to saying, “It is just about being kept in touch.” The new clauses say that the private sector is always the way to go, but we know from our long history with the steel industry that that idea has often led to private companies coming in, mismanaging or indeed closing British steelmaking companies, and us seeing sovereign capability disappear overseas. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the Government can always act in the national interest by rejecting the new clauses?
Pamela Nash
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is certainly the experience we have had in Motherwell in my constituency, where a questionable buyer for Dalzell has caused many problems. I will go into that later in my speech.
I am disappointed, and surprised, that the Liberal Democrats are seeking an even more restrictive limit on potential support. For us, Motherwell became the unwilling emblem of the Tories letting the steel industry down in the 1980s, with the closure of Ravenscraig and the subsequent loss of thousands of jobs across the area. It has taken decades even to begin to repair the damage that was done at that time.
In recent years, the Tory Government failed to prevent cheap imports and to bring in the investment and strategy that were needed to protect what was left of our steel industry. I therefore feel that Members on the Opposition Benches have an absolute brass neck in trying to put limitations on this Labour Government’s ability to breathe life back into it.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Lady referred specifically to our new clause. Does she not accept that we are merely asking for a further parliamentary vote if the proposed consideration for transfer exceeds a certain level, and that that is a sensible and workable way forward? Not only do we need to be open to the possibility of enabling the Government to take steel into national hands, but taxpayers’ interests need to be protected, and Parliament needs to have oversight of any decision of that nature.
Pamela Nash
If we brought the Government to Parliament every time we wanted them to intervene when there was an emergency, we would not be able to react effectively, so I do not accept that that is necessary.
Sarah Olney
It would take just hours to do that. All we are asking for is a safeguard. Without any kind of safeguard, what does the hon. Lady think would be an acceptable amount for the Government to offer in exchange for taking on a steel undertaking? Does she think that no limit at all would be acceptable? We are merely proposing that a motion should be laid before Parliament to be voted on, and that does not take much time.
Pamela Nash
This legislation is designed for extraordinary situations, so we are going to have to agree to disagree on that point.
Motherwell remains the home of steel in Scotland. While the immediate and particular focus of the Bill is, understandably, on the manufacturer British Steel, I want to take the opportunity to highlight the plight of what is currently our only Scottish steelworks: the Dalzell plate mill.
The Bill suggests three potential factors that can be considered in the assessment of whether it is in the public interest to nationalise a steel company or facility. Is the plant part of the supply chain for our defence industry, thus contributing to our national security? Is it necessary for the building and/or the maintenance of parts of our national infrastructure? Does it support the local or national economy? I would argue that the Dalzell plate mill is essential to all three of those elements of our country’s progress and security, and that we would be demonstrably better off if it was supported back to full operation.
When Sanjeev Gupta took over the plant almost a decade ago, he presented a vision of a bright future for Dalzell in a “green steel” era, but that has not come to pass. Like others, the plant has suffered as a result of the onslaught of cheap imports and the global events that our wider economy has faced, but Liberty has largely been unable to provide the funds or leadership needed to make Dalzell a success during its time at the helm, with repeated failures to deliver the raw steel that is required for the plant to fulfil orders and with staff left without work. There have been regular promises of materials and work being on the way, but more often than not they have been stalled or unfulfilled.
The current situation for the team of dedicated and highly skilled staff at Dalzell is difficult to imagine. The majority of them have spent most of the last two years at home on furlough, receiving less than their full pay. A skeleton workforce of about 20 is keeping the mill ticking over, ensuring that it is clean and maintained and that necessary paperwork is completed. They want to be ready to go as soon as an order comes in.
Lee Pitcher
It is really sad that we have got to that point. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of making bold decisions and taking a bit of risk is that it gives people aspiration for the future? It is about getting the next generation of children to set their minds on having jobs and careers in steel and manufacturing, working on the shop floor and having camaraderie. They need to envisage a future in which people have a regular, great income and support their local community and economy.
Pamela Nash
I share the vision of my hon. Friend, and that is exactly what I for Dalzell in Motherwell. At the moment we have staff who are worried each month about whether they are going to get paid, as they see troubling headlines and hear rumours about their parent company. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the mental health and wellbeing of the team, who have been left in an impossible limbo. Most of them want to be back in the workplace, in a job that they are proud of, and to be contributing to our country’s economy, security and infrastructure.
The workforce in Dalzell has now dwindled to 100—about a third of the full capacity. Predictably, key skilled team members are eventually leaving. These are people who are irreplaceable, because they have a unique combination of skills, qualifications and years of experience. Despite the team’s best efforts, the mill has not been used properly for a period of time, so the equipment and technology used in Dalzell is at risk of being dated and damaged out of value.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member speaks with passion and cares about her constituents. It seems that what she is saying is in parallel with my earlier intervention about the risk of losing the skills of working with steel—welding and suchlike. Does she share my disappointment, but perhaps not surprise, that there is no member of the Scottish National party with us today? We know that the Scottish Government set their face against all new nuclear in Scotland, but we would welcome an SMR at Dounreay in Caithness.
The hon. Member might agree that the Scottish Government are not helpful on defence either. She talks about leadership and shouldering the responsibility, but we have a gap—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Stone, we are here to debate the steel industry, not new nuclear or the pros and cons of the Scottish Government. Perhaps it is better if we stay within the confines of this Bill.
Pamela Nash
When it comes to Dalzell, the SNP Government have not been helpful. They previously stepped in when the steelworks went into administration, and then they sold it to the current owner, who has been less than helpful.
Richard Tice
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case for the importance of the heavy plate mill in her constituency, and of having the right owners of critical steelmaking capability and the functions around it. What we have seen with the failed ownership of Jingye, and with the failed ownership and fibs of companies such as Liberty, is that if we rely on an unaligned basis, without any care for the strategic importance of steelmaking, we end up in the pickle that we are in. That is why I think the hon. Lady makes a powerful case for the importance of the plate mill in the UK’s overall steel strategy going forward.
Pamela Nash
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention.
For the reasons I have set out, we are getting to the point where we are losing experienced staff and equipment is in danger of going out of date. Time is running out very quickly for Dalzell. If it is left to close up shop, we will not be able simply to go back later and restart it. I have no intention of being the Member of Parliament who sees the closure of the last steelworks in Scotland, and I know the Minister has no intention of allowing that to happen on his watch.
Steel is Motherwell’s heritage and is also a key part of its progress. It is our threads in the fabric of the future of our country. I want my constituents once again to look at planes, wind turbines and bridges and be excited to know that the steel encasing them came from Motherwell.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I have seen in our all-party parliamentary group on steel and metals-related industries how my hon. Friend is such a tenacious and tireless champion for her part of the world and the steelworkers in it. She mentioned defence earlier in her speech. Does she agree with me that we really need the Government to bring forward the defence investment plan, that its focus really needs to be on making sure that steel jobs benefit across the UK, including in Scotland and in Teesside, and that small and medium-sized enterprises and the entire supply chain benefit as well?
Pamela Nash
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the publication of the defence investment plan, but I do not think it is within the scope of this Bill and it is definitely above my pay grade as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Defence Ministers.
