Commons Chamber

Monday 16th March 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:51
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
questions on a much wider range of issues. Turning to the right hon. Lady's question Iran's reckless Lady's question Iran's reckless actions in the Straits of Hormuz are having damaging consequences for the global economy and putting for the global economy and putting the lives of those aboard civilian vessels in danger. Iran has struck several commercial ships in the several commercial ships in the last few days. Its actions have put a fifth of the world's oil supply effectively on hold, and indeed, a effectively on hold, and indeed, a ministerial colleague will shortly update the House on steps that this government is taking to provide help to those affected in the UK that most need it.

Last week we joined, Mr. Speaker, 31 other countries and the International Energy Agency in agreeing a coordinated release of 400 million barrels of oil, including 13.5 million barrels from the UK, the biggest ever release in the IEA's history. And, Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said this morning, we are working with all of our allies and partners, including our European partners, on how we can restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible and ease the economic impact. That is not a simple task, Mr.

Speaker, but we have to reopen the Straits of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market. Mr. speaker, the Prime Minister spoke with President Trump yesterday on the importance of reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The Foreign Secretary was in Riyadh in recent days, showing support for our partners across the region who face continuing strikes. She discussed the impact of Iran's actions with GCC foreign Ministers and the importance of maintaining energy security and supply. And as we speak, she is on a call with Secretary of State Rubio on this very crisis.

The Defence Secretary has just been answering questions, Mr. Speaker, on these issues. And, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and the whole House that the government will continue to work towards a swift resolution of the situation in the Middle East to protect our people, our allies, and to reduce the cost of living for working people in this country.
15:53
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
Mr. speaker, this is a moment for Britain to stand tall and work intensively with our allies. With the despotic Iranian regime continuing to attack international shipping in the Straits of Hormuz. Urgent action is required to reopen safe shipping routes to protect lives and to support trade and economic stability. We all feel the economic cost of Iran's actions and this morning the Prime Minister told the press and not the House, Mr. Speaker, that we are working with all our allies to bring together a viable collective plan that can restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible.

Now, recognising that this is not straightforward, where is this plan and what measures are being considered? The British public Mr Speaker need to know what the government is doing to protect our economic and national security. There are currently no destroys in the Middle East. These can operate at a very long range and can take down projectiles. They can also provide cover for minehunter vessels. When will the government send one? Under this government, there are also no mine hunters at our naval base in Bahrain, a base designed to host a fleet of minehunters.

Is the government urgently working to bring minehunters back to Bahrain to strengthen capacity and capabilities at that base and in the region? Is the government working with our allies to assess the viability of striking targets that threaten international shipping, just as has happened against the Houthi targets in Yemen? What action is being taken to to protect critics of the Iranian regime and journalists from acts of transnational repression from the IRGC? Will the government lead a diplomatic effort to ensure that Russia does not profit from this crisis? And will the Minister reaffirm that Britain will continue going further in its actions on Russia and oil refineries fuelling this war with our friends in the Gulf who are being so brazenly under attack from Iran? What assurances did the Foreign Secretary give them on her visit about Britain's presence in the region and actions to protect our bases? And did she make any progress on increasing the number of British nationals who can return home? Bear in mind the disruption to flights that have taken place today.

Mr. speaker, this is a hugely consequential moment for the world, and Britain cannot stand by and sit on the fence.
15:55
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and she asks very important questions, both about the safety of British nationals and our allies and others, and, of course, the impact economically. And she rightly raises the situation in relation to Russia and Ukraine. And, of course, we cannot allow this situation to become a bonanza in any way for Putin in his war against Ukraine. And that is why we are absolutely committed, I can assure her, to continuing our economic pressure on Russia. And I spoke to my Ukrainian counterpart just last week to reassure him of that.

And the Prime Minister set out very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that the Straits of Hormuz are vital. They're vital to the international economy and to security. We're in continued conversations with European allies and with the United States. These questions are Mr Speaker very complex, and any plans must be multilateral, with as many nations as possible taking part. And I'm obviously not going to get into detailed discussions here, but the Defence Secretary has already said about the resources that we pre-positioned in the region.

The Prime Minister has been clear about that, as have I and the Foreign Secretary, and indeed, there are capabilities such as autonomous minehunting capabilities and others. But we already, of course, as I said, have been taking substantial actions to support our allies and partners. And indeed, the GCC set out very clearly after their meeting with the Foreign Secretary, that they thanked the UK for our solidarity with the countries of the GCC and our strong and long standing commitment to their security, stability and territorial integrity.

That was from the statement issued by the Ministers after they met the Foreign Secretary at the weekend. Mr. speaker, we've been very clear about our objectives. Firstly, that is to protect our people in the region. Secondly, whilst taking the necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war. We will continue working to a swift resolution that brings security and stability back to the region, but also, crucially, stops the Iranian threats to its neighbours.

We all want to see an end to this war as quickly as possible because obviously the longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes and the worse it is for the cost of living back here at home. And that is exactly why the Prime Minister has set out decisive action today on the measures that we are taking to support UK citizens who are affected with energy prices, and whether that's on the heating oil issue, which a ministerial colleague will be speaking on shortly, whether that's on the energy price cap, whether that's in our continued investment in energy security and capability here in the UK.

We cannot allow ourselves to be at the whims of whether it's the ayatollahs or indeed Vladimir Putin, when it comes to our energy security. We've already acted alongside other countries to release those emergency oil stocks, which are set at a level that is completely unprecedented. But of course, we ultimately do have to reopen the Straits of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market. But that isn't a simple task. So I repeat again, we're going to work with allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to restore freedom of navigation.
15:58
15:58
15:59
16:00
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Will the hon. Gentleman has set out very, very clearly his concerns. But what I will be clear is that the Prime Minister has taken a clear and level headed approach in Britain's national interest to this crisis, taking each decision as it comes and always prioritising the protection of our people, our allies and our interests. And that is the approach he will continue to take in this crisis. He's been very clear that, of course, we have to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market for the very reasons that he set out.

But that is not a simple task, and that's why we're working with all our allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to restore freedom of navigation. He raises, as did the shadow Foreign Secretary, the issue in relation to Ukraine. I think I need to be clear, of course, Mr. Speaker, that decisions made by the United States in relation to its own sanctions are, of course, a matter for the US. We are clear that we will continue to ratchet up our own measures to bring pressure on the Kremlin, to change course and to support Ukraine in the pursuit of a lasting just in peace.

And I would also be clear, Mr. Speaker, that the US has announced a temporary waiver of some sanctions on Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil, but the Treasury Secretary made clear that license was deliberately short term, but obviously matters for the US are for them. We will continue to strengthen our measures and in terms of the impact on people here at home, the Prime Minister's announced the capping of energy bills until the end of June. He has announced the extension of the fuel duty cut.

He's announced the support we are giving to rural communities with the cost of heating oil £53 million and of course, we are continuing to invest in our energy security, which is absolutely crucial.
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:20
16:20
16:21
16:22
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:24
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:27
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:30
16:31
16:32
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:35
16:35
16:36
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:38
16:38
Lincoln Jopp Portrait Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
trained up their crews and they are now at a NATO standard and the Defence Select Committee visited them in Portsmouth and they were very proud of those credentials. We've heard from my friend the Member for New Forest East that Ukraine does seem to be leaning Ukraine does seem to be leaning into support to allies in the Gulf. And so when he's having his And so when he's having his discussions with his allies about making a plan, will he bear that in mind? Because of course, those mind? Because of course, those craft cannot deploy back to the Black Sea because of the mantra convention and the cruise, I believe, are there and ready to operate now.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, he asks an important question. I'm not going to, for obvious reasons, get into the detail of individual pieces of the detail of individual pieces of kit and equipment, but I do welcome the fact that Ukraine has engaged with Gulf partners on the lessons they've learned, particularly in they've learned, particularly in relation to drone technology. I think that's very, very important. But I think it is, of course, absolutely right that Ukraine's absolutely right that Ukraine's focus remains on on defending itself against Russia's barbarous aggression and the needs that they have.

And I can assure him that our have. And I can assure him that our commitment to Ukraine will remain absolutely ironclad in that in that regard. But I don't want to get into commenting on individual pieces of kit and equipment.
16:39
16:40
16:41
16:41
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:44
16:44
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s compliance with the Humble Address of 4 February 2026 relating to the appointment of Lord Mandelson as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America
-

Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. I updated the House last Wednesday on the the House last Wednesday on the government's response to the Humble Address motion of the 4th of February after the first tranche of documents were laid in both houses. In response to that motion, the government has been clear that it is committed to publishing all
16:45
16:45
Darren Jones Portrait Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)
-
-
represented part of a return to an address of the honourable. The House of Commons dated the 4th of February 2026. It responded February 2026. It responded directly to a number of specific elements contained in that motion, namely papers relating to Lord Mandelson's appointment as His Mandelson's appointment as His Majesty's Ambassador and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. As the government has said previously, there are specific documents that we would like to disclose, but which the Metropolitan Police have asked us not to do so in order to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson, the government has agreed to that request.

We will publish these documents in the future. Once the Metropolitan Police has confirmed it will no longer prejudice their investigation. As a consequence of that, Madam Deputy Speaker And as I set out to the House on the 11th of March, the government has therefore taken the extraordinary step, as agreed with Mr. Speaker, of briefing the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on terms agreed by the Metropolitan Police to ensure that there is as much transparency to this House as possible as the House already understands.

