Commons Chamber

Thursday 5th February 2026

(began 10 hours, 11 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:34
09:34
09:34
09:34
09:35
09:35
09:36
09:36
09:37
09:37
09:37
09:38
09:38
09:39
09:40
09:40
09:41
09:41
09:42
09:43
09:43
09:43
09:44
09:44
09:45
09:45
09:46
09:46
09:47
09:47
09:48
09:48
09:48
09:49
09:49
09:50
09:50
09:50
09:51
09:51
09:52
09:52
09:53
09:53
09:53
09:54
09:54
09:55
09:55
09:55
09:56
09:56
09:57
09:57
09:58
09:59
09:59
10:00
10:01
10:01
10:02
10:02
10:03
10:03
10:03
10:03
10:04
10:04
10:05
10:05
10:06
10:06
10:07
10:07
10:08
10:08
10:09
10:09
10:10
10:10
10:11
10:11
10:11
10:12
10:12
10:13
None Portrait Oral questions: Attorney General’s Office
-

Speaker. >> Question number one. Did you take her?
10:13
None Portrait Q1. What steps she is taking to increase prosecution rates for grooming gang perpetrators. (907702)
-

>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government remains absolutely committed to stamping out the
10:13
10:13
10:14
10:14
10:15
Ellie Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Ellie Reeves MP, The Solicitor-General (Lewisham West and East Dulwich, Labour)
-
-
Solicitor general. >> May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend on receiving the Order of Merit from President Zelensky for her tireless campaigning for the children of Ukraine. I know she and I share a number of priorities, and I am proud to sit on the benches alongside her. Mr. speaker, for too long, victims of grooming gangs and serious sexual assault have not been heard. That is why last week I announced the expansion of the victims right to review pilot, which will ensure victims have a second chance for justice with a second prosecutor reviewing a case before it's dropped by the CPS.

This expansion has been driven

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by victims like Jade blue, and I want to pay tribute to her campaigning in this area. Patricia Ferguson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question number. Two, please, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Solicitor. FGM is an abhorrent practice and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

FGM is an abhorrent practice and I am determined to see more prosecutions. Earlier this week, I prosecutions. Earlier this week, I spoke at the CPS second national multi-agency conference on Honour based Abuse. I was privileged to have survivors share their stories with me, and was moved by their bravery and advocacy for others. I agree with them that we urgently need to improve the criminal justice response to these cases. In December last year, I attended the first national honour based scrutiny panel hosted by the CPS and will continue to work closely with them on this Patricia Ferguson.
10:16
10:17
10:18
10:18
10:19
None Portrait Q3. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the work of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Serious Economic, Organised Crime and International Directorate. (907704)
-

>> Mr. gentleman. >> This government is determined to make the UK a hostile environment
10:19
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:22
10:23
10:24
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:27
10:27
10:28
10:29
10:30
10:30
10:31
10:32
None Portrait Q5. What steps she is taking to increase prosecution rates for human trafficking. (907706)
-

>> Last April, the government published a modern Slavery Action plan to reinforce our commitment to working across government and with
10:32
10:33
10:33
10:34
10:35
10:36
10:37
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:39
10:40
10:40
10:41
10:41
10:41
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
a motion on increasing survival rates of brain tumours. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee. Tuesday the 10th of February debate on motion to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up. Rating Order 2026, followed by debate on motion to approve the draft Child motion to approve the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Uprating Order 2026 and the draft Social Security contributions, rate limits and threshold amendments.

National insurance funds payments and Extensions of Veterans Relief Regulations 2026 Wednesday the 11th of February. Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports. Thursday, the 12th of February a general debate on LGBT History Month, followed by a debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subject for these debates, determined by the Backbench Business Committee. The House will then rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday, the 12th of February, and return on Monday the 23rd of February.

The provisional business for the week commencing 23rd February includes Monday, the 23rd of February. Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Industry and Exports Financial Assistance Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Universal Credit. Removal of two child limit bill. Tuesday, the 24th of February, an Opposition Day debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced. And Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of the House, the debate on estimates are expected to take place in the week commencing the 2nd of March.
10:43
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Jesse Norman, thank you very >> Jesse Norman, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not think this is a moment for normal this is a moment for normal business, and so I'm sure that the whole house will join me in you, Mr. Speaker, and the leader, in taking this moment to remember the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, the young women and girls who were systematically trafficked and abused by him and his associates over many years, both those who have come forward and those who have not felt able to do that.

Mr. speaker. Today I'm going to talk about Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. I have no doubt that the leader and colleagues across this chamber feel the same way that I do. He and they will understand that this is a matter that far transcends party politics. Peter Mandelson, as business secretary, advised Jeffrey Epstein that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan, should, quote mildly threaten the Chancellor of the time, Alistair Darling, his colleague, over the planned tax on bankers bonuses.

As Jamie Dimon, still the chief executive of JP Morgan, duly did, Mandelson forwarded market sensitive information to Epstein, which related to the 2009 sale of up to £20 billion in state assets. Describing the internal Downing Street memo internal, I should add internal Downing Street memo as an interesting note that's gone to the PM. Mandelson gave Epstein advance notice of the 2010 EU 500 billion bailout the night before the official announcement, and he warned him in advance of the departure of Gordon Brown from ten Downing Street, a further highly market sensitive piece of information in Florida.

Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2008 under a state plea bargain on two sample felony counts solicitation of prostitution from a minor, procurement of a minor for prostitution. The Prime Minister was specifically asked at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday if he knew that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction. He said and I quote when we drafted humble addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security. Unfortunately, this is plainly untrue. It must be inadvertent.

When the Labour Party presented its humble address for impact assessments on Brexit to be released on the 1st of November 2017, that address did not mention national security at all. The second name on that motion was the name of the Prime Minister. So I hope the leader will encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record on this point. In his next appearance at the despatch box, the Prime Minister also said yesterday, and I quote, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise and then there was security vetting by the security services.

What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship Mandelson had, and Mandelson the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. Let's think about that again for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister saying that if only he'd known about the depth and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein as it continued after 2008, he would have rejected the appointment. It wasn't enough that he knew Mandelson had a continuing relationship with this convicted paedophile and sex trafficker.

He knew it. Indeed, he had had that fact that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein's mansion, reported to him by public sources, and he ignored it. Not only that, the Prime Minister had the public information further confirmed and reinforced by the security vetting, which was done after the appointment, but before Mandelson had signed his contract of employment. That was a further chance for the Prime Minister to reject the appointment and the Prime Minister ignored that too. The Liberal Democrat leader yesterday asked the Prime Minister, can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein's victims? There are many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of girls and young women who were trafficked and abused by and through Jeffrey Epstein.

It is clear that the Prime Minister did not consider them at all, or he could not have possibly taken the decision he did. So why did he? Why did he choose Mandelson? Why did he take that decision? He did so because Morgan McSweeney told him to. McSweeney was Mandelson's protege, and McSweeney was paying back his long time mentor and political sponsor for all those good works. With his appointment. This whole episode has done incredible damage to the already fragile nature of trust in politics.

Every Labour Prime Minister since 1997 has given Peter Mandelson a senior job and been betrayed by him. The present Prime Minister will be seen to have had his own reputation destroyed by this scandal. But let us be clear, every member of this House, our entire political system, has been harmed by it and will continue to be so until effective measures are taken to clean it up. So I ask two questions. Can the leader give an undertaking that the documents to be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee will not be redacted? And in order to reassure the House, can he ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the appointment procedure undertaken in this case, both the public due diligence and the vetting process, and set out in writing why these failed so badly in this case, and how they will be improved.
10:49
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear. >> Leader. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I first of all thank the shadow Leader of the House for the way in which he has addressed these matters this morning. He's fully entitled to do so. And in fact, I'd go so far as to say he's right to do so, because I agree with him that the there is palpable anger, there is outrage, and there is a degree of sadness, I have to say, about the way in which these events have unfolded.

And, Mr. Speaker, it's a minor thing, but I will I will do it this morning. What I would normally do in these occasions is run through a whole series of events that may have happened, and I'm going to reverse the order today. I'm going to deal directly with the shadow Leader of the House first and his remarks, because they're so important. And then with the with the forgiveness of and leave from you, Mr. speaker, I will make some other remarks about other matters. He raises some very important points indeed.

So let me address them. He talks about the humble address yesterday and the remarks of the Prime Minister. I think there's an assumption with humble addresses, and I've drafted a few in my time that that national security matters will be exempted from these anyway. But as I think we found out yesterday, there is a degree of confusion about that. What I am grateful for us was that as the debate continued yesterday and we did listen to the mood of the House and ensured that what was put before the House at the end of the day did reflect what the House was seeking.

So if it was imperfect at the beginning and I would gently say to him, I think his motion to some extent was imperfect to we got to the right place. And I think that was in terrible circumstances, a good moment for the House to make sure that that was what was put before the House and what was voted on. He asks about the actions of the Prime Minister, and that is, Mr. Speaker, going to be part, of course, of the outcome of investigations and inquiries.

And and I think we need to make sure not simply that there's a robust inquiry in place, but that we trust people to get on with it. And he raises the issue of the ISC and the documents that go to the ISC. I expect the ISC to get whatever it asks for in the form that it asks for it, and it may have been missed yesterday, but the National Security Act actually says that the ISC can ask for documents and I hope we don't get to this situation.

But if it doesn't get them, they end up in court with a judge making judgements about these matters. So I wouldn't recommend anybody trying to overreact or to leave out documents, because I think we're in a situation where everything, however painful it's going to be, everything needs to be out in that situation, needs to be out in that situation. Well, what can I also say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it's important that I put on record here the actions that have been taken since these matters, these further matters came to light.

The Prime Minister and let me say, and I should have said at the beginning, but I'm going to say it at this point. Again, I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House about not just how awful this is, but we should never forget that it's the victim, the victims of Epstein, that we should have at the forefront of our deliberations. They are brave, and we we need to make sure that we rise to the challenge of making sure that they get some kind of justice.

At the end of it all, the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that Peter Mandelson should not be a member of the House of Lords, and although he has retired himself, we will be bringing forward legislation to strip Mandelson of his title. And the Prime Minister has agreed with, and should I point out, Mr. Speaker, as ever in these matters, it's slightly more difficult to achieve that than it is for me to say it from the Dispatch Box, but also that the King has.

The Prime Minister has agreed with the King that the former Lord Mandelson should be removed from the. The Privy Council at the matter has been referred to the Metropolitan Police. They have said that the request that they be allowed to get on with their job, and I would absolutely endorse that. And then what we had yesterday over this week, Mr. Speaker, was a statement from this Dispatch Box about this matter. Prime Minister's Questions was rightly dominated by these matters.

And then yesterday, the not extraordinary but the unusual circumstances of six hours of debate on these matters and therefore giving opportunity to members to actually have their say. So we have listened to and we are listening, Mr. Speaker, to the House and indeed to the the country more widely to ensure that we get to the right place on this in what is an absolute tragedy, not just for the victims, but actually for the political process itself. So I hope that I've I've made that position clear.

Let me then return briefly, Mr. Speaker, to some other points that I wanted to make. The first is I'd like to pay tribute to Lord Triesman, who was a former general secretary of the Labour Party and as the former chairman of the FA, he campaigned against racism in sport and was a vocal supporter of women's football. I'm sure the whole House will join with me in sending condolences to his friends and family. I'd also like to pay tribute to Lord Wallace, who also died this week.

He was an ever present in Scottish politics for more than for almost four decades, a leading architect of devolution and a tireless advocate for his constituency of Orkney for over 30 years. And we remember him with with fondness and again send condolences to his friends and his family. I also want to pay tribute, Mr. Speaker, to the campaigning. And Daniel die, who has died after a long battle with cancer. I met Nathaniel die. He was a brave and courageous campaigner whose life ended too soon.

His family and friends should be proud, even in their grief, that his campaign made a real difference to the future well-being of others. And yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was National Cancer Day, and we published our national Cancer Plan. It owes much to healthcare professionals, but it also owes much to ordinary people. Extraordinary people actually, like Nathaniel Die, who told their stories and the stories of their friends and their families. And the plan does outline how thousands of people will receive more timely treatment.

And the Minister for Public Health and Prevention will make a state a statement shortly on other matters. Mr. speaker, we've announced the roll out of 500 new free breakfast clubs in schools across the country, which will mean a free breakfast club now operating in 1250 schools and available for 300,000 children. And today is time to talk. Time to talk today, an opportunity to break through the stigma that often comes with having conversations about mental health experiences. And this comes ahead of Children's Mental Health Week next week.

Children's mental health is crucial for fostering positive life outcomes, and I know there will be lots of activities in constituencies across the country to raise awareness. And finally, Mr. Speaker, members will also note with interest, I hope that Parliament's restoration and renewal costed Proposals report will be published by the House this afternoon. The Palace of Westminster is part of a Unesco World Heritage Site, and it's also as a symbol of our democracy. It is in much need of significant work to maintain the upkeep of the building and to make it safe for people who work here and also visit here.

And I hope that members will take time to read the detailed report. And in due course, we will be bringing forward the matter for debate and decision, not just by this House, but by the other place too. Thank you, Mr. Amanda Hack.
10:57
Amanda Hack Portrait Amanda Hack MP (North West Leicestershire, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. driving instructors who provide tuition to learner drivers in North West Leicestershire, and one of them reached out to me earlier this them reached out to me earlier this week to share. They got up at 5:45 a.m. to book a test for a student in Loughborough, but there weren't any tests available. What work has been done to increase capacity and key test centres that serve my constituency, like Loughborough? And can we have a debate in government time on holding drive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

test centres to account for some of these supply issues? Yeah. Mr. speaker, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important Friend for bringing this important matter to the House. Is not the first time that we've heard of these concerns. And I do look forward to a business questions forward to a business questions when they're not raised, because it means that serious action has been taken and the situation is taken and the situation is improving. I completely sympathise with those impacted by a long wait for tests.

The government is for tests. The government is bringing is taking action to deliver about around 10,000 additional driving tests a month, and we will ensure only learner drivers can book tests and stop the exploitation by online bots. But I will make sure that my hon. Friend has words and concerns are heard by the relevant Minister, who I'm sure will want to correspond with it. Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
10:58
10:58
Bobby Dean Portrait Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
made by the conservative Leader of the House about Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship with Peter Mandelson. And I do not intend to repeat his words, but I do think it's necessary to say that, as the political discussion around this political discussion around this will intensify in the coming days, we mustn't forget the victims at the centre of all this and their bravery, not only in retelling their trauma, but taking the risk their trauma, but taking the risk and taking on powerful men, possibly some of the most powerful and connected men on the planet, and all those that serve to protect him and legitimise him in his behaviours.

Dear, here, Mr. Speaker, I also feel duty to raise under-discussed issues in this session and I want to talk about Storm Chandra and the devastating impact it's had on communities, particularly in the south west of England, where flooding has damaged homes and a road collapsed into the sea. Now it's of course difficult to know when these storms will hit, but we do know that they're going to happen more frequently, and this is put more intense scrutiny on the role of the Environment Agency.

And I fear that they have been found lacking. Last year they gave up on Main Rivers maintenance, saying they could no longer afford to do it. And this is just a part of a pattern of the EA not being equipped anymore to do its job. In my own constituency, I can think of at least two major failures in the last couple of years. This time last year, there was a major diesel spill into my local river, the River Wandle, 4000l, suspected to be from a nearby bus garage.

The EA was sent to investigate. One year on, we still do not have their report and nobody has been held to account. We also host an incinerator in our constituency, which we know that if regulated properly, are better than landfill. However, over the last 18 months, there's been hundreds of emissions breaches and the EA has failed to punish the operator sufficiently. In fact, it says that it's minded to approve an expansion in capacity of this incinerator. That's despite strong opposition from myself, the local authority and apparently the government, who have stated publicly that they think we've reached capacity for incineration in England, but still nothing can be done.

And when I challenged the EA about this, they feel that they don't have the legal grounds to object. So I ask the government what is going on? And can the Leader of the House organise a debate to ensure that we can hold the EA properly to account?
11:01
11:02
11:03
11:03
Bob Blackman Portrait Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)
-
-
Of the backbench. the leaders announced on Monday, the procedure Committee are due to give a statement on their report on give a statement on their report on call lists. As this is not a backbench business day. Apparently this requires a motion from the leader to allow it to take place, and I hope you will enable that to happen on Thursday the 12th of February. There will also be a select Committee statement on behalf of housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee on their recent report.

And indeed on Thursday, the 26th of February, if we are given the date, there will be a debate on Saint David's Day and Welsh affairs. In addition, the business in Westminster Hall next week on Tuesday will be a report on the Independent Water Commission final report. And on Thursday the 12th there will be a select Committee statement on behalf of the EFRA Select Committee, followed by a debate on government support for healthy relationships just in advance of Valentine's Day, and then followed by a debate on Onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry.

On the Tuesday the 24th of February. When we return, there'll be a debate on government support for the healthcare system in Gaza. And on Thursday, the 26th of February, a debate on Eating Disorders Awareness Week, followed by a debate on the impact of VAT on independent faith schools. Mr. speaker, the eagle eyed individuals who follow the Order Paper will know that there's actually no second debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon. I should explain why that is the case. The hon. Member for Wokingham was granted this debate three weeks ago.

The government were given notice that this debate was being held. And apparently on Tuesday, the Public Health Minister informed the hon. Member for Wokingham that she was not available to answer the debate. Now, as you will know, and the leader will know, this is not acceptable for the government to be determining who answers the debate. A Minister or even a health whip could have answered the debate. Unfortunately, we offered because we have to give 48 hours notice to the government of debates.

We offered to five different individuals, but of course they couldn't change their plans for this afternoon. So I'm sure we will want to defend the right of backbenchers to hold the government to account. Now, Mr. Speaker, fly tipping in Harrow has been the scourge of most local residents. I'm pleased that the council has made many steps towards combating this, including fly tips that are reported within 24 hours, bulky waste collection on free basis, multiple trips to the waste recycling centre and CCTV are recycled to hotspots where fly tipping takes place.

But recently we've had the scourge of an illegal waste dump being set up on private land. Harrow Council officers have been through that waste and been able to identify the waste from 40 different individuals who've now been issued with fixed penalty notices for giving their waste to illegal waste collectors. This is a warning to people that they should not be doing so. However, there is a problem across the country now of these illegal waste collectors who are using private land to literally in a criminal action.

So could we have a statement from one of the Ministers on what action the government is going to take to support local authorities in opposing these illegal waste collectors, and warn individuals that they shouldn't be using them?
11:07
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Steve Yemm. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, thank you to the hon. Gentleman for his work and the work of his committee and thank him for the update which he has provided. In answer to his first question on the Procedure Committee report. It does require a motion. I will be bringing forward a motion, even though it's a slightly unusual circumstances. So the answer is yes. On the second point, which he raises about about the cancellation of a debate, let me say that sometimes it is difficult to ensure that there is a Minister available.

There are lots of draws on Ministers time. Not least there might be statements or or whatever, but I am a strong. My strong view is that it's a priority for Ministers and that they should be there. So I'm very sorry to hear of these circumstances. And I agree with the hon. Gentleman and indeed hon. Members who supported the view. It's not acceptable what has happened if people find themselves in that situation before. I can't do anything about it if I'm not fully aware of it.

If any hon. Member or right hon. Member finds themselves in that situation before, and there's any doubt about whether or not there'll be a Minister, if they come and see me, I will ensure that there will be an appropriate Minister. Or, as he points out, in some circumstances, a whip who Ministers to make sure that the debates can go ahead. So I apologise for that, but I ensure that we will do everything we can to make it different, to make it better in the future.

In terms of flytipping, as he said, it's completely unacceptable and a blight on our communities. We are giving councils new powers to crush the vehicles, for example, of suspected fly tippers and bringing in prison sentences of up to five years for those transporting waste illegally. And I am a firm believer that there is a law that it should be a warning. But if that's ignored, then action should be taken. So I'm pleased. If that is the the case, I'll draw his concerns to the attention of Ministers with regard to a possible statement in the future, or he may wish to apply for a debate on these matters.

Mr. speaker, he is uniquely placed to ensure he gets them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I just say I didn't know about it? I'm very concerned about what's been raised and I thank the what's been raised and I thank the leader for the answer. But I do want to know why I wasn't told about this as well. So I will take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about this as well. So I will take it up along with Liam Conlon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Leo Barber, from Beckenham, tragically Barber, from Beckenham, tragically took his own life in November 2023, aged just 16, after suffering
11:09
11:10
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
And from the camp in Adré of And from the camp in Adré of 140,000 people, 85% of them women and children, who have fled the most horrendous violence and most horrendous violence and violations. In January, Sudan passed a thousand days of conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, a regionalised conflict of power regionalised conflict of power proxies and profit defined by unimaginable atrocities, by millions pushed into famine and by the horrific use of rape as a weapon of war, and by suffering that should strike at the core of our shared humanity, that should mobilise the world's resources and resolve.

And yet, too often, the response we have seen is to hold back and look away catastrophically failing the people of Sudan and failing Sudan's women and girls. I am determined that we do not look away, determined that we put the spotlight firmly on Sudan. That is why I travel to the region to see first hand the extent of the crisis, to listen to the testimony of traumatised women and children whose lives will never be the same again. To see how UK support is making a difference, but also to see what urgently needs to be done by the international community to help arrest the spiral of bloodshed and to drive urgent momentum towards peace.

In Adré, I met families who had been torn apart, mothers who had survived appalling violence only to find their daughters missing, and frightened children who had travelled vast distances in search of some semblance of safety. I met teachers, nurses, students, market traders, small businesswoman and political activists, impressive women whose lives and livelihoods back home had been stolen from them. A mother separated from her children who told me she still doesn't know where they are and whether they are alive.

A young woman who told me that most of the women she knew had been through bad violence on their journey, but they wouldn't talk about it because of the shame. And a Sudanese community worker who told me she thought more than half of the women in the camp had directly experienced sexual assault or abuse. And I've heard from others in recent weeks, including a Sudanese emergency response worker who described three sisters arriving at their response room who had all been raped.

The oldest was 13 and the youngest was eight. This is a war waged on the bodies of women and girls. But here's what I also saw an incredible group of Sudanese women who have set up a makeshift support centre for women who have suffered sexual violence, and for children with trauma, they've got activities for children, support for mums. But more survivors need that kind of help. So this week I announce that the UK will fund a new 20 million Programme Pound programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan, enabling them to access medical and psychological care.

Given the terrible stigma endured by survivors and children born of rape, part of our international action to tackle a global emergency of violence against women and girls. But why didn't see and address is just as disturbing. The fathers, husbands and brothers missing either killed or drawn into fighting or migrating further and leaving family behind. Reports from El Fasher after the RSF attacks were of atrocities so appalling they could be seen from space with blood soaked sand, multiple piles of bodies, mass graves and aid agencies are still facing barriers to get in.

We've seen reports of the SAF refusing to let desperately needed humanitarian aid through, even though right now some 30 million people need life saving assistance due to this war and up to 7 million face famine, that is nearly the equivalent to the entire population of London. Every person across the entire city that we stand in today. In December, the UK provided an additional £21 million for food, shelter and health services and we have committed £146 million to support over 100,000 over 800,000 people this year alone.

Since the conflict began, we've reached over 2.5 million people delivering water and medicine to hard to reach areas, and we will continue to make Sudan a top priority for UK humanitarian support. And we will support reforms such as the steps advocated by UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher and the International Rescue Committee to strengthen the prioritisation and closer work through local partners on the ground. Yet for aid to save more lives, the deliberate barriers to humanitarian access must be lifted because aid alone won't solve this crisis.