Finally, I want to see Dalzell again supporting a vibrant workforce, providing safe, well-paid, high-quality jobs to local people and being able to develop apprentices for the next generation of steel processing in Scotland. I want to see income investment in Motherwell from the reinvigoration of this plant, allowing surrounding businesses to benefit from its success. I reject the attempts of Opposition Members to limit the Bill’s ability to support our industry when it needs it most.
In his closing speech, will the Minister reassure the workers at Dalzell that this Government will support them, possibly with the safety net of this Bill or otherwise, whenever it is necessary? Will he also confirm to the people of Motherwell that Dalzell remains at the heart of this Government’s plans for the UK steel industry?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
Just like yesterday, this second day of debate has been incredibly considered and collaborative. I very much thank everyone for contributing, just as they did yesterday.
Having listened very carefully to the debate, I think many of the proposed amendments and new clauses fall into categories to do with the good use of public money in relation to valuations and liabilities, and to the role of this Parliament in scrutiny and reporting. I say at the outset, and I think this was put quite well by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash)—she did so in an intervention I had slightly forgotten about—that the Government are trying to strike a balance. We must strike a balance between the essential nature of government, with our public accountability and also the obvious bureaucracy, and the commercial demands of business. I think we have found the balance in the right place, and as I address some of the amendments, I hope to convince hon. Members that we have given due consideration to that.
Many Members, quite understandably, have highlighted specific cases in the steel industry that they believe the Government should consider. We have heard very powerfully about the plate mill at Dalzell and we have also heard about British Steel. However, this Bill is not targeted at any particular steel company; it provides powers to the Secretary of State to act in the national interest.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
This is not my specialist subject, so I ask the Minister to bear with me. Thames Covers in Shepperton in my Spelthorne constituency, which is a boat fitter, has been told that the cost of stainless steel tubing will go up by 50% from 1 July because of a new tariff kicking in. As I understand it, the tariff is to encourage people to buy British Steel, but the trouble is that British Steel does not make stainless steel tubing, so it will add a huge cost. The Minister says the Bill is not about individual businesses, but about overall governance. However, the Government may be causing unintended consequences, and perhaps the impact assessments we are calling for in new clause 7 would be a good idea.
Chris McDonald
I am grateful to the hon. Member for taking the trouble to make that intervention. A number of Members have talked about downstream steel, so although it is not precisely within the scope of this Bill—and, in fact, I do not think those impact assessments would address that point—perhaps I could address their comments.
Members have mentioned several different companies. This morning, I had a very constructive discussion with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), about specific instances, but she also pressed me on the concerns of many Members across the whole House. There are concerns about the introduction of the new trade measures from 1 July. I have, with the co-operation of Members from across the House, been able to gather specific examples from a number of different companies around the country that are concerned.
I am engaging with my officials and it is a matter of detail for each company. Some are finding that they will still be able to access the steels, because the measures are targeted at steels that are either currently produced or could be produced in the UK. Some have a concern because the steels that could be produced are produced primarily as speciality steels, or perhaps at Dalzell plate mill, as we have heard—certainly, the measures should incentivise some production there. Owing to the nature of the trade measures—they are grouped under eight broad categories, rather than extremely specific grade codes—some grades that are not made in the UK, such as seamless tubes, could be drawn into that. That is where quotas are important, so it is really an assessment of whether the quotas are right. Again, we have been able to provide reassurance on those instances.
However, I would never claim that the Government are infallible—I am certainly not—so that is why it has been very important to collect information and take action. In fact, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that tomorrow I am co-chairing a meeting with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), in whose area this matter strictly falls, to talk specifically to downstream businesses. I would like to acknowledge not only Members, but the Confederation of British Metalforming and the British Constructional Steelwork Association, which have worked with me so closely on this matter.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I just want to make it clear that I did allow some latitude, but this is a debate on the nationalisation of the steel industry, not tariffs.
Chris McDonald
Okay. I am happy to give way and we will see what the Members have to say.
Paul Waugh
Simply to follow up, Ms Nokes, on the point the Minister was making about exemptions for individual companies, Hanson Springs in Rochdale relies heavily on imports of steel of a particular length. Will the Minister reassure us that, as with the shadow Minister, he will be engaging with many businesses to ensure that they are not hit by tariffs and that the Bill will not harm them?
The Second Deputy Chairman
I am going to allow the Minister to respond, but I am not going to allow this to turn into a debate on tariffs and how they may or may not impact individual companies around the entire country, which I fear is where we are headed.
Chris McDonald
Thank you, Ms Nokes. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to take the second intervention and respond just once.
Helena Dollimore
I recently met a local steel business to discuss this issue and how it can source more British steel in line with the principles of the Bill. It raised with me a keen desire to source as much as possible in Britain, but it is not sure if it can actually source all the products it needs in Britain. It mentioned hot rolled coil as one example. The business is called Fowle & Co. and it would be great if the Minister could commit for his officials to meet my local business and hear its experience.
Chris McDonald
I am aware of the issue with the springs company raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I think it is particularly an issue around 13 metre bars. My office is arranging a meeting with the company concerned. I am also aware of the issue on hot rolled coil and am addressing that, too.
Jamie Stone
I assure the Chamber that I shall not mention power of any particular sort. Will the Minister, if he has not done so, think about having a word with the Scottish Government and how they might help him in his endeavours?
Chris McDonald
I am always very happy to receive help from everywhere, but the Scottish Government could help themselves by taking a more proactive approach to nuclear, as the hon. Gentleman identified earlier. The Scottish economy could benefit from that.
Let me make some progress. I want to turn to the parts of the Bill that Members have raised in the debate, and thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Minister for the amendments they have tabled. Amendment 4 was one of the amendments intended to extend reporting requirements around financial assistance and compensation under section 52. In the case of compensation, that is of course a one-off payment and so the question of regular reporting does not arise.
On the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, to which the hon. Lady spoke earlier, amendment 6 is about taking into account ETS, CBAM and so on in valuations.
A number of comments were made about valuations and the role of the independent valuer, which we will also touch on when we consider the new clauses on capping compensation. It is particularly important that we draw a distinction between the role of Government and that of the independent valuer here, which goes back to some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. It is a serious and rare intervention that the Government are making, and one that should happen only when there is a market failure or a company is in distress.
Luke Myer
The Minister is right in what he says about trade. On amendment 6, however, industry is concerned that phasing out free allowances before the new CBAM is fully tested risks exposing UK industry to carbon leakage. Does he agree that the new CBAM must be robustly designed and implemented to genuinely level the playing field for industry?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metals-related industries. The Treasury is responsible for the carbon border adjustment mechanism and is consulting extremely carefully with the industry on that. I am sure that the Treasury will have heard his remarks and will take them into account.
Amendments 7 to 9 relate primarily to some of the environmental liabilities. The issue also arose in yesterday’s debate, where there were concerns about liabilities—the phrase “unlimited liabilities” might have been used. However, the liabilities are not unlimited. We have a reasonably good sense of what the liabilities are. We would expect the valuer to take those liabilities into account—that is quite right—but we have extensive experience with the remediation of similar sites elsewhere in the country.