The government must also carefully assess the risks of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Again, this process is subject to parliamentary oversight. Any such material will be and is in the process of being referred to, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the committee for its assistance and can confirm. This process was also followed. Regarding the first tranche of material published last week. Outside of this arrangement, it does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgements are ultimately for the government.

We are continuing the disclosure process for other documents across government within the scope of the address, given the breadth of the motion agreed by the House and the large number of materials and departments involved, this process will take time and necessarily requires careful consideration. Where relevant documents are held. They are being prepared for release through an established process, including the appropriate checks relating to national security, international relations, legal privilege and the protection of personal data. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has acknowledged that the documents published reveal that the appointment process fell short of what is required.

As previously set out, the independent adviser looked last week at the process and concluded that he saw no grounds for the investigation. That the hon. Member of the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has requested. But as the Prime Minister set out this morning, the inherited process itself was not strong enough. That's why the Prime Minister has already strengthened the process and is committed to strengthening strengthening it further in the future. This forms part of wider changes that the government is bringing forward to improve the system, including a review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission relating to financial disclosures, transparency around lobbying and the business appointment rules, alongside a review of the National Security Vetting system.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have said and I know members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual and that Peter Mandelson's decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. That is why there is a cross-party consensus across the House. Madam Deputy Speaker for transparency and accountability, and why the government is committed to publishing all material relevant to the Humble Address. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue to keep the House updated as a matter of priority, as I have done to date, and I commend the statement to the House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Secretary of State. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since last Wednesday, it has become increasingly clear that either the government did not follow due government did not follow due process in its appointment of Peter Mandelson or that it is not disclosed all of the relevant disclosed all of the relevant documents in different terms, either the Prime Minister's assurances that full due process was followed were misleading, or the government has not complied with the Humble Address. Either
16:49
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
would be a contempt of Parliament. Last Wednesday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said all the documents that are available in documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson's appointment and dismissal are published today, subject to those that have been held back by the Metropolitan Police. But there are many, many documents missing. I have detailed 56 to him in a letter have detailed 56 to him in a letter that I have sent him to give a few examples. There is no prime ministerial readout on the advice he received.

This is a breach of he received. This is a breach of protocol, a prime ministerial decision, even if made oral orally, should be formally recorded. Where is that record? It starts to stink of the Sofa government we had under Tony Blair. There are no minutes of any meeting at which this appointment was discussed by anyone at any time. There are really no meetings about this. Most suspiciously of all, we have no material from the Prime Minister, from the chief, from his Chief of Staff or from Peter Mandelson.

No box returns, no emails, no forms, no whatsapps, nothing. It is as though their fingerprints have been forensically removed. To narrow this down, on the 11th of November 2024, the Cabinet Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted to make a political appointment, the Civil service would, and I quote, develop a plan for the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential conflicts of interest. This was the process. So I want to ask the Chief Secretary to very specific questions.

First, did Peter Mandelson receive security clearance and if so, on what date? There was no document in the release. Second, did Peter Mandelson make a full declaration of his interests? Again, there was no document in the release and I would remind him that noting the existence of a document does not prejudice an investigation in any way. The government has already told us about one document it is holding back at the request of the Met Police. It's more than able to tell us about others.

It is time for the government to level with us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What is missing and why. Secretary thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I informed the House last week, the documents that pertain to tranche one are the documents the government owns and has been published in line with the Humble Address the Shadow Chancellor asked me about the process followed for the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the Prime Minister, and the the Prime Minister, and the government has said the process that was inherited was the process that was followed. However, this has shown that that process is not has shown that that process is not sufficient, which is why it's being strengthened.

He made reference to questions about Whatsapps and other messages. I can confirm that those types of documents will be subject to a further tranche being published in due course. He also asked me about security clearance for Peter Mandelson, and I refer back to my answer from last week in back to my answer from last week in respect of that question, and refer him to further comments from the Foreign Office. Foreign Office.
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:52
Luke Taylor Portrait Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
known, the files also revealed that Mandelson was given top level briefings before his vetting was briefings before his vetting was finished, a vetting process that clearly failed. By any measure, trust in politics is already trust in politics is already stretched thin, and I'm sure that everyone in this House wants to see everyone in this House wants to see it restored. If the worst fears of this sorry saga are found to be true, then that trust will take another body blow, boosting only another body blow, boosting only the populists on the left and the right.

So can I ask the Minister if the Prime Minister really wants to rebuild trust and ensure that proper procedures are always followed? Will he commit to taking up Lib Dem calls to make the ministerial code binding in law? But will he also refer himself to the independent ethics adviser to try to determine whether, in the course of this long sorry saga, he has breached the code or not? The prime.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his questions. I just wanted to clarify whether he felt I should refer whether he felt I should refer myself to the independent adviser or not. I refer him to the letter from the independent adviser himself, which came out on Friday himself, which came out on Friday of last week, which concluded that there was no grounds for investigation into the Prime Minister's conduct because the process that the government inherited for these types of appointments had been followed appropriately.

That process itself, appropriately. That process itself, as the Prime Minister has said this morning, again, it's clearly not sufficient, which is why it needs to be changed for the future.
16:54
16:54
16:55
16:55
16:56
16:57
16:57
16:58
16:59
16:59
17:00
17:00
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:02
17:03
17:03
17:03
17:03
17:03
17:04
17:05
17:05
17:06
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:08
17:08
17:09
17:09
17:10
17:11
17:11
17:12
17:12
17:12
17:12
17:13
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:15
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:17
17:18
17:19
17:19
17:19
17:20
17:20
17:21
17:22
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the changes to the GP Contract 2026/27
-

the NHS, investing more than £100 million to fix up GP surgeries this million to fix up GP surgeries this year, making online booking available to patients across the country. Recruiting 2000 more GPS
17:22
17:22
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
in advice and guidance. We've seen 1.3 million diverted referrals since April 25th. People who would since April 25th. People who would have otherwise been added to the elective waiting list. So a lot has been done, but there is a lot more still to do. We are determined to make the system fairer for coastal communities and deprived areas. So we've launched a review into the Carlisle formula to close the gap on health disparities and ensure that funding is targeted on the basis of need.

We shall shortly update the House in the usual way on our car. Hill review Madam Deputy Speaker last year's GP contract saw the biggest cash increase in over a decade, and this year we're investing an additional £485 million, taking total investment made through the contract to over £13.8 billion this financial year. But of course, investment must always be combined with reform. So the new contract will improve access for patients by requiring that all clinically urgent requests are dealt with on the same day.

It will provide a mechanism to hire even more GPS via a new practice level reimbursement scheme, and it will support the shift from treatment to prevention, as set out in our ten year plan, through incentives to boost childhood vaccination rates. Better care for patients living with obesity and requiring GPS to share data with the lung cancer screening programme. Madam Deputy Speaker, these ideas weren't cooked up by someone sat behind a desk in Whitehall. What's happening is that we are taking the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS, working with pioneering practices who have been doing these things for a long time.

Today we can see our policies are working and after years of decline in general practice, we are getting the front door back onto its hinges. Patient satisfaction with general practice is finally moving in the right direction, according to the ONS. Almost 77% of people described contacting their GP as easy in January this year, up from just 60% where it was languishing in July 2024. And I know that when he gets up, the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman and his hon. Friends will welcome hugely the progress that we are making. Shadow Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And this Health Secretary and his team have perfected the sales pitch team have perfected the sales pitch for NHS reform. The problem is the detail never seems to arrive. A ten detail never seems to arrive. A ten year health plan with no delivery chapter. The abolition of NHS chapter. The abolition of NHS England yet no price tag. Ten new straight to test referral pathways announced by the health secretary, but he couldn't name a single one.

And now a new GP contract with more questions than answers. Madam Deputy Speaker. The Speaker Calling something modernisation does not make it reform. If the rules and the delivery are unclear, it simply confusion with branding. Take advice and guidance. In practice, this appears to create a single point of access for referrals. GPS will no longer be able to refer directly to a consultant, even when they believe it's clinically appropriate. So will the government publish the clinical evidence supporting this approach? And who will carry the legal responsibility if, in a GPs professional judgement, a patient needs to see a consultant, but must first go through advice and guidance.

If advice and guidance becomes mandatory as an extra layer before referral, is the government not, in essence, managing the waiting list by keeping patients in primary care rather than treating them in secondary care. Waiting lists will look shorter on paper, yet patients are simply waiting elsewhere in the system. So can the Minister clarify exactly where those patients will appear in the official waiting list figures. Alongside this, the contract requires patients deemed clinically urgent to be dealt with on the same day.

But the contract doesn't define what urgent means or what dealt with actually means, and this really matters. So I asked the Minister three clear questions. First, when will the government
17:26
17:27
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
in electives have been dealt with by GPS. And what's more, the hon. Gentleman chuntering from a Gentleman chuntering from a sedentary sedentary position doesn't seem to care what actually matters for patients, which is through advice and guidance, through advice and guidance, they're able to get a response from their GP within about 48 hours. It takes a lot longer to get an outpatient appointment. I can tell him that. So I think if he's looking for stats on advice and guidance, I'll give him this one.