We need an immediate and urgent ceasefire. We need those responsible for the atrocities to be held to account, and we need a pathway to peace. There is no military solution to the conflict, only devastation for Sudan. Yet the military men driving this conflict are still refusing to agree a truce, and there is disturbing evidence that they are seeking and getting hold of ever more dangerous weapons. This crisis is being compounded by regional rivalries and vested interests, with the real risk of further escalation within Sudan and beyond.

As fighting spreads to the Kordofan regions. And I am very fearful that the RSF advances on the city of El Obeid risk turning it into another El Fasher coordinated and determined international pressure are needed to halt this bloodshed and pursue an immediate truce. A halt to the arms flows tangible pressure from all those who have backed the RSF and SAF, or who have influence upon them, to deliver a ceasefire and pressure from the entire international community to. The US has been working intensively to secure a truce, drawing together other quad countries the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, discussing humanitarian support, military withdrawal, civilian transition and action to stop arms flows.

And I am in close contact with all members of the quad, including Secretary Rubio, and with the president's senior advisor on Africa, as we urgently push for a way forward. And the UK is particularly involved in a process to support Sudanese civilians to build their capacity. African partners in the region also have a critical role. And in Addis Ababa earlier this week, I met with foreign Ministers from Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Chad and the African Union's chairperson and Peace and Security commissioner to discuss what more can be done by border countries and their assessment of the action needed to achieve a ceasefire, because we need to build the same focus and momentum on a peace process for Sudan as we had last year around Gaza, with countries from across the world coming together to back a ceasefire.

And that is why I am so determined that the UK will keep the international spotlight on Sudan. This month, the UK holds the presidency of the United Nations Security Council. We will use it to press for safe, unimpeded humanitarian access, accountability for atrocities and international cooperation for a ceasefire, and we will use it to make sure the voices of Sudan's women are heard in the Security Council chamber. Yes. And as we look to the third anniversary of this devastating conflict in April, the UK and Germany will jointly convene a major international conference on Sudan in Berlin and November.

UK leadership at the UN Human Rights Council secured international agreement to an urgent UN inquiry into crimes in Al-fashir, following its capture by the RSF, and later this month we will receive the report of that UN fact finding mission. Because as well as pursuing peace, we must also hold the perpetrators to account. And today I can announce new action on the UK that the UK is taking to apply pressure deliberately on the belligerents fresh sanctions targeting senior figures in the SAF and RSF who have committed atrocities across Sudan.

We are also targeting a network of individuals operating behind the scenes to procure weapons and recruit mercenary fighters. These designations send a clear message the UK will hold accountable those suspected of perpetrating and profiteering from the most egregious violations of international law. To look away from crises such as Sudan is not just against our values, it's against our interests. Because wars that rage unresolved cause harm not to civilians, and their destabilising effects ripple through across borders and continents through migration and extremism.

So let 2026 be the year the world listens to the women of Sudan, not the military men who are perpetuating this conflict. And let 2026 be the year the world comes together to drive urgent new momentum for peace. I commend this statement to the House.
12:12
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
I call Shadow Foreign Secretary David Priti Patel. David Priti Patel. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The situation in Sudan is serious and deadly across this chamber. We all want to see this awful, all want to see this awful, barbaric war end. Millions are suffering, displaced and malnourished. An estimated 150,000 people have been killed, including in massacres such as Al-fashir. War crimes are being committed and appalling acts of sexual violence being perpetrated against women and girls. UK leadership is needed to make a difference to the humanitarian situation on the ground, and also to support every international diplomatic effort to end this awful and deadly conflict.

But I do have to ask the Foreign Secretary, how can she come to the House to talk about such barbaric sexual violence against women and girls? When the Prime Minister knowingly let his friend and a friend of one of the worst, most notorious paedophiles, Peter Mandelson, into the heart of government and her department, is she not ashamed and concerned that our country's credibility and record on this issue has now been damaged because of the government's poor judgement and the Prime Minister's judgement in appointing Mandelson, knowing his links to Epstein with Mandelson putting his interests first, has she assessed the damage his actions have caused to the UK's international and reputational interests, including on our essential work to address the situation in Sudan? To her knowledge, did he, at any stage mislead our US ally on national security and foreign affairs, on key decisions such as Chagos, which impact our security partnership? This morning? And I'm sure she would have seen the reports that Secretary Rubio warned the Labour government over the appointment of Lord Mandelson.

Can she confirm whether she or her predecessor were aware of this? The UK's credibility has been damaged by the Prime Minister and her government's appalling judgement, and that is why answers are needed. Madam Deputy Speaker. This week, the UK assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council. So can the Foreign Secretary tell the House how we will use this position to rightly advance efforts to negotiate to end this conflict? US led peace efforts are reportedly building momentum with text of a plan to try and stop the fighting being prepared.

Has the Foreign Secretary seen and inputted into that text? What are her views on? Has she set parameters to decide if the proposals are the right ones? Has she spoken with other Sudan quad countries about it, and if acceptable, what pressures will be put on the warring parties to agree it? What is her assessment of any progress made since the statement at last April's Sudan conference in London, and who will participate in the conference with Germany? We absolutely welcome the new sanctions on the RSF and the SAF, and can we expect further action against the leaders of these barbaric groups? They're key operators in forces who were all responsible for administrating the vile brutality on innocent people in different parts of the country.

We all back the sanctions, which were announced in December. But of course, we need stronger action with robust consequences that deters the entities, individuals and businesses who support continue to sustain this awful war. Can the Foreign Secretary update us on how the UK is using the international courts to pursue those responsible for these atrocities being committed, and to gather evidence? Of course, we note the 20 million of humanitarian funding announced by the government for women and girls. So will she confirm whether this is being drawn, money drawn from that's already pledged or whether it is additional new funding that's being announced? And can she confirm which organisations are providing the programmes funded by this money, and the mechanisms on how the support service will work, as well as supporting women and girls affected by this sexual violence and the stigma attached to children born from rape? Is she also working to help male victims, where there is also stigma attached that prevents them from coming forward more broadly? Can she update us on the volume of British aid that has managed to get over the border since the escalation of this awful conflict towards the end of last year? And what information has she received on what aid is getting through and is it getting into the right hands? Madam Deputy Speaker, the war in Sudan is a stain on the world's conscience.

Britain has to use every ounce of its influence and leverage to exert its fullest influence, to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately and to secure a lasting peace.
12:17
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
Foreign Secretary. can I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary's words on Sudan? It is the worst humanitarian crisis in the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century, and the whole House should be united in wanting this crisis to end. She asked about the the work that is being done through the quad and the work that is being done, led by the US. I'm in very close contact with the US special Envoy, Massad Boulos, and I have also keeping close contact with Secretary Rubio on this issue.

And also I've been involved in discussions with the UAE, with Egypt and with Saudi Arabia as well. There is a lot of work being pursued by the quad, but linked to that, the UK and Norway are also pursuing further work, particularly to to build civilian capacity, because what we all want to see is this move towards a civilian transition, a political transition. But that means we need to build up the capacity of Sudanese civilians who have faced the most horrendous devastation and had to flee their homes as a result of this conflict, and they need support as well.

But as I've also said in the statement, we also believe that this has to be an international effort in the same way that there was in the run up to the Gaza ceasefire, where there was the the work by the Arab League to say that Hamas should play no role, the work by the UK, France and other countries to recognise the State of Palestine, the work by different countries to put forward potential reform plans during the summer that ultimately all of which was drawn upon by the 20 point plan put together by the US and by President Trump last year.

But we need that same intensity with the same level of international engagement around Sudan. That is what I want to see. And that is why I spoke to so many of the African foreign Ministers in neighbouring countries this week. It's why I've also been speaking to the African Union, and it's why I will be raising it not just in the UN Security Council as part of our holding of the chair this month, but also at the Munich Security Conference. Also, as far as as part of the Berlin Conference as well.

So we will keep the focus and the energy around Sudan because it is crucial that we do so. The 20 million that we have announced this week is new money going forward, particularly for the survivors of sexual violence as well. She also raised the issue around Peter Mandelson. As the House will know, I withdrew Peter Mandelson from his role as ambassador to the United States. That was less than a week after being appointed as foreign secretary, and I'm clear that his actions were completely unforgivable.

And given that the heart of what Epstein did was the grave abuse and trafficking of women and girls, that makes this particularly disturbing. And I would say something else as well, that I was the chief secretary at the height of the financial crisis, when what I saw was everybody busting a gut to rescue the savings and the livelihoods of ordinary people across this country, and the idea that a senior and experienced Cabinet Minister alongside us could instead be behaving the way that we have seen is truly shocking.

And it is right that a police investigation is under way.
12:20
12:21
12:22
Monica Harding Portrait Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Monica Harding. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sudan is the Deputy Speaker. Sudan is the world's biggest humanitarian crisis and I welcome the increased funding and the sanctions, which are long overdue. But why do these sanctions still fall short of EU action, and why do they still fail to target why do they still fail to target the heads of either the SAF or the RSF? Why has it taken this long? Will the government now target those profiting from Sudan's gold trade, which continues to bankroll the war economy? Humanitarian aid must flow freely and independently in its role as the United Nations Security Council.

Penholder what steps has the government taken to secure a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can get through and to expand the arms embargo beyond Darfur to the whole country? Will the government expand its aid provision and ensure that aid delivery, including from UK taxpayers for my own constituency of Evesham, is distributed through the UN and Ingos, or to the local efforts like the emergency response rooms, and that the UN system is not undermined. I welcome the steps the UK has taken to ensure Sudanese pro-democracy actors are not sidelined by external power brokers.

Will she reaffirm the UK's commitment to a civilian, non-military end state in Sudan? What is being done to prevent parallel diplomatic tracks from undermining UN led peace efforts? Will the government suspend arms exports to the United Arab Emirates, giving credible evidence of its role in fuelling the conflict? What discussions has the UK held with partners to ensure that humanitarian assistance is not being used to mask responsibility, and how will accountability for atrocities be safeguarded with any peace process supported by the UK, including support for the international justice mechanisms like the International Criminal Court, the UK has a long legacy in Sudan and with that comes responsibility.

Sudan's civilians cannot wait. I urge the government to act with ever more urgency and focus.
12:24
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
Foreign Secretary can. >> Foreign Secretary can. >> I also thank the hon. Member for her commitment to peace, reaching peace in Sudan, and her comments on the horrendous nature of the crisis there as well, on the sanctions issues, the sanctions that we have now issued bring us broadly in line with the EU. The US has gone further, so we are continuing to look at these issues as well, and also seeking to link the sanctions that we issue both to the evidence around the atrocities that we have seen.

Also, to some of the evidence around the arms flows and crucially, to the peace process and the peace discussions that we want to see going forward. I agree with her about the importance of the UN, and I met with the UN secretary general just a few weeks ago ago, and the UN emergency coordinator, Tom Fletcher, exactly. To discuss Sudan and the importance of the work that the UN is doing. The UN are also in close touch with the quad around these discussions and pressing for much greater humanitarian access as well.

We certainly need to move this to a civilian government. We need a political transition and a process to get there. But this has to start with the humanitarian truce. We have to start with silencing the guns. And we need, as part of that, an end to the arms flows. And we have seen I've seen evidence of a whole series of countries being involved in arms flows to different sides. We need action against that. Thank you.
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:56
12:57
Ashley Dalton Portrait Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)
-
-
government's National Cancer Plan for England. A cancer diagnosis changes you forever. When I was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer 18 months ago, I didn't know if I'd be alive today. Never mind if I'd be alive today. Never mind standing at this despatch box announcing a national cancer plan. But one year ago, almost to the day, the Prime Minister asked me to do just that. Madam Deputy Speaker, since the government took office, over 212,000 more people are getting a cancer diagnosis on time.

Over 36,000 more are starting treatment on time, and rates of early diagnosis are hitting record highs. Despite these vital signs of recovery, the NHS is still failing. Far too many cancer patients and their families. That's why, first and foremost, this plan is a break with the failure of the last 15 years. In 2011, the coalition government published Improving Outcomes A strategy for cancer. It was followed in 2016 by achieving World Class Cancer Outcomes a strategy for England. In 2019, the long term Health Plan for England made cancer a priority and included a headline ambition to diagnose 75% of cancers at stage one and two.

However well intentioned, not one of these strategies have lived up to their promises. Cancer mortality rates in the UK are much higher than in other comparable countries, while survival is much lower. Cancer incidence is around 15% higher than when the than when the 62 day standard was last met, and working class communities are being failed. Most of all, the most deprived areas, including rural and coastal communities, often have fewer cancer consultants, leaving patients waiting longer. And it all adds up to the chilling fact that someone living in Blackpool is almost twice as likely to die young from cancer than someone living in Harrow.

Madam Deputy Speaker, wherever you live in our country, you deserve the same shot at survival and quality of life as everyone else. Wealth should not dictate your health and neither should your postcode. And behind these statistics are real people. I've heard from those whose care lacked empathy and dignity, whose cancer was missed or test results lost, who were passed from pillar to post and kept in the dark about their condition, and those whose loved ones died before their turn came for surgery.

Because the wait was too long. Those experiences are unacceptable. They are devastating. And from day one, I was determined to put their voices front and centre of our plan. Over the past year, we've listened to and learned from cancer charities, clinicians and most importantly, patients and their families. Every action is a response to someone's lived experience. Every commitment is a promise to transform someone else's life, and their stories have become the blueprint to make the biggest improvement in cancer outcomes in a generation.

Madam Deputy Speaker, three major themes stood out from the 11,000 responses to our call for evidence, around 9000 of which came from patients and their carers. First on core performance standards. Second, improved survival and third, quality of life after diagnosis. And Madam Deputy Speaker, these are not radical ideas, but unlike previous strategies, this plan is not limited to incremental improvement. Instead, it is an ambitious, bold plan to save 320,000 more lives by 2035 the fastest rate of improvement this century.

By modernising the NHS, harnessing the power of science and technology, and putting our patients at the front of the queue for the latest medicines while helping them to live well after diagnosis, not least for people diagnosed with stage four metastatic and incurable cancers. People like me. So how do we get there? We're placing big bets on genomics, data and AI as set out in our ten year plan for health, and we will hardwire the three shifts of our ten year plan into cancer pathways.

First, on analogue to digital, we heard from patients about the importance of clinical trials. So we will make the UK one of the best places in the world to run a trial with a new cancer trials accelerator. We will start people's care earlier using liquid biopsy tests, which can return results up to two weeks faster than conventional testing. We will harness AI to read scans, plan radiotherapy and identify the right path for each patient. We'll harness genomics so every eligible patient will have access to precision medicine, and we will harness data as we make sure all metastatic disease is counted properly, starting with breast cancer, so that people with incurable cancer are properly recognised and supported.

When you're not counted, it feels like you don't count. We will end that. Innovation will also help us fight inequalities and make the shift from sickness to prevention. We'll turn the NHS app into a gateway for cancer care by 2028. It will host a dashboard for cancer prevention, with access to tests and self-referral, and by 2035 it will bring together genomic and lifestyle data with the single patient record to advise every patient according to their risk. This will benefit people in rural and coastal communities that can find it difficult to access specialist care, simply due to geography.

Finally, we'll use the Neighbourhood Health Service to make the shift from hospital to community. That means more care, more prehabilitation to recovery support will be delivered closer to home. We'll help people live well with cancer through tailored support. Closer to home, people will be given personal cancer plans, named neighbourhood care leads and a clear end of treatment. Summary so no one feels abandoned after their treatment. Madam Deputy Speaker, For too long, those with rarer cancers have seen little to no progress for many of their conditions.

They told us we need a special focus on these cancers, and our plan sets out how we will benefit from the deployment of genomics, early detection and the development of new treatments asked for by patients delivered by this government. And I can pay tribute to the campaigning of my hon. Friend, the Member for Mitcham and Morden, for her campaigning in memory of her late sister, Margaret. We should also remember that the late Tessa Jowell raised this issue in 2018 and her family's campaigning ever since.

Our plan also gives pride of place to children, and young people will improve their experience of care at every level, from hospital food to youth worker support and play support. And I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, the Member for Leyton and Wanstead for his campaigning on this point. Our Children and Young People Cancer Task Force asked for support with travel costs because when your child has cancer, the last thing you want to worry about is how you're going to pay for your train ticket.

So today I can announce that we will fund those travel costs and alongside rare and less common cancers, we will make research for children and young people a national priority. I want to take this moment to thank the children, young people and families that made up our children and young people cancer Task Force. It was a pleasure and a privilege to meet with them earlier this week, and I thank the families and loved ones of people lost too soon that continue to fight to make change for others.

I'm so grateful to them and as people read this plan, it's their voices I want people to hear. Because this plan is rooted in the voices of patients, families, clinicians and charities. It will turn cancer from one of this country's biggest killers into a chronic condition that's treatable and manageable for three and four patients. It delivers the ambition of the ten year health plan and embodies the government's three shifts and sets a clear path towards earlier diagnosis, faster treatment and world leading survival rates by 2035.

But this plan doesn't belong to the NHS and it doesn't even belong to this government. It belongs to us all, and we must all play a part in making it work. Over the past year, I've met with the patients, families, carers and clinicians, researchers, cancer charities and voluntary groups who have all contributed to this plan. This government is on their side. We wrote this with them and we can't deliver it without them. Let's do this together. And I commend this statement to the House.
13:05
Stuart Andrew Portrait Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP (Daventry, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Secretary. >> Of State. >> Thank you. >> Very much, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the Minister for advance sight of the Minister for advance sight of her statement? Can I say right at the outset we share the ambition to improve cancer survival and outcomes? Almost every family in Britain has been touched by cancer and patients do deserve timely diagnosis, treatment and proper support. I also want to recognise the minister's personal experience and the commitment that it has clearly brought to this agenda and we on this side of the House, wish her every success for the future.

And can I also join her in thanking all those that have taken part in the shaping of this? It really it does make a big difference when we hear the voices of patients and families that have been through these experiences. The National Cancer Plan sets out major commitments, including early diagnosis, improving performance against cancer, waiting time standards, faster setup of clinical trials, and the national rollout of targeted lung screening now. And it also talks about modernising services through technology and innovation.

Now, as Cancer Research UK has said, there is much to welcome in this. But as I've also said, it's right for them to say that delivery, funding and accountability will determine whether patients see change. So because too often plans do sound impressive on paper but fall short when it comes to clear published delivery milestones and accountability. In many respects, this plan mirrors the ambitions of the ten year NHS plan strong on aspiration but light on the detail about how change will actually be delivered on the ground.

So my first question is simple when will the government publish clear, funded milestones showing how and when patients will see improvements in the next year or two? We welcome investment in diagnostics, technology and innovation. It is also right to recognise that this plan builds on the significant expansion of diagnostic capacity delivered by the last conservative government, including the roll out of over 160 community diagnostic centres. Earlier diagnosis on this scale is only possible because of that foundation, but technology is only meaningful if it translates into real capacity and quicker treatment for patients.

And that is why radiotherapy matters. Radiotherapy UK is right that it is a core part of modern cancer care that relies on up to date equipment and a skilled workforce. So my second question is this will Ministers set out how the plan will expand radiotherapy capacity in practice, including equipment replacement and workforce, so that patients can benefit in the. In reality, rather than just something written on paper? And are we learning the lessons from the Danish example who put investment into radiotherapy and saw significant improvements over a period of years? And that brings me on to the workforce.

The success of this plan depends on cancer nurses, radio, radio, radio radiographers, pathologists and oncologists who are already under immense pressure. We've heard big promises before, but less clarity on delivery. And so my third question is this where is the fully funded long term workforce plan to deliver the staffing needed to expand diagnostic and treatment capacity and sustain improvements, including in neighbourhood health centres, and to explain clearly who will staff them and how they will be funded.

Blood cancer UK has highlighted the importance of ensuring blood cancers are properly, properly recognised in planning and that patients receive consistent support from the point of diagnosis, including access to a named healthcare professional. And that underlines why delivery and accountability across the system matter so much to patients. Can I also welcome the commitments in this plan to children and young people? And I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, who I know did some incredible work in this.

Having worked in children and young people's hospices, it's you can never forget the journey that those children and their families go on. And I'm really grateful to the government for having a big section on that. My first. Fourth question then, is about life after and at the end of treatment. The plan rightly talks about improving quality of life and support after treatment, including personalised support and rehabilitation. We all want people to live longer, but for many patients and their families, hospice and palliative care are essential.

Yet hospices across the country are under severe pressure, with now many in crisis exacerbating, exacerbated by recent government tax rises hitting staffing and running costs. They are noticeably. Hospices are notably absent from today's statement. So will the government urgently convene a crisis meeting with the hospice sector, and set out what immediate steps it will take to stabilise services and expedite delivery of the palliative care plan. We will support any serious deliverable reforms that improve earlier diagnosis, speed up treatment, strengthen the workforce and improve patient experience.

We will also hold Ministers to account for turning long term ambition into real improvements. Now, because we do want to see the patients getting the care that they need.
13:11
Ashley Dalton Portrait Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)
-
-
Minister. >> Thank you. And I thank the hon. Member for for his statement and questions and and particularly for his personal wishes. Thank you. his personal wishes. Thank you. Thank you indeed. On the overseeing of delivery, it is absolutely crucial, you know. Great. We've written a plan. What matters is delivering it. And, you know, we started delivery even before we'd finished writing this plan. We are not waiting. We've already put 200 million directly to cancer via cancer alliances. We've recruited 2500 more GPS.

We've put in place 28 cutting edge radiotherapy machines already and are already rolling out lung cancer screening. We've opened more community diagnostic centres at evenings and weekends. We said we deliver 2 million more appointments. We've already delivered 5 million more appointments, and we've put £25 million into the niHr Brain Tumour Research Consortium. So there's already steps that are being taken and it is really important, as he points out, that we are held to account and that people keep our feet to the fire on delivery.

That is why we are setting up a brand new cancer board of charities and clinicians that will oversee the delivery of this plan and keep our feet to the fire on workforce. We know how important it is to make sure that the cancer workforce is grown and developed not only just in numbers, but in terms of being able to have the resources and the support to use their skills to the utmost. The workforce plan that the government is developing will also include cancer and will be published in the spring of this year.

I was delighted to hear the hon. Member mention rare cancers and children and young people. This is the first ever cancer plan with a chapter on rare cancers. It's the first ever cancer plan with a chapter for children and young people, and I'm really proud of that. In terms of radiotherapy, as I said, we've invested 70 million into 28 new Linac radiotherapy machines, and we've listened to stakeholders in the radiotherapy community, and we're investing in new technology, including those radiotherapy machines and in AI, which assist the oncology workforce to reduce the time it takes to plan and and then deliver treatment.

And by April next year, we will streamline the process to make it easier for radiotherapy centres to use cutting edge stereotactic ablative radiotherapy s a burr, which I know is of crucial importance to many patients. And we're also going to ensure payment system associated with this treatment. Incentivises rapid adoption. The hon. Member mentioned hospices, which is very close to his heart and his experience. We are delivering the biggest investment in hospices in a generation. We've provided 100 million to upgrade buildings, facilities and digital systems and we're giving a further 26 million to children's and young people's hospices, ensuring they can continue offering specialist, compassionate support.

More broadly, we are developing a palliative care and end of life Maldon service framework for England. It's currently being developed alongside our stakeholders, with a planned publication date of autumn 2026. I hope that addresses most of the issues raised by the hon. Member, and more than happy to speak with him further after the debate.
13:15
13:16
13:17
Helen Maguire Portrait Helen Maguire MP (Epsom and Ewell, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat. >> Spokesperson Helen Maguire. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for her personal experience that's gone into this plan after the Conservatives failed to invest in our NHS. It's no surprise that cancer survival in the UK is still around 10 to 15 years behind leading countries, with worse survival rates for some cancers than Romania and Poland. So I'm pleased that this government listened to my hon. Friend for Wokingham and brought this national cancer plan to life because cancer touches everyone.