The Committee has heard about the Ravenscraig site, but the Teesside site is a more recent example. The remediation of the Teesside site—the amount of public money spent on that—is well documented. The site in Scunthorpe is of a similar age, has had similar industrial activity, and is of a similar size. Ultimately, however, the Government are seeking to avoid the crystallisation of environmental liabilities by ensuring the continued operation of steel on the site. It is the responsibility of the valuer to take that into account when determining the valuation of the company. For that reason, the Government do not consider it necessary to support amendments 7 to 9.
Amendments 10 and 11 propose increasing the frequency of reporting on financial assistance to every three months. Again, it is the Government’s view that the current framework is proportionate in terms of the balance between transparency and delivery. We are incredibly concerned to ensure that we do not impose unnecessary administrative burdens. Inevitably, the management of a business acquired through the Bill and the civil servants in my Department would have to deal with the reasons for the business’s acquisition. Although we of course feel that reporting, transparency and accountability to this House are important, we are trying to strike a balance.
I know that amendment 20 is particularly important to the Opposition, so I will spend a bit of time on it. We are all incredibly concerned about value for money, but we have existing arrangements across Government to deal with that. It is already the case that Departments must secure value for money under the Treasury’s managing public money framework. It is also our view that the drafting of the amendment does not quite meet the requirement as described: that the National Audit Office would check the assistance prior to being approved. We think that putting this requirement in statute would unnecessarily reduce the Government’s ability to act quickly where support is needed. We have heard from many contributions today that on the presumption that the legislation will be required, the Government must be able to move quickly.
We have seen the need for acting quickly before. Harking back to a previous example of a failed steel business, I recall that we had only a matter of days within which to save the Teesside business due to a shortage of coal. Of course, we all remember that it was necessary to come back to Parliament at incredibly short notice to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, again because there was a shortage of coal, with the potential for those coal shipments to be diverted. It is therefore incredibly important that the Secretary of State is able to act quickly when required.
A couple of amendments have been proposed by Plaid Cymru Members—although they are not present, I think it is still responsible to address them. One amendment is about restricting the National Wealth Fund, with which I completely disagree. The National Wealth Fund is one of Government’s primary instruments for assessing potential investment opportunities and investing in industry. In fact, there is provision through the Government’s £2.5 billion steel fund for the National Wealth Fund to offer support to steel companies, as set out in the steel strategy. We intend to use whatever funding instruments are available to Government, not to restrict them.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Although Plaid Cymru Members are not present, another Welsh Member is. With the Minister mentioning the available funding, I will take the opportunity to raise a topical matter with him, which is the catastrophic fire that took place on the pickle line last week in Port Talbot. I want to put on the record our thanks to the emergency services and the steelworkers who worked so hard to contain it, as I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock). The work is now being transferred to Llanwern, but it is a worrying time for those at Port Talbot. Does the Minister agree that, alongside the Bill, we must protect the jobs in the south Wales steel industry and ensure that they are fully equipped to support the expansion of sovereign steel that we all want to see as we go forward?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the incident last Wednesday at the Port Talbot site. Pickle lines are notoriously susceptible to these sorts of incidents because of the high-temperature hydrochloric acid used to treat the steels. I would imagine that once such a blaze has taken hold, the effects can be absolutely devastating. I want to echo her commendation of the emergency services and the workforce, who are, in this situation, the first responders, protecting life and valuable industrial plants. I was incredibly relieved to hear shortly after the incident that every single member of staff was accounted for. It is a credit to Tata Steel and its management processes.
I am, however, concerned about our loss of productive capacity there as a result of this incident. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we are fortunate in having another pickle line available in Llanwern, and I understand that as of last Friday Tata Steel is looking at restarting that plant and moving the work there—perhaps it has already restarted—but the hot mill was down for a time in Port Talbot. This really emphasises where we have points of vulnerability in our industrial capacity, not only in steel but more broadly. We are determined to address those points through this Bill, our steel strategy and our wider industrial strategy. I thank her for raising that matter.
Luke Myer
I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. He has made a couple of references to the Teesside site, both to the crash closure in 2015 and to the remediation of the land. With that land having now been remediated, immense steel structures are being built there as part of the Government’s carbon capture programme. It was great to be on site recently and to see the progress of that site. The project is using 50% UK steel; of course, Liberty Steel in Hartlepool has benefited from that. Does the Minister agree that procurement measures like contracts for difference need to be adjusted to ensure that we are using domestic steel in as much of our major infrastructure projects as possible?
Chris McDonald
I agree that procurement has an important role to play here. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have welcomed recent changes in guidance by the Cabinet Office to ensure that British steel producers are well placed to win these orders, as well as in the areas of renewable energy, where the Government are awarding significant contracts, and nuclear power, where we are again endeavouring to ensure that British companies are well placed to win those contracts.
I turn to amendment 22 and new clauses 4 and 12, which would impose statutory caps on compensation and financial assistance. I have already addressed compensation, and financial assistance is somewhat similar in that applying a cap on the basis of the number of employees, or indeed a fixed cap of any kind, would ultimately restrain the Government’s ability to respond effectively to circumstances as they evolve.
I believe that could fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is for the Government, with the will of Parliament, to be ready to respond to circumstances such that we are not required to fly back from wherever we are in the world at incredibly short notice, and prolong uncertainty among the workforce and suppliers. We do not want to create any legal uncertainty, uncertainty in the supply chain or commercial uncertainty. That is why it is important to have this level of flexibility.
The Bill has proportionate and robust transparency and accountability mechanisms for the provision of financial assistance. For instance, clause 59 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at 12-monthly intervals, and funding will be subject to the established framework for managing public money, including through Treasury approval processes.
New clause 6 would place on the Secretary of State a requirement to put forward a proposal to Parliament about providing financial assistance if a Select Committee were to make recommendations on that. Again, that is not realistic. Given that financial support would be required immediately following a transfer, there would not be time for that level of parliamentary scrutiny. Important though scrutiny is—I certainly welcome the investigation into steel currently being carried out by the Public Accounts Committee—we have to be realistic about the point at which it is possible to apply scrutiny.
New clause 7 would require impact assessments to be published before exercising the Bill’s provisions. Again, the issue is essentially about pace among other things. We believe that impact assessments are crucial to show the impact of Government intervention, and the Government are committed to operating in line with our better regulation framework requirements. We do not want to introduce any further legal uncertainty, so we reject the new clause.
A number of colleagues mentioned new clause 9, so it is important to address some of the issues raised around that. Fundamentally, the new clause would not be at all helpful; I will give an example as to why. There is an assumption in the new clause that if the Government were to nationalise a business under the Bill, the best approach would be to treat it like a hot potato and immediately throw it away. We have seen the impact of that.
We heard yesterday about the nationalisation—briefly—of British Steel by the previous Conservative Government: they spent £750,000, made no investment in the business and immediately sold it on to a company called Greybull Capital, whose track record was failure at Monarch airlines, failure at Comet electrical stores and failure at Rileys snooker halls. If you cannot run a snooker hall, you definitely cannot run a steel company.
This is where the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have some points of agreement: there is more than one way to bring investment into a business other than selling it to an overseas investor. We could have debt and equity finance, and the Conservative party used to be keen on mass public ownership via a listing on the London Stock Exchange. There are many different ways in which we can bring private sector investment into a business and resolve issues around ownership.