1.3 million taken off electives and dealt with. And that is part of the hospital to community shift in terms of the definition of urgent. Well, we trust our clinicians. We know that general practitioners are experts in their field. They know when they see an urgent issue, but they also know it might be something with more acute manifestation of COPD, or perhaps a child who's got a rash which has suddenly looked more dangerous than it did the day before.

So, you know, our we trust our GPS to make those decisions. It's a real pity that the benches opposite don't seem to do that. And in terms of in terms of in terms of access, well, again, he wants a stat in July 2024, patient satisfaction with access to the GP was languishing at a miserable 60% after 14 years of Tory neglect and chaos. Today, patient satisfaction with access to their GP stands at 76% Madam Deputy Speaker a 16% improvement in patient satisfaction with access to GPS.

He asked for stats. Maybe he should take that stat and deal with it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rachael Maskell. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend mentioned the Carlisle formula and York had the lowest funding under the PCGs, the Pcts, the CCGs and now ICB. It's Pcts, the CCGs and now ICB. It's really important because we're not the most affluent place that the new funding formula works for areas new funding formula works for areas like York. Could he say a little bit more about how that will be determined so that my community

**** Possible New Speaker ****

determined so that my community gets the health spending that it deserves? Minister I thank her for that
17:29
17:30
17:30
17:31
17:32
17:33
17:34
17:34
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
that and streamlining that. The other point I would make, of course, is at the heart of our ten year is at the heart of our ten year plan is the shift from analogue to digital. I have seen some extraordinarily effective AI extraordinarily effective AI technology around ambient voice services, which enable an entire consultation to be recorded put consultation to be recorded put directly into the system, thus saving the GP hours at the end of the day. In terms of writing up notes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

notes. Gloucester Simon Opher. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to declare an interest. I am a working GP in the NHS and I probably wouldn't be standing here if general practice hadn't been decimated over the last 14 years. So can I welcome the £485 million of extra funding? Can I also welcome the fact that the capacity and access money is being channelled back into emergency GP action? So we're increasing appointments and therefore increasing continuity of care and bringing back the family, family doctor.

And so I'd just like some reassurance around the advice and reassurance around the advice and guidance and the referral mechanisms that this these processes would not get in the way of Jesse's law, which is about Jesse's rule, which is about referring patients on their third referring patients on their third presentation without any particular diagnosis. Thank you.
17:35
17:36
17:37
17:37
17:38
17:39
17:39
17:40
17:40
17:41
17:42
17:42
17:43
17:43
17:44
17:45
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:47
17:48
17:49
17:49
17:50
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
those outpatient appointments. And what we're doing now is embedding that in the contract, because it's that in the contract, because it's been such a success. By embedding it in the contract, we're actually giving more flexibility and less bureaucracy, because there's going to be a single point of access in the trust, and the GPS will be able the trust, and the GPS will be able to then access high level consultant expertise and specialism to give them the feedback they need to give them the feedback they need for that particular patient and whether or not they need to go in for an outpatient appointment.

So it's more flexibility, high level triage, and much better outcomes for patients.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jonathan Brash thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My dad was a GP in Deputy Speaker. My dad was a GP in Hartlepool for 33 years. He worked through the improvements brought in through the improvements brought in by the last Labour government, but also until his retirement. The destruction that was overseen by the last conservative government, most notably the inability to get a same day urgent appointment that same day urgent appointment that saw far too many patients ending up the door of their local hospital.

Does the Minister agree that ensuring same day urgent appointments gets treatment back out of hospitals and into communities where they belong?
17:51
17:52
17:52
17:53
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
more on the front line. And of course, Icbs play a vitally important role, particularly in terms of commissioning. So we want terms of commissioning. So we want to see more strategic commissioning, more resource and expertise put more resource and expertise put into the parts of the ICB which are actually delivering better outcomes in terms of population health and in terms of population health and less duplication and more streamlining in terms of the back office functions. So it's about getting more efficiency, but being getting more efficiency, but being more responsive as well to patients and to practitioners on the front line.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Dickson thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I warmly welcome what the Minister said about the government's reforms, assuring same day access for GPS for urgent cases, but also making for urgent cases, but also making it easier to get an appointment online. Finally moving towards ending the 8 a.m. scramble. However, I recently visited Swanscombe Health Centre, where the brilliant team are under significant pressure because of the large numbers of new families moving to the area, particularly in neighbouring Ebbsfleet, which has seen 5000 very welcome new homes built so far.

I welcome new homes built so far. I wonder, would the Minister visit Swanscombe with me to see the work the practice is doing and look at the practice is doing and look at how we can get GP services designed into developments much earlier in the process in areas like Ebbsfleet, the process in areas like Ebbsfleet, Garden City, Minister.
17:54
17:55
17:56
17:56
17:57
17:58
17:59
17:59
18:00
18:00
18:01
18:02
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
patients living with obesity. So exactly the kind of things he's just mentioned in terms of prescribing, if you like, advising exercise regimes, better nutrition and changing the quaff to require and changing the quaff to require GPS to share data with the lung cancer screening program. There are just three examples of what we're doing within this contract. On doing within this contract. On online access, it's absolutely clear that there must always be three channels of access to your GP three channels of access to your GP walk in, telephone and online, and it's clear as well, I think that if it's an urgent matter, it would be a walk in or a telephone call.

What's really worked with the online is it's taken pressure off the telephone lines so that people who don't have urgent requirements have have been migrating to the online and using the NHS app. Take up the NHS app is also excellent. So we're moving in the right direction there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perran Moon Madam Deputy. Speaker My. Father was a family doctor in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Father was a family doctor in my Camborne and Redruth and Harlow constituency for more than 40 years, constituency for more than 40 years, and now in his 91st year, I'm thankful he's no longer practising, thankful he's no longer practising, but I have the highest number of deep end group of GP practices in my constituency, including the one my constituency, including the one where my father practised. And whilst I welcome the consideration for deprived areas, can the Minister elaborate on targeted funding for areas with the highest levels of deprivation?
18:03
18:04
18:05
18:05
18:06
18:07
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
the first place. That's why the advice and guidance element of this contract is so important, because contract is so important, because it's improving coordination and teamwork between primary care and secondary care. That's how you get, secondary care. That's how you get, as I've said, 1.3 million people who would have ended up on the waiting list or going into waiting list or going into outpatient, no longer needing to be there because they're being dealt with by that teamwork that's with by that teamwork that's happening between consultant specialists and GPS.

They're being helped and supported and cared for close to home without having to go into hospital, and that has a very positive knock on effect right through the system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Shannon thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the Minister very much for his positive answers and also thank the Minister answers and also thank the Minister and this government for the giant steps that they're taking to improve the NHS, that we're very improve the NHS, that we're very encouraged by that. While the government has rolled out major changes to the GP contract in England to improve access and same day appointments, the situation, as we all know in Northern Ireland, is critical.

Patients back home are struggling to get GP appointments. Waiting time waiting times are long, workforce shortages are acute. I know that the Minister and passed questions has been very has a good working relationship with Mike Nesbitt, the Health Minister, the Nesbitt, the Health Minister, the Northern Ireland Assembly. So what discussions has the Minister had with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to ensure that Northern Ireland to ensure that local GP services are parallel? The new guidance in England so that patients in Northern Ireland are patients in Northern Ireland are Minister.
18:08
18:09
18:10
18:11
18:12
18:12
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
will be with the millions of people affected, including the British affected, including the British citizens and troops serving in the region. But just as we saw, just as we saw four years ago when Putin we saw four years ago when Putin invaded Ukraine, the impact of this conflict is being felt far beyond the battlefield, with Iran the battlefield, with Iran continuing to target the energy infrastructure and shutting off the Strait of Hormuz, the price of crude oil on the international crude oil on the international market has rocketed, and I know the 1.5 million UK households who use heating oil to heat their homes will be understandably concerned.

Indeed, some customers have already reported prices doubling or not being able to secure a delivery at all. Let me be clear this government will not stand by and let British families suffer. And let me set out let me set out the direct action that we are taking today. First, we will always stand up for the most vulnerable in our society, and I can confirm to Parliament that we are committing over £50 million to help low income families who use heating oil.

We are allocating this funding where the greatest need is based on census data, and it will go directly to the devolved governments with the expectation that it will be used to support vulnerable households. We know that this is a particular issue in Northern Ireland, where almost two thirds of homes rely on heating oil, and we have allocated £17 million to support them. We will continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on all our plans that I will outline in this statement.

Given the particular circumstances that exist there and the reliance on heating oil in England, funding will be distributed by local authorities via the Crisis and Resilience Fund, which comes into effect from the 1st of April. £3.8 million will be passed to the Welsh Government and £4.6 million to the Scottish Government to deliver to affected households through existing programs. I am today calling for the Scottish Government to ensure that money is passed to Scottish families as quickly as possible. Second, as well as direct support for consumers, we are working with the sector to ensure pricing is always fair, transparent and justified.

This government will not tolerate profiteering or unfair practices, so we are in daily contact with industry to understand the drivers of recent price movements, and have reminded heating oil distributors of their commitments under the Trade Association Code of Practice. The Chancellor has also written to the CMA to ask that it remains vigilant across heating oil prices and tackles unjustified increases, and we urge customers to share any evidence of price manipulation with the CMA. But we also recognise that the heating oil sector is currently under regulated.