One of my residents, a mum with a young family, discovered a lump in her breast. Despite attending the One Stop Breast clinic on four separate occasions, it took two horrendous years for her to be diagnosed with breast cancer. When she was finally diagnosed, the cancer was aggressive and required a mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. This is why I welcome the government's target on meeting all cancer wait time standards by 2029, but the aim to halve the backlog in three years time is not ambitious enough.

So will the Minister go further and back a Liberal Democrat plan to write into law a guarantee for all cancer patients to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral? The focus on ending delays in cancer care is a step forwards. However, funding for 28 new radiotherapy machines is not enough, particularly when this treatment is so cost effective and successful. We need to end radiotherapy deserts. So will the Minister extend her ambition to to 200 extra radiotherapy machines? The Minister says the plan will turn the NHS app into a gateway for cancer care.

But how will the Minister support the digital excluded and older people? The plan promises to drive up productivity and the postcode lottery, expand NHS, expand NHS diagnostic capacity, introduce personalised cancer plans and more. This is optimistic and will require more investment to increase NHS capacity, but without clear funding and capacity building plans. Is this realistic? Will the Minister confirm Labour was right to put patients at the heart of this plan and incorporate? The Liberal Democrat calls for a specialist cancer nurse for every patient we costed for 3000 extra cancer nurses.

How many additional cancer nurses does the Minister believe are needed? And finally, will the Minister confirm that the plans annual summary of progress will be reported in the House for members to scrutinise? Thank you. Mr.
13:19
Ashley Dalton Portrait Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)
-
-
I thank the hon. Member for her question. And you know, we listen question. And you know, we listen to a lot of people about the need for cancer plan. And I just want to take this opportunity to say that it was our friend Nathaniel Dye, who sadly died last week from stage four bowel cancer that challenged my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, back when we were in opposition to bring forward a cancer plan, and he made that commitment right then, and we've brought that forward 18 months after coming into government.

We understand in terms of the NHS app, as she's raised, that that is not necessarily relevant for all those people that might feel or be digitally excluded. But one of the reasons we bring this forward is to be able to open up capacity within the rest of the system, so that those that can use digital tools can free up capacity for that 1 to 1 face to face support that many people need. But every cancer patient will get that support under this plan, whether it's through the app or through their named lead clinical specialist in their neighbourhood, supporting them throughout the process, including after treatment.

We are working with the NHS, with NHS England at the moment to identify numbers around cancer workforce and we'll be able to announce more around that as the workforce plan develops. Thank you, Ben Goldsborough.
13:20
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:26
13:27
13:29
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
Ashley Dalton Portrait Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)
-
-
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. And prevention is a key part of this plan, and we're doing an awful lot on that, which I've an awful lot on that, which I've mentioned already, the illegal underage sunbed use, for instance. We're also eliminating cervical cancer through HPV vaccination and tackling obesity and fundamentally creating the world's first smoke free generation with our groundbreaking Tobacco and Vapes bill. We don't ignore communities hit hardest, and the Cancer Alliance's are promoting new catch up schemes to enable young people to to catch up on vaccinations like HPV that they may have missed.

And we're tackling harmful alcohol consumption by introducing new mandatory health warnings and nutritional information on alcohol labels. We have reformed the public health grant in recent years. We have wrapped it up and in many places there's seen an overall increase. But we're also giving local authorities more flexibility to use their public health grant. And with, for the first time in many years, multiyear settlements so that they can plan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Members will know that this is a very important and sensitive and sometimes personal statement. But sometimes personal statement. But can I just remind members that we've also got two debates that are important after this? So please

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important after this? So please Vickers. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
13:33
13:34
13:34
13:35
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:41
13:42
13:42
13:42
13:43
13:44
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:48
13:48
13:49
13:49
13:49
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:52
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:54
13:55
13:55
13:56
13:56
13:57
13:58
13:58
13:59
13:59
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:02
14:03
14:03
Liam Byrne Portrait Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)
-
-
however. I want to start with people, with workers and with businesses because it was just in April last year that we found ourselves in this place. On an unusual Saturday hearing to ensure that British Steel was a business that was kept alive. Not long thereafter, we had our agencies supporting the high street retailer supporting the high street retailer Marks and Spencers as it suffered one of the worst cyber attacks in our country's history. Not long our country's history. Not long thereafter, the Exchequer was required to underwrite, to the tune of £1 billion, the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain, as it suffered a cyber attack of unprecedented proportions.

All of this took place while our allies in Holland were battling over Nick Smith chip supplies, and our allies in America were battling China over rare earth restrictions. Five shocks, but one message, one message, which is that economic security threats are now a concern to this country's security. And the message from our select committee is that these threats are going to multiply significantly in the years ahead. The combination of AI powered weapons, the advent of hostile states, the reality of unpredictable allies, and the need for us as a country to mobilise something like £100 billion worth of new foreign direct investment all together means that the threat surface, confronted by our businesses is about to multiply exponentially.

And that is why we need, as a country, new economic security defences. Because if we have learned one lesson from Russia's illegal invasion in Ukraine, it is that economic security is the foundation of national security. And so just as we need a whole of society approach to defence, so we now need a whole of society approach to our economic security, to. That is why the select committee undertook its review last year. And our conclusions were stark. We found that the institutions, the policies, the posture, the funding, the laws, the regulation that we now have in place means that we do not have an economic security regime in our country, which is fit for the future.

And so what we set out to do is to provide a blueprint for how government could overhaul the system that we have in place. We recommended, like our allies, putting our regime on a statutory basis with a cross-government Minister for Economic Security, a proper centre for Economic Security at the centre for government. And we then made a number of recommendations for how we could improve the diagnosis of threats that we confront, how we develop the sovereign capabilities that we need as a country, how we diversify our supply chains and our sources of critical minerals, how we defend our critical national infrastructure against new perils, how we deter those seeking to damage us economically and, crucially, how on earth are we going to dovetail the efforts of His Majesty's Government and the private sector, and the work of this country and our allies around the world? Those were the recommendations that we made to government, and today we publish for the House the government's response to our report.

Let me start by saying to the Minister on the front bench that we welcome the constructive tone that the government took in response. We realise that this is a novel field of policy. It is fast moving, and where we end up at the end of this Parliament will be very different to where we are currently residing today. And the government has accepted clearly four of the recommendations that we made partially accepted 11 of the recommendations we made. But I lament that they have rejected ten of the recommendations that we made.

And so, for the benefit of the House, let me canter through those very quickly. What we felt was good about the government's response, published today, some clear principles that will guide our economic security policy for the future. We had lacked those until today. I'm glad that we now have them in black and white. We welcome the commitment that the government makes to stronger alliances. We welcome the promise of tougher deterrents, particularly from companies House to bad actors, and we welcome a slightly half hearted commitment to stronger parliamentary scrutiny of this field of policy in the future.

Where the committee has concluded the government made some progress but hasn't gone far enough, were in these areas. First, although there is a promise to improve forecasting of future threats led by the Department for science, industry, Innovation and Technology, we felt that the commitment was just a little bit too vague for our taste. Second, we are sorry that the National Exercising programme does not have a clear commitment to bring together the public and the private sector to wargame the kinds of threats that we know will come together.

We're not going to face one threat after another. They will compound and hit us all at once. That's why we need business and government to be working together to scenario plan for the future. We welcome some of the progress on critical minerals, but frankly, we don't think that the money or the strategy that is put in place is up to scratch. And so the committee has concluded in a report that it published earlier this week that an inquiry into critical mineral security will be one of the inquiries that we undertake this year in the field of cyber security.

We don't think that the recommendations on software standards and cyber security standards were really heard, and we would like to see more progress on mandatory reporting of cyber ransom attacks. We didn't feel that the government has made yet a clear commitment to develop anti coercion systems or instruments. We welcome what the Ministers have said about the need to get something in place. Our allies already have this infrastructure in place. We welcome their recommendation that they will listen to us in this House and on our committee.

But we would like a little bit more specificity from them. And then finally, we simply don't think that there has been enough progress on controlling foreign subsidies. The CMA been endlessly consulting on this for the last two years at a time. Industry is six times over, subsidised compared to European industries. We don't think there is a strong enough regime for policing a level playing field in competition, and we think that imperils our manufacturers, and nor do we think that the trade remedy authority is fit for the modern day, and that significant reform is going to be needed.

What I propose, we lamented most is where the government rejected our recommendations, because here we felt as a cross-party committee, I might add, we had some common sense proposals for Ministers to consider. We regret that there is no clear plan to overhaul government coordination and leadership in the way that we had when it came, for example, to counter-terrorism policy after seven over seven and indeed when it came to economic security policy back in the 1920s and the 1930s, there was a actually a resistance to publish a clear list of the sovereign capabilities that we'll need as a country.

Now, I had to say, I understood from defence Ministers at the time of the Defence Industrial Strategy that there was indeed going to be a clear, specific list of sovereign capabilities that we as a country were going to need to develop. Today's government response says that no such list will be published. We regret that the managing public money framework will not be updated to take into account the need for investments in resilience. The government response said that the current regime was adequate.

That is clearly a nonsense when ministerial directions are needed to ensure the subsidies that were delivered to British Steel, or the underwriting that was delivered to Jaguar Land Rover supply chain, it is quite clear that the managing public money framework today does not give Ministers or officials the right framework for balancing the security needs of our country and the growth objectives of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. We remain concerned that the tax incentives for improving the resilience of small business are not adequate.

We lament that there is no backstop for the cyber insurance market, and we regret that there is no extension of the brilliant Poole to provide that insurance for the future. And it is quite obvious to us that the pay scales for our front line specialists in the war on economic crime are simply not adequate. So look, we look forward to continuing the dialogue constructively with Ministers. And I do want to welcome the tone that they struck and the progress that we have made.

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me just conclude with this. Over the last year, as we have set about our work, we have heard consistently from our allies fears, concerns about the economic security regime in this country. We have heard loud and clear from our allies that they worry that the UK is the weak link in the Western defence when it comes to economic security. If we believe, as I think we should, that economic security is the foundation of national security, that is not a position that can go on.

The fact that our allies tell us on the committee that they worry we are the weak link in Western defence is not something that our country should put up with, and it's not something this House should ignore.
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:16
14:16
Liam Byrne Portrait Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)
-
-
Grateful for the hon. Member's question. What we sought to do when we published the report is compared to the regime that we have in this to the regime that we have in this country, with the regimes that are in place in our amongst our allies in Japan, in Europe and in the in Japan, in Europe and in the United States. And what became very clear is that, unlike our allies, we have a loose collection of strategies which some might unfairly label strategy by stapler, which are basically collated together, but which lack any statutory basis to ensure consistency and persistence over time.

Now, again, remember what it is that we're trying to do. Madam Deputy Speaker we are trying to ensure that public and private sector are able to work together on big risks over a long period of time. But if we leave policy unpredictable, inconsistent, subject to the changes of wind each day, then we can't provide that signal. So making sure that there's a proper statutory basis for economic security in the way the hon. Member suggests, and in that way that our allies have actioned, I think, would be a significant step forward in the bill that he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

refers to. Can I thank the Select committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the Select committee chair for that statement? I call Charlotte Cane on a point of order in connection with the Code of Conduct to rectify failure to declare. On a point of order, Madam. Deputy Speaker, I would like to Deputy Speaker, I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when tabling three written parliamentary
14:18
14:18
14:18
Anna Dixon Portrait Anna Dixon MP (Shipley, Labour)
-
-
on the Order Paper. Road safety is a personal issue for me. My grandfather, Herbert Bilsby, moved grandfather, Herbert Bilsby, moved to Ilkley in 1952 to take up post as a geography teacher at Ilkley as a geography teacher at Ilkley Grammar School. Aged 62, he was looking forward to retirement, more time to enjoy his passion for time to enjoy his passion for hiking, more time to enjoy his grandchildren, more time to enjoy visiting family in Australia and Zambia. He never got that time.

On the 6th of December 1969, he was driving with my grandmother to deliver Christmas presents to her family at the family farm in Cumbria, just north of Hellifield on the A65. He got stuck behind two lorries, a common experience even today. He saw an opportunity to overtake pulled out. At that moment the lorry pulled out and my grandparents car was pushed off the road and into a stone gatepost. My grandfather was killed outright and my grandmother suffered head injuries.

That fatal collision shaped my family's life. I never knew my grandfather. My grandmother was widowed and disabled and my dad moved jobs, my mother and me, and he moved to Ilkley, where I was born and raised. And my mum then continued to care for my grandmother for nearly 30 years. Madam Deputy Speaker, this was a time before seat belts were compulsory, before sections of the A65 were widened to create overtaking lanes and before airbags. Today's cars and roads are safer than they were in 1969, thanks to new laws, investment in our roads and use of technology in the design of cars.

And yet for people still die on our roads every day and 76 more are involved in collisions which leave them with serious injuries. In my own constituency of Shipley, 180 people were injured in road collisions in 2024 and one person tragically died across the country. Over 1600 people were killed and nearly 28,000, yes, 28,000 people were seriously injured on our roads, road collisions happen in a split second, yet their impact can be life changing and felt for a lifetime.

Parents lose their children, partners lose their soulmates. The unborn miss out on knowing their relatives. The human cost of road collisions is colossal. But Madam Deputy Speaker, it doesn't have to be that way. There is a wealth of evidence showing us what the causes of death and injury are. We know what to do through the work of road safety groups, researchers and the police. We understand that there are five causes of deadly crashes the fatal five speeding, antisocial driving, mobile phone use, alcohol and drug use, and not wearing a seatbelt.

We must continue to tackle the fatal five if we are to reduce the toll on our roads ahead of the road safety strategy, I wrote to the Minister calling on the government to include harsher penalties for speeding, strengthening post test requirements to protect newly qualified drivers, lowering the maximum legal drink drive limit and introducing points for passengers not wearing seat belts. I therefore very much welcome the many measures in the road safety strategy, which the government is now consulting on a minimum learning period for learner drivers, lowering the drink drive limit, reviewing penalties for drink and drug driving offences, including, very importantly, bringing in new powers to suspend licences for those suspected of committing serious driving offences.

Introducing penalty points for not wearing a seatbelt, taking tougher action on those who fail to stop and report collisions. Those who drive unlicensed or without insurance, and those with no MOT. The strategy also addresses the growing problem of illegal number plates, so-called ghost number plates, which my hon. Friend for West Bromwich has campaigned for extensively. She was sorry to not be here today for the debate, but I'm sure she would join me in congratulating the government on taking action on this issue.

The government's strategy as the first of its kind in a decade, and it sets out a plan to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 65% by 2035. In West Yorkshire, a more ambitious goal has been set as part of Vision Zero, striving for zero deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 2040. It was launched in 2023 by our Labour West Yorkshire mayor Tracy Brabin. Vision zero brings together the combined authority, local authorities, emergency services, national highways, victim support services and road safety campaigners and it's producing results.

In just the first year of the Vision Zero strategy, 7500 dangerous drivers were brought to justice. Almost 40,000 fixed penalty notices for traffic offences were issued and 13,000 children across West Yorkshire were part of an innovative educational project. I would like to pay particular tribute, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Alison Lowe, the deputy mayor for policing and crime in West Yorkshire. Under her guidance, the Combined authority and West Yorkshire Police have taken a proactive approach to improving road safety.

Alison, whose own sister was killed by a speeding driver, has listened to the community and effectively targeted police resources. West Yorkshire has introduced community concern sites. These are locations flagged by local authorities based on data and community feedback, and they receive greater police attention. This innovative scheme has led to 467 new enforcement locations, over 46,000 speed offences were detected in less than a year. Another successful example from West Yorkshire is Snap. It allows the public to submit dashcam footage of driving offences.

There are almost 9000 just in the second half of last year, and 70% resulted in further action being taken, so I hope the Minister can set out how good practice such as that in West Yorkshire can be supported and spread to other parts of the country. But this is only the beginning. There's far more that needs to be done to end deaths on our roads. In 2024, young drivers aged 17 to 24 were in in 11 of the 40 fatal collisions in West Yorkshire, around 20%, despite making up a much smaller share of road users.

So I would like to see stronger measures to protect newly qualified drivers. I was interested to see that the Northern Ireland Infrastructure Minister recently announced plans to introduce graduated driver licensing. GDL has already been adopted by other countries with success. Victoria, Australia introduced it in 2007 and by 2013 saw a reduction in fatal collisions by 30%. So I welcome that the government has proposed a mandated learning period for new drivers. But why not be more ambitious? There is good evidence from other countries.

Why should young drivers in Northern Ireland get protections that young drivers in the rest of the UK won't? So I would urge the Minister to remain open to look at other effective measures to support young and novice drivers, such as limits on the number of passengers and restrictions on night time driving, which we know from evidence, have the biggest impact on reducing death and serious injury. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way on that point. I thank you for giving way, I wonder. This ambition is fantastic and I wonder if there is another area where we might be more ambitious around the drink drive limit. Pilots are not able to fly limit. Pilots are not able to fly if they have any alcohol in their system. Why is it not the same for drivers?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

drivers? I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, and I would agree that it's important that we consult the it's important that we consult the public on looking to reduce the driving limit to the lowest possible, and I would obviously, the Minister has heard his remarks about a possible zero tolerance to drinking alcohol while driving, and I hope that on this and other measures, she would agree to meet with me. Other MPs, campaigners and families affected, particularly around this issue of young drivers, to discuss these additional measures, which I believe do have quite widespread public support.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it's also local issue for residents across the Shipley constituency who regularly raise road safety issues with me. Residents in Harden and Cullingworth, terrified by rural roads being used as race tracks. Parents in Baildon and Burley in Wharfedale concerned about their kids crossing the road. School leaders in Cottingley and Rose concerned about parking and dangerous driving outside schools, so working with the local police, Bradford Council's highways team, local Labour councillors and West Yorkshire's deputy mayor. We are making some progress.

New speed cameras on the Bingley bypass. Local speed watch in hotspots of community concern. The introduction of a 20 mile an hour zone in Menston. Reduced speed limits between Bingley and Shipley, the installation of speed awareness signs. But there is only so far we can go locally and that is why I am pleased that this Labour government is taking action to make our roads safer. The road safety strategy is ambitious and comprehensive. It takes a systems approach and includes all road users.

I would urge the government to move swiftly to implement the matters it is consulting on, and I hope the Minister, in her response, can set out which measures will need primary legislation and assure the House of when she expects parliamentary time to be given to implement these. Madam Deputy Speaker, to conclude, people up and down the country continue to be killed and seriously injured by dangerous driving, as identified by Roadpeace, the campaigning organisations and others. Dangerous driving is no longer a rarity, but rather it's become an embedded cultural phenomenon.

Many feel able and entitled to drive dangerously and do not fear facing the consequences of their actions. This has to change so that other families do not have to suffer the life changing impact of a fatal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

road collision, as my family did. Thank you. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, members will know that there are two debates scheduled for this afternoon, which is going to afternoon, which is going to necessitate very tight time limits of three minutes from the get go. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of three minutes from the get go. I call James Wild. Thank you very much, Madam. Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Member
14:30
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley. And she made a powerful speech, particularly around the impact on her family and nationally. As you said, over 1600 people tragically lost their lives on our roads and 60% of those fatalities happened on rural roads like those in north west Norfolk and indeed in Norfolk. There's been a worrying rise, with the largest increase in road casualties in 2024, a 17% increase in the number of people seriously injured or killed, 2555.

So I welcome the publication of the government's road safety strategy and the ambition to reduce people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035. However, there are a few areas worth highlighting, particularly awareness of the Highway Code remains far too low and people don't refresh themselves on what's in the code, so that needs to be improved. Speeding. I'll give a brief.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I've been contacted. In my. Constituency by driving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Constituency by driving instructors and cyclists in particular, relating to the changes in the 2022 Highway Code rules. Concerned that experienced drivers aren't aware of those changes. aren't aware of those changes. Would my honourable would the hon. Member agree that a greater awareness campaign would be welcome

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for experienced drivers in that regard. And in the context of this debate, another contact I've had from constituents, I've been refreshing myself, and I admit I haven't done that before and should have done so. Awareness is important. Clearly, speeding continues to be a major cause of accidents, yet many residents, speedwatch groups, parish councils tell me that the process for reviewing or reducing those speed limits on dangerous road is too slow and too expensive, so I look forward to the new guidance coming from the government on setting local speed limits to see that it actually leads to genuine improvements, and clearly changes need to be driven by evidence.

And in that context, I refer briefly to the proposal to reduce the alcohol, the drink drive limit. And when the fences are typically caused by people who've greatly exceeded the limit, not people who have potentially just had a pint. So I think we need to look at that very carefully. And when young people are already waiting too long for driving tests, I do have concerns that putting in place a minimum six month period for driving when people take intensive courses and can be good drivers as a result, could make that situation worse.

And a number of constituents have, I won't, given the time. A number of constituents who ride horses have also contacted me with concerns about a lack of driver awareness and prevalence of speeding and dangerous driving. And they face heightened risks, particularly due to the limited number of bridleways and the roads. Connecting bridleways have become more dangerous, with over 3000 incidents in 2024, 80% attributed to drivers passing unsafely. And that's unacceptable. And that's why I'm supporting the proposals brought forward by the hon.

Member for Newbury, including setting a required speed and distance for passing horses and teaching equestrian safety in education. I hope the government will look favourably on those. And turning to a topic I've raised repeatedly in this House, the sentences for driving offences must be tougher. In 2022, Parliament legislated for a lifetime imprisonment maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving. Yet in a constituency case of mine where three members of my constituents families were killed, it shows that those sentences remain far too short and dangerous.

Driving should also deal with longer disqualification offences, and less than 1% of those convicted of dangerous driving were banned from driving for life. So will the government commit to asking for a review of the sentencing guidelines for all dangerous driving offences, and seeing how the sentencing guideline is actually applying those guidelines to reflect what we in this House consider is necessary. So this is a very important topic. Grateful to have a brief opportunity to to speak. Hope the Minister will respond to some of the points that I've made in the debate.
14:34
David Williams Portrait David Williams MP (Stoke-on-Trent North, Labour)
-
-
David Williams. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak in this backbench debate on road safety today, and I welcome on road safety today, and I welcome the Labour government's new road safety strategy. In this debate. I safety strategy. In this debate. I want to focus specifically on Charlotte's Law, a campaign that began with a tragedy in my constituency. Charlotte Cane was only six years old when she was killed by a driver who was drunk and under the influence of drugs, someone who should never have been behind the wheel.

Charlotte lived in Norton Green. She was a bright, happy child with her whole life ahead of her. The perpetrator was taken to hospital and was in a coma. Under the current law, a blood sample can be taken from an unconscious person and in this case it was. However, the sample could not be tested until the individual gives consent. This meant the investigation was held up because the current system relied on consent being given by the suspect. Now, for Charlotte's family, that delay made an impossible, awful situation even worse.

It slowed the process down, delayed answers, and put off accountability while they were trying to grieve the loss of their daughter. Now, this case shows clearly that justice delayed is justice denied. When serious cases are held up like this, it's the families and it's the victims who suffer the most. Charlotte's law matters as it aims to fix gaps in the road traffic law so that those who kill or seriously harm others while driving under the influence can do not, cannot gain from delay, and that the justice system can work quickly and fairly.

Since becoming a member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, I have raised the case in Parliament and I have spoken regularly with the Minister on the matter and I thank her for her continued engagement with me. But I want to be clear, the real strength behind this campaign has been Charlotte's mum, Claire. Claire's work has been tireless in the face of unimaginable loss. She has shown true strength and dignity,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

driven by the idea that no other family should go through what her family endured. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Of course I'll give way. I'm grateful to my friend for giving way and for setting out the dangers way and for setting out the dangers that are not taking this issue seriously can have in our county as his constituency. I know he shares his constituency. I know he shares the horror of my horror of the constituent of mine who was knocked down whilst taking his daughter to down whilst taking his daughter to school back in December at 2025. Luckily he pushed his daughter away.