Of course, it is intolerable to work in a business that is constantly up for sale—I have been in that position myself—as businesses do not perform in that position. A decision to sell a business is a decision made at a point in time, not an ongoing process. The Government therefore reject that new clause.
Given that I have detained the Committee considerably over the last couple of days, I have no wish to do so any further. I hope that, having responded as fully as I can to the amendments and new clauses, the Members who tabled them might feel sufficiently reassured not to press them and therefore save the House their consideration. I fully and sincerely thank everyone for their incredible participation in the debate, for the marvellous speeches that we have heard today, and for their strong interest in the steel industry that I have worked in and which I continue to champion in this House.
Sarah Olney
I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 52 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Financial assistance
Amendment proposed: 20, page 39, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we proceed to the next business, I have a short statement to make. I have received a report from the Tellers in the No Lobby on the Division that took place in Committee of the whole House at 8.27 pm yesterday on new clause 2 to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. The hon. Members for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) have informed me that the number of no votes was erroneously reported as 257, rather than 251. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly. The ayes were 65 and the noes were 251.
—[Official Report, 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 111.]
Third Reading
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Government believe in Britain’s steel future. This Bill will help to transform that belief into a reality. It will ensure that the long-term vision for our UK steel sector is realised, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and to support this Government’s economic growth plans. This Bill provides powers for the Government to bring steel companies into public ownership, subject to the public interest test being met.
In many ways, the progress of this Bill has shown the House at its very best, with passion, insight and determination to take action in the national interest. We had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, with Members from all parts of the House recognising the importance of passing this legislation. Let me begin by thanking Members for their time and their thoughts. I express my gratitude to those who have contributed to the passage of this Bill so far, especially those who have taken a particular interest in ensuring that we get the details of this vital piece of legislation right.
I also take a moment to recognise those working in and supporting our steelmaking communities. Every day, they make a vital contribution to our country’s economic security. During the passage of this Bill, we have heard much about the specific situation at British Steel Ltd, and in particular about its current ownership status.
Let me be frank with the House: our decision to proceed with this Bill—to take these powers now—has absolutely nothing to do with the national origin of the current owners, Jingye. We have always been and remain country-agnostic about the current ownership. We simply believe that the British public interest should be paramount in determinations about future ownership. We continue to welcome international investment into the UK, including from China. We remain committed to our legal and international obligations to overseas business and foreign investors. We are fully compliant with our treaty undertakings to protect overseas investors and businesses operating in the United Kingdom.
While this Government need to take steps to secure UK Steel’s capability, we are committed to doing so in a manner that respects the rights of businesses. When and where the Government exercise the transfer powers in the Bill, an independent valuer will be appointed to determine what compensation, if any, is payable. The Bill requires a clear public interest test and provides for a compensation scheme where that might be relevant. The Government fully respect the rights of businesses and investors subject to this Bill. We will continue at all times to act fairly, regardless of the nationality or background of those businesses.
I place on record my thanks to parliamentary counsel and officials in my Department for their hard work on drafting and guiding the passage of this Bill. I also thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and all of the House and its authorities for making the passage of this legislation possible. Let me also, on a personal note, pay tribute to the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). A lifetime of dedication to the steel sector has brought valuable insight, passion and creative parliamentarian work to the Bill, which has enriched the debate in this place.
The House has sent a clear message about the importance of decisive action to safeguard the future of the steel industry. Since I became Secretary of State, I have championed an activist, interventionist industrial policy—activist, because the years of standing back and watching British industry decline are over; interventionist, because we, like other Governments around the world both right and left, from the United States to France and Germany, step in to invest, modernise and protect our industries. Our policy is both activist and interventionist, because purpose without action is merely rhetoric, and acting without purpose is performative, not strategic. The Bill is action with a purpose, and the purpose is clear: to invest in, modernise and protect Britain’s steel.
I am encouraged to witness the strength of support in the Chamber for this activist, interventionist Bill. As it moves to the other place, let me reiterate my commitment to continued engagement with parliamentarians as it completes its passage and we ensure that the Government’s vision for Britain’s steel sector becomes a reality. I commend the Bill to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I think it has been clear throughout these two days of debate that none of us in the House underestimates the importance of the steel industry to our national economy, to our industrial resilience, and to the communities whose livelihoods depend on it. We can all agree that steel matters, and that steel jobs matter. However, we also believe that the responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money matters, and despite the eloquent way in which the Secretary of State expressed his views on the Bill, we see it much more as a chaotic and unplanned intervention. It is not the product of a clear steel industrial strategy, but the product of a failure to negotiate a better outcome. The negotiated outcome was a possibility; the Secretary of State even went to China to try to achieve it.
It is the failure to address the root causes of the industry’s difficulties that has brought us to where we are today. The Bill could also be described as the steel industry blank cheque Bill, because it fails to protect the public purse from potentially vast and open-ended liabilities. Nationalisation does not solve the underlying issue that is making domestic steel production unprofitable. The higher employment costs, higher energy costs, planning issues, carbon pricing, regulation and levies associated with the Government’s net zero policies continue to weigh heavily on the sector, and the Bill does nothing to resolve those pressures. Instead, it transfers them wholesale on to the taxpayer.
We should reflect on how we came to this point. Not long ago, the Government told the House that they did not want to nationalise British Steel—indeed, that was presented as a last resort to be avoided—and yet here we are, because the Government have failed to negotiate an alternative. We see once again that when this Government negotiate, it is the taxpayer who picks up the bill. Since the intervention began last year, on that historic Saturday, the cost has already run to more than £1.3 million every single day. That is a bill for the taxpayer that will only become larger with this legislation. The Bill exposes the public finances to further liabilities—contingent liabilities, not only substantial but, alarmingly, potentially unlimited in terms of both their scale and their duration. This is a Government getting a blank cheque forever.
Richard Tice
The root cause of why we have the Bill is that the previous Conservative Government sold this business to Jingye in 2019. Another root cause is net zero, which was introduced by the Conservative Government. Surely what the Conservative party should do is show some humility about why we are here and support the Bill.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Surely what the hon. Member should do is welcome the fact that our party is under new and outstanding leadership. We believe that politicians should not be in the business of running commercial enterprises, but I can see that that is the political position of the Reform party. The risks of inefficiency, political interference and poor capital allocation are very well known.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is right to say that her party is under new leadership, but what did that leadership think about the decision to sell British Steel to Jingye? What did the leadership think of the net zero policies that the hon. Lady blames for the current situation? What did the Leader of the Opposition think of them when she was in government, and what did she do to oppose them?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is a bit rich to be lectured on support for party leadership from someone on the Labour Benches, so I will move on swiftly.
This Bill sets a precedent. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment says that expropriating assets in this way risks undermining the investor confidence that we need at this precise moment, when the UK needs to attract inward investment into strategic industries.
Throughout our Committee considerations, we have sought to improve this legislation to introduce better transparency for Parliament, to limit liability and to ensure proper parliamentary oversight. I thank my team, the team of Clerks, the whipping team and you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Throughout this process, our amendments were responsible safeguards; they were designed to protect the taxpayer and to impose discipline on the Government. Their rejection only reinforces our concern that Ministers are unwilling to confront the full implications of their own policy.