Unlike gas and electricity, the heating oil market is not regulated by Ofgem in the UK. We are going to put that right by exploring what regulations might be needed to ensure consumers get a better deal, and by exploring new ways to ensure households are better protected. This will include securing an agreement with industry on a strengthened code of practice to rapidly provide enhanced protections to customers, introducing stronger consumer protections in the heating oil market, which could cover dispute resolution. A greater variety of repayment options for those facing hardship, greater price transparency and enhanced protections for vulnerable groups such as the elderly.

Supporting the CMA's plans to carry out a more comprehensive examination of the UK's heating oil industry and exploring the creation of a new ombudsman or appointment of a regulator such as Ofgem, to champion consumers. Third, this conflict is yet another reminder that we must get off the roller coaster of global fossil fuel markets as soon as possible and on to the path of clean, secure, affordable energy that this country controls. This is the only way to protect the British people from energy price shocks and ensure that we are no longer buffeted by the headwinds of conflicts we had no part in starting.

Thanks to our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, we have already brought in £90 billion of investment in clean energy, but now, in light of events in the Middle East, we have set out a package of measures to help us go even further and faster in pursuit of national energy security. First, we will bring forward the next renewables option. Just months after our most successful ever secured enough power for the equivalent of 16 million homes. Second, we will make plug in solar available for the first time in Britain so that families can buy a low cost panel straight from a supermarket and set it up on their balcony or in their garden.

Third, third, we will speed up the delivery of our £15 billion Warm Homes Plan, the largest home upgrade programme in British history. Fourth, we will reform nuclear regulations following the review so we can fast track new nuclear power stations. Madam Deputy Speaker Behind every decision this government takes is a simple principle. Whatever the challenges, we will always support working people. We will always fight their corner. That is why we are directly helping those affected by the spike in heating oil costs.

It is why we are cracking down on any suppliers who are cancelling orders or jacking up prices, while working at pace to ensure the sector is properly regulated. And it is why we are doing everything we can to take back control of our energy. Despite the opposition from parties opposite, ending our reliance on these unstable global fossil fuel markets and instead bringing in an era of new, clean, home grown energy that we control in this country and ever of economic growth, new good jobs and unprecedented investment and an era of real energy security, that is how we will ensure ordinary working British people never pay the price for foreign conflicts and our overdependence on fossil fuels again.

And I commend this statement to the House.
18:18
Andrew Bowie Portrait Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)
-
-
Prime Minister Andrew Bowie. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement today, although I really do have to take although I really do have to take issue with the Prime Minister's earlier comments taking credit for Ofgem decision to lower the energy price cap, a decision not taken by government, taken by Ofgem using a conservative mechanism and taken, in fact, weeks before the current crisis began. But why let the facts.

Why let the facts get in the way of this government spin? But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad to see that today the government has taken steps to support households across Great Britain and Northern Ireland that rely on heating oil steps that those of us on this side of the House called for when prices began to rise weeks ago. Those households are, as the Minister has highlighted, acutely exposed to price shocks. And the stories we have heard from consumers across the country are very concerning indeed.

Just this morning I heard from a constituent of mine who faces a lump sum bill of over £1,000. These consumers are often served by a local supplier, meaning that there is no realistic competition, but be under no illusion. Madam Speaker, this announcement has only come about after the pressure put on this government by those on this side of the House actions, actions that the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey called for almost two weeks ago.

So like everything, like everything with this government, like everything with this government, it ends up doing the right thing. Only after weeks of dither, delay and inaction. Yeah, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, today's announcement will be welcome news for rural households, and nowhere is this more apparent than in Northern Ireland, where over 60% of homes rely on oil for heat. Whilst welcoming the announcement, though, I would be grateful if the Minister could bring some clarity to parts of his announcement. Firstly, can the Minister explain what, if any, support will be made available to those who heat their homes with liquid petroleum gas? Furthermore, it appears that the allocation of funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is to go directly to the devolved administrations and not directly to local authorities.

Now, considering that the Minister opposite represents a Scottish constituency, he understands just as well as I that handing over a cheque to the Scottish Government does not guarantee money will be spent where it was intended. So can the Minister, therefore outline how this government will ensure that those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do get the support they need and ensure this funding is not siphoned off for other priorities determined by devolved Ministers. Why wasn't this money awarded directly to local authorities in those nations as it is being delivered across England? It is also my understanding that this funding is inclusive of Barnett consequentials.

So could the Minister confirm if this is the case and if it is, will he confirm that Scotland is being short changed? Did the higher proportion of households on heating oil than the Barnett formula would account for? The government could go further, Madam Deputy Speaker, and heed our calls to deliver a 20% cut to everyone's I mean, everyone's energy bill through the Conservatives cheap Power plan, by axing the carbon tax and the rip off wind subsidies. Now a cut that would be worth around £165 for the average family.

And they should bring about another one of their famed U-turns and cancel their planned fuel duty rise later this year, a rise that will add £156 to struggling families bills. Because Labour's plans always lead to more costs for families and businesses. Take today's announcement. Madam Deputy Speaker, We cannot ignore that this support will be funded through Labour's tax rises on working people. Why is this? Because this government has made a choice, a political choice, to shut down the North Sea and forgo £25 billion worth of tax receipts that an attractive, investable and successful North Sea oil and gas industry would and still could provide.

Backing the UK's oil and gas industry is about driving the economic growth that we so desperately need, which in turn would deliver greater tax receipts than the current regime. It is about becoming more energy secure. 100% of all the gas produced in the British North Sea is used in the British gas grid. The less we use from British waters, the more we have to import at a higher cost and a bigger carbon footprint from Qatar, the USA and Norway, who continue to explore in the same sea.

We are prevented from doing. And it would support a vitally important skilled workforce, a workforce that right now is packing up and going overseas. What will it take for this government to change course revenue, investment, jobs, security? What is it that this government does not get? Just today, the CEO of renewables UK joined the chorus of voices calling for an overhaul to this disastrous act of economic self-harm being inflicted by this Labour government. Now we read at the weekend in the times that we are currently led by the most intellectually incurious Prime Minister of all time.

So it's no surprise that the Secretary of State has been given free rein to inflict his myopic vision of a future of not my words, words of people in the Cabinet today. But surely at this time of such global instability, the case for a thriving oil and gas industry is clearer than ever. Madam Deputy Speaker, we welcome the action announced today on heating oil. But there are serious questions not just from me, not just from me, but from the industry, the renewable sector, the trade unions, and frankly, everyone else other than those sitting on the benches opposite over wider government energy policy that need to be answered and answered soon.
18:24
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
Minister Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Minister Madam Deputy Speaker. Dear oh dear. Where where, where to begin with? With some of those begin with? With some of those points. But I'll do my best to wade through the many points that the hon. Gentleman raised in his response. Firstly, the energy price cap is reducing on the 1st of April because of actions that this government took. Take £150 out of energy costs that will see every bill in this country reduce, because we have taken those actions, and people who are listening to this today should hear that their bill will go down in April, and that is protected to the end of June.

He he he appears to be he appears to be criticising us for a lack of speed. If he would like to volunteer, how many days it took for the last conservative government to provide support for people on heating oil? I'm all ears. How long did it take his party and government? How long? Nearly nearly nearly 200 days. We are around three weeks into this conflict in the Middle East, and we are coming forward with support today to turn, to turn to the the points that he raised about I'll take first LPG.

LPG will be eligible insofar as the English schemes that we have, we have funded. Additionally today through these actions, and we are making that very clear to local authorities. In a letter that has been sent from MHCLG Ministers today. When it comes to the devolved administrations Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, it will be for the devolved administrations to determine how they distribute those funds. I would hope that they would work at the same speed as this government is, to make sure that that is available on the 1st of April, but all nations already have crisis funds available that they could be deploying for this purpose, just as we will be deploying it for that purpose in England from today.

If there are people in crisis now that are applying to the existing Household Support Fund, they will be eligible for support from today and the additional funding will come after the 1st of April. He talked about the funds being Barnsley South. The funds are not being Bournemouth East Scotland is not being, in his words, short changed by this. The funds are being allocated based on census data around how many oil heating oil fuelled households that are in each individual nation, which is why, for example, Northern Ireland comes out with 17 million, Scotland with 4.6 and Wales with Wales with less.

So it is not a Barnett share. It is based on the number of households that use heating oil. And just to turn to his final comments about the oil and gas sector, I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop coming to this chamber and talking down the UK's oil and gas sector. I do know I do. I do wish you would stop talking it down. He has implied from that. He has implied from that Dispatch Box that the taps are being turned off in the North Sea.

They are not. They are not. The North Sea is working today at full capacity and has been and has been working at full capacity for some for some time. I was in Aberdeen on Thursday, speaking, speaking to workers in that sector and speaking also to workers who will be benefiting from our decision to invest in clean energy. Those workers who are working in floating offshore wind. And if we take our eyes off the opportunities that will be available in future, it is a road to ruin and he will also know.

He will also know that more extraction from the North Sea will not reduce the price of energy. We are a price taker, not a price maker. That is not our road to cheaper energy for households. Esterson.
18:27
18:28
18:29
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Pippa Heylings. Pippa Heylings. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we welcome the government finally taking action to protect finally taking action to protect households from soaring energy costs due to the Middle East crisis, from the calls from these apprenticeships. But across all of the chamber MPs from across all parties, today's intervention is a sticking plus solution. With too many households potentially falling through the cracks and not receiving support. We know, we've heard that those families who have to use oil for heating are the most exposed and defenceless, caught in the crossfire of Russia's war in Ukraine, and now the volatility in the Middle East and the heating oil market does need regulating.