Luckily he wasn't killed but it was very, very close indeed. So will my hon. Friend join me in urging Staffordshire County Council to finally get a grip and make sure that roads in my constituency and his are finally made safe? I thank my hon. Member for that intervention. I know he's been campaigning very hard on this matter. It's the case that we've discussed it. Absolutely. I would encourage the council to take action. Now, what I laid out in my speech is why the government's consultation on road traffic offences really does matter.

It gives us a real way to learn from cases like Charlotte's, so that victims and families are put first. I therefore encourage people across Stoke on Trent, Kidsgrove, Staffordshire and indeed across the whole country to take part in this consultation to support amending the law. I also urge colleagues from all sides of this House to back the aims and principles behind the law if we get this right. Madam Deputy Speaker Charlotte Cane Maya Ellis will be remembered not only for the tragedy of her death, but for the change her legacy brings, and that justice is no longer delayed for families who deserve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better. Thank you Angus MacDonald. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. A year ago, Lewes Knox, Speaker. A year ago, Lewes Knox, aged 16, Fergus Ward, aged 17, and Jordan Cameron, aged 17, in my Jordan Cameron, aged 17, in my constituency went off the road and no other car involved and died. An no other car involved and died. An enormous shock for the area. Lewes Knox's father, Alan, and is the head of the ambulance service in that area, and his wife Elizabeth are calling for the graduated driving licence schemes, which my hon.

Friend over there talked about. I know that when I was a young lad,
14:38
Angus MacDonald Portrait Mr Angus MacDonald MP (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I drove like a complete idiot. And I have four sons and I'm fairly certain they did the same. There is a real problem with young men, young boys in particular, driving, showing off, bravado, all that sort showing off, bravado, all that sort of thing. The statistics are horrifying. Approximately 1 in 5 new drivers are involved in an accident within their first year of driving, and drivers under 24 make up 6 to 7% of licence holders, but are involved in 22% of car fatalities and serious injuries.

I would be delighted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And grateful to the Member for taking the intervention. We spoke about the graduated driving scheme about the graduated driving scheme in a Westminster Hall debate and referenced the situation in Australia, in Western Australia and Australia, in Western Australia and in Victoria. And would he agree with me that the the lessons that we can learn from there have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolute relevance to the situation here? Angus MacDonald. Thank you very much. I think all the evidence is that the graduated driving licence schemes work extremely well in reducing the number of serious incidents like this. I just have one more statistic to finish up with in 2024. There are 1602 kids aged between 17 and 24 who were killed or seriously injured in Great Britain. If we introduce this scheme that we're talking about the graduate licence scheme that would make, according to international figures, that would drop by about 30%.

So I think it is very well worth the Minister considering this. Thank you.
14:40
Andy MacNae Portrait Andy MacNae MP (Rossendale and Darwen, Labour)
-
-
Andy MacNae in my constituency, >> Andy MacNae in my constituency, road safety is now the number one issue raised with police in just the last year. We've seen fatalities, injuries and countless fatalities, injuries and countless near-misses across Rossendale and Darwen. My inbox is filled with people telling me the roads are just don't feel safe, which is why I warmly welcome the government's road safety strategy. We now must turn this ambition into reality. So let me begin with delivery. Road safety is by necessity delivered locally.

Road Safety Partnerships are theoretically the main forum for this, bringing together councils, police forces and other services. Some partnerships, like in Warwickshire, have shown a success model can bring chaired by the PCC, they have the political backing to deliver the change that we need. Yet in too many parts of the country, these partnerships are without this buy in, with councils and police forces siloed and unwilling to meaningfully share resources, which is very much a picture in Lancashire, with the result being an underfunded, reactive approach to road safety that relies on dated processes and fails to listen to our communities.

To give one example, William Cartwright, an 11 year old boy in my constituency, did not feel safe crossing a very busy road on his way to school and launched a petition asking for a zebra crossing to be built, which gained over 1400 signatures. Despite the massive evidence of the community, did not did not deem the road safe. The reform leadership at County Council rejected the proposal because they said too few people have been killed or seriously injured to merit an intervention. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I wonder if he is aware, and if you comment on he is aware, and if you comment on the fact that you don't need one, doesn't need to have a certain number of incidents outside of school gate or indeed on any road

**** Possible New Speaker ****

school gate or indeed on any road in order for local councils to intervene. And it's a myth that we need to bust. Absolutely. I just welcome that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. I just welcome that so much. It's an excuse that's used, it's outdated guidance, and it's an excuse to avoid taking the action excuse to avoid taking the action that people need to see. And it doesn't have to be this way. Neighbouring authorities, we've heard examples of West Yorkshire proactively listen to schools and their communities and the community led approach. This must become our baseline. Listening to communities is absolutely vital, but partnerships also need resources to deliver the change we need.

Too often they are constrained by lower levels of funding, so I would suggest the Minister allowing councils to retain the fees from road offence fixed penalties, which in some cases raised millions of pounds a year, would make a real difference if ring fenced locally. Nationally, we must be strategic and dynamic with our interventions, aiming for the greatest impact by focusing on high risk groups and empowered Road safety Board and the new Road Safety Investigation Branch could be vital in keeping policy responsive. It'd be good to hear from the Minister when the board will be established, what its powers will be, and whether she expects it to meet more regularly than once a year.

And I was speeding being a key factor in 56% of all fatal collisions. I would also highlight this as an area where targeted action is essential. The Minister has committed to update the guidance on speed limits and enforcement, and the need for this is urgent. Just last week, I was with residents on a road notorious for speeding, looking at three wrecked cars on a spot where a fatality had just occurred last year. Everyone knew it was only a matter of time before we saw another crash.

I spent a year calling for speed cameras and yet nothing was done. Message here is clear. Communities know where the risks are and we need to listen. And this is why. Last month I launched a road safety campaign in Rossendale and Darwen calling on Lancashire to adopt a new road safety approach that properly resources our road safety partnership and identify and address high risk roads before incidents occur. Our survey has already had hundreds of responses and is coming weekend. I'm hosting roundtables throughout the constituency to bring together residents, councils and police to identify the risk areas and discuss how we can make them safer.

I really hope that Lancashire County Council will now listen to residents and work with me to deliver safer roads and save lives. To conclude, we must end the road Safety Postcode lottery. Strong national leadership, which sets clear expectations, will be essential in supporting delivery for every community. This needs to be complemented by taking steps to genuinely resource delivery on the ground. If we can get this right, the road safety strategy and the lives that will save will be a legacy that we can all be proud of.
14:44
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would really like to thank also the hon. Member for Shipley for bringing forward this important for bringing forward this important debate. And since 2018, in South Cambridgeshire, there have been 1506 casualties on our roads with 34 fatalities. And we all know that's 34 too many. Now, road safety is often discussed in terms of behaviour, speed or enforcement issues we've heard much about today. But for many of my constituents in South Cambridgeshire, the danger begins with the road surface itself.

So potholes warn carriageways, crumbling edges and not just a sign of successive governments failure to invest in our roads and highways. They are a real safety risk, particularly for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and drivers forced to swerve to avoid damage. And I hear regularly from constituents whose tyres have blown, wheels cracked or bikes thrown off balance because of unsafe roads beneath them. And this is a recurring nightmare for all councils, and I want to take this opportunity to place on record the work of the Cambridgeshire County Council, which is the highways authorities doing everything it reasonably can in very difficult circumstances.

And just last night the chair of highways, Councillor Alex Beckett, was out checking the round the clock patching of potholes on Cambridge Road in Shelford village following repeated calls from residents and local councillors highlighting just how dangerous this road had become. In the same village, Farhan Hussain, an award winning Curry takeaway owner for whom I recently presented an EDM, found a different way of raising awareness. He went viral with a video of placing the largest naan in East Anglia in the pothole.

To be fair, the council did get it mended within the week. Now, under Liberal Democrat leadership, investment in capital maintenance has more than doubled and the council is delivering tens of thousands of pothole repairs every year. They're also challenging contractors who are doing shoddy work, and work that doesn't meet standards is being redone at no extra cost to the taxpayer. But Madam Deputy Speaker, even with that effort, we just know this situation is untenable. Cambridge's roads were not designed for the volume of traffic they now carry, let alone the planned growth for Greater Cambridge area.

And this is where the government must take responsibility. Local councils are legally required to keep roads safe, but they cannot do so without fair long term funding. It's like an old pair of trousers, and when you're getting to patch the patches, it's the limited funding that's given that is forcing them to do that rather than actually buying a new pair of trousers when you know you need to. So I urge the government to recognise that proper scheduled resurfacing, which is safer, cheaper and longer lasting, will keep the roads and people safe on those roads.

Thank you. Liz Twist. Thank you, Madam.
14:47
Liz Twist Portrait Liz Twist MP (Blaydon and Consett, Labour)
-
-
Deputy Speaker. >> Member for Shipley for securing this important debate and thank the bank Back Bench. >> Business Committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Business Committee. For allowing it. After all, with over 1624 people killed in collisions on our roads in 2023, something that quite simply needs to change has now come to the forefront. I welcome the government's announcement of a new road safety strategy, as it's much needed and its potential to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 65%. Much of what's proposed in the road safety strategy will help address a number of issues my constituents raise with me regularly, particularly in relation to new guidance on local speed limits and enforcement.

Speeding and unsafe junctions are things that routinely come up in my constituency work and directly affect constituents, whether it's LED road in Greenside or speeding through the village of Dicton or speeding along the A694, where residents in Ebchester have been campaigning for safer road crossings and better speed enforcement. These are all things that plague the daily lives of my constituents and cause real concern. So it's welcome that the road safety strategy will look at this, and it would be great to know how residents can have a greater say on the roads that affect them, allowing the concerns that fill communities to have a meaningful say in roads that affect them.

The member give way. Thank you for him. Member for giving way. There are examples of schools and nurseries in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, such as the Jigsaw Nursery on Wrexham Road and the Delamere Academy, which is just off the very busy A556, where children are having to navigate fast moving traffic. I wondered whether she would agree with me that proximity to schools and nurseries should be treated as an essential consideration when determining safe speed limits on roads. I thank the hon.

Lady for her comments and and yes, of course, that is an important factor. I believe in speed limits, and certainly one that affects my constituents as well as hers. But there are other places in which we need to take account of speed limits, too. So I want to speak now briefly about one particular aspect of road safety raised with me by my constituents, John and Karen Rowlands, who lost their son Andrew in a road collision in 2020. The driver of the car was underage, uninsured and unlicensed.

Sadly, this situation is all too common. Families are left to pick up the pieces dealing with unimaginable grief due to the fact that the laws of our roads and for vehicles have not kept up with changing times. Right now in the UK, the average car insurance costs £562 a year. In the UK, whilst the charge of being caught driving without insurance is only £300. It's quite simply outrageous that there is this mismatch. I welcome the announcement in the strategy to look again at tougher action on those who choose to drive unlicensed or without insurance, and those with no no, not having a stronger deterrent in place will help stop this unlawful practice, something which will go some way to prevent further tragedies such as Andrew's.

However, I believe, as does the Roland's family, that we need to look also at car ownership as part of road safety. While correct checks are in place within the car dealership industry, it's simply too easy to buy a car online with no prior checks taking place on the person purchasing the vehicle or the vehicle itself. So while the deterrent to tougher action is welcome, this loophole still has the potential to cause irreparable harm on our roads. With online sales of cars being linked to crime, unsafe vehicles in circulation, and allowing people who do not have a licence to purchase and use cars on our roads.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has met the Rowlands family and will be doing so again

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very shortly, Liz Saville-Roberts. I want to open my contribution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to open my contribution to this debate on road safety with a tribute to a young man from Portelli who was killed in a Portelli who was killed in a hideous two car collision on the Porthmadog bypass just days before Christmas. While we await the Christmas. While we await the inquest, I hope it is some comfort to his family that so many people in our home community want to see
14:52
Liz Saville Roberts Portrait Rt Hon Liz Saville Roberts MP (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
in our home community want to see changes to the law as a memorial and mark of respect for the life of Matthew Hardy. He was 34 years old, the only child of Simon and Glenys, Matthew's partner. Marie is expecting a baby in three months time. Too many lives shattered by irreplaceable loss. And while many of us treat the right the licence to drive a car with a familiarity verging on contempt, it's tragedies like this that remind us how dangerous vehicles can potentially be for all road users.

Heaven knows, as Matthew's father says, people lose their gun licences, their guns, their gun paraphernalia at any suggestion of police concern. But people keep their driving licences far, far too easily. And it's a sad fact that an inexperienced young drivers remain disproportionately at risk of being killed or injured on the roads. We had the tragic case in my constituency of Harvey Owen, who was a passenger in a car driven by a friend along with two others, all of them teenagers, who lost their lives in 2023 when their car came off the a485 near Torfaen and overturned in a ditch.

Harvey's mother, Crystal, and I'm sure many of you will know her, is campaigning for graduated driving licences. Northern Ireland has just committed to a full graduated driving licence system from October this year, which includes post-test restrictions designed to reduce exposure to high risk situations such as carrying passengers. Evidence from other countries shows that these graduated systems significantly reduce young driver casualties and they save lives. Safer roads mean fewer accidents, and as well as that, they mean lower insurance premiums for young people.

This is a message I think the government should engage with. The government should also monitor Northern Ireland's approach as a pilot for the rest of the UK. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can only. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to my hon. Friend for the intervention and the Scottish the intervention and the Scottish Government. My colleague, Hyslop, the Transport Secretary, has indicated a strong willingness to indicated a strong willingness to engage with the UK government and other relevant bodies to, you know, to trial things like graduated to trial things like graduated driving licences and other road safety measures. This hon. Friend agree that this is something that the UK government could proactively engage in to, to make positive progress right across the Home Nations.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Friend has a very, very powerful suggestion here. And it is interesting, of course, that we are all prepared. We're all talking all prepared. We're all talking really along the same lines here, and I welcome that. The road safety strategy is consulting on proposed strategy is consulting on proposed changes for penalties in relation to motoring offences for families who have lost loved ones, to repeat drink and drive, and drug offenders. It's incomprehensible why those It's incomprehensible why those drivers don't lose their licences at the point of providing a positive test.

At the very, very least, this should happen automatically at a second or further offence. Such policy would ensure swift preventative action where there is clear evidence of risk. And the last example I'd like to turn to in the time that I have is that of Amanda Pike, who lives in Britain. She lost her two sons, both her sons aged ten, and Ben, aged eight. Her husband was badly injured. The driver who inflicted this on the family was drunk and driving at speed.

She begs the government to bring down the alcohol limit and to address sentencing. Amanda was told when this man was sentenced that the drunken driver wouldn't even have been sentenced to imprisonment if he'd only killed one child. Imagine that it took two children for this man to be sentenced. I would urge the Minister to meet lobbyists. I would very much urge her to meet families as well, because this might well be a once in a generation opportunity to make a change that will benefit so many people's lives.
14:56
Terry Jermy Portrait Terry Jermy MP (South West Norfolk, Labour)
-
-
Terry Jermy thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Prior to my role as a member of Parliament, I was pleased to serve as a Norfolk County Councillor for 12 years in County Councillor for 12 years in Norfolk. Each time somebody is killed or seriously injured within a council division, the relevant a council division, the relevant councillor is informed. Clearly this was an email that nobody ever wanted to receive, but all too often a message would arrive into my inbox. I recall vividly the email to inform me of the tragic death of 15 year old Salvador McKee on London Road in Deptford.

Salvador stepped out onto a crossing just a short distance from his home on a Saturday afternoon. He was hit by a car and tragically killed. The coroner's report detailed evidence that had been received during the inquest, highlighting that the crossing contained minimal facilities for pedestrians and no signs on the approach to alert drivers. I pay tribute to Salvador's family and friends that lobbied for safety improvements in this area following his death, and I am so pleased that Norfolk County Council will be using money provided to it by the government to undertake a full assessment of safety measures, and I will do whatever I can to ensure that money is found to enact whatever those recommendations are.

As a member of the county council's transport committee, we would routinely review performance indicators that tracked the number of people killed or seriously injured on the county's roads. It was always a statistic of great concern, with significantly high number of incidents and sadly, the most recent Department for transport data released in November indicates that road casualties in my county of Norfolk have risen by more than anywhere else in the country, with the number of people killed or seriously injured rising from 470 in 20 3 to 550 5 in 24.

And it is worth noting that across the country, ten times as many people die on rural roads than on motorways and the road charity breaks view is that rural roads are the most dangerous roads for all users. Many do not have cycle lanes, pavements or bridleways. Many rural roads are narrow with blind bends and limited safe places to pass. There is often much to obstruct drivers views and of course, all too often there are animal collisions, particularly deer, with a constant risk, particularly around Thetford Forest.

In my constituency, the UK's largest man made forest. Worryingly, in the Brake and Direct Line survey, 68% of drivers said they felt it was acceptable to drive above the speed limit on a rural road, and nearly half of drivers said that they had driven faster than the speed limit on a single carriageway rural road in the past year. On the roads that are the most dangerous, drivers are openly admitting to speeding. I very much welcome the government's rural road safety strategy and I would ask that there is for serious thought given to the specific circumstances and opportunities to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improve safety on our rural roads. After the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After the. Next speaker, I'm going to have to drop the time limit to two minutes, because there is a very important debate on Gaza that I'd

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important debate on Gaza that I'd Olney. Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I
14:59
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> Madam Deputy Speaker, can I start by congratulating the Member for Shipley for securing this important debate, for sharing her own family story? And I'd like to own family story? And I'd like to dedicate my speech to a close and dear friend, a councillor in Richmond upon Thames, who lost her adult son in a road traffic collision on the A31 in Hampshire just before New Year. I'm thinking of her and all of her family as I make these remarks. Every life lost on our roads is tragic, and I welcome the publication of a new road of the New Road Safety Strategy.

It's vital we explore how our roads can be made safer so that lives can be saved. Young people are disproportionately involved in road traffic accidents, and drivers aged 17 to 24 represent just 6% of licence holders, but are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions. So I am pleased that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government has recognised that quickly. I'm grateful for the member giving way. Can I just join her in adding that just last month, three young members of the Bolton young members of the Bolton community constituency next door to me lost their lives in a fatal road traffic accident. A 17 year old and traffic accident. A 17 year old and 218 year olds and one of my constituents who was out there working as a taxi driver, Matt Rodda Ali, 54, was also killed.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman and it's obviously tragic to hear about all those those lives lost. And so consulting on measures lost. And so consulting on measures to reduce the number of accidents that young people are involved in is a really positive step. And not is a really positive step. And not only is it vital for the obvious safety reasons, but it also makes driving more affordable if insurance companies should insurance companies should consequently or subsequently reduce their fees for 17 to 25 year olds if they're involved in fewer if they're involved in fewer accidents.

The campaign, think, was launched at the turn of the millennium, and it presented a strong message to young adults about the dangers of drink driving. That 17 to 24 year olds are still involved in a disproportionate amount of cases, and in the UK it's still seen, as we've heard, from other contributions, as somewhat acceptable, especially amongst young people, to drive while they're over the limit. But drunk driving can be confident drivers who, after three pints, would rather not have the inconvenience of having to book a taxi or leave their cars parked elsewhere overnight.

There could be lots of reasons why people think it's acceptable to drink drive, so I'd like to ask the Minister if the government will commit to examining the perceptions towards drunk driving, along with exploring the use of new preventative technology. And we should also examine road safety through the lens of everyone who uses our roads. Last Friday, I met with a constituent who had been hit by an e-bike which was being ridden on the pavement. And while e-bikes should certainly not be riding on the pavements, my constituent was actually very understanding about the fact.

The reason that so many riders choose to do so is because they're so concerned about the dangers of cycling on our roads. The 2007 National Safety Camera programme provided guidance that cameras typically should only be installed on stretches of road, which have experienced at least three deaths or serious injuries in the past 36 months. I've heard from other members that obviously locally that guidance can, you know, can be overridden. But will the Minister commit to re-examining this guidance? Because anyone who cycles will tell you that there are stretches of road and corners which present specific dangers to them.

But experienced cyclists will anticipate this and consequently not suffer serious injuries. But we do need to encourage more cycling, particularly in our cities, and improving road safety for all road users is a huge priority in ensuring that that can happen. And I think that reviewing the guidance on on safety cameras could really go a long way to encouraging all of our road users to to use the roads more safely. And we want to see all our roads safe for all users and to reduce the deaths on our roads.

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker Hopkins Madam Deputy Speaker I very much welcome the steps our Labour Government is taking to improve road safety, from record funding to improve road conditions, to the publication of the Road safety Strategy last month, the first of its kind in a decade. A clear commitment to deliver on our manifesto commitments and set out vital reforms to make our roads safer. Safer, particularly as the UK has slipped from third to fourth in Europe's road safety rankings. One of the key issues I want to highlight today is tackling drug driving, as Department for transport data shows that although alcohol remains the leading cause of impairment related collisions, the gap between alcohol and drug related crashes has narrowed over the last decade, and between 2014 and 2023, the number of drivers killed in fatal collisions with drugs detected rose by over 70%.

I welcome the government's decisive steps to give police additional powers to act at the roadside, including immediate license suspension to remove dangerous drivers from our roads and the commitment to explore alternative testing methods such as saliva based testing and improved processing, including increased roadside testing. And in my short
15:04
Rachel Hopkins Portrait Rachel Hopkins MP (Luton South and South Bedfordshire, Labour)
-
-
amount of time I have here, road safety must include pavement safety, safety must include pavement safety, and I really welcome the work that our government is doing to bring forward measures to tackle the enforcement of pavement parking enforcement of pavement parking that is hugely inconsiderate. Many of my local Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituents tell me about the danger it poses for them, particularly people who have children in pushchairs, or use wheelchairs or visually impaired, or use a guide dog. And often they take the risk of having to walk into the road simply to go about their day.

So the restrictions under the existing legislation means that local authorities outside London and Scotland are limited in their powers. So I'd very much welcome a bit further info when the government will be bringing in the secondary legislation for local authorities in the interim, so that they can enforce against unnecessary obstruction on the pavement and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

encourage all my constituents to sign my petition about pavement parking. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thanks to my hon. Friend from Shipley, and also thanks to Alan Faulds and Melanie Mitchell for inviting me to a safe Mitchell for inviting me to a safe drive Stay Alive event. Last week, emergency service workers shared real life experiences with local secondary school children about working at collisions and dealing with the aftermath of what has happened. But as a parent, it was John Galloway's contribution that I have thought most about this.

Last week, John told the story of what happened in 2001 to his son David. David was then an 18 year old with his entire life in front of him, but David was involved in a road traffic accident, one that was entirely avoidable. John detailed the accident and how David was hospitalised for two years. The pain and heartbreak that John and his wife feel and continue to feel. It was full of raw emotional trauma. Then David came on to the stage in his motorised wheelchair, and John explained how David struggles with swallowing and how he must now be fed through a peg in his stomach.

After the event, I had the honour of speaking with the Galloway family. The Galloways have been attending Safe Drive Stay Alive for
15:06
15:07
Leigh Ingham Portrait Leigh Ingham MP (Stafford, Labour)
-
-
speed limit from 30 miles to 20 miles an hour and for action to stop inappropriate HGV traffic using the really narrow village roads. And despite clear signage, 44 tonne articulated vehicles still pass through regularly, causing severe damage to road surfaces, verges, drainage and worsening potholes and flooding and creating a real danger to pedestrians. As. As members have said throughout this debate in surrounding villages, speeding hotspots are repeatedly raised on routes such as the A533 through Slindon, where multiple accidents occurred in a single summer, and on rural narrow lanes near schools and homes where there are no pavements at all.