As we come to Third Reading, the choice is clear. This Bill risks enormous cost, offers insufficient answers, and sends troubling signals about the UK as a place to do business. We cannot support it in its current form. We will not vote against its Third Reading today, but for the sake of the taxpayer, the health of the steel sector and the credibility of industrial policy in this country, we cannot support it either.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
In my constituency of Darlington, we know the economic importance of the steel industry, and many of my constituents bear the scars of the Conservative party’s unwavering worship of the global free market. Regardless of the social, economic, community or security costs, they badly let us down. The last Government refused to step in for our highly skilled essential steel workers in Redcar, leading to the loss of thousands of jobs and the closure of a 170-year-old industry, and thousands more jobs in the supply chain were lost.
The Conservatives demanded a cap on the cost to the Treasury for this essential intervention to protect out sovereign steel capacity, which shows that they still do not get it. It shows their fundamental misunderstanding of the mistakes they made while they were in government. Despite their historic defeat, they refuse to accept that their inaction on steel has already cost the taxpayer dearly, and not only in significant employment tax contributions but in the business contributions of this critical industry’s supply chain. It is their inaction that chilled investment.
We know that thriving supply chains boost local employment and incubate home-grown entrepreneurs. They boost confidence locally, and industrial communities such as ours support and cultivate thriving, close-knit business ecosystems—something that we in Darlington still benefit from greatly, despite the closure of SSI, Cleveland Bridge and British Steel on Whessoe Road.
The vacant South Works site in Darlington, which is currently available to rent, is 131,000 square feet and comes with three cranes. If anyone is looking for a magnificent industrial steel site in the heart of the country’s most investable town, please do contact me, and I will happily negotiate and advocate for a discounted rent from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice).
The pride that our community has in a critical, century-old industry cannot be overstated. It is vital for wellbeing, but it is security that is essential for growth. People employed in critical industries, whether self-employed, businesses or workers, can afford to spend locally—they have the confidence to get the kitchen done, or take the family out for a meal. It is insecurity that chills investment and growth. By securing this critical sovereign industry, this Labour Government are demonstrating and living our values, and delivering on the change that we were sent here to make.
The difference could not be more clear: where the last Government allowed an essential, critical, highly skilled, historical British industry to be decimated by inaction and ignorance, this Labour Government promote our most qualified steel industry expert to the Front Bench to protect high-skilled jobs, stand up for our supply chains, champion our communities and nationalise steel in the national interest—and I, for one, say all power to them.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
As Members will be aware, part of the Scunthorpe steelworks site falls within my Brigg and Immingham constituency. As such, hundreds of my constituents work there, and hundreds more are employed in the supply chain. With that in mind, I made it known to my constituents a number of weeks ago that I would support this Bill. It could have been improved, and the Opposition tabled some perfectly sensible amendments, which I supported. However, having got to this stage, I think it is only right that we give our full support to the business and, more importantly, to the workers employed there. I thank the Minister with responsibility for steel. We have had a number of meetings in recent weeks, and he has been extremely helpful.
As I said in a previous contribution to this debate, it is not natural for me as a Conservative to support a nationalisation Bill, but the reality is that it is of course a restructuring. The existing position whereby the Chinese own the business and the Government in effect run it is clearly unsustainable, and we cannot allow that to continue, so it is a perfectly sensible move. I was reassured by what the Minister said in yesterday’s debate about the Government looking for private sector involvement, whether that be a wholesale sale or a partnership arrangement. I have met two or three groups that are interested in investing in the sector. Indeed, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) and I had quite an interesting evening a few weeks ago listening to what was, I think it is fair to say, quite an ambitious plan for steel, so there are organisations and businesses that are prepared to invest.
Scunthorpe without steel would not be Scunthorpe. As a resident of Grimsby, I have witnessed what can happen to a town when it loses its core industry—in the case of Grimsby, it was of course the deep-sea fishing industry—and when that happens, it takes about two generations for the local economy to be able to sustain the jobs that are necessary. On that basis, I will certainly be supporting the Bill.
The Minister was not quite 100% clear when challenged about the continuation of production in blast furnaces. I know the situation, and I recognise that a long-term move to electric arc furnaces is perhaps the only way to sustain the industry and the jobs in Scunthorpe. So I await developments with interest, but at this stage I welcome the Bill, which is a sensible way forward and has my full support.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
I welcome the contributions from both sides of the House, in particular from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). Like him, I represent an industrial constituency. My constituency in north Wales sadly holds the record, in any western country, for the largest number of industrial redundancies in one day. I think it speaks to all the constituencies affected that that goes through not just generations, but families—different generations of the same family. Many of my constituents have been affected, as have I personally.
The most exciting thing about how the Government have been very decisive on working to support and encourage British-made steel is not only what it does for just the steel sector, but what it says about our ambition to have proud, decent, good-quality jobs back in the UK. I thank everyone who has contributed. It is an absolute privilege for my communities to vote the Bill through today.
Peter Kyle
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for her passionate speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) for her heartfelt speech just now. Those are the kinds of contributions that give heart and soul to what we are trying to achieve, and that give voice to the communities affected. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his contribution. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
17:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 356 / Noes: 86 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I was left with no choice but to make a point of order on the Government’s refusal to give briefings to shadow Ministers on national security matters. Today, we are told that the Government wish to push through the National Security (State Threats) Bill next Wednesday in just one day.
Once again, the Government failed to offer a briefing to the official Opposition, yet this morning—five hours before the Bill was laid in the House—the media had a one-hour briefing at the Home Office containing the detail. As a shadow Minister, I have now been invited to a one-hour briefing on Monday night—a day after amendment submissions close—with every other MP in the House. Can you kindly guide us on how the Opposition can get the briefings we need so that we can hold the Government to account, not least when they are seeking to rush legislation through the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and indeed for notice of it. She obviously knows more about the contents of this Thursday’s business statement than I do. I understand that the Bill was published when it was presented, just after 3 pm, but that a technical problem meant it was not easy to access online. I understand that copies are now available in the Vote Office. It would have been courteous for Ministers to offer the hon. Lady advance briefing on the Bill—particularly if they intend to expedite its passage through the House—but I am afraid that I have no power to compel them to do so.
Adjournment (Summer and Conference)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16 July 2026, do adjourn until Tuesday 1 September 2026; and at its rising on Tuesday 15 September 2026, do adjourn until Monday 12 October 2026.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Question agreed to.
Delegated Legislation (Committees)
Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)
Ordered,
That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221), which was laid before this House on 3 June, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Petitions
Road Safety: West Midlands
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I am bringing forward this debate because of the many fatalities on the roads in the west midlands, and the catastrophic consequences of collisions and crashes. In seconds, happy worlds are turned upside down, lives are destroyed and families are left grieving their loved ones. My constituents are dying on the roads as a direct result of successive Governments’ inaction on tackling the scourge of speeding and dangerous driving, and I intend to set out exactly what must change.
Let me begin with an example that has stayed with me. On 19 May, a constituent contacted me to say that drivers on a road near them were regularly travelling at more than double the 30 mph speed limit. They were frightened, and they wanted something done, so I wrote to the Government to raise their concerns. The response I received was that the Department for Transport was not at that time considering any changes to the data used in assessing road safety interventions. On the same day that the response arrived, there was a fatal accident on that road—and that was the third death on south Warwickshire roads in a few days.