Liberal Democrats are calling for the immediate introduction of a three month VAT holiday on heating oil, but also a proper price cap, because these households deserve the same protection as those on gas and electricity. The real way to protect households and businesses is not by parroting Trump's drill baby drill mantra and buckling in for more roller coaster rides that burn a hole in people's pockets. But by accelerating the transition to secure home-grown clean energy, which we control and extending preferential treatment to the warm homes plan to help those homes on heating oil electrify get off volatile fuel, which we don't control.

But I would like to ask the Minister, Will the government agree with Liberal Democrats and set a price cap for heating oil to shield off grid households? And will he learn the lessons if they want to provide targeted support from the Covid pandemic and the 2022 energy crisis, and immediately enact a data sharing scheme between government departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions and the NHS. Devolve this to local authorities to enable them to deliver that targeted support to those who need it most.

Through right now, the Resilience in Crisis Fund that they want to have adopted on the 1st of April. Thank you.
18:31
18:32
18:33
18:34
Mark Garnier Portrait Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)
-
-
Mark Garnier thank you. >> Mark Garnier thank you. >> Can I thank the Minister for his statement. One of the characteristics of volatile energy markets is when that wholesale prices rise, consumer prices tend prices rise, consumer prices tend to rise like a rocket, and when the wholesale prices get stability, the consumer price tends to fall like a feather. Can the Minister assure me and my constituents in Wyre Forest that in the in the conversations, is having with the Competition and Markets Authority, he is also looking at when the market returns to normality, the prices fall as quickly as they have risen.

In this volatile moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, thank. The hon. Member makes an important point and one that I know important point and one that I know that Ministers in my department have been discussing with the CMA and will carry on discussing when and will carry on discussing when it comes to heating oil, the discussion we have with the CMA, they have obviously started their work looking at the heating oil market and will hopefully come forward soon with proposals that we can examine and determine whether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can examine and determine whether or not further regulation is required. Mike Reader thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I welcome the Minister for today's statement. It will give reassurance to a lot of families in Northamptonshire. Could families in Northamptonshire. Could he give us a bit more detail on the timeline under which this is going to be brought in, and particularly to be brought in, and particularly assure people across Northamptonshire? This is going to be an easy process to access without bureaucracy.
18:35
18:35
18:35
18:36
18:37
18:37
18:38
18:39
18:39
18:40
18:40
18:41
18:41
18:42
18:42
18:42
18:43
18:44
18:44
18:45
18:45
18:46
18:47
18:47
18:48
18:49
18:49
18:50
18:51
18:51
18:52
18:53
18:53
18:54
18:54
18:55
18:56
18:56
18:57
18:57
18:58
18:59
18:59
18:59
19:00
19:01
19:01
19:02
19:02
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
have a role to play in making sure that it is understood what support is available. The Crisis and is available. The Crisis and Resilience Fund, which this money is topping up, is available from the 1st of April. As I said, there will be guidelines. We have been quite clear in terms of heating the heating oil and LPG is within scope heating oil and LPG is within scope of that. I take his point around around consistency, but we have to remember that this is a fund that is discretionary to local is discretionary to local authorities.

So there does have to be some flexibility, largely because local authorities will know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

best how best to serve their local areas. Catherine Fookes Madam. Deputy Speaker And I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker And I thank the Minister for the statement and really welcome the £3.8 million commitment that's going to help commitment that's going to help Welsh households with these rising costs and rising costs. They are one one women in my constituency of one one women in my constituency of Monmouthshire. In her 70s, she had a quote for 500l of oil at 200, and a quote for 500l of oil at 200, and then it was risen by £250 in the space of less than a week.

But farmers will also be hard hit too, being rural businesses, and they'll have increased prices in red diesel have increased prices in red diesel and exponential increases in fertiliser costs. So could you share with me some of the actions and support that may be given to farmers?
19:03
19:04
19:05
Sammy Wilson Portrait Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (East Antrim, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
I welcome the fact that we've got the support for Northern Ireland, even though it amounts to about £34 even though it amounts to about £34 per household. But I noticed that the Minister has said he's working closely with the economy Minister closely with the economy Minister in Northern Ireland, given that she is still to bring forward a plan to is still to bring forward a plan to spend the £81 million given in the Budget last year, will he make sure that he keeps her feet to the fire that he keeps her feet to the fire so that people in Northern Ireland can receive the support they need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now, and not next winter? Thank you, Madam Speaker. Had a constructive conversation with constructive conversation with Minister Archibald this afternoon about the support on offer, and I'm confident that the Northern Ireland Executive will be working at pace Executive will be working at pace to make sure that this is delivered to people across Northern Ireland. to people across Northern Ireland. On his point about net zero, I think it is important to remember two things. One, more extraction from the North Sea would not affect from the North Sea would not affect the price of energy that people pay in this country, and two, the long the long term route to lower prices in this country is not through exposing us even more to fossil fuels.

And that's the reason why we have some of the higher prices in Europe, not because of net zero Europe, not because of net zero leading us to more exposure, as he suggests, would actually just increase prices and increase our vulnerability and vulnerability for vulnerability and vulnerability for people in Northern Ireland. Having. Having.
19:06
19:06
19:07
19:08
19:08
19:09
19:09
19:10
19:11
19:11
19:12
19:13
19:13
19:14
19:14
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
the Budget last year to remove costs from the energy bill to reduce energy costs by 7% from reduce energy costs by 7% from April, but we will cut no corners and holding companies to account where we think there may be any where we think there may be any sort of sense of profiteering or any manipulation of of, of price. And that is what the CMA is And that is what the CMA is examining for us and why in this industry and heating oil, we will examine what they come forward with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

examine what they come forward with and decide whether or not there is a need for regulation. I am only planning to run the statement until 730. So can I encourage short questions and perhaps shorter answers from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Ben Lake. Can I. Welcome today's announcement. And the. Proposals for the relief that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposals for the relief that they potentially offer? The 20% or so households in Wales are off grid, and indeed, the 72% of households and indeed, the 72% of households in my own constituency of cardigan, as the Minister will appreciate, households will be anxious to understand how much level of understand how much level of support they might be might stand to receive. And so can I. Ask him whether there was a per household level of payment in mind when the government came up with these calculations, and also for 3.8 million calculated for Wales? Can I ask, given that LPG households will be entitled to support, why was it that it was heating oil data that was used to calculate the allocation?
19:15
19:16
19:17
19:17
19:17
19:18
19:18
19:19
19:19
19:20
19:21
19:21
19:22
19:22
19:22
19:23
19:23
19:24
19:24
19:24
19:25
19:25
19:25
19:26
19:26
19:27
19:27
19:28
19:28
19:28
19:29
19:29
19:29
19:30
19:30
19:31
19:31
19:32
19:32
None Portrait Legislation: All stages of the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill
-

local community. Nothing we can say in this chamber can take away what they have been through. The fire at
19:33
Steve Reed Portrait Rt Hon Steve Reed MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Streatham and Croydon North, Labour )
-
-
Grenfell Tower, which took the lives of 72 people, was a terrible lives of 72 people, was a terrible moment in our country's history. It was an avoidable tragedy and it has was an avoidable tragedy and it has had lasting consequences for bereaved families, for those who survived, for the local community and far beyond. We must make sure that nothing like it can ever that nothing like it can ever happen again. There is still much to do on justice, on reform and on making homes safe.

But today's bill is about one clear part of our responsibility how we remember Grenfell and how we keep our promise over time. This is a simple bill with a simple purpose to make sure the Grenfell Tower memorial is properly supported today and for the long term, it is for the bereaved, survivors and the community to take their decisions on what the memorial will look like. The bill is here to fund that important work. Grenfell must not be about party politics.

The previous government promised to support bereaved families and survivors to create a fitting and lasting memorial. This government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is keeping that promise. Yes, of course. Jim Shannon and for bringing this forward and for the the very this forward and for the the very sombre and appropriate method that the Minister has put forward. Whilst the memorial is important, Whilst the memorial is important, it should be tasteful and poignant, and it has to be the best memorial must be that lessons we have learned to ensure that no other learned to ensure that no other family has to suffer the way that these victims families have suffered, and the changes that have suffered, and the changes that have been implemented for safety will save lives.

That's a real memorial I wish to have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I couldn't agree with him more. He describes it absolutely correctly, and that's why it will correctly, and that's why it will be the local community survivors, the bereaved, the next of kin who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bereaved, the next of kin who will take decisions about what the memorial will will look like. Janet Daby.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Janet Daby. I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and he's absolutely correct, everything he's saying so far with regard to Memorial, I far with regard to Memorial, I wonder if the Secretary of State would be willing to meet with me, because he very much spoke about safety, and many of my residents are concerned about their safety, where they have unsafe cladding, and they're worried also about the cost of that. And I wonder if he or one of his Ministers would meet with me to discuss that further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerning my residence. Thank you. She's absolutely right. Of course, part of the legacy of course, part of the legacy of Grenfell must be that people are kept safe in their own homes. I'd be happy to make sure she has an be happy to make sure she has an appropriate meeting with an appropriate Minister, whether that's me or my colleague. Indeed, that's me or my colleague. Indeed, the hon. Members have raised is why the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission was set up in 2019.