I also want to highlight the experience of one of my constituents, Diana Kynaston, who's a motorbike rider from Stafford. For motorcyclist, potholes and crumbling road edges create a serious threat to life and limb. She's highlighted the route between Doxey and Aston Fields Industrial Estate, where uneven surfaces and deep potholes and damaged corners for sudden manoeuvres and increase the risk of losing control, particularly for learner riders. But I've heard reports across the constituency, from Norbury to columns from Bishop's Offley and Great Bridgeford, about potholes going long unrepaired, and this includes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. I'm grateful to my other constituency neighbour. There's a constituency neighbour. There's a theme here, Madam Speaker, about Staffordshire and the quality and condition of our roads. I'm grateful to my friend for setting grateful to my friend for setting out the situation. I just want to make very clear that that same situation is happening in Newcastle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and in other parts of Staffordshire too. I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. I think something that Staffordshire MPs all have in Staffordshire MPs all have in common is our absolute despair at the state of our roads and the government has allocated additional funds, which is really important and will make a significant difference to what we can achieve. But to put it in perspective, Staffordshire is the slowest authority repairing potholes. So if a snail started off in Stafford town centre when a pothole was reported, they would have moved 22km by the time that pothole was repaired, which is a ridiculous amount of time to take for a pothole to get repaired.

What I would like to ask the Minister today is what mechanisms the department has in place to ensure the additional road maintenance fund is being used effectively by councils and is translating into safer, better maintained roads and how it supports local authorities to take a joined up approach to road safety, including both speed and road maintenance. Because when funding rises, which I am very grateful for, but safety does not. I'd be interested to hear, I suppose, how the Minister can well.
15:09
Josh Newbury Portrait Josh Newbury MP (Cannock Chase, Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear. >> Josh Newbury. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Just two. >> Weeks after my election, I was contacted by my constituent, Julie. Her husband, Kevin, was a devoted husband and grandfather and was dedicated to keeping us safe on our dedicated to keeping us safe on our roads as a traffic management officer. On the morning of the 26th of February 2022, Kevin was parked up in a closed lane, completing checks between junctions 14 and 15 of the M6. While he was there, a stolen Audi travelling at over 100 miles an hour and being actively pursued by police, entered that closed lane and collided with Kevin's vehicle, killing him instantly.

Julie was told the police pursuit had been authorised to protect the public, and although officers were aware of a section of the motorway that didn't feature in the risk assessment because there was no indication that road workers would be present. But Kevin was present. He was authorised to be there. He was working. Julie has never sought to apportion blame, but has consistently asked for answers about the protocols and lack of communication about the. That led to Kevin losing his life. In her words, Kevin looked out for everyone's safety, but who was looking out for his? A member of the public stopped in the same place Kevin was working would rightly be considered at serious risk, yet his only physical protection were plastic cones, and he had no radio link to the regional operation centre.

I welcome the government's Road Safety Strategy, which recognises that road workers are amongst the most vulnerable on our roads and commits to harnessing technology, data sharing and improved enforcement to protect them. Julie believes a simple message on the gantry signs could have saved Kevin's life. There is currently no requirement for communication between the police and national highways when it comes to traffic control officers, as there is for those working on repairs. My team and I are engaging with the National Highways about this, but the minister's consideration of this issue would be very welcome.

I pay tribute to Kevin's widow, Julie, and I thank her for her courage in repeatedly telling his story. I urge the government to work with families like Julie's to make sure those who put themselves at risk to keep us safe are respected and protected. Thank you Pam Cox.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome today's debate on road safety. It's a subject of deep safety. It's a subject of deep concern in Colchester and across Essex. In our county, we have seen a year on year rise in deaths on a year on year rise in deaths on our roads, rising to 58 in 2025. Now too many of those have been Now too many of those have been young lives in Colchester. We're marking a terrible anniversary at present. The moment for young
15:12
Pam Cox Portrait Pam Cox MP (Colchester, Labour)
-
-
present. The moment for young people lost their lives in a single crash in April last year. An 18 year old was killed on the A12. In the previous September. A 13 year old struck and fatally injured on Mersey Road. So the deaths of these young people must be a call to action. And Madam Deputy Speaker to residents regularly raise concerns about the A12 and the A120, where frequent incidents and congestion contribute to these, these, these horrors. I'd like to highlight then, the need for better road infrastructure and traffic management.

On those stretches. There's an Essex MP. I'm committed to working with Essex Highways and Essex Police to develop measures set out in the strategy, particularly the mandating of safety technologies in new vehicles, taking tougher action against drunk driving and drink and drug driving, and in improving driver testing and learning periods, especially for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young drivers. I will give one. It's my friend. I'm grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's my friend. I'm grateful to my friend for giving way. Dave, a driving instructor in Amber Valley, contacts me regularly about road safety. He is a passionate advocate for it. He's concerned, however, for it. He's concerned, however, about the consultation in the road strategy, road safety strategy in relation to the 3 or 6 month minimum learning period. Would my hon. Friend agree with Dave that structured training and lesson time is just as important, just as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important as minimum time period. Thank my friend for intervention. I'm sure the Minister has heard I'm sure the Minister has heard those points and will respond to close. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think far too many people die on think far too many people die on our roads. We really must act to save lives. I would like to close by asking the Minister what new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by asking the Minister what new funding will be available to help us in that key endeavour for anyway. A Peter Swallow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A Peter Swallow. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Road safety is one of the top issues constituents write to me about. That's why I took the opportunity to hear from nearly 1000 Bracknell Forest residents on this issue over the summer, as I conducted my summer campaign on road safety. It was these conversations and speaking with
15:14
Peter Swallow Portrait Peter Swallow MP (Bracknell, Labour)
-
-
many incredible charities and organisations both in Bracknell Forest and beyond, that impressed on me the need for greater action on me the need for greater action on uninsured drivers. Those who drive uninsured are statistically more likely to be involved in road more likely to be involved in road accidents, as well as commit other risky offences on the road, including hit and run incidents and including hit and run incidents and speeding. Towards the end of last year, I introduced a ten minute rule bill to bring in tougher measures and can I thank the measures and can I thank the Minister for listening to my constituents and launching a consultation on a review of the Motoring Offences Framework, which has not been updated since 1988.

But uninsured driving was not the only issue raised with me by residents. Speeding is a concern for so many who use the roads responsibly, but see it happening and know they and their loved ones are put at risk by this dangerous behaviour. In fact, over 70% of respondents to my road safety survey agreed that people drive too quickly down both residential and main roads in Bracknell Forest. So I'm pleased that the government is publishing new guidance for setting local speed limits and updating guidance on the use of speed and red light cameras, and I want to pay tribute to the work already undertaken by Thames Valley Police on vehicle offences.

More generally, vehicle crime in Bracknell Forest is down 14% compared to the end of 2024 and I know that our local policing team has been working hard to crack down on offences including illegal car meets and uninsured driving. We've already heard from many, many members about the concerns about potholes and so can I just quickly welcome the nearly £17 million invested by this government in our local roads over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the course of this spending period? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Which brings us to the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which brings us to the. Front bench contributions. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Olly Glover. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for giving time to this debate and the very powerful speech given by the proposer, the hon. Member for Shipley her speech, and that of many other hon. Members, quite many other hon. Members, quite rightly focussed on the appalling human cost that results when road safety goes wrong. And so many hon. Members spoke very, very powerfully about stories from their own lives or their constituents, about how of people who have lost their lives or been injured and the impact that has on families.

And that has to be where we start with this. Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as the impact on emergency services. But in relation to road safety, I feel we must start with our own human shortcomings. Very few of us are, generally speaking, the skilled and wise drivers and road users. We often tend to think that we are, and it remains to be seen whether driverless cars in the future will save us from ourselves. In the meantime, we need to tackle a whole range of factors, as well as the fatal five factors that the hon.

Member for Shipley outlined in her introduction. We need to address culture and attitudes to speeding and drinking, and a number of hon. Members referred to a particular problem with the way young people, and particularly young males, can drive. We need to think about the design of our roads and the lack of safe walking and cycling infrastructure. And in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, the A417 and A338 are very busy. A-roads which are have no viable alternative for people cycling, which currently lack cycle paths which would be common in Germany or Netherlands and many other places.

Potholes and poor road surfaces are the bane of all road users lives, and there is a link there to wider policy. Given that upper tier council authorities are seeing more than half of their
15:18
Olly Glover Portrait Olly Glover MP (Didcot and Wantage, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Budget budgets consumed by statutory requirements in terms of adult social care. So road safety adult social care. So road safety has a link to a lot of other areas of policy. We need to think hard about enforcement in terms of both cameras and the human interface. We need to continue and expand cycle training, particularly the Bikeability programme for young people, and we need better training and support for new drivers, particularly young ones. And the recent government announcement on pavement parking is welcome.

But I hope the Minister will say something about how she intends for the government to implement that. And I note that the law, the noble Lord Blunkett in the other place, tabled an amendment on that subject. But we must look to ourselves as well as others. Pedestrians should think carefully before crossing the road and inappropriate place, and we all need to get out of our phones and look around us. Cyclists need to be consistent in obeying rules and signals, and respecting pedestrians and drivers need to have good vehicle maintenance and be mindful of the power of their vehicle.

Madam Deputy Speaker, nobody should want to be the cause of the human harm we have heard about today, and we should all think about that the next time we attempted to behave badly on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

roads. Mr. Greg Smith. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First and foremost, I would like to thank members from across the House for taking part in this House for taking part in this debate and particularly to pay tribute to all those mentioned who tragically lost their lives in road tragically lost their lives in road accidents or faced life changing injuries. It is right that we do injuries. It is right that we do all we can to stop such terrible incidents occurring again in the future. The ability to travel in our cars on the roads is integral to the vast majority of people's everyday lives.

Not only is it the most popular form of transport, but it is a lifeline for many people. Therefore, all motorists and every other road user, whether they are lorry drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or others deserve safe journeys. Considering the government's road safety announcements, there are elements of the strategy that the opposition support and welcome. While there are other measures whose effectiveness remain in question, we strongly support measures such as stronger fines for those who commit egregious offences and taking action to combat ghost number plates.

However, the overwhelming sentiment. I hope the Minister adopts moving forward when putting into practice the policies set out in the strategy. Is enforcement one of the worst things to hear when there has been an accident is that it involved people breaking existing laws, which put themselves and others in danger. Unfortunately, since the government released the strategy, we have seen further decreases in police officer numbers, with the number of staff decreasing between this and last September by over 1300 officers, with further decreases occurring before that date.

How can we expect the government to enforce our wide range of existing road laws, let alone new ones, if there are insufficient police officers, it would be useful to know what discussions the department has had with the Home Office to ensure that sufficient officers will be allocated to police, our existing road laws and any additions the government might bring forward. Also, I understand that the government's police performance framework says that it has a target to decrease people killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions, but does not actually say what that target will be.

To improve enforcement, we must have a targeted response to problem drivers who put everyone on the road at risk. One of the issues that demands an even greater focus is the issue of drug driving. The government's consultation acknowledges that some police forces are arresting more drug drivers than drink drivers, and that there has been a steady increase in the number of people convicted. Even though this represents some progress. I would call on the government to go further. Data shows that in 2023, 22% of deceased drivers tested positive for impairment drugs, an increase from 11% in 2014.

Among the youngest cohort of drivers, those most likely to get into terrible accidents. The vast majority of cases involved illegal drugs only. While there are sensible proposals within this strategy about testing and looking at further fines, the Minister must work with the police to ensure they are doing more to target drug driving and not relying on tests after the fact. In addition, I hope the government strongly considers any further measures that stop those committing these terrible crimes on our roads from being able to avoid punishment, whether that be due to testing or statutory limits, which in particular cases have enabled those who have committed the worst crimes on our roads to avoid the full weight of the law.

To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that for road safety measures, government must bring drivers with them in any changes and measures that they take, where drivers don't feel that those road safety measures, such as 20mph limits, actually help them, they won't take them seriously. This is a strategy that must be delivered, delivered well, but with drivers and not just against them.
15:23
Lilian Greenwood Portrait Lilian Greenwood MP (Nottingham South, Labour)
-
-
I come to the Minister Lilian >> I come to the Minister Lilian Greenwood, who I'm told is aware of how much pressure there is on timing. Lilian Greenwood. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley for her powerful Member for Shipley for her powerful and moving speech in opening today's debate, and so many members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful and heartfelt contributions. I wish we had more time for the debate. I know I won't be able to respond to all the points raised, so I will endeavour to write to people if I don't manage to answer their questions.

Today. It's evident from the discussion that road safety is a subject that affects everyone. Members have shared the effect of road collisions for their constituents and for themselves. As my hon. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is one of too many people who have lost family members on our roads, and I extend my sympathies to her and to all the constituents whose tragic cases have been raised by honourable and right hon. Members. Today, I have met many bereaved families, and it's without doubt the hardest part of my job.

But I will continue to do so. I'm proud that this government has published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, setting out our vision for a safer future for all. Although Britain has some of the safest roads globally, the last ten years of complacency mean that our road safety record has dropped. As we've already heard, four people are killed every single day on our roads. It's not acceptable and that is why we have set ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% and 70% for children by 2035.

The strategy is rooted in innovation and underpinned by the safe system, which recognises that whilst driver error is inevitable, deaths and serious injuries on our roads are not. A new Road Safety Investigation Branch will analyse data to identify causes of danger and generate safety solutions to cut deaths and serious injuries. Now hon. Members, including the hon. Members for North West Norfolk and my hon. Friend for Newcastle under Lyme, have spoken about the need for action to reduce speed, so we will update guidance for local authorities who have the power to set speed limits on their roads to inform decision making at local level.

It is for councils to determine what measures are appropriate because they have the local knowledge. It is right that they focus on areas of highest risk, which may be where fatal collisions have occurred, but there is nothing to stop them from implementing road safety measures elsewhere. And I can assure the hon. Member for Richmond Park that we've already committed to updating the guidance on speed camera deployment. Now, the enforcement of road traffic law is the responsibility of individual chief constables and police and Crime commissioners, taking into account the specific local problems with which they are faced.

We are investing in additional police officers 3000 by the end of March and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. Like my hon. Friend for Shipley, I pay tribute to Allison Lowe, Deputy Mayor for police and Crime in West Yorkshire, for her personal commitment. Last month I visited West Yorkshire to see first hand the work being delivered and last week I joined the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to talk about our strategy and how we can work together. Tragically, as we've heard, young drivers are overrepresented in the number of people killed and seriously injured, and crashes involving young drivers also result in the deaths and serious injuries to other road users.

Numerous members, including my hon. Friend for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Worcestershire, and the right hon. Member for. I'll probably murder her. The name of her seat. Dwyfor Meirionnydd raised this issue now graduated driving licences and how these are implemented around the world vary. There is not one standard type for England, Scotland and Wales. We are consulting on introducing a minimum learning period to make sure learner drivers get the necessary time and training to prepare themselves for a lifetime of safe driving.

We have to strike a balance between protecting young people and impacting their opportunities to get to work, education and social activities. We already have a two year probationary period for all novice drivers once they've passed their test, and we're now seeking views on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers in England and Wales. I'm very aware of what my hon. Friend raised about the recent announcement. In Northern Ireland. My officials meet regularly with their counterparts in Northern Ireland. I've asked them to keep me updated on the progress and the impact those measures have once implemented.

At the other end of the spectrum, drivers aged over 70 account for around 24% of all car drivers killed in 2024. And that's why we're consulting on mandatory eye tests for drivers in this age group. And we're also exploring cognitive testing as well as improving safety. These measures could support families to broach difficult conversations with older relatives who are still driving. Now, drink driving continues to cause too many deaths and injuries. The drink drive limit has not been lowered since it was first legislated for in 1967.

While our understanding of impairment has developed and to support a shift in social acceptability, we will be we'll be working with our our think campaign and alcohol brands to encourage 0% the choice of 0% drinks. Drunk driving has also increased without sufficient measures in place to curtail it. So we are consulting on alternative methods of testing for drunk driving and licence suspension for those suspected of the most serious offences. And there's so much more I would like to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but can I just say on motoring offences we are seeking opinions on tougher penalties and I thank my hon.

Friends who have raised those issues, in addition to raising issues around pavement parking and around vehicle safety. In conclusion, although the government is leading the charge, it will be a collective effort in partnership with local authorities, industry, emergency services, communities and the devolved administrations. I assure everyone in this House that action is beginning now to make our roads safer, as we put the commitments in the strategy into place, and I will chair a new road safety board that will be set up in the coming months to support and monitor the commitments, and will announce further details about membership and other arrangements in due course.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker. As members of the House are aware, many of the measures we are consulting on will require primary legislation and we intend to bring this forward when parliamentary time allows. But where we can deliver change faster through secondary legislation, we will do so now. Encourage hon. Members to respond to our consultations. We will listen to this feedback alongside evidence and recommendations from the Transport Select Committee's inquiry. I want to thank again, all honourable and right hon. Members for their contributions today, and I look forward to updating this House when we've considered the findings.
15:31
15:32
Brendan O'Hara Portrait Brendan O'Hara MP (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, Scottish National Party)
-
-
everyone will always have been Against Us. The Egyptian-canadian novelist and journalist Omar El novelist and journalist Omar El Akkad wrote the moral component of history the most necessary history the most necessary component is simply a single question asked over and over again question asked over and over again when it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power. justice and who sided with power. What makes moments such as this one so dangerous? So clarifying, is that one way or another, everyone is forced to answer.

And that is a question which will have to be answered. Perhaps not today, not even this year, but at some point, all of us, particularly those who hold positions of power and those who have a public platform, will have to answer that fundamental question which side were we on? Where are we on the side of justice, or did we side with the powerful? And each of us will have to answer when asked, did we speak up for the tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children who were killed? Did we use our platform to actively oppose the forced displacement of millions of Palestinians from their homes and their communities, as they were reduced to rubble? And did we condemn unequivocally the collective punishment imposed on an entire population in which the basics necessary to sustain life water, electricity, food and medicine had been deliberately withheld from them? Or did we either by what we said or did, or by what we did not say or did not do, side with the powerful? Did we look away because it was in our political or financial interests? So to do, and did we give political cover and legitimacy to the Netanyahu regime as it carried out its genocide, while our government supplied them with the weapons and military intelligence to do so? Madam Deputy Speaker the Hamas attack of October 7th was utterly appalling, and no right thinking person could excuse or condone what happened that day.

Neither, however, could any right thinking person excuse or condone the Israeli response, which was not just disproportionate, it was brutal, and it has been relentless, and it has been carried out in such a systematic manner that, in my opinion, no reasonable person could deny that. What we have witnessed in Gaza in the past two and a half years constitutes a genocide. The government has, and continues to this day, to deny that it is a genocide. And that is a decision which the government will have to explain and with which they will have to live.

But today, I am not here to play ping pong with the government on the legal definition of what does and what does not constitute a genocide. Instead, I want to focus on the mountain of evidence that says there is at least a serious risk of genocide occurring, and that serious risk should have triggered the UK's legal obligation to act under the terms of the Genocide Convention, as explained by the International Court of Justice in its Bosnia ruling of 2007. And that obligation takes it comes into effect long before any determination of genocide has been made by a court.

The standard of serious risk is designed to be an early warning, one which ensures that states and international bodies act to prevent a genocide from occurring clearly and undeniably. In the case of the Palestinian people of Gaza, the UK has abjectly failed to meet its legal responsibility when alerted to there being a serious risk of genocide. Madam Deputy Speaker. When the UK signed the Genocide Convention in 1948, it promised to prevent and punish this most heinous of crimes.

Now, with more than 71,000 people dead, 200,000 people injured, Gaza reduced to an uninhabitable wasteland with a population in the grip of a man made famine, with Gaza's medical medical infrastructure obliterated and with hundreds of journalists murdered, with water and electricity being used as a means of coercion and punishment, with food and medicine being denied to the starving and the dying, and with repeated forced displacement of millions of civilians, it is surely beyond any dispute that the minimum requirement for UK to act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide has been met.

But arguably the most damning indictment is that more than 21,000 children, 21,000 children have been killed by the IDF since October 2023. And let's not forget, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in November of 2023, the UK government formally intervened in the case brought by the Gambia against Myanmar at the ICJ, arguing for changes to the definition of genocide, which included lowering it, lowering the threshold when damage was inflicted on children. Minister, if it is appropriate for the UK to intervene to protect children from the bombs and bullets of the Myanmar military, why is it not appropriate to intervene to protect Palestinian children from the bombs and the bullets of the IDF?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, genocide is not an it never has genocide is not an it never has been about numbers. The numbers killed, while shocking, do not in killed, while shocking, do not in and of themselves necessarily prove genocide. There are other methods, including deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. And that is why it is important that we look at what else has happened in Gaza since October 2023.

In the past two and a half years, Israel has obliterated the agricultural sector. The fishing industry has gone, the road network has been wrecked, agricultural wells have been demolished, most crop lands and greenhouses have been rendered unusable. The vast majority of livestock have been killed, and the vitally important and culturally significant olive tree crops have been targeted and destroyed. Indeed, such is the devastation that a journalist from the Guardian on board a Jordanian Air Force plane, wrote seen from the air Gaza looks like the ruins of an ancient civilisation.

And he added that Gaza was razed by an Israeli military campaign that has left behind a place that looks like the aftermath of an apocalypse. That does not happen by accident, and it is impossible to view anything that this is anything other than a premeditated attempt to erase Palestinians from their land by making it impossible for human life to survive. So by any measure, collectively, all of that constitutes unimpeachable evidence that there has been a serious risk of genocide.

And that should have, but has not triggered a response from the UK government to prevent that becoming a full blown genocide.
15:58
Rupa Huq Portrait Dr Rupa Huq MP (Ealing Central and Acton, Labour)
-
-
But it is not as if the government can say that it does not know or it was unaware, because time and time was unaware, because time and time again the government, in its own statements from that despatch box, including from the former Foreign Secretary and the current Prime Secretary and the current Prime Minister, have conceded that they know exactly what is happening, but they have chosen to do nothing they have chosen to do nothing about it. They have accepted and have publicly condemned the siege tactics, the denial of humanitarian assistance, the use of starvation, of a weapon of war, the use of evacuation orders, the denial of water, food and electricity, the targeting of of journalists, healthcare being destroyed, the astronomical numbers of civilian casualties, and the deliberate dehumanising of the Palestinian people.

So the government, in their own words, have denied undeniable proof that war crimes are being carried out, that mass atrocities are being carried out and civilians are being denied the basics to maintain life. And a quick trawl of Hansard will reveal that as far back as January 2024, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham, saying, and I quote, 85% of the population of displaced and millions face the risk of famine. Two months later, he said, famine in Gaza is imminent.

But what distinguishes the horror in Gaza from what has come before is that it is not driven by drought or natural disaster. It is man made. And in May of 24, he said, aid is reportedly being blocked and northern Gaza is now in full blown famine. A year later, in May of 25, he openly acknowledged Israeli war crimes against civilian population when he said the whole House should be able to utterly condemn the Israeli government's denial of food to hungry children.

It is wrong, it is appalling. And then he continued what we are seeing is inhumane, it is deadly and it is depriving gardens of their human dignity. It's there in black and white. The government have acknowledged that, and the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, in October of 23, acknowledged that serious risk, saying civilians must not be targeted for Palestinians or forced to flee. They must not be permanently displaced. International law is clear. It means that basic services, including water, electricity and the fuel needed for it cannot be denied.

And as Prime Minister, he said, we continue to see mounting evidence of appalling atrocities against civilians and unacceptable restrictions on humanitarian access. And there are so, so, so many more examples of the Prime Minister, the former foreign secretary and other Ministers from that Dispatch Box admitting that Israel was using food as a weapon of war it had manufactured a famine, was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, were committing war crimes and were stripping Gazans of their human dignity.