The Government must change their approach to road safety and intervene to save lives on our roads. They must also safeguard and consider all road users, and any new measures must protect vulnerable users such as pedestrians, walkers, cyclists and roller skaters, and ensure that funding for active travel infrastructure is available to communities so that people can enjoy safe walking, cycling and horse riding. Why must cycling infrastructure cost millions of pounds? Why is it so difficult to have separate and well-marked cycle and active travel lanes in Britain?
I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, published in January. It is ambitious in its aim to cut the number of people killed or seriously injured on Britain’s roads by 65% by 2035 and by 70% for children under 16. Yet a strategy without teeth is not a strategy at all. The Government need to commit to radical solutions; tinkering at the edges is no longer sufficient. The scale of death and serious injury on our roads demands bold, evidence-based action—and it demands that now. We need national legislation that is properly enforceable, that sets clear thresholds for interventions on dangerous roads and that does not leave communities at the mercy of local councils that are failing in their duty of care.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Although the debate is about road safety in the west midlands, many of the lessons that the hon. Lady talks about will apply nationwide, including in Leeds South West and Morley. Does she share my frustration that some councils rely on mean average speed data to determine whether to make adjustments on certain roads? As a maths teacher, I really appreciate the mean, but it hides the outliers. If we have 100 outliers out of 10,000 cars, that still makes for a dangerous road. Does she agree that councils should change their approach?
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the hon. Member for his passionate intervention, and I fully agree with him. I will talk a bit about what is happening in Warwickshire and I hope that Warwickshire colleagues will also intervene and share their experience. I also hope that the Minister will say something about guidance for local authorities, so that they are not just reactive but proactive.
Communities up and down the west midlands want to see proper enforcement and a reduction of speed limits in residential areas, especially where schools are located. My constituency of Stratford-on-Avon is a case in point, where we are left exposed by the Reform-run Warwickshire county council. Parish councils and community watch groups work hard to gather data, but it is incredibly difficult to implement any type of traffic calming measures or speed reduction orders. Often, even if those are agreed, the cost of the proposals falls on parish and town councils. The problem is felt with particular force in rural constituencies like mine.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. As a constituency neighbour in Warwickshire, I share her concerns. I have been out with my local Speedwatch groups in Warton and Water Orton.
My constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth are fed up of dangerous roads simply being ignored by the Reform-led county council in Warwickshire. From the Woodford Lane junction, Grendon Road in Polesworth, No Man’s Heath Lane in Austrey, Marston Lane in Bedworth and King’s Lane in Newton Regis to Coventry Road in Fillongley, speeding is out of control and the lack of speed cameras is putting lives at risk. Meanwhile, Reform’s record on Warwickshire county council shows that it is spending less money on our roads. Does the hon. Member agree that communities such as mine in Warwickshire deserve safer streets, investment in road infrastructure and action on potholes from local government, not rhetoric about what information children can read in libraries or what flag can be flown from Shire Hall?
Manuela Perteghella
I absolutely agree. I would like the county council to focus on what really matters to our residents, rather than spending its first six months in power deciding which flag should fly on which flagpole or talking about other culture war policies. I received an email from a visitor to my constituency who had hit a pothole, which thankfully had not resulted in a crash, but his car had been badly damaged. Now he is in conversation with the county council. This is not good for residents, or for our local visitor economy. The council needs to get a grip on the state of the roads, which obviously contributes to these dangers.
In rural constituencies such as mine, speeding through villages is the norm. Speed limits of 30 mph mean very little when there is no enforcement to back them up. Our country lanes carry cars, lorries, farm vehicles and cyclists, and collision blackspots are all too common. Narrow roads prevent us from having things like chicanes or narrowings, because large farm vehicles obviously need to use the road as well. Street lights are also an issue when we have many dark sky villages. Rural communities feel abandoned due to the lack of police officers and, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) just mentioned, the lack of power for local councils, as well as the lack of attention from Government.
I will focus on some locations in my constituency, but the list is not exhaustive. Rather, it is illustrative of the road safety issues that we all have in the west midlands. One example that I want to put on record is the junction where the A422 Banbury Road meets the B4455 Fosse Way, just east of the village of Ettington. Every day, drivers, cyclists, bikers and farm workers navigate a junction that should never have been designed the way it was. I have been calling on the Department to step in and engage with Warwickshire county council to ensure that this junction gets the full safety review and redesign that it so urgently needs. People have already paid the price for the failure to act.
There are many other dangerous junctions, including Oakleigh Road and Justins Avenue, off the Birmingham Road in Stratford-upon-Avon, with residents reporting near-misses and, sadly, crashes too. I have had meetings with National Highways about the Billesley junction on the A46, but we are still waiting for improvements to that junction, where several fatalities have already happened.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Likewise in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, we have a clear picture of where our hotspot areas are. The hon. Lady spoke earlier about having teeth and the ability to proactively plan and work with councils and National Highways to ensure that we tackle these problems and prevent accidents from happening before they occur. Does she agree that we need to use our road safety strategy to change the culture from being reactive to being proactive and preventive in order to save lives before people are harmed and hurt?
Manuela Perteghella
Yes, at the heart of this debate is changing the culture from local government to national Government. We need to have education and behavioural change, and I will say a bit about that, but the culture also needs to change. We need to be proactive, and we can be, because only then will we save lives.
Speeding near schools an issue. The children of Mappleborough Green primary school have written to me as they are experiencing fear and anxiety when crossing and walking along a very busy road that still has a 40 mph limit. We have a 40 mph limit outside a primary school. We are not getting any support in keeping those young children safe on their journey to school—and I am not even going to touch on the air pollution that the children are experiencing. What does the Minister say to those children?
Constituents have contacted me about speeding on the A3400 through Wootton Wawen village, which is making it difficult for elderly residents to cross the road to go to the post office or the shops and, again, for children to go to school. As the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned, we need a shift from reactive to proactive enforcement. We need that cultural shift. We cannot keep waiting for collisions to occur and then investigate the wreckage.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. It is striking how many of the issues she describes ring true for city constituencies as well. In Birmingham, the number of collisions has fallen over the past decade, but the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads has remained remarkably stable, at around 500 a year. That indicates that if someone is unlucky enough to be in a smash, the risk is actually greater. Many of our roads were not designed for the wider and heavier vehicles that now use them. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more adaptations for historic roads, and better and more up-to-date guidance on what interventions are effective in this age of wider and heavier vehicles?
Manuela Perteghella
I fully agree with the hon. Member’s points. With the road safety strategy consultation and review, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make changes to the culture and assess the situation. If we want to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads, we need to be bold and make sure that local authorities have better, bolder guidance on interventions for urban as well as rural areas.
For example, every time I ask for cameras, I am told that there have to have been five fatalities. There had been one fatality when I started campaigning for road safety in my village. I could not cross my road with my children—holding a little one by the hand and pushing the pram—so I started campaigning on road safety measures in my village. I was told, “You need to wait for five fatalities before automatic number plate recognition cameras are installed.”