It's community led there to shape a shared vision of the future of the site. After years of engagement, the commission published their report Remembering Grenfell in November 2023. It set out clear recommendations, including a permanent memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower, a private site where parts of the tower where people died and where their remains were not identifiable, can be laid to rest with respect and a physical and digital archive alongside a permanent exhibition. So the story of Grenfell is preserved as a lesson for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future point. Secretary Secretary state. Thank you very much for for bringing this you very much for for bringing this piece of legislation forward. Could you just confirm to us that this is not only about capital expenditure, but also the long term maintenance, to make sure this is a lasting legacy for the families and Grenfell?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grenfell? I thank him for his intervention, and I agree with the point that he and I agree with the point that he that he makes. This has to be about the long term. That is the best way we can pay tribute to those who died and their relatives from that very dark night. The work of the Memorial Commission will be guided by those most directly affected. We know that views about the future of the site are deeply personal, are not always shared by everyone.

The government has welcomed the Commission's recommendations and will help to carry them out. Design work, led by the community is now underway, with the design team appointed after a selection process that involved bereaved families, survivors and the wider local community. The aim is to start construction of the memorial from mid 2027. Madam Deputy Speaker, This is a very focussed Bill. It gives the government the statutory authority needed to spend public money on the construction and long term management of the Grenfell Tower Memorial, and it allows for land to be bought where needed and for works to be carried out on that land.

The scope of the bill is deliberately very narrow. It does not set the design of the memorial. It does not determine planning decisions. It does not set governance or ownership arrangements. It makes sure that spending connected to the memorial is carried out properly, in line with the rules for government spending and with Parliament's agreement, the community will continue to work on the design while Parliament considers this bill. So work stays on course towards a mid 27, 2027 start to construction.

The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were forever changed by that tragedy. It will be a place where people can remember, reflect and pay their respects. It does not take away from other work that still needs to be completed. The community has waited far too long for justice to be served. Those responsible must be held to account, and I fully support the Metropolitan Police in what is one of the largest and most complex investigations they have ever carried out.

We must also reform the system so that the voices of residents cannot be ignored, and safety risks can never again simply

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be brushed aside. This requires, yes, of course. Amanda Hack thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I think of State for giving way. I think the way within which he's conducted the. The speech so far reflects how the. The speech so far reflects how we all felt post-grenfell that we have to make sure that the communities feel they have communities feel they have somewhere to go, somewhere to grieve. Would the Secretary of State agree with me that the work State agree with me that the work that still needs to be done around who was responsible for the tragedy, still needs to continue alongside this work on the memorial?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I very strongly agree with the points that she's making. And of course, the police investigation of course, the police investigation continues. Families have had a long wait for justice, but justice will wait for justice, but justice will and it must come now. This requires a new culture of transparency and accountability that this government accountability that this government remains fully committed to building. I will continue to act on the I will continue to act on the Grenfell inquiry recommendations to make sure they lead to real and lasting change across the country.

No one should ever go to bed unsure whether their home is safe. Speeding up remediation remains one of our highest priorities. We're working with developers, freeholders and local authorities to remove unsafe cladding as quickly as possible, and we are now monitoring thousands of buildings to make sure progress is being made. Madam Deputy Speaker, This short but important bill is about how we remember what we learn and what we do. As a result, the bill ensures that national remembrance is properly supported and protected with Parliament's consent.

It does that while supporting the central role of bereaved families, survivors and the community, and it helps make sure that Grenfell is never forgotten, that the lessons of that tragic night will make home safer and the future fairer for everyone. I commend this bill to the House.
19:41
Gareth Bacon Portrait Gareth Bacon MP (Orpington, Conservative)
-
-
Here, here, here. >> A second time. >> Gareth Bacon. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is going to be one of those rare occasions, Madam Deputy Speaker, where there is a broad consensus across the House. The consensus across the House. The opposition supports the government in continuing the work begun since that tragic night in 2017. To ensure that lessons are learned, changes are made and the 72 victims who lost their lives are properly remembered. I and my colleagues on this side of the House, therefore, welcome this legislation and will be supporting it today at its Second Reading and at its further stages.

The tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, which witnessed the horrific deaths of 54 adults and 18 children, was a national tragedy that still sits as a dark and distressing memory within our national conscience. The failures that led to that horrific blaze and to so many, so much bereavement and distress, and have now been studied in great depth by the Grenfell inquiry, had to be addressed in detail, and that is why we welcome the government's work to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry, and support their efforts to meet all of the recommendations laid out by the inquiry by the end of this Parliament.

Now it's firmly the government of the day's responsibility to carry out and implement the recommendations of the inquiry. But it is our collective parliamentary responsibility to allow the means for this to happen, to support the government's work and to ensure that, nine years on, we continue the process of remembrance. It's very difficult for us here to judge how best to commemorate the 72 people who so tragically lost their lives, and that is why I believe it was the correct approach in 2019 to allow the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to develop proposals for a fitting and permanent memorial.

The victims of the Grenfell Tower fire belong at the heart of everything we do in this place and outside of it, to remember the tragedy. It's very important that in remembering the fire, we also remember all those affected by the events that night, those who lost their lives, of course, the bereaved families, the survivors, and the immediate community who've previously lived or presently live in close proximity to Grenfell Tower. As this process of remembrance reaches one of the most important moments, the realisation of the monument promised to the Grenfell community by the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and by successive governments.

It's vital that any future momentum keeps the four promises sorry, any future monument keeps the form of promises made to the community, and these include a mission to create a place of dignity and peace, a promise to create a bold memorial to ensure that the tragedy of the fire is never forgotten. A promise to put in place key measures to ensure that the memorial will be looked after and not allowed to fall into disrepair, and a final promise to ensure that the voices and wishes of the Grenfell community are always at the heart of decision making about the memorial on the point of the future and the preservation of the memorial, it's also important that this space is protected from decay and supported to continue serving as a focal point for peaceful and reflective remembrance of the horrors of the fire.

And that is why my colleagues and I welcome the provisions in the bill to allow for the maintenance and preservation of the monument. As was raised at a recent debate on the Grenfell Tower annual report, it is necessary that the government delivers on its promises of funding, and I welcome the comments the Secretary of State made in that regard earlier, and I hope that he will confirm the funding arrangements in due course. Madam Deputy Speaker On a related note, although not directly connected with the purposes of this bill, perhaps the best possible tribute to all those connected with the tragedy at Grenfell Tower would be for the government to honour funding commitments regarding the completion of the refurbishment of the West Lancaster estate.

For those who are still living there. The refurbishment was intended to be funded 50 over 50 by the government and by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The funding required from the government is a small additional fraction of the reported cost of the memorial. The council have done their part and I understand that agreement regarding government funding is close, but the longer this is delayed costs will inevitably rise. So I'd like to take this opportunity to urge the government to conclude proceedings on this with haste.

Madam Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, let me be clear that the inquiry's findings that it was decades of systemic failure as well as sheer dishonesty and dangerous negligence that allowed for this tragedy to occur, represents a shameful and damning conclusion on the work, or lack thereof, of culpable industry figures, regulatory bodies and successive governments. It is the least that we can do now to support the implementation in full of the inquiry's recommendations, and on this side of the House, we will support and constructively scrutinise the support for victims and their families that the government are putting forward to try to ensure that anything which is done is done properly for today.

I look forward to seeing this bill all through its remaining stages in this House, and to working constructively to move the memorial a step closer to realisation, and that is why the opposition does not plan to amend this bill today. And as I mentioned at the start of my speech, we will support this legislation and this memorial to become a real piece of a place of peace and remembrance for the Grenfell community.
19:47
Joe Powell Portrait Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. 105 months ago, 72 people lost 105 months ago, 72 people lost their lives in a tragedy that was foreseen and entirely preventable. foreseen and entirely preventable. Today, we remember them. We pay tribute to their families, to the bereaved survivors and the community around the tower who have suffered so much. And we recommit to truth, justice and lasting change in Grenfell's name for today's bill is important. I thank the government for bringing it forward and giving it the time for what I hope will be a smooth passage.

A fitting memorial is essential, and this bill will support that to happen. The Grenfell site is the last resting place for many, and it remains a symbol of injustice. Every day when I leave my home to come to work in this place, I see the tower slowly receding from the west London skyline. I understand the fears that when the tower is gone, that stark physical reminder of unfinished business will also recede. And we cannot let that happen. I want to thank the members of the Memorial Commission and the independent Cochairs for their work in advancing a design.

As the Secretary of State said, it is not easy work, but it is vital it remains independent of local and national government, and that engages widely with bereaved and survivors as the work progresses, so they feel heard and included. Yeah. I also know residents are watching this deconstruction process closely. This has to be done with utmost care and transparency for bereaved families, for whom the tower is sacred, and for the community understandably anxious about local impacts. The bill also makes provision for the preservation, archiving or exhibition of materials from the tower and site, which is essential.

Transparency and clear communication on decisions is the only way to ensure trust in this process between the Department, the Commission and the bereaved and survivors. But Madam Deputy Speaker, while the work for a memorial continues, truth and justice cannot come soon enough. Last week, the Metropolitan Police team leading the investigation reassured me that they still expect to hand over files to the Crown Prosecution Service in the autumn, with the CPS then expected to make charging decisions in spring 2027.