Yet it remains the official position of the UK government that none of that, none of that meets the threshold for there being a serious risk of genocide. So, Minister, are we being asked to believe that not even when Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said I have ordered a complete siege of the Gaza Strip, there will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly. Did that not trigger within the government that perhaps there was a serious risk of a genocide occurring? Or when Finance Minister Smotrich said Gaza will be entirely destroyed, civilians will be sent to the south, and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries.

Did that not trigger that? Perhaps there was a genocide occurring, or a potential risk of a genocide occurring, or when the president himself, Isaac Herzog, said, it is an entire nation out there that is responsible, did that not suggest inside the UK government that perhaps Israel's response to the atrocities of of October 7th was going to be disproportionate, brutal and illegal, and that perhaps continuing selling weapons and maintaining a business as usual relationship with Tel Aviv was going to put us in grave danger of breaching our obligations under the Genocide Convention.

So it appears, Madam Deputy Speaker, that despite Israel making its intentions unambiguously clear from the very start that they were going to ethnically cleanse Gaza, they would do so using whatever means necessary, and they would do so indiscriminately. It seems that UK government made the political choice to deliberately ignore its obligations, so that it could continue a business as usual relationship with Netanyahu's government. So I will finish where I began, Madam Speaker, with that powerful quote from Omar El Akkad when it mattered who sided with justice and who sided with power, what makes moments like this so dangerous? So clarifying, is that one day everyone will be forced to answer this.

UK government and the government which preceded it have chosen to side with power over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

justice and history will judge them accordingly. The question is as on the Order Paper, and because I'm going to get everybody in before we finish at 5:00, everyone is on a three minute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

5:00, everyone is on a three minute speaking limit and I first come to Doctor Peter Prinsley. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing this most important debate. This is a debate on an obligation This is a debate on an obligation to assess the risk of genocide. So who can disagree with this? There has been a terrible war in Gaza and although there is a ceasefire, loss of life continues. Now. This was sparked by the October 7th attack in 2023 and the taking of the hostages, the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.

This was not a war of Israel's seeking. The aims of the war were to secure the release of the hostages and to prevent Hamas from ever repeating its attack, as it had promised on many occasions. As the chief rabbi says, if Hamas were to lay down its arms, there'd be no more fighting. But if Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be no more Israel. Now, genocide is a legal description of the intentional, systematic destruction in whole or in part of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group defined by the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, a concept defined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer from Lviv of Lemberg, much in the news in the aftermath of the war.

Now, I first heard of Lemkin in the marvellous book East West Street by Philippe Sands, who will deliver tonight the Alf Dubs lecture at Battersea. Indeed, now intent is the crucial word here. Britain and its allies are not accused of genocide for the strategic bombing of Germany, despite hundreds of thousands of those who were killed. It is a matter for a court to decide on genocide, and despite the many debates about this in this chamber, we can all agree that this is not a court.

Now we know there has been massive loss of life and destruction in Gaza, but for myself, I simply cannot believe it was the stated intention of Israel to completely destroy the population of Gaza. We do not led Health Department and the Israel government spokespeople. I directly asked Mr. Herzog, the president of Israel, twice about allowing independent journalists such as CNN or BBC, and I was twice informed that it was too dangerous. Is that still the case? I doubt it now there is a ceasefire, so genocide has been used as a rally to protest all over the world.

But we have seen where some of this has led. But if we allow this most significant of words to be bandied about with such certainty, do we not risk undermining the words that are needed to describe the Holocaust, which was the intentional, systematic murder of 6 million European Jews by the Nazis? The Rohingya expelled en masse, raped and slaughtered. The Uyghurs, subject to mass internment, forced sterilisation and cultural erasure, or the mass murders in Rwanda. Genocide is a quite specific crime, and frankly, it is not my belief that this was the intent of the Israel Defence Force.

But I do agree that there is an obligation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for this to be assessed. Graham Leadbitter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Graham Leadbitter. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are witnessing in Gaza catastrophe that was not only catastrophe that was not only foreseeable but preventable. For over two years, the UK government has hidden behind legal sleight of has hidden behind legal sleight of hand. While a genocide unfolded in Gaza. The definition of genocide set out in article two of the set out in article two of the Genocide Convention is precise. It involves specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Firstly, Madam Deputy Speaker, article two prohibits killing members of such a group. As of January this year, 71,000 Palestinians have been killed, including 570 aid workers and 1700 health workers. This is not collateral damage. It is the destruction of a people and it is sickening. Just yesterday, during the current ceasefire, the BBC reported that at least 20 Palestinians, including several children and a paramedic, had been killed and almost 40 others wounded in Israeli strikes in Gaza, according to hospitals in Palestine.

The response from the Israeli Defence Force stated that they had carried out precise strikes, so precise, apparently, that they had to further state. The IDF is aware of the claim that several uninvolved civilians, including a medical staff member, were hit in the strike. This is a familiar trope they have used throughout this conflict. If these were the actions of our own military, the standards we would apply in investigation and response would be rigorous and likely lead to court martial, because it is not even close to our rightly highly robust rules of engagement rooted in moral integrity.

Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, article two prohibits causing serious bodily harm or mental harm. We know that over 143,000 people have been injured, with many maimed for life, and the population has been subjected to torture and arbitrary detention. Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly article two prohibits deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Amnesty international has found that Israel has systematically destroyed life sustaining infrastructure, including water, sanitation and energy grids, by creating a so-called buffer zone.

Israel has raised 59% of agricultural land in that area, and as of last month, 81% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, all the while severely restricting vital aid and supplies. This is the deliberate erasure of the means of survival, which has led to widely reported and verifiable famine. When Israeli leaders describe Palestinian Palestinians as human animals and speak of flattening Gaza, and then proceed to destroy 19 hospitals and block essential aid, the intent to destroy the group, as per the definition, is the only reasonable conclusion.

Even now, despite the UN Commission of Inquiry finding in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide. And Amnesty International confirming that genocide continues despite the October ceasefire, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK refuses to act. Madam Deputy Speaker, history will judge this government and this parliament. Andy McDonald Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andy McDonald Deputy. Speaker, I am. Honoured to serve as the co-chair of the Britain, Palestine co-chair of the Britain, Palestine APPG. We face a stark legal reality the UK's duty to prevent genocide is triggered the moment a serious risk becomes evident. The risk becomes evident. The International Court of Justice made that clear in January 2024. Judge Joan Donoghue stated the court found a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice would be caused to the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention.

The court issued provisional measures directing Israel to prevent genocide measures. Israel has ignored. Words matter to Israeli President Herzog declared. It's an entire nation out there that is responsible under international law. Such statements are evidence of intent. The UN Commission of Inquiry confirmed that the Icj's provisional measures placed all States parties on notice of a serious risk of genocide in Gaza, triggering legal obligations on third states, including the UK. As its chair, Navi Pillay stated, Israel has flagrantly disregarded the orders for provisional measures from the International Court of Justice and continued to the strategy of destruction of the Palestinians in Gaza.

Yet in September 24th, UK government lawyers concluded there was no serious risk of genocide occurring. That defies the court, the commission and the law. The UK itself has argued that genocide is not limited to killings. It includes forced displacement, serious bodily or mental harm and deprivation of food, particularly when children are targeted. Despite this, the UK has failed to acknowledge the risk, fail to respond to the ICJ or the Commission and fail to act as it has elsewhere.

So can I ask the Minister what evidence would be required to accept the risk of genocide if neither the ICJ nor the UN Commission of Inquiry suffices? And why, when the UK has argued that acts against children and forced displacement are indicators of genocidal intent, it is not applied that standard here. Madam Deputy Speaker, history will judge whether we acted when the warning signs were crystal clear. I urge the government to acknowledge the risk and meet its legal duty to prevent genocide.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because Madam Deputy Speaker. All of. Us I know are here in this. Chamber because of the horror we Chamber because of the horror we have for the events of October the 7th, but the atrocities that took place have taken place thereafter place have taken place thereafter and continue to take place. But many of us are also here because of a profound sense of shame. Shame at a profound sense of shame. Shame at the way the last government, and the way this government has conducted itself throughout this conducted itself throughout this entire affair.

And amongst the many shames that we will all have to bear, one of them is its reluctance to vigorously and assertively participate in the international rules based order, which we built to prevent exactly this kind of eventuality. As other members have said, I don't understand what the government thinks the ICJ was doing when it ruled there was a plausible case of genocide. Did he not think that they were triggering exactly the obligations that other members have mentioned already? And those obligations are not rhetorical.

They are operational. They are real. They are obligatory. We have to act to prevent. We cannot facilitate. And yet, time and time again, the British government in this regard has done absolutely nothing. From arms to intelligence sharing to diplomatic cover. We've continued as normal and I'm left wondering myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, what it is this country stands for anymore, because it's not just on this obligation on the torture convention, where the reputable human rights organisation, Israeli reputable human rights organisation.

But Saleem have just published a report saying that Israel is running a network of torture camps, nothing from the British government, notwithstanding its international obligations on the settlements in the West Bank, 100 parliamentarians wrote. The ICJ has ruled, and yet the government has done the bare minimum it can get away with to enforce those obligations. And then even the individual cases that we've seen coming across are telephones and social media. Doctor Adnan Alberche tortured to death Hendra jab the world heard her as she lay dying in her car.

Left alone at the age of six. Ambulances ambushed, hospitals flattened, schools crushed even when British citizens are slaughtered. And we have an obligation, surely, to them if we don't feel we have an obligation to anybody else, the government has done nothing. This is a monstrous abdication of duty. Madam Deputy Speaker, in this regard, the law is not unclear. The facts are not hidden. Daily, we hear Israeli Ministers boasting about what is being done in Gaza. But what is missing, I'm afraid, is political will.

And it's about time that the Minister and his superiors realised that history doesn't just judge what governments do, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

judges what they allow. Orders. Order! Doctor Rupa Huq speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! Doctor Rupa Huq speaker. The UK recognition of Palestine reality a Gaza ceasefire under reality a Gaza ceasefire under Labour but still 70,000 Palestinians killed, now a figure accepted by Israel 500 since the ceasefire. Repeated forcible displacement, whole neighbourhoods displacement, whole neighbourhoods gone. Is this genocide? Like Srebrenica and Rwanda, the ICJ will take years to determine, but the UN Commission of Inquiry and International Association of Genocide Scholars say yes. How does Joe Public decide with NGOs? 37 of them, including Oxfam, effectively banned and international media excluded.

External mechanisms that should help us assess are gone, so targeted measures are rendering it impossible to judge. The civilian combatant line is blurred given the women and children deaths, making the IDF claim that they always minimise casualties questionable. The very risk of genocide raises Britain's obligations under the 1948 convention to Prevent or Risk complicity. And whilst we have allowed children to travel to the UK from Gaza for medical care and students in. We've also seen the hospitals in Gaza and schools, churches, mosques, universities, refugee camps destroyed.

This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

biblical devastation is man made. Offensively. Yes I will. Hon. Friend for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Friend for giving way. We're here to discuss genocide. But in Gaza, as she says, 20,000 in Gaza, as she says, 20,000 children have been killed, 95% of hospitals destroyed and food blocks to the point of famine. Does my to the point of famine. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that this House of Commons, indeed the world, cannot sit by and let this happen?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot sit by and let this happen? I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I know that he worked for Save the Children before, which has also been deregistered. I mean, the shame of it, we must act and a systematic discrediting of the UN unwra buildings destroyed. Francesca Albanese, accused of being a witch and sanctioned by the US, and what's proposed in place of the UN, the Gaza Board of Peace, headed by Donald Trump. $1 billion to join zero Palestinian representation.

Yet Putin has a seat, as does the presidential son in law and Netanyahu, with a founding charter that doesn't mention Gaza. The UK must not give this vanity project any credence. Extremist Israeli Ministers have been sanctioned and 30 arms licences suspended. But as the facts worsen on the ground, we must ramp up. We must support real peace efforts as opposed to the grubby real estate deals devoid of international law that bypass Palestinians. And in Qatar, even the cease fire negotiators were bombed.

Of course, Hamas's acts of October the 7th must be condemned. But Netanyahu's war Cabinet since have way gone beyond self-defence, starvation and the erasure of the international presence to gather evidence of what might or might not be a genocide, must raise alarm bells and require urgent action to be on the right side of history. So no to the Board of Peace, a toughened sanctions package and an arms embargo, a full ban on trade in settlement goods, and not just the present situation where it's tariff reductions.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Susan Murray. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. The recent events we've seen

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The recent events we've seen unfold in Gaza have been, without doubt, horrific. Some of the worst atrocities that have taken place in atrocities that have taken place in modern times, carried out by Israel and centred in one small region. We have seen the targeting of civilian infrastructure causing the maximum level of suffering on the civilian
16:02
Susan Murray Portrait Susan Murray MP (Mid Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
level of suffering on the civilian population. We have seen the imprisonment of medical professionals as recently as last month. The UN office for Coordination of Human Affairs reported that 1700 aid and health workers have been killed, and now, in a period of ceasefire, the Israeli government continues to severely restrict the entry of nutritious food, medical supplies and materials to repair and rebuild civilian infrastructure, and over 400 Palestinians have been killed. Palestinians continue to face famine. Their homes are flattened, their friends and family are killed, and the forced displacement.

We've also seen upwards of 250 journalists killed, entire news crews wiped out by airstrikes and targeted shootings. The people sent to the front lines to document and report struck down beside those they try to help. I urge the government to take proactive steps to to ensure the release of Palestine. Palestinian medical professionals held in Israeli prisons who should be free to care for the injured and sick, and the safety of journalists reporting in Gaza without people to document the events unfolding in conflict zones, we are left without the evidence required for reconciliation.

Civilians are left without their first safeguard of international law, and aggressors feel a sense of impunity. The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Israeli government has committed a genocide in Gaza, and that those responsible need to be held to account. Looking forward, we have a responsibility to protect those in the occupied Palestinian territories. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has been too slow to react to events in Palestine. In the West Bank. They must step forward up to and step up to their duty in international law and acknowledge the risk of genocide.

Thank you sir.
16:04
Fleur Anderson Portrait Fleur Anderson MP (Putney, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions of genocide are amongst the gravest that Parliament must consider, and I would like to thank so many of my constituents who have so many of my constituents who have written to me in advance of this debate. In the case of Gaza, the International Criminal Court of International Criminal Court of Justice has ruled that there is a real and imminent risk of genocide. And this was given two years ago. The court is still deliberating the case and a final judgement is expected next year.

But in the meantime, this risk requires action. In my short time allowed, I would like to focus on one of those actions. There is a strong case for the government to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank. No further legal judgement is needed to do this. While global attention has focussed rightly on Gaza, on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, settlement expansion, land confiscation and violence have continued. More than a thousand Palestinians have been killed there, and economic activity linked to settlements risks undermining the UK's long standing position on their illegality and on the viability of a future Palestinian state.

The Minister has been clear that settlements are illegal, and I thank him for meeting with me to talk about this previously. The mechanism exists to do this. The UK Israel Trade Agreement already differentiates settlement goods, denying them preferential tariffs. So there are postcodes which show exactly where goods come from already. The government should now consider moving from differentiation to prohibition using legal tools already available under the sanctions and Anti-Money Money Laundering Act 2018, as we have done in relation to Crimea.

There's precedent, there's law, there's the ability to do it. Technically, Palestinian civilians, Palestinian children have endured extraordinary suffering, displacement, hunger, trauma and loss. They are entitled not only to charity but to the protection guaranteed under international law, a ceasefire alone is not enough. The absence of bombs is not the presence of justice. Without reconstruction, accountability, justice and a viable political and economic path, the suffering will continue. So I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the UK will now support the collection and preservation of evidence of war crimes that will be needed for the justice system to work, and when the government will move ahead on legislation that's needed.

It's only regulations, or perhaps some secondary legislation to stop the trade with these illegal settlements on the West Bank, in line with the UK's stated policy and international legal obligations.
16:07
Sammy Wilson Portrait Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (East Antrim, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Sammy Wilson Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I first of all, draw members attention to the declaration in the members declaration in the members interests? The question was asked at the very start of this debate. at the very start of this debate. Whose side are we on now? Let me make something very clear. I'm on the side of the people who suffered one of the most horrendous terrorist attacks on the 7th of October, when their when their citizens were raped, burnt, taken into captivity, killed in cold blood, and their killers actually boasted about it and stuck it on the internet.

And secondly, I'm on the side of those people who since then have suffered the most sectarian abuse because they were Jews and happened to live in this country. And the question being asked, well, how can we ignore the fact that the International Court of Justice has made a ruling? First of all, it has not said there was any intent. And secondly, the judge who made and who decided in that case was actually twice a candidate for Prime Minister of Lebanon with the support of a terrorist group.

So I don't think that we can see the International Court of Justice as being an body which is independent here. Secondly, the facts are that Israel took every attempt to reduce the civilian casualties in Gaza. One of you has to look at the ratio of civilian casualties in Gaza to what happened in Iran, what happened in Afghanistan and the actions which were taken, even putting their own soldiers at risk by leafleting, telephoning, using UN coordination to say when they're going to strike and withdrawing some of their strikes when they did, who put the civilians in harm's way? Hamas made it quite clear that civilians being killed would put blood into the veins of resistance.

That's the kind of enemy they're up against. And I don't think we're going to find that. Even if there were an investigation that Israel was reckless in the way in which it responded to a terrorist attack on its own, its own civilians, I'll give you a yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is never any justification to kill the number of civilians that have been killed. This is a that have been killed. This is a genocide. And it's not just the ICJ that said it. What about the UN special rapporteurs, the UN independent experts, the UN Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International? What about the UN physicians for Human Rights in Israel, the International Association for Genocide Scholars, Association for Genocide Scholars, and over 600 senior lawyers in the UK, including lady Hale and Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sumption and many others who call it a genocide. Well. Well, Hamas would actually disagree with the member because Hamas actually boasted that the killing of civilians would help to increase the resistance and put some fire into the resistance. So before so before accusations are before so before accusations are made against Israel, let's look at the record of Hamas and putting civilians in harm's way, basing their rockets and their firing points on hospitals, schools, civilian infrastructure, and therefore inviting the the the retaliation and inviting the fact that the the Israeli armed forces had to take action in doing that.

The the the the rules of engagement were such that even the former Supreme chief of NATO was able to observe that when it came to the way in which Israel engaged the enemy in Gaza, their standards were higher than what we expected even of the British army. In such circumstances. My concern, my concern is this, that this, this, that, this, that this motion and this demand is like, no, no, I'll not give way. This, this demand will be used to justify the intimidatory marches which we see week after week through through the United Kingdom.

It'll be used to justify the barricading of Jewish businesses, the banning of Jewish students and academics from universities, and will also be used to justify even the banning of Israeli sports fans. Israeli sports fans, from the sporting events in the United Kingdom. This is part of the campaign to justify the sectarianism, sectarianism which is now creeping into the debate in the United Kingdom.
16:11
Steve Witherden Portrait Steve Witherden MP (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, Labour)
-
-
Order, order Steve Witherden. I thank the hon. Member for laying out so powerfully the extent to which our government has failed in its responsibilities to assess the its responsibilities to assess the serious risk of genocide and our legal obligation to act under the Genocide Convention. Since the Genocide Convention. Since the latest US brokered so-called ceasefire took effect, Israeli forces have killed more than 500 Palestinians. The genocide is far from over. I know comrades from across this House will rightly speak on accountability today, so I will focus on our complicity.

I am extremely concerned by the government's apparent move towards unblocking the already insufficient 29 out of 350 arms licences to Israel that were suspended in September 2024. It was the government's own assessment that there was a serious risk of British made weapons being used in violation of international law. Yet on the 12th of January 2026, in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, the Secretary of State committed to revisiting both UK Israel trade discussions and the decision to pause arms export licences, adding that the two matters were intrinsically linked.

Such a claim is entirely at odds with the government's legal obligations under the UK's own strategic export licensing criteria and international law, including the Genocide Convention. In addition to the continuous supply of spare parts enabled by the F-35 carve out last month, three new F-35s were transferred from the UK RAF Station at Mildenhall to Israel. Palestinians continue to be failed by our government. The government must not renege on its arms export control criteria. Now Gaza is away from the front pages.

If the government were to weaken its commitment to international law in order to secure a trade deal, that would be, frankly, shameful. I said in June during my adjournment debate, this government's approach to export licensing was deeply troubling. Seven months after questioning the minister's claim about so-called third country re-exports, I am still awaiting a response. This week I have written again to the government about the changes to arms licences and the F-35 transfers. I sincerely hope a reply will come more promptly.

The testimony of Mark Smith, former diplomat and policy adviser at the FCDO, sheds light on the disturbing level of access and influence the arms industry holds over government decision making. This influence buys government complicity and makes a mockery of international law to safeguard profits. As he put it, the system is not designed to hold itself accountable. It is designed to protect itself at all costs. I once again call on the government to suspend all arms exports to Israel.
16:14
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)
-
-
Jeremy Corbyn. and I'm very grateful to the member who got this debate today and all those that have spoken in it, because we're doing this on the because we're doing this on the background of 71,000 people that are known to be dead in Gaza as a are known to be dead in Gaza as a result of Israeli bombardment. And on top of that, there are many thousands of bodies lying under the rubble that will no doubt become the foundations of the casinos and hotels that the Trump plan is very visiting upon the people of Gaza.

I had the privilege of attending the South African application under the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. It was a deeply moving experience hearing the South African application, the bravery with which they put it and thinking this is the country that threw off the yoke of apartheid and had the courage then to stand up for the Palestinian people facing genocide as they are. And the conclusion by the eminent judges was there was a credible case that genocide had been committed there, going through many, many details on it.

Following that, I introduced a ten minute rule bill in this chamber last year, and that ten minute rule bill called for this country to set up its own tribunal of investigation on its own participation in arms sales to Israel and the bombardment of Gaza. Unsurprisingly, it was blocked. And so what I did was then, through the Peace and Justice Project, established our own independent Gaza tribunal. We held it over two days in church House, Westminster, and I was joined by January and Neve Gordon, who assessed a great deal of detailed evidence.

Obviously in the one minute, 15 seconds left to me, I can't go through that evidence. But what I would say is quite simply this the power of the evidence of doctors in tears because they didn't have the equipment to deal with the horrendous injuries that they were asked to deal with in hospitals without electricity, anaesthetic, antiseptic or even clean water. And the legal evidence that was given and the evidence given by the former FCO official, Mark Smith were very, very powerful indeed.

And the supply of RAF were supplied through RAF Akrotiri of weapons to Israel, so this has now been taken up by the Hague Convention of a group of UN member States who are going to carry on with that. And I conclude in the last half minute I've got with this, as was pointed out earlier, this country was involved in supporting and indeed establishing in the 1920s the International Court of Justice. We pride ourselves in being the custodians of international law and order. This country is making itself complicit in the in the genocide of the people of Palestine by its supply of weapons.

It's time to stop.
16:17
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Portrait Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Clapham and Brixton Hill, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member opposite for bringing forward this vital debate, because to many of us, vital debate, because to many of us, it has always been abundantly clear that what is taking place in Palestine does indeed constitute a genocide. Since the Israeli attacks began in 2003, over 70,000 have been killed, entire bloodlines wiped out. We have witnessed targeted attacks on civilians and journalists, the forced displacement of people from their homes, the obstruction of humanitarian aid, the weaponization of starvation and the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools and universities.

Taken together, these actions demonstrate a clear and deliberate attempt by the Israeli government to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land. Since the ceasefire was announced in October, hundreds more Palestinians have been killed. Aid continues to be blocked from entering the region, and there are severe restrictions on the number of sick and wounded people permitted to leave for medical care. Let me be clear even if Israel had fully complied with the ceasefire agreement, and even if they were to cease all attacks today and allow the unconditional flow of aid into Gaza, none of this would undo the suffering already inflicted on the Palestinian people, nor negate the fact that what has taken place constitutes a genocide.