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a compelling speech, much of which resonates with me as the MP for Rugby. I am dealing with constituents and councillors who are concerned about the speed limit on the A426 into Rugby from junction 1 of the M6, which is currently 60 mph. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s new edition of the best practice guidance on setting local speed limits, plans for which were set out in the road safety strategy, cannot come too quickly? We need to ensure that residents and their elected representatives are empowered, but all too often the process seems almost resistant to those voices. As she rightly says, all too often we need the evidence of injury and risk to come first, and that is often too late.
Manuela Perteghella
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. With the new national road safety strategy we have a real opportunity to ensure that we reduce serious injuries and deaths on the roads. I hope the Government will take into consideration our views and the responses to the consultation, and will ensure that the guidance is updated so that we are not acting after a fatality, because that is too late. It is too late for the families and for the young drivers who might have crashed—it is lives destroyed. Also, we cannot have a speed reduction policy that is based on how fast the cars are travelling, rather than on the dangers they pose to road users, including children walking to school or elderly residents crossing the road to get to the post office, the shop or their GP.
We must identify the risks before lives are lost and intervene accordingly. That is the change in culture that Members have mentioned, and the change in policy that the Government must now commit to. There must be cultural change at council level, too, as currently there is a reactive culture in which interventions are made only if there is a history of road traffic accidents, and locations with recorded collisions, especially collisions resulting in injury, are prioritised. County highways authorities often use the speed that most drivers do not exceed as data to judge whether a road has a speeding problem, but interventions should not be based on how fast drivers are driving. We need a change to the Department for Transport guidance, which also seems to reinforce reactive behaviour, especially on speed limits. I look forward to hearing about that from the Minister.
A constituent in Bidford-on-Avon—one of my villages—told me recently:
“Current analysis shows that 63% of cars exceed the speed limit through the village.”
I raised this situation with the local police force, which told me that 35 mph is the enforceable limit—but why? The charity Brake says that a pedestrian hit at 30 mph has a one in five chance of being killed, rising to one in three if they are hit at 35 mph. Children can be killed at 30 mph, so why are we waiting to enforce at 35 mph instead of 30 mph?
Lee Pitcher
On schools, it is not just about speeding, is it? One the biggest issues is parking outside schools. We need to find a way to help schools to move parents on, or to have others come in—relevant organisations, the police force or National Highways—to support them. We need to give them the teeth or the accountability to come in and provide support; if not, we will lose more children crossing roads between parked cars.
Manuela Perteghella
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was a school governor for many years, so I know how teachers write letters to parents to ask them to park considerately, and also not to idle their engines, because obviously that causes lots of pollution, and health issues such as asthma. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that schools are given the tools to change behaviour. We can send as many letters as we want, but I often find that the thing that makes parents and carers change their behaviour is the children themselves—children telling their parents that it is walk to school week and that they want to walk rather than drive. The role of education is really important, and even firefighters, policemen or local councillors can go and speak to children at school to change behaviour from the ground up.
Wales and other nations are implementing 20 mph zones. I want to see whether we can learn any lessons from them, but because of all the data that shows how dangerous 30 mph is, I think 20 mph zones should be standard on new residential developments. In one of the new developments in an urban area of my constituency, the new road appears to link houses with a local school, but the speed limit will be set at 50 mph. Again, that was raised with Warwickshire county council, but it just said that it follows national guidelines, despite the council having a suite of active travel policies and the fact that the road goes through a residential estate. It is really difficult to make the council review that limit. We now have so many new houses being built, and this road cannot a have 50 mph limit. We really must ask local highway authorities to do better.
Let me turn to one of the groups we know are most at risk. Young drivers between the ages of 17 and 24 account for just 6% of new driving licences, but they are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions. Those are young people from constituencies like mine and across the country who never make it home.
The evidence for what works is not hard to find. Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and every single state in the United States already operate some form of graduated licensing for new drivers. Those schemes are sensible, proportionate and evidence-based, and they include measures such as restrictions on night-time driving, limits on carrying passengers—especially young passengers—in the early months of a licence, and probationary periods marked by visible plates. They save lives. We should be doing the same, and I urge the Government to look at graduated licences and to bring forward proposals without further delay. The RAC believes that a form of graduated licensing for young drivers could help to save lives on our roads. I want to thank my constituents Robbin and Patsy, who have been formidable campaigners for graduated licences and road safety for young people since losing their child.
Road safety is not just about physical measures; it is also about changing driver behaviour. Nationally, I want to highlight the work of THINK!, which has launched important and lifesaving campaigns, from encouraging the use of seatbelts to tackling excessive speed, drink and drugs and, recently, the use of mobile phones at the wheel. Such campaigns must continue to be properly resourced and funded and reach every driver.
The Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership holds an annual memorial service to remember the lives lost and injured on Warwickshire’s roads, which I attended last year. It was a sombre event, because we all knew that all these deaths and injuries could have been prevented. The families of those killed on the roads of the west midlands are not asking for the status quo; they are asking for change that will save lives. I am asking the Government today to deliver it.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I rise to speak about Chester Road in Erdington, which has become a real concern for many residents because of the repeated serious collisions and fatalities over recent years, the most recent being on 24 May 2026. Residents tell me that although speed restrictions and traffic calming measures have been introduced, too many drivers are simply ignoring them. There is a growing frustration locally that the rules exist on paper, but enforcement and compliance are inconsistent. Many of my constituents in Erdington feel there is a lack of clarity and consistency around speeding policy, particularly around how 20 mph and 30 mph zones are enforced in practice.
Communities need confidence that road safety measures will change drivers’ behaviour, not just introduce more signage. Residents want to see clearer national guidance, stronger enforcement and better co-ordination between councils, police and transport authorities. That is particularly important on major roads such as Chester Road, where speeding has devastating consequences for pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists.
Lee Pitcher
We have a lot of farming communities and agriculture in the Isle of Axholme, and we have a big issue with horses often being killed on the roads. The space between a car moving at high speed down a country road and a horse is really important. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need to take that issue into account, particularly when we talk about the importance of those animals to small and medium-sized businesses in my area?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Sometimes we do not look at the issues faced by people who live in the countryside because we are looking at the issues that we face on the busy roads in some of our areas. He is right that it is vital that we do not look only at what is happening in cities and we look at rural areas as well. God help me, I would not like to see an animal killed because of something that I or someone else had done on the streets, so I agree with him.
Road safety is not just a transport issue—it is a public safety and public health issue affecting families across Erdington and around the country. Local people should not feel frightened crossing the road, waiting at a bus stop or walking near a busy junction because speeding has become normalised. We cannot accept preventable deaths and serious injuries as simply the cost of using our roads. Will the Minister tell the House how residents can be assured that communities can have confidence that road safety measures will be enforceable on our streets?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) on securing this important debate and I thank all hon. Members for their important contributions. I thank her for the clear and thoughtful way in which she articulated the road safety issues affecting her constituents and communities across the west midlands.