Ministers in the Home Office have told me that the government's special grant will continue to ensure the investigation team, one of the largest in the history of the met, will be able to make this timeline work and I would also ask for the Minister's support in ensuring representations are made to the judiciary. To begin planning now for what could be extremely complex and interlocking criminal trials. A further delay for many years due to the Crown Court backlog would add insult to injury for the bereaved families and survivors.

Those victims have waited almost nine years and they deserve justice to come as swiftly as possible following any charging decisions. And while we await criminal justice, accountability should also hit the culpable companies where it hurts them. Their bottom line. I would ask every procurement officer around this country to think twice before using any of the companies cited in the inquiry report. New powers under the Procurement Act give more scope for discretionary exclusion provisions. It is shocking that at least two contracts currently exist between NHS trusts and Ryden, and I urge all public bodies to do a full audit of their contracts, including subcontractors and supply chains, and make sure that those companies are not included.

It's good news that the government have given new powers through this Procurement Act to exclude companies on grounds such as professional misconduct, and I hope that procurement officers will start using them beyond truth and justice and beyond a physical memorial. What many people affected by Grenfell tell me is they want to see lasting, systemic change. Can any one of us here tonight truly say that approaching nine years after the fire, the pace and depth of change in this country has been sufficient? In a statement to this House on the 22nd of June 2017, the then Prime Minister said long after the TV cameras have gone and the world has moved on, let the legacy of this awful tragedy be that we resolve never to forget these people and instead to gear our policies and our thinking towards making their lives better and bringing them into the political process.

I agree with those words from Baroness May and on September the 4th, 2024, this Prime Minister said in the memory of Grenfell, we will change our country, not just a change in policy and regulation, although that must of course take place, but a profound shift in culture and behaviour, a rebalancing of power that gives voice and respect to every citizen, whoever they are, wherever they live. And I agree with the Prime Minister too. So the question is how to meet these goals to ensure that reality matches the rhetoric.

And I want to thank the Secretary of State, the Minister for Building Safety, and their predecessors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton upon Lyne and my hon. Friend on the front bench, the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley for their cross-government work to push for change. On the 25th of February, we had the first annual report from the government on progress on implementing the inquiry recommendations, and I welcome the progress on construction product regulation, on evacuation plans for disabled residents, on improving the functioning of the building safety regulator and streamlining streamlining ministerial accountability.

I was also really pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that he is supportive of the idea of a national oversight mechanism to ensure that lessons from inquests and inquiries are properly accounted for. It remains a tragic truth that if the Prevention of Future deaths report from the Lakanal House fire in 2009 had been acted upon by the then government and by the London Fire Brigade, Grenfell could have been prevented. Instead, recommendations sat on a shelf and an opportunity to save lives was missed.

So I hope we can get clarity on how this mechanism can be set up soon. For me, it is not about diminishing government's right to accept or reject recommendations or some sort of outsourcing of accountability away from Parliament to an external body, but instead about ensuring our inquiry and inquest landscape works as intended, that we are not wasting time, money and retraumatising victims in exercises that do not lead to meaningful change. I hope the Public Accountability Bill, the Hillsborough law, will herald in a much needed shift in openness and accountability in the state where tragedies happen, and it will be all the stronger for a national oversight mechanism sitting alongside it.

Madam Deputy Speaker, The London Fire Brigade have also made important progress in learning the lessons, although, of course the risk in high rise buildings remains, as we've seen in London and around the world in recent months. And I do want to thank those officers who continue to put themselves in harm's way to save lives and beyond the scope of the inquiry recommendations, one element of Grenfell's legacy is permanent change, and memorial for this country is the hugely significant Awaabs law that is now in place, meaning emergency repairs will be investigated and actioned within 24 hours, with a statutory timeframe for hazards that risk harm.

And I also welcome the steps to professionalise social housing management. But there is still more to do. The pace of remediation has been too slow. While other countries have completed their work. We still have close to 2000 buildings above 11m where work has not begun. I welcome the target to make sure that that has happened by the end of this Parliament, because this cladding scandal has trapped people in unsafe buildings for years, unable to sell, unable to move their families, taking on more and more debt from interim fire safety measures.

With developers either no longer around or unwilling to take responsibility. And if the government plans to introduce stronger requirements to get this sorted, they would certainly have my support. And can we really say that almost nine years on, social tenants have the power agency and respect they are entitled to? Certainly not from my casework in Kensington and Bayswater, and I expect many members from across this House would have similar experience. I believe a stronger tenant voice at a national level would help provide the input into policy making, alongside the bodies representing councils and housing associations, the regulator and the Ombudsman.

And that change needs to happen at a local level too. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have repeatedly pledged to change the culture of how they engage with residents. And yet last September, the independent regulator found their own housing department is seriously failing with a C3 rating because far too many homes are not of a decent standard. Now just think about that for a moment. A council culpable for a disastrous refurbishment in which residents were ignored resulting in 72 deaths is unable nine years later to meet basic standards of decency for our residents.

That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not what culture change looks like in practice, and the residents on the Lancaster West estate surrounding Grenfell tell a similar story. They were promised a model 21st century housing estate in the aftermath of the fire. Progress has been made, but again, it has been too slow and they will welcome this memorial. I am sure they all want a fitting tribute. But as we pass this bill tonight, they will also ask if the money can be found for a memorial.

Can it also not be found to ensure their lives are not disrupted for years? More to come. Rbkc have had questions to answer on this project, and residents and the government have rightly demanded answers. Any request for additional money must be accompanied by proper oversight and accountability of Rbkc and of the Lancaster West Project, and I'm glad that officers have confirmed that they welcome this approach. But I hope the Minister can reassure me that our solution will be found so that residents are not left in the lurch.

And I also want to thank the Ministers in the Departments of Health and Education for their additional funding that has enabled bespoke Grenfell services to continue. They're sorely needed, too. Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome this bill tonight. A fitting memorial is essential, but justice will not be served until the individuals and companies responsible for the fire and the deaths of 72 men, women and children have their day in court. As we approach the ninth anniversary, the police investigation is still ongoing.

Companies implicated in the fire still have their hands on public money. Hundreds of thousands of people are living in unsafe homes, and thousands of my constituents are still being let down by inadequate housing services. We need to see changes. We need to see accountability, and we need to see further systemic change, not just for the bereaved survivors and community around the tower, but to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make sure a disaster like this never happens in our country again. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Gideon Amos. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, And can I join the Secretary of And can I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the 72 people who tragically lost their people who tragically lost their lives in the disaster nearly nine years ago? Liberal Democrats welcome this bill and we support it nearly after nearly nine years since the fire, families and
19:59
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
communities have waited long enough for proper legal and financial footing to be provided for a footing to be provided for a permanent memorial to the 72 people who lost their lives. As a chartered architect and a member of chartered architect and a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, I began. New professional training and development that the Grenfell development that the Grenfell report now rightly requires of all architects. Tragically, previous architects. Tragically, previous fires, which exposed the problems of highly flammable cladding, showed that the risks were known.

The opportunities to act were there and attempts were made to act. And yet 72 people lost their lives. The social homes at Grenfell provided were provided to serve the interests of diverse and often low income residents, but were refurbished in part to improve outward appearances in ways that militated dangerously against their own interests. That context is worth stating. It speaks to a pattern of big institutions and corporations not seeing or valuing the people they are supposed to serve.

On the question of justice, we need to be direct in that. Metropolitan police have said this week that prosecutions are not expected before 2027, ten years after the fire. All of us in this House must ensure that justice is done. That is one reason why Liberal Democrats from these benches have called for a new office of the whistleblower, creating legal protections and promoting greater public awareness of their rights, and why we have consistently supported the Government's Public Office Accountability Bill, a statutory statutory duty of candour on public authorities, including equal legal representation for bereaved families.

We're glad the government has committed to this legislation. We will work on it and on this, with parties across the House and for its protections to be delivered on cladding and fire safety. There has been genuine progress since 2017. The government deserves credit for accepting all 58 recommendations of the inquiry, but thousands of people are still living in buildings with unsafe cladding. Remediation is taking far too long and that needs to change. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to raise three key points before I conclude.

Can I first ask the Minister to say something about the Grenfell Projects Fund, which has provided substantial support to the community since the fire? If it is being wound up, the government should set out clearly what is going to replace it. Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, now the tower has begun to come down. I completely understand why people have different views about and reaction to that. Can I welcome the government's announcement last week about saving elements of the structure and support them in leaving any decision about how they might be retained for consultation with the Grenfell community.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, we must all be vigilant in ensuring all the recommendations are followed through on the memorial. The community is fully consulted and their voices, who tragically, unlike those of victims who raised concerns before the fire, are at last properly heard and those concerns acted upon. What the community is owed is the commitments made to them since 2017 are kept. That buildings across the country are made safe and that systems which failed are genuinely reformed. The voices that were not heard need to be heard and remembered into the future.

We should, across this House, do what one reflection on the Grenfell memorial wall urges us all to do, and that is to ensure that they rest not only in peace, but that they rest in power.
20:03
Andy Slaughter Portrait Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)
-
-
Andy Slaughter. Thank you very >> Andy Slaughter. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Grenfell Tower fire was a momentous Grenfell Tower fire was a momentous as well as a tragic event. It fundamentally changed the way we look at fire safety and social housing. The emergency services. Most of all, it changed the lives of many, many people, not just those who lost their lives and were injured and traumatised their family, but their community and people across a much wider swathe of west London.