It is vital that we use the correct language. History will not describe what is unfolding in Palestine as a war, or an invasion, or just an occupation. It will describe it as a genocide. The questions future historians will ask are why the international community failed to recognise it, and why we did nothing to stop it. There is a growing body of evidence and a clear consensus among UN experts, human rights organisations and genocide scholars that Israel has committed and continues to commit acts of genocide.

The UK has a legal obligation not to aid or assist violations of international law, including a duty to take all possible measures to prevent genocide once a risk has been identified. Yet we continue to sell arms to Israel, which are undoubtedly being used to attack civilians. I therefore hope that when the Minister responds, he will explain why the government believes it's acceptable to continue arms sales and trade that aids Israel's actions, including with illegal settlements. It is our moral duty as a nation with historical responsibility in the region and as advocates for human rights, to ensure that the Palestinian people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are granted the justice, freedom and dignity they deserve. Thank you. Seamus Logan Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seamus Logan Madam Deputy Speaker I want to thank my colleague, the Member for Argyll Bute and South Olly Glover, for bringing this important debate to bringing this important debate to the chamber today. And I want to highlight is only the second time a backbench debate on Gaza has taken place in this place. The reaction place in this place. The reaction of the UK government since they came to office has been at best supine for, at worst grossly negligent. They have responded to the UN International Independent Commission of Inquiry reports on other contexts, for example Ukraine, and rightly so.

But they have failed to do so for Gaza. Back in September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian on the Occupied Palestinian Territory found that Israel had committed a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. I will.
16:20
Seamus Logan Portrait Seamus Logan MP (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Thank you to my friend. 2nd.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I voted in Council of Europe, I voted in favour of a resolution regarding the devastating humanitarian the devastating humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and paragraph eight of that referred to the UN Human Rights Council finding that Human Rights Council finding that my Honourable the hon. Member has referred, paragraph eight, highlighted the obligation to of highlighted the obligation to of all state parties to prevent genocide under article one of the UN convention.

Would the hon. Member member like me, welcome comment from the Minister today

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the UK's response to that Assembly resolution. I thank the Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Member for intervention and I completely agree with her. Within recent days, we learned that the IDF has admitted learned that the IDF has admitted its role in the death of at least 70,000 Palestinians. Meanwhile, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warns us that as we enter 2026, the clock is ticking louder than ever, with conditions on the ground in with conditions on the ground in Palestine remaining perilously fragile. Only yesterday, the UN committee mandated to promote the realisation of Palestinian rights, reaffirming calls for a two state solution.

Secretary-General Guterres endorsed this as the only viable path towards achieving long lasting peace and security between Palestine and Israel. But in this context, at least another 449 men, women and children have been killed by Israeli forces during this so-called cease fire. Why can the UK government not see what the UN can see? Why do they accept the UN's reports on Ukraine but not Gaza? Why did they not accept the conclusions of UK based lawyers, including Supreme Court justices, who signed a letter to the Prime Minister confirming that a genocide is being perpetrated in May last year? Now I wish to turn to the letter that I and 57 other parliamentarians have signed, led by the MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr, explaining to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that we are extremely concerned for the government's apparent move towards unblocking the arms licences to Israel that it suspended in September 2024, and the transfer of new F-35s from a British air base.

This is at odds with the government's international legal obligations, including the Genocide Convention. I hope the Minister will be able to explain this decision, given the ongoing violation of the ceasefire. Ceasefire by Israeli forces in Gaza, continuing the genocidal horror of these past two and a half years. When talk of peace involves the perpetrators of violence and not the violated, not the voices of those who have lost so much on all sides. War crimes will go unpunished, and festering wounds of injustice will lead to further conflict.

The Prime Minister is a former human rights lawyer. Must understand this. Why then, giving everything we know, given all we have witnessed, does his government remain in a state of ambivalence on assessments of genocide under international law and Palestine? Does the clue to this answer lie in this government's protection of trade and diplomatic ties to Israel and the US?
16:24
Warinder Juss Portrait Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West, Labour)
-
-
Warinder Juss. What the Palestinian people have endured is cruel, inhumane and completely unacceptable. Unacceptable. We know that last Unacceptable. We know that last year it was an Israeli government blockade that led to the United Nations and others to declare a famine in Gaza. We know that the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu for war crimes. And we know that more than 90% of the homes across Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. The UN's report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and human rights organisations such as International Association of Genocide Scholars.

As has already been mentioned, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Oxfam have already expressed the view that genocide has been committed by Israel under international law. Israel has also recently revoked licenses of 37 international NGOs. Madam Deputy Speaker, the EU. Yes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of course, I. Know from working with the Norwegian Refugee Council, including a media rule, my constituent, who's the head of constituent, who's the head of shelter and settlements for the charity, the vital work they are doing. But as you say, in January, doing. But as you say, in January, along with 37 other NGOs and aid organisations, they were banned from operating in Gaza. The move is plainly an attempt by the Israeli plainly an attempt by the Israeli government to circumvent international institutions and accountability.

So does he agree with me that the government and with me that the government and international community should attempt to use its influence and all its leverage to push for this ban to be rescinded, so that aid organisations like the Norwegian Refugee Council can continue their life saving work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It seems to be quite clear that the reason why these licences have been revoked is to prevent aid from going through, and therefore it leads to the at and therefore it leads to the at least the assumption that there might be the risk of genocide taking place. The UNSC genocide, taking place. The UNSC genocide, sorry, the UN Genocide Convention requires states to prevent and punish genocide. And I would like punish genocide.

And I would like to repeat the definition of genocide under article two of the convention. And it defines genocide as any act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, and I emphasise the words in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. We cannot stand by and prevent and pretend that it is for an international court to decide whether or not genocide has occurred in the occupied Palestinian territories, and we cannot turn a blind eye, as innocent Palestinian people continue to suffer.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are fortunate in this House to have enough distinguished lawyers to decide whether there is at least a risk of genocide having occurred and to conduct that risk assessment. As the debate has requested, when do we decide that enough is enough? When do we decide that enough innocent people have been killed, and that enough suffering has occurred for us to consider that an ally of ours, Israel, may be committing genocide under international law, and for us to take decisive, concrete action to prevent that genocide by the Israeli government.
16:27
Ellie Chowns Portrait Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
-
Ellie Chowns. >> Ellie Chowns. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate today. I secured a the debate today. I secured a debate in Westminster Hall in June last year on the same topic, and the arguments that I set out at the arguments that I set out at length there still hold, and indeed have been deepened and strengthened by events since then. The Green Party has long been clear that the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza do constitute genocide.

But I agree with my hon. Friend from the opposite side that it is important to be clear about language. So I will make very specific arguments with respect to the Genocide Convention today. The UK has a legal obligation to assess the risk of genocide and act to prevent it when that risk is cleared under the convention. Article one specifies contracting Parties undertake to prevent and punish genocide. Prevention, by definition, has to happen before an event has happened or before it is completed.

It cannot wait for a court case after genocide has conclusively concluded. Does the Minister therefore accept that the UK has a duty under the Genocide Convention? Article one to prevent genocide when a serious risk is identified? Article two sets out a range of acts that, if committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a specific group, constitute genocide. There are five acts specified. Only one of them needs to be occurring in order for it to be concluded that this genocide, and there is very widespread agreement that at least four of these are happening, killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

What else is the cutting off of water? The prevention of delivery of food, of life saving medicines, of fuel and power, and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. The destruction. The wholesale destruction of health care in Gaza is clear evidence of this. It's not just me who says this. It's not just the International Court of Justice that says it. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, MSF, amnesty, but Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, the UN Commission of Inquiry. Hundreds of British lawyers, as we have heard.

So can I ask the Minister why does he not accept the conclusion of this wide swathe of people that genocide is indeed taking place, or at least that there is a plausible risk which therefore entails his obligations under article one, article three, part E specifies that complicity in genocide is punishable under the Genocide Convention. Now let us be clear about UK complicity. Export of arms, including F-35s. Sharing of intelligence. Continued participation in settlement trade, which is participation in the proceeds of crime.

Land seizure. What more evidence does the UK government need that we are complicit in it, that genocide is taking place before it takes the actions that are in its power and long, long overdue. Brian Leishman.
16:30
Brian Leishman Portrait Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thanks to the hon. Member from Argyll Bute and South Lochaber for bringing this debate firstly and for so clearly debate firstly and for so clearly and accurately setting the scene. and accurately setting the scene. The awkward truth for many in this Parliament is that genocide has occurred in occupied Palestine for decades, and the silence from the international community has allowed and enabled Israeli governments to persecute and oppress the Palestinian people, and has emboldened Netanyahu and his murderous regime to commit the genocide that we have all witnessed in Gaza.

But Israel commits different types of genocide. Last November, I was fortunate enough to be in the West Bank, and I heard of the cultural genocide that is taking place. Students and lecturers are unable to go to university because of roadblocks and checkpoints. I heard about the universities, colleges and schools that have been flattened throughout Gaza. Lecturers now giving classes in tents as makeshift classrooms. How on earth do we expect Gaza to be rebuilt when Palestinians are unable to be educated? Netanyahu's government has also, by design, crippled the Palestinian economy by impacting their ability to trade, making Palestinians reliant on Israel for goods, produce and ultimately their very survival.

Israel uses economic terrorism as a tool of subjugation with the seizures of Palestinian farms, and by making it almost impossible for those that remain to trade than Israel, impoverishes Palestinians. And this is a concerted international effort to normalise Palestinians, relies on Israel to be the providers of life saving aid, while making it near impossible for Palestinians to be self-sufficient, driving Palestinians to starvation, as well as this collective punishment of Palestinians. Another goal of this broader plan is to impose capitalism through the imperial project that Israeli government promotes, and all wilfully aided by Western democracies.

Shame on any government, of any party, of any nation, that has allowed and been complicit in these awful atrocities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If interventions are made, not all colleagues will get in. Please consider that Iqbal Mohamed. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to thank my hon. Friend, for securing this crucial debate. And as he said, any person of And as he said, any person of conscience can and must condemn both the illegal actions of Hamas on October the 7th and the illegal on October the 7th and the illegal actions of Israel in its response for the 850 days since that
16:33
Iqbal Mohamed Portrait Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)
-
-
for the 850 days since that horrific day. Yet, despite the plausible risk of genocide inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian people having been identified by the ICJ, the UN and multiple other agencies and experts, successive UK governments have consistently refused to acknowledge this risk, and they have failed in their obligations to take immediate, proactive measures to prevent a genocide of the Palestinian people. However, whether the UK government calls Israel's actions a genocide or not will not bring back in Rajoub her six family members or the two paramedics that tried to save her.

Whether the UK government calls Israel's actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the 2700 family bloodlines wiped out at Israel hands, or the relatives of over 6000 soul survivors. Whether the UK government calls Israel's actions genocide or not, it will not bring back the parents of a new generation of Palestinian orphans created through Israeli slaughter. Like the three year old Sam, who was left with a lacerated liver and kidney after an Israeli airstrike that killed her five year old brother, her pregnant mother, her father and grandparents.

Whether the UK governments calls Israel's actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the almost 300 journalists assassinated for trying to report Israeli war crimes in real time. Whether the UK government calls Israel actions a genocide or not will not bring back the over 100 Palestinian hostages executed in Israeli detention centres in the last two and a half years. I regret I do not have time to pay tribute to each and every individual murdered by the genocidal Israeli regime, who will not be affected by these governments decisions.

The point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that accepting the irrefutable and serious risk of genocide would oblige the UK to hold Israel accountable. It would save lives in the present by creating legal obligations for the UK government to seize arms exports and impose sanctions and prosecute those committing war crimes. I end my speech with a quote from Francesca Albanese. The ongoing genocide in Gaza is a collective crime, sustained by the complicity of influential third states that have enabled long standing, systemic violations of international law by Israel.

She goes on to say, framed by colonial colonial narratives that dehumanise the Palestinians, this live streamed atrocity has been facilitated through third straight direct support, material aid, diplomatic protection and in some cases, active participation. Participation. The UK has aided and abetted this.
16:36
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
Genocide order. John McDonnell. >> The reason we're here is because there is a profound responsibility on us as members of Parliament, in particular, to ensure that our particular, to ensure that our government acts according to the law in accordance with international humanitarian law. And there are two questions that we there are two questions that we need to pose. Time and time again is, first of all, what evidence would it take to convince the government that there is a risk of genocide, not a genocide, a risk of genocide? And secondly, what is the process that the government should use to determine that? I on the first question of evidence, I am absolutely perplexed why the evidence that we've used, the methods that we've used in the past where we've determined there is a genocide, aren't simply being accepted by the government at the moment.

The loss of life, the several thousand has been said. The way in which the genocide has been perpetrated, the particular attacks on the health, the doctors 1700 we know about. We know of at least 100 that have been imprisoned, tortured, denied access to medical facilities, even to their own families as well. The number of. No, I can't accept any, I'm afraid, the number of journalists, because part of that genocide is to prevent the reporting of the genocide. Over 300 and yes, the forced movement of people, 9000 prisoners in Israeli prisons, hundred died in this last two years.

That's the evidence we present time and time again. It's the same evidence we've used in the past to determine genocide. Why is it not acceptable now in this particular instance? The second is the process. Let me just say to the Minister, time and time again, we've had these debates. People have lost confidence in the process the government is using to arrive at its determination of whether there's a risk of genocide or not, and the internal processes, I'm afraid not just to member of this House, but also to the wider public, not have they lost confidence.

That's what's forcing people out onto the streets and in forms of direct action as well, because they've lost confidence in the government's own objective assessment. So therefore, let me suggest to the Minister why not establish an independent commission? Use people like Philip Sands and others, let the House determine who sits on that, so that they can report back to the Minister on the evidence that's available. Because I think once they see that evidence, the government will have to accept at least there is a risk of genocide.

As a result of that, it will have to determine the action, some of which have been set out today about the end of trade, the end of the arms sales, the prevention role that we have to play in securing peace and justice for the Palestinian people and yes, the Israeli people for the long term.
16:39
Shockat Adam Portrait Shockat Adam MP (Leicester South, Independent)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the beginning of this latest catastrophe, after the horrors of October the 7th, many of us who have have been asking for balance, respect and nothing more radical than a justice based international than a justice based international order have been castigated and some of us have been even criminalised. We are now 26 months into this horror, and we're still asking for the same thing. We are pleading for principles that we as a country, we as a country, after two wars and after humanity confronted its own capacity for evil and promised that never again.

We built structures to ensure this will never happen again. And yet, Madam Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, Gaza has stripped away any remaining illusion that this rule based order still exists. Let us be clear what we are discussing here today. Genocide, as defined in international law, is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a people because of who they are. Measured against this definition, the government's position on Gaza is not cautious. It is. It is morally incoherent. At least 71,000 Palestinian men, women and children have been murdered.

We have witnessed this in real time and yet we are told to wait. We are told not to jump to conclusions. So where were the systems that were meant to guide us when humanity crossed that line once more? Let's start with the media, the purveyors of the truth. Well, foreign media are not allowed into Israel. So what has happened? 300 Palestinian journalists have been killed. One of them was earnest al-Sharif. And let us quote what he said before he was murdered.

God may bear witness against those. No, he said, I never once hesitated to convey the truth exactly as it is, because God may bear witness against those who have stayed silent in this world. And silent Madam Deputy Speaker is precisely what too many of them have done. What, then, of the international rule based order? The International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide case. Advisory opinions have been issued. The law is trying to work. Yet when the International Criminal Court seeks accountability, when it does what it has done before, the response is not support, but hostility.

Sanctions are imposed, threats are made. In fact, a foreign secretary allegedly threatens the ICC chief prosecutor. Accountability would mean like dropping a hydrogen bomb. So I ask this plainly. Our international court's only legitimate for the accused when they are Africans. Journalists have been killed, courts are intimidated, and international law is subjugated, subverted to feed a genocide. Perhaps, then aid workers 1500 have been killed. Surgeons crying in front of children that they're trying to save in this country in a few days are dying right in front of them.

This is just daily life in Gaza and we have no political will. Mr Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker and I will end on this. This weekend I watched the voice of a six year old who became the voice of the children of Gaza, trapped in a car with her family. She cried out that night to the world, it's getting dark. Please come and save me. Nobody came for her. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

getting dark for the world. We must lighten the world up for them. Madam Florence Eshalomi.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Florence Eshalomi. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. And I thank the Member for bringing this important debate. Like many members, important debate. Like many members, I've received many emails from constituents across Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, and I speak today to give a voice to their concerns. It's difficult to put into context the sheer scale of death and destruction we have seen reported destruction we have seen reported in Gaza over the last two years. We all know the figures. One in every
16:42
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
13, one in every 33 people have died since the start of the assault. Over 90% of homes have been damaged. Over 90% of homes have been damaged. And behind these statistics, as the Member for Leicester South just highlighted, these are real human highlighted, these are real human stories we've heard from doctors in Gaza who are operating without anaesthetic. Emergency C-sections performed on women without painkillers, and the rapid increase in child mortality. We heard of children who had been shot not once, children who had been shot not once, but twice by snipers.

And it's easy for us to sometimes become desensitised to what we are seeing. But we must not stop calling out what we are seeing. The world respected peace charity Doctors Without Borders have been banned from operating in Gaza and the West and the occupied West Bank after they refused to hand over their lists, their list. And what does this mean if life saving organisations that carry out war zones are being banned? The UK must be very clear on this. As a signatory to the Genocide Convention, we have a legal obligation to call out and prevent genocide, as do the other 153 states that ratify that treaty.

And for that treaty to be effective for us to stop not just this, but future genocides, it must speak with one voice and we must listen when the United Nations tells us, and I quote, that Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide, namely killing, causing deadly bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring the end and destruction of the Palestine in whole or part, and imposing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

measures intended to prevent births. On that point. I thank my hon. Friend, the Select Committee chair, for giving way in this important for giving way in this important debate because, as she points out, one in every 33 people in Gaza has one in every 33 people in Gaza has been killed and one in every 14 has been injured. Does my hon. Friend agree that this sheer, colossal agree that this sheer, colossal scale of assault on the Palestinian people demonstrates the massive and indiscriminate action and and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indiscriminate action and and indicates a clear risk of international law violation and genocide? I thank my hon. Friend for making that important intervention. I think this is what we are all trying to get members from right across the House wants answers on this and Madam Deputy Speaker listening and acting to such respected voices with one voice is imperative. It is vital for our ability to stop future genocides. Genocide is not something we can only recognise when it's politically convenient.

It is something we must call out whenever and wherever it's occurring without fear or favour. What we are seeing in Gaza in plain sight is meets the definition of genocide. I urge the Minister to listen to the powerful voices from across the House, in the way he's been listening for many occasions, in a way where he meets with us and listening to our concerns from our constituents, because if we don't, there will be a reckoning in terms of what's happening before our eyes, and history will judge us for anything less.
16:45
Andrew George Portrait Andrew George MP (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Andrew George on two minutes. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'll be very quick. I do congratulate the hon. Member for. For Argyll Bute and Lochaber for bringing this issue. I was worried bringing this issue. I was worried that we would be concentrating primarily on the jurisprudence of, primarily on the jurisprudence of, of the merits of whether the, the definition reached the, the threshold and where politicians and I'm certainly don't have the skill set to make the analysis. And what I found is that is that we get arguments advanced, like the hon.

Member for Berry and Edmonds very eloquently made, of course, but but engaging in the political sophistry around the issue itself. And that does worry me, because I think that the bottom line is that what has been happening in the Middle East has been has been appalling. And, and, and the level of death and destruction has been has been shocking to the, to the world. We of course, the horrors of the of the 7th of October, 2023 were were absolutely appalling. But the but the response, the overwhelming opportunity for retribution, the way that the Netanyahu regime has taken such advantage in order to be able to to do that, I think, is something which which we all need to reflect on.

But it's not just the mass murder within Gaza itself. It's also the fact that some people have said that our aid workers, including Cornish aid worker in Jim Jim Henderson, it wasn't careful. As the hon. Member for South Antrim has said, it has not been careful strikes. It's been it's been indiscriminate and certainly a clear, clear, clear murder. I just hope that the government will stop doing the minimum that it can get away with, that it will stop the trading, it will stop the excusing.

It'll it'll it'll stop. It'll stop the the supporting of the Israeli regime. It's in the interests of international world order, the the interests of Palestinians and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Palestine is the interests of Israel itself to get this sorted. Thank you so much. The Liberal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you so much. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Doctor Al Pinkerton with just a few minutes. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What we have witnessed in Speaker. What we have witnessed in Gaza is a man made humanitarian, humanitarian catastrophe. It has been a catastrophe both for the hostages who have endured Hamas's brutal captivity and for the millions of Palestinian civilians whose lives, homes and communities
16:47
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
whose lives, homes and communities have been devastated by Israel's military offensive. So let me be absolutely, unequivocally clear in the Liberal Democrat position, alongside global NGOs, aid organisations, Israeli human rights organisations and the UN Commission of Inquiry, we consider that there is credible evidence that the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza during its military campaign have amounted to genocide. Hamas, meanwhile, for avoidance of any doubt, is a terrorist organisation whose crimes on the 7th of October were acts of mass human atrocity and which we continue to utterly and categorically condemn.

But given that reality, Madam Deputy Speaker, what matters now is accountability on all sides. And that is why access to Gaza for journalists and human rights organisations is so fundamentally important. I am reminded that in Bosnia, British journalist Ed Vulliamy exposed the existence and brutality of Serb run detention camps, as reporting later contributed to the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal, forming part of the evidentiary record for prosecutions that included findings of genocide. It is imperative, therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we that we do not allow evidence in Gaza to disappear, damage to be cleared away, or truth to be lost before accountability can be pursued.

But accountability in itself is not enough. This must be. This must sharpen our focus on what is required to move beyond repeated cycles of violence. Only genuine progress towards a two state solution can deliver lasting security and dignity for Palestinians and Israelis. So the Liberal Democrats call on the government to rule out ever participating in Trump's Board of Peace. Reconstruction must be coordinated by the United Nations with the involvement of the Palestinians, who have been excluded from Trump's proposals. Aid must be allowed in at scale and rapidly.

Hamas must be disarmed. There's no place for a genocidal terror group to take part in Palestine's future. The UK should ban all trade with illegal Israeli settlements. And finally, the UK must deepen its engagement with the Palestinian Authority following the recognition of the State of Palestine. International law underpins our shared liberal values and indeed our British values. It exists to constrain power, uphold accountability and protect civilians across the world. I urge the government to act now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Argyll Bute and South Lochaber and the Bute and South Lochaber and the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate today. Before turning to the legal issues, though, it's important to begin with the fundamental moral reality of this conflict, and I want to be clear, conflict, and I want to be clear, we welcome the release of the surviving hostages who returned home to Israel after more than 730 home to Israel after more than 730 days in captivity.

They were abducted by Hamas, a proscribed
16:50
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-
terrorist organisation, and held in conditions that are utterly unimaginable. We pray for the health and recovery of those who health and recovery of those who survived and for their families as they attempt to rebuild their lives after such trauma. But with the after such trauma. But with the return of the final hostage. Our thoughts are also with the families of all those who will not be of all those who will not be returning alive. This conflict arose from the brutal massacre of civilians on the 7th of October, civilians on the 7th of October, 2023, the worst terrorist attack in Israel's history and the worst pogrom against the Jewish people since the Second World War.

If the current ceasefire is to lead to a long term and sustainable peace, then one principle must be non-negotiable. Hamas must no longer hold power and its terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Recent reports of violence between Hamas and other armed groups within Gaza underline precisely why Hamas cannot be part of Gaza's future. Hamas governs through terror and repression. It prioritises its own survival over the welfare of Palestinian civilians, and the suffering in Gaza is directly linked to Hamas's choices and its governance.