Road safety is a priority for this Government. In January we published the first road safety strategy in over a decade. Safer roads support economic growth, enable more sustainable and active travel, reduce pressures on our NHS, and ensure that people can travel safely and with confidence in their daily lives. I am grateful for the constructive tone of the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon set out so clearly, road safety is not an abstract issue—it is about people, families and communities. Every road death is a tragedy. Even today, around four people lose their lives on our roads every day and many more suffer life-changing injuries. Behind each statistic is a family whose life has been permanently altered. The vast majority of these collisions are avoidable. They are too often linked to behaviours such as speeding, drink and drug-driving, distraction and failure to wear seatbelts.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
One of the key issues in my constituency is street racing. All over the Black Country we have young men driving in gangs, causing a menace and many accidents, so I was pleased that the combined authority had set up a High Court injunction to allow the police extra powers to tackle street racing, which caused a reduction in my area. However, I am concerned that both Dudley and Sandwell councils are withdrawing from that injunction, removing the police powers against police advice. Does the Minister have any advice for me or those councils on how they tackle street racing?
Simon Lightwood
I obviously urge all local authorities to do everything possible in their power to improve road safety, and I hope that they will consider very carefully their actions in this area.
While the number of casualties has fallen over the long term, progress has slowed in recent years. For too long, the situation has been accepted as inevitable. To those who shrug their shoulders and say, “Nothing more can be done,” this Government say clearly, “Enough is enough.” That is why our road safety strategy sets out a clear direction for change. It includes ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured by 65%, and of children by 70%, by 2035. It puts road users at the heart of our approach.
We are taking action across the system. We are consulting on a minimum learning period for new drivers, strengthening motorcycle training, improving vehicle safety standards and ensuring tougher approaches to dangerous behaviours, including drink and drug driving. We will also establish a new road safety board to monitor delivery and drive progress, but we must go further, particularly for those who are most at risk.
In 2024, 31% of those killed on our roads were pedestrians or cyclists. Those numbers are simply too high, and we must design a system that better protects those people. That is why we will update the manual for streets to ensure that future road designs support people who walk, wheel and cycle to do so safely and with confidence.
We are also taking action to tackle work-related road risk. We will pilot a new national charter to improve safety for those who drive or ride as part of their job. It is estimated that more than 1,000 pedestrians were hit by working drivers last year. We will work with businesses to reduce work-related road risk and improve safety for all road users. Too many lives are affected by preventable incidents, and we are determined to change that.
A number of Members have raised concerns about speeding. For many communities, this is not just about statistics; it is about near-misses, fear and a sense that nothing happens until a tragedy occurs, and I understand that frustration. People should not have to wait for a serious injury or fatality before action is taken to improve safety. Speed is a key factor in both the likelihood and severity of collisions, and it is right that we continue to focus on it.
Local authorities have the powers to set speed limits, including 20 mph limits where appropriate, and to introduce traffic-calming measures. It is for them to determine what is appropriate in each case based on local knowledge and evidence, but we are supporting that work. We will update guidance on setting speed limits and the use of speed and red light cameras to ensure that authorities are able to take well-informed, proactive decisions.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon represents a largely rural constituency, and she is right to draw attention to the specific risks on rural roads. Those roads often carry higher speeds, have different layouts and can lack the infrastructure found in urban areas. When collisions do occur, they are more likely to be serious. We recognise those challenges.
It is essential that local authorities are able to take targeted action on higher-risk routes and that decisions reflect the needs of rural communities as well as urban ones. That is why we are working to ensure that interventions are better targeted on the risks presented by different road groups, including rural routes, where the consequences of collisions can be the most severe. We are supporting local authorities through updated guidance and evidence to help them to manage those risks more effectively.
Let me turn specifically to the west midlands. I recognise both the challenges and the progress that has been made. The region has a really complex road network, with busy urban centres, strategic routes and rural roads serving dispersed communities. That brings a range of risks, but this is a region showing really strong leadership. I welcome the commitment of the West Midlands combined authority to Vision Zero and the work being taken forward through its road safety action plan.
My colleague the Minister for Local Transport has visited the west midlands and was able to meet with the road safety commissioner. The appointment of the UK’s first road safety commissioner is a significant step in driving that work forward, alongside increased enforcement activity and the use of technology in high-risk locations. This kind of partnership working between local authorities, police and regional bodies is exactly what we need to see. Our role as a Government is to support that work through funding, guidance and a strong national framework, and we will continue to do that.
Enforcement is a critical part of improving road safety. Police forces, including West Midlands police, are responsible for deploying resources based on local priorities and risks. Their work—targeting dangerous, careless and inconsiderate driving—is essential to deterring unsafe behaviour and keeping communities safe. Technology also has an increasing role to play, whether that is through enforcement tools or vehicle safety systems that help prevent collisions or reduce their severity. We will continue to support both effective enforcement and the responsible use of new technologies.
Tragically, young drivers remain over-represented in road casualty statistics. We must strike the right balance between keeping young people safe and supporting their ability to access work, education and opportunities. Graduated driving licences and their implementation vary around the world—there is not one standard type. We are consulting on introducing a minimum learning period for England, Scotland and Wales, to make sure learner drivers get the necessary time and training to prepare themselves for a lifetime of driving. 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.
Let me turn now to some of the other points raised. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon raised the issue of data at the outset of her speech. She was referring to STATS19 having near-miss data; we have no plans to change that. STATS19 is the form that the police use to record details when they attend collisions that involve a casualty. On the specific issue of schools, road safety around schools, particularly the safety of children travelling to and from school, is a priority for this Government. Of course, protection for children is not limited to the immediate school frontage—national transport policy focuses on improving safety along the whole journey commonly made by children and young people, including school routes.
Rachel Taylor
Does the Minister agree that the leader of Warwickshire county council consulting the public on whether children should walk up to 8 miles to and from school was a bad move?
Simon Lightwood
I will leave it to the local transport authority to make those kinds of calls, but I urge it to make sure that the safety of children is of paramount importance when making those decisions.
The approach we are describing includes the use of 20 mph limits where appropriate, alongside safer crossing facilities, traffic-calming measures, school streets schemes, enforcement and school travel planning. We support delivery of those measures through national funding, which includes £7.3 billion of capital funding for local highways maintenance. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon also mentioned her concern about her local authority, saying that five fatalities need to take place before it takes action. I can say categorically that that is not the case—local authorities do not have to wait for any fatalities before taking action to improve their roads.
Improving road safety is not the responsibility of one organisation alone. It requires action from Government, local authorities, enforcement agencies and road users themselves.
Lee Pitcher
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker— I have made lots of interventions today, but this issue is really important to me. On the topic of new developments, Warren Park estate in my area has had new roads for a long time, but some of the markings are not there. The developer and the highways authority need to work together; will the Minister encourage them to do so? There is one specific junction that is particularly dangerous. Will he join me in pushing them to resolve that issue as soon as possible?
Simon Lightwood
I very much hope that those people will have heard my hon. Friend’s message and will take action to ensure that everybody is safe using the roads.
As I was saying, road safety is not the responsibility of one organisation alone; it requires action from Government, from local authorities, from enforcement agencies and from road users themselves. This Government are determined to reduce road deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Through our road safety strategy, through stronger local partnerships and through a renewed focus on the causes of collisions, we are taking a more determined and more proactive approach. I assure the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon that the concerns she has raised today will be carefully considered and that we will continue to work closely with partners across the west midlands to support further progress. I once again thank her for securing this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.