Now, much of today's debate has focussed on allegations of genocide. So let us be clear we do not believe that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide. That was the position of the last conservative government. And to my understanding, it remains the position of the current government. And I hope the Minister will reaffirm that clearly in his response. Every innocent life lost is a tragedy. But the Israel Defence Forces do not deliberately target civilians. Hamas, in contrast, embeds itself in civilian areas, stores, weapons in schools and hospitals, and uses civilians as human shields.

Israel stated objective is to dismantle an Iranian backed terrorist organisation that threatens its very existence. Hamas's objective is the destruction of the State of Israel, the world's only Jewish state. It has long been the British position that determinations of genocide and matters for competent courts, not unilateral political declarations. This is fundamental, and I would like to ask the Minister to confirm this remains the government's position. And if he also accepts that genocidal intent is not abstract in this conflict, the Hamas charter and the language routinely used by Iran and its terrorist proxies openly calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews.

Should we not be unequivocal in calling out those terrorists and genuinely genocidal ideologies, rather than misapplying that most serious of legal terms? It is precisely because genocide is the gravest of crimes that the term must be used with care, with discipline and legal precision. The Genocide Convention was never intended to be reduced to a political slogan, or applied without rigorous assessment of intent, evidence and context. To delight, to dilute that standard is not to protect international law, but to undermine it.

There is much more. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about today, not least the humanitarian situation at the moment. But I will conclude, conscious of time by saying that the Abraham Accords remain a credible pathway to regional peace. Saudi normalisation with Israel is central to that effort. The Conservative Party is clear about the future we seek. We are committed to a future in which terrorism has no place, and Hamas is permanently removed from power, and we are focussed on what comes next a safe and secure state of Israel and a Gaza rebuilt, governed responsibly, free from terror, and capable of offering its people stability, dignity and hope.
16:54
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Here, here, here. >> Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll Bute and Salford Harbour for opening this debate, Harbour for opening this debate, for his contribution as the chair of the APPG. And I thank every member who has spoken with such clarity and conviction. These are incredibly important questions at a moment where questions of international justice are very much discussed. So I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I really do insist on accuracy in some of these questions.

Let me be clear to answer the question straightforwardly, as I did at length on the 15th of September in front of the Business and Trade Select Committee, the British Government has conducted an assessment on the risk of genocide in accordance with our international legal obligations. As I said, I think yesterday or the day before, from this Dispatch Box, we consider our international legal obligations of the utmost priority. I am confident many of many hon. Members have asked me to attend to my conscience over the course of this last 90 minutes.

I am confident both I, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the government as a whole are serious about our international legal obligations and serious about the process and rigour that underpins them. I have confidence in that judgement, both given the extensive scrutiny it has received from the House. But because these questions have also been tested by our own courts, most recently by the Court of Appeal in November and indeed in September beforehand, where they considered the process of assessment explicitly.

I will give way. Minister. The problem.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That we have with the question is about accountability and transparency. Our domestic courts transparency. Our domestic courts do not have the footing in order to test whether the government has test whether the government has truly got it right. So it falls on this House for us as members of Parliament, to assess and to help see whether you've got it right. But the problem we've got is we don't have the details. We don't don't have the details. We don't have the methodology.

Who's assessing what time and date it was done? Will the Minister commit to at least disclosing that information?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker I think I answered something like 105 questions related to these issues questions related to these issues in front of the select committee in September. I'm always grateful for the opportunity to describe it in the House in greater detail, but given the shortness of time, I might just turn also to a few other might just turn also to a few other questions of accuracy. Firstly, the ICJ has not made a finding of genocide, yet they have made genocide, yet they have made provisional orders.

I agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim about the scourge of anti-Semitism. I do not agree with the question he raises about the independence and impartiality of the Independent Court of Justice, International Court of Justice. It is a vital international institution. We need to see it do its work. We undermine it. If we seek to jump to the end of that process, it will be for the court to make a judgement. It is, of course, is for the government to consider our obligations and indeed make an assessment of risks which we have already done.

I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Given what Minister said about adherence to international law. adherence to international law. Would he just put on the record why the government hasn't responded to the advisory opinion of the ICJ for the advisory opinion of the ICJ for over 18 months now? Is it because the consequence of that response would be there would have to be would be there would have to be sanctions against settlements, which are illegal under international law?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

international law? I'm grateful to my hon. Friend who has paid close attention to these matters, both over the last 18 months and before. I want to just turn. I will answer his question, but given the pressures of time, let me be clear also for the sake of accuracy, it is simply not credible to suggest that the policy of this government is the same as the policy of the last government in relation to these issues, that I'm sure was obvious from some of the remarks of the conservative Foreign Affairs spokesperson.

But to be clear, I have stood at this despatch box to recognise a Palestinian state to announce sanctions three times, including against Israeli Ministers. Does that mean that the obligations on this government to do everything that we can to address the horrors of Gaza is discharge? No, it does not. But we do the house, no service. If we pretend that the policy that I have been responsible for as the Middle East Minister, was the same as that of the benches opposite that the honourable, my hon.

Friend asked a good question about the advisory opinion. Over the course of the last 18 months, the British government has clearly made a very fundamental change in its view of the legal position in relation to Israel and Palestine. We now recognise Palestine. It is in a context in which Britain has changed its policy very significantly indeed, that we want to ensure that we respond to what is a far reaching advisory opinion, with the rigour and the seriousness it deserves. I know that I am straining his patience and the patience of the House with that answer.

I am sure I will return soon, but I wouldn't want to give the house or the public the impression that we have not taken significant steps in the course of that 18 months. I would also like to very briefly touch on the most recent events in Gaza. These legal questions are incredibly important. They've been considered both by the courts and the relevant select committees. I just want to bring to the attention of House, to the attention of the House, some of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recent developments in Gaza. I will. I thank the. Minister on recent developments. My grandfather fought for our My grandfather fought for our country in Palestine. There are reports that the IDF has destroyed the cemetery in Gaza, containing the cemetery in Gaza, containing graves of Allied troops from both world wars. Would he? Would the Minister condemn this?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister condemn this? I would. The from my own constituency. There are two. There are two privates, William Jordan and Wilfred Ogden, both in that cemetery, both who have now had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their graves defaced. Question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say, Paper as many of that opinion say, I Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The ayes have it. I'll give a point of order. Adnan Hussain. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Early on in the debate, I referred to several organisations and individuals, and due to time constraints, I was unable to do constraints, I was unable to do with to do. I was unable to do so with full accuracy. In the interest of clarity and to keep the record
17:00
17:01
17:02
Alex Easton Portrait Alex Easton MP (North Down, Independent)
-
-
services throughout the UK, our NHS dentistry from which I and so many others in North Down in my others in North Down in my constituency have benefited. Just as countless people across our United Kingdom have, was founded on a basic principle. Indeed, I would call it a promise that everyone, call it a promise that everyone, regardless of income, background or postcode, should be able to access essential dental care when they essential dental care when they need it. It is a foundational pillar of our wider health sentence and system, and a critical measure of our nation's public health.

Every member of this House would do well to ask where that basic principle and promise now stands in Britain in 2026, our NHS dentistry is under severe and unsustainable strain. This evening I want to speak plainly about where we are, why and how we have reached this point. How does affecting both patients and professionals alike, and what must be done if it is to be resolved and sorted out? We are truly serious about saving NHS dentistry for future generations.

So where are we now? Across North Down, across Northern Ireland and indeed across the whole United Kingdom. The picture is deeply disturbing and far too painfully familiar. Finding an NHS dentist has become increasingly difficult. My constituents in North Down, like so many in England, Scotland and Wales, are joining waiting lists that stretch for months and sometimes cases even for years. Swimming. Some are ringing multiple practices in their area only to be met with the same response. We're not taking in NHS patients.

Others are told that their only option is to go private, or to travel long distances simply to access basic dental care. I would love to tell this House that this is a marginal problem affecting only a small minority. It is becoming more and more lived reality for British families, older people and children in towns, cities and rural communities across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whereas the British reality is fewer practices offering NHS appointments, growing backlogs of routine check-ups, increasing numbers of patients turning up at GP or accident emergencies with dental pain and infection, places that were never designed for dental care.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does the hon. Member consider that part of the problem consider that part of the problem as to why dentists are not offering NHS appointments is because contracts have not been updated, and perhaps dentists feel that when they do NHS work they are not being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

properly paid. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and that is certainly one of the major issues that does need to be addressed and shockingly and frighteningly, use of people resorting to DIY down the street because their pain is so great that they simply cannot afford treatment. No MP can sleep easily in 2026, when British people are pulling out their own teeth at home. Our NHS system is under pressure. So why is this happening? Isn't the reality that funding has not kept pace with demand, or with the reality of the cost of prioritising high quality dental care?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objective funding and give way, give way? Thank you and I commend the hon. Member for securing this important debate in Amber Valley. Recruitment and retention continue to be the main barriers to NHS to be the main barriers to NHS dental access. Despite £240,000 of additional funding that I've additional funding that I've managed to secure from from Derbyshire locally. Does the hon. Member agree with me that the Minister should set out how the new NHS dentistry contract will include concrete, funded measures to increase the workforce, so that my constituency and his, and those up and down the country will finally

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see the material improvement in access to NHS treatment. Alison Taylor thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alison Taylor thank the hon. Member for intervention and congratulations for securing that funding. And I totally agree with funding. And I totally agree with all her sentiments. And maybe you can give me a clue how to get that funding as well for Northern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ireland. Used because it wasn't me that you were referring to. But you've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you were referring to. But you've got lots of time, so enjoy your time, Mr. Easton. Dudley speaker, we all understand that the regional differences in high dental contracts work across our UK nations. However, a common theme is identified. Many of our NHS dentists feel they are being asked to do more to address complex needs with resources that simply do not match the reality on the ground. My research indicates that in some parts of the United Kingdom, the very way dentists are paid actively works against the long term interests of patients.

The current system rewards quick, high volume work rather than the kind of long term preventative care that is essential. If we are serious about keeping mice in Britain healthy. Many of our newly qualified dentists tell me that the NHS contracts are inflexible, over bureaucratic and in many cases,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

financially unsustainable for anything beyond the most basic level of service. On that. Point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll give way to the member. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And the hon. Member is making a strong case. The Member is making a strong case. The number of dentists leaving the NHS across the UK is driven by chronic underfunding and the failed dental contract. And last month, the Minister suggested that long term fundamental reform might only be fundamental reform might only be introduced from 2027 onwards. Does the hon. Member agree that that reform must be brought forward as soon as possible? We need clarity on when and does he agree that the one third cut, in real terms of the dentistry Budget that we've seen government?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. And I agree that reforms need to be brought forward reforms need to be brought forward a lot quicker. What is the result? I tell you what the result is. We I tell you what the result is. We are seeing a growing number of dentists reducing the amount of NHS dentists reducing the amount of NHS work, handing back NHS contracts altogether, leaving the profession early earlier than they intended. I do not for one moment accept that this is a question of dedication or commitment, or dentists, dental nurses, therapists and practice staff are putting in a hard shift day after day in a system that too often feels stacked against them.

Their burnout is real. Their morale is low. They are left apologising to patients not only in North Down, but right across the United Kingdom for a system that is not of their own making and not under their control. There is a human cost here. Must never be reduced to a dry debate about contracts and budgets. Behind every statistic is a person. Let us think together of the elderly person and the British care home struggling to eat properly because they cannot get regular dental visits and their dentures no longer fit.

The British patient trying desperately to get their child seen for a broken tooth, only to be told that their nearest NHS dentist is is basically many miles away. The low income British citizen, the person who never missed an NHS check-up, now been told they can only be seen privately at a speed far beyond their means. Let me be absolutely clear dental health is not a luxury. It is integral to our overall health and wellbeing. The facts are stark. Poor oral health is linked to heart disease, diabetes, respiratory infections and complications in pregnancy.

Untreated tooth decay can cause severe pain. Days lost from work, days lost from school, and a serious blow to confidence and mental health. And let us be honest, inequality runs through this story. Like lettering in a stick of rock. People on low incomes and those living in our most deprived areas are more likely to suffer the consequences of poor oral health, and less likely to be able to escape. Regrettably, British reality in 2026 is this children from our most deprived communities are still far more likely to be admitted to hospital for tooth tooth extraction under a general anaesthetic and an experience that is traumatic, in many cases entirely preventable.

I recognise that health is a devolved matter and that, for nations of our United Kingdom, have taken different approaches to organising and funding NHS dentistry in Wales. New contract models focussed on prevention and patient centred care are being piloted. Yet, as I understand it, patients still report serious difficulties in finding an NHS dentist and securing and securing regular check-ups in Scotland. Yes, a good way to the hon. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for giving way. Is he aware that it is the Eastern region that is the only region of region that is the only region of the UK that has no dental school, which severely impacts the availability of dentists? And would availability of dentists? And would he join me in pressing the government and the Minister to do all they can to expedite a proposal by the University of East Anglia to open a new dental school in the Eastern Region to help address that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recruitment and supply issue. Alex Easton thank. The hon. Member. He makes a valid point and I would urge the Minister to take that point up for him. In Scotland that have been made to reform the system and expand free dental care for certain groups, but workforce challenges persist, as do the difficulties of sustaining practices in rural and remote areas in England. Some of the most acute access problems are reported. Many practices say that the current contract does not reward preventative care, nor does it adequately reflect the complexity of modern dentistry in Northern Ireland.

We have our own contractual framework. The the concerns we hear, however, are strikingly familiar rising costs, mounting workforce pressures and an unsustainable gap between what the NHS pays and what it actually costs to provide care. I believe Northern Ireland is at a crossroads and NHS dentistry. We see a steady erosion of NHS dental provision, more practices moving to private models, longer waiting times at those practices that remain within the NHS, greater pressure on community dental services, growing inequalities between those who can pay and those who simply cannot.

But it does not have to be like this. The lessons we draw from Northern Ireland are equally applicable across the rest of the UK, so let us work with dentists, with patients, with commissioners and with independent experts to design a model, contract and funding model that can reward prevention and continuity of care. Recognise the complexity of treating people with additional needs and vulnerable groups. Support high street NHS practices at the backbone of accessible care. Provide a clear, attractive pathway for young dentists to enter and to remain in the NHS focussed practice.

This House can shape what is needed in Northern Ireland and apply those principles right across the United Kingdom. So, in conclusion, let me underline some urgent UK wide actions. First, we need a realistic, sustainable funding settlement. Let's address this with honesty. If we truly desire meaningful NHS dental offer, then this Parliament must fund it. Second, we must move beyond temporary uplifts and crisis top ups and design a long term settlement. That is the real question before us. And are we prepared to put NHS dentistry on a stable footing, not just for this Parliament, but for future generations? Thirdly, we must reform the dental contract with a new model, prioritise prevention and encourage regular check-ups.

Fluoride use and early intervention create clear incentives to take on new NHS patients. Reward quality with a focus on outcomes and patient experience, not just through volume and throughput. Children, particularly those growing up in poverty, can benefit from school and community based prevention schemes. Also, people with disabilities and complex needs can access the specialist attention and the longer appointments they require. Older citizens, including those in care homes, can receive routine dental care. We also need a credible solution focussed on workforce planning, including workforce planning based on real need, not short term firefighting training pathways that support and prioritise NHS services.

Effective retention measures that experienced staff are not driven out of the system. So, in closing, the decline of NHS dentistry is not inevitable. We must honestly answer these questions. Are we prepared to drift into a future in which NHS dentistry is an optional extra, while the majority are pushed towards private care? Or do we commit clearly to inclusive universal NHS dentistry, which cost is not a barrier? And where postcode lotteries do not determine your success? Let the UK lead in addressing this problem, and let this House reaffirm for the whole of our country the enduring British principle that good dental care is not a luxury, but the right and entitlement of every British citizen.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair.
17:15
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
Mr. Stephen Kinnock. Madam Deputy Chair, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down for securing this important debate today. I'd also important debate today. I'd also like to thank the hon. Member for his work in raising awareness of the challenges facing dental patients in his constituency and across the United Kingdom. It's vital that we all work together across the four nations of the United Kingdom, to tackle the long standing problems that adults and children have been facing in accessing an NHS dentist when they need one.

And I'd also like to thank other members, hon. Friends and other members for their powerful contributions today. I acce matter of continuing concern to members across this House. The concerns that members have raised support the many testaments I've heard directly from patients, dentists, members of the wider dental team and their representatives. In July 2024, we inherited a dental system in crisis. This is evident from the adult Oral Health Survey of 2023, which provides the first picture of adult oral health in England for more than a decade and shows poor oral health in adults.

Among adults with their own teeth over 2/5, 41% showed evidence of obvious decay, 93% had some form of gum disease, and 19% had one or more potentially urgent dental conditions. This government is determined to fix this. Our ten year health plan confirms our commitment to transforming NHS dentistry so that it is fit for future generations, and we have established a platform for future success by reducing the NHS dentistry underspend from 392,000,000 in 20 2324 to just 36 million this year.

The decrease in underspend is leading to an increase in NHS dentistry, but I absolutely accept that there's still a long way to go. Over the last 18 months, the government has made great strides in improving NHS dentistry not just for patients but for the dental workforce, delivering oral care to our nation. My immediate priority when taking up this ministerial post was to ensure that people who need an urgent dental appointment were prioritised and able to access the care they needed quickly.

And to me, it's essential that we direct care towards those who need it most. We all have a duty to reduce health inequalities which are sorely felt in NHS dentistry. That is why, since last April, we've been making extra urgent dental appointments available to ensure that patients with urgent dental needs can get the treatment they require. These extra appointments are available across the country and are more heavily weighted towards areas where they're needed the most. We also incentivising high street dentists to offer further appointments to maximise the availability of care to those in need of urgent care.

We recognise that access to NHS dental services remains a challenge in certain parts of the country. In addition to our urgent appointment, integrated care boards are recruiting dentists through the dental recruitment incentive scheme known as the Golden Hello scheme. This initiative offers a financial incentive to encourage dentists to work in underserved areas for a minimum commitment of three years. This government has heard dentists concerns that they don't think the current dental contract is fit for purpose. Talks are underway, including with the British Dental Association, to scope our plans for potential changes.

We remain open minded and keen to consider how different payment models could best improve the delivery of care to dental patients. In reforming the dental contract, we want to focus on matching resources to need, improving access, promoting prevention and rewarding dentists fairly. We also want to enable the whole dental team to work to the top of their capabilities. But reforming the dental contract is a significant challenge, and there are no quick fixes or easy answers. That's why in our ten year health plan, we committed to fundamental, fundamental reform of the dental contract by the end of this Parliament, but with significant steps in 2627.

Talks are underway with the British Dental Association, and we're making progress on these matters. In addition to delivering fundamental contract reform over the longer term, we have already made significant progress through our 2026 reforms. We held a public consultation last summer on changes to the current dental NHS dental contract, to address the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams said they were experiencing. The government's response, published in December, took account of the views of the dental sector as well as people with lived experience.

Our reforms will utilise the existing dental contract to deliver the right care to the right people, while incentivising dentists to provide more NHS care and prioritising by prioritising patients with the greatest needs and more efficient use of dentists time. The changes will ensure that NHS dentistry Budget delivers value for money for the taxpayer. So from the 1st of April we will start to implement the reforms. This will include for the first time, we're introducing provisions in the dental contract to embed urgent dental care appointments, making it easier for patients to access this care.

And we are increasing payments to dentists to deliver this care from £42 on average to £75 for that unit of dental activity, providing new treatment pathways for patients with complex treatment needs paid at a set fee of around £250 or £700 depending on the pathway, whilst enabling and encouraging dentists to to deliver more preventative care. These reforms will make full use of the existing dental contract to ensure patients receive the right care at the right time, while creating clear incentives for dentists to provide more NHS care.

And as I say, they will kick in from the 1st of April. There are more than 38,000 dentists registered in England, of which 10,700 full time equivalent general dentists are delivering NHS care in England. As we take forward our reform programme to rebuild NHS dentistry, we are also clear that strengthening the workforce is key to achieving our ambitions. This government is committed to publishing a ten year workforce plan to set out actions to create a workforce that's ready to deliver the transformed service set out in our overall ten year health plan.

And while we're taking steps and we are taking steps to increase the capacity of our dental workforce, as announced in our ten year health plan, we will make it a requirement for newly qualified dentists to practice in the NHS for a minimum period. We intend this minimum minimum period to be at least three years. That will mean more NHS dentists, more NHS appointments and better oral health. Olivia Blake.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the Minister for giving way and highlighting the need for the dental workforce to be the dental workforce to be strengthened. We have a dental desert in East Anglia, and the University of East Anglia stands ready to open. A new dental school ready to open. A new dental school has permission from the General Dental Council, but is awaiting the Dental Council, but is awaiting the funded undergraduate dental places that would be needed to start training new dentists from 2027.

training new dentists from 2027. Will the Minister set out how these places will be made available on the basis of regional need? So dental deserts such as the East of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

England can start to build a sustainable dental workforce. I thank him for that intervention. I'd like to intervention. I'd like to congratulate the University of East Anglia for its accreditation through the GDC as a dental school. through the GDC as a dental school. I think that's a huge step in the right direction, one that we strongly support. The next step is that the office for for students has to actually allocate places. has to actually allocate places. One point I'd like to make is there haven't been any new dental school places funded by the government since 2007.

I am fighting hard for those dental places to be made available. We are, I think, quite close. I hope to be able to sharing some positive steps forward on that point. We, the office, makes the decisions about allocating the places, but they do take advice from Ministers. So my counterpart in the DfE and I will be sending a letter to the office with some advice on how they should make their decisions about where those dental places should be made available. But of course, the fact that UEA is a new dental school is an important factor in those considerations.

One other point I wanted to make on workforce is that I really welcome the General Dental Council's recent announcement confirming the appointment of a new provider for the overseas registration exam. The the new arrangements are set to more than double the annual number of dentists able to join the register via this route. This represents a significant step forward in addressing workforce shortages and NHS patient access. I met with the General Dental Council at the end of last year to discuss their comprehensive plan to address the current waiting list and to urge them to get that waiting list sorted because, frankly, the backlogs were not acceptable.

And we are looking then at an increase in the supply of overseas qualified dentists joining the GDC register. I expect the measures to be taken by the GDC to deliver substantial improvements to the international registration processes, enabling increased numbers of overseas qualified dentists to join the register more swiftly and efficiently. Turning on to the issue of prevention, we know that prevention is better than cure. Alongside the urgently needed reforms to treat existing poor oral health, I am committed to improving oral health in this country, not just for children but the wider population too.

Water fluoridation is an effective public health intervention for reducing the prevalence of tooth decay and improving oral health inequalities. Under this government, we will see much needed expansion of water fluoridation in the north east of England, with further feasibility studies for other parts of the country. We are already investing in Icbs to support supervised tooth brushing for 3 to 5 year old children, and our innovative partnership with Colgate-Palmolive will support up to 600,000 children to develop good oral health habits for life.

We are working with all sectors of the food industry to make further progress on reducing the levels of sugar in everyday food and drink, the everyday food and drink that people buy. This is to ensure it's easier for people to make healthier choices. Oral cancer and periodontal diseases are directly caused by tobacco. Dental teams and the local stop smoking services can work collaboratively in a variety of ways. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have already made some important progress, but I absolutely accept that there is still a lot more to do and a long way to go.

We are determined to ensure that everyone who needs an NHS dentist can secure one. Delivering this ambition will take time and it is vital that we put in place solutions that work for both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

patients and the dental professionals who care for them. Thank you. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many of that opinion say I the ayes have it. The
09:00
None Portrait Motion for an unopposed returns
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page