And indeed, the ramifications go across the whole country and beyond. I pay tribute to the both Frontbenches all frontbenchers for supporting this bill tonight, particularly to my friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater, who has shown his usual sober but committed attitude towards his constituents and to ensuring that the wrongs of Grenfell are righted. It is nine years on and there is still no justice for the. The families of the Grenfell, with that reckoning, must come.

As I say, my constituency. Neighbours, Kensington, where Grenfell is, and many of my constituents live in high rise blocks. Only a few moments walk from. From Grenfell Tower. I want to. I'm also conscious of the fact that so much more needs to be done on. On fire safety, the APPG on fire safety and rescue has done a very good job in keeping this this issue alive, but it's quite clear from what we saw only a few days ago in Glasgow that the.

The danger from fire is great and new risks appear. Grenfell was an electrical fire. Many fires were electrical fires. But increasingly we have the danger from lithium batteries now. Explosive devices that anyone can take into their own home and which can. Which can wreak havoc. This debate today is specifically about the memorial. Let me just say very few words about that. It should obviously be the memorial committee and the the survivors and the community who determines exactly what form that that memorial takes.

But I do just want to take up one of the points that was made, which we must not allow people to forget what happened at Grenfell. Yes, I think we all appreciate now that the tower had to come down. But over the last nine years, for anybody who is in that part of London, anyone who travels on the the tube or drives past will be very much aware of the symbolism of that. And the. And the reality of it, the green heart on the side of the building.

And that is slowly shrinking and disappearing. And we mustn't allow memory of Grenfell to shrink or disappear. I noticed that the. The height of Grenfell Tower is almost identical to the height of the monument that was built to commemorate the Great Fire of London, and more than 350 years on, that is still not just a very visible symbol, but it is a. It's a reminder of the resilience of the city as well as the. Commemorating those who lost their lives.

And I would like to think that we do not forget, even after years of the century, go past the people who died in Grenfell and died needlessly in that way, and those of us who join from time to time, the silent walks that take place regularly know that the community won't forget. But it's important that none of us forget. And the reason for that is that memorials are about more than just tributes and just monuments in themselves. They are about ensuring justice takes place, but also that we do not repeat any of these disasters.

I know the Secretary of State said recently that 70% of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry will be implemented, I think, by the end of this year and all by the end of this Parliament, that over 90% of public buildings that had dangerous cladding have had that removed. Now, still, there is some way to go, even if that represents substantial progress. But it's absolutely vital. And I just want to again, draw attention to a couple of members have said in relation to public inquiries and coroner's reports and prevention of future deaths reports, and ensuring that the lessons are learned and that they are implemented.

So the call that has gone up around the hills for Bill and more generally for a national oversight mechanism and for there is already a register of preventing future deaths report, but there is nothing there to ensure that those recommendations recommendations are implemented. And there are also gaps in the system where the coroner's court, which frankly, is, I do not believe is fit for purpose in the 21st century, do not follow through. There is a certain randomness as to when a Prevention of Future Deaths report is ordered, and to how it is then monitored.

And the consequence is that events like Grenfell happen because events like Bracknell were not paid attention and heed to. And that is an extraordinary indictment for all of us here, because we pass the laws that regulate how those processes work. So yes, we need to look at escape and emergency. Yes, we need to look at design and construction projects, construction itself, and regulation. There are many, many lessons to be learned. We have to stop treating social housing and social housing tenants as second class, and we have to ensure that all the lessons of Grenfell are learned.

But I believe that that will only happen if we take the on the back of this bill tonight, on the back of the Hillsborough bill and on the back of the increasingly growing calls for national oversight mechanism, that we ensure the recommendations of all public inquiries. We spend millions on them. We think carefully about whether to set them up. But when it comes to ensuring that the outcomes of those are followed through, we are found wanting. And if that can be the lesson of Grenfell, then we can all feel a that something is being achieved out of the tragedy, but most importantly, that we are stopping these tragic and terrible events happening again.
20:10
Rosena Allin-Khan Portrait Dr Rosena Allin-Khan MP (Tooting, Labour)
-
-
Doctor Rosena Allin-Khan. Deputy Speaker. >> And I would like to associate myself with all of the comments made by my hon. Friends for Kensington and Bayswater and Hammersmith and Chiswick, and it is an honour to follow them. And I know this is not an issue of which there will be any contention at all between myself and the Secretary of State, who I know cares so deeply about this matter and like all of us in the House today, wants to see a swift and just resolution.

And today we debate a bill that touches on one of the deepest wounds. I believe in our national conscience and the fire at Grenfell Tower in June 2017, which claimed 72 lives, was nothing short of tragic. Men, women and children who today should still be with their families. Those empty spaces at tables, memories that will never be made, lives that were taken too soon. And almost nine years later, the hurt and the pain of that night remains raw.

And as my hon. Friends have said previously, the rest of the world has continued turning. But for many people, they are merely existing, not living due to the loss that they would have experienced that night. What happened that evening in Grenfell wasn't simply a tragedy. It was a catastrophe that was sadly entirely avoidable. Lives taken too soon due to foreseen circumstances, failures of regulation, failures of safety and failures of responsibility to the families and survivors watching this debate, either here in the House or on television, I want to say clearly that we all stand with you in the years since the fire.

Through their pain and their grief, they have fought for changes in the law, campaigned for accountability and demanded action. And for anyone who has lived through grief, knowing sometimes that putting one foot in front of the other on the best of days is hard enough, let alone campaigning for justice. And to prevent this ever happening to anyone again in the future. And while that fight isn't over yet, I want each of the family members to know that their work so far to ensure that this can never be allowed to happen again, has unequivocally saved lives.

The Grenfell Tower inquiry has laid bare the scale of the systemic failures that led to the fire warnings disregarded and residents concerns about fire safety fell on deaf ears. But it's really important to underscore that the structural inequalities in Grenfell are so stark. Of the residents who died in the fire, 85% of them were from ethnic minority backgrounds, 85%. The area surrounding the tower is home to some of the most expensive homes in Britain. Yet Grenfell Tower was neglected.

Its residents were marginalised, ignored and treated as an afterthought. And we cannot and must never allow these disparities to be ignored because they sowed the seeds of this disaster. The lessons of Grenfell must not simply be documented in reports and recommendations, only to be forgotten. They must be acted upon. The words we are uttering today, the thoughts and feelings and values of everything we have learned, and the people who we have held in our communities through this over the last nine years, that cannot be in vain, and families of the deceased have waited for too long as accountability has been kicked down the road, and those responsible for the decisions and failures must be held to account, they must.

Justice delayed. Excuse me. Justice delayed is painful, but justice denied would be absolutely unforgivable. The bill before us today is quite simply about remembrance, dignity and respect. Grenfell tower should serve as a place where those who are lost are never, ever forgotten. But it is essential that the memorial reflects the wishes of those most affected, those who have lost loved ones, those who survived the fire, and the community who live in its shadow. They must be at the very heart of the decisions around the future of Grenfell.

I would like to, if I may, take this opportunity to pay tribute to Denis Murphy, who lived on the 14th floor of Grenfell Tower and who has family in Tooting. In my constituency. Denis was one of the 72 lives lost that evening in 2017. I remember speaking to his son and sister in the days after the unimaginable pain, the unimaginable pain they went through, listening to Denis on the phone as the fire spread, Denis was categorically true to himself, trying to calm his neighbours and children, even though he knew his final moments were imminent.

I still remember afterwards how many parts of the system worked so well to support Denis family, but I also remember how the system added to the pain, with the DWP demanding benefit repayments off the family and so quickly afterwards when they haven't eaten, when they hadn't even had the funeral. And finally, I remember Denis funeral packed to the rafters, an entire community grieving but giving a great man an emotional yet beautiful send off the pain that his family went through.

The horrors of that night replicated another 71 times, must absolutely never be forgotten, and we cannot stop until, quite frankly, those responsible are jailed for their actions. We owe it to them, and everyone who lost their lives that fateful night. Grenfell must remain a turning point for this country. A permanent memorial will stand as a reminder of the lives lost, but it must also stand as a reminder to learn the lessons of Grenfell and as a reminder for the demands for justice.

The 72 people who lost their lives that night and their families deserve nothing less.
20:17
Mary Kelly Foy Portrait Mary Kelly Foy MP (City of Durham, Labour)
-
-
Mary Kelly Foy Deputy Speaker >> Mary Kelly Foy Deputy Speaker The creation of a permanent memorial to the people who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire is deeply important and necessary, and I welcome the bill before the House today. It's right that Parliament ensures that there's a lasting place of remembrance for the victims, the bereaved families, the heroic firefighters and emergency services and the community whose lives were changed forever. On that night.

Grenfell was an avoidable tragedy. It was the result of political choices made over many years, choices to weaken building safety regulations, to erode proper inspection and oversight, and a system and culture that allowed cost cutting to take precedence over the safety of human life. It was a national scandal caused by institutional failings at the highest level, and the result? An apartment building covered in flammable materials, allowing the fire to spread rapidly, reflecting with utter shame of the decisions that were made and which resulted in the death of 72 people.

And at the heart, Grenfell exposed the dangers of a deregulatory approach to the economy. When safeguards are stripped back in the name of efficiency or profit, it's too often working class communities who pay the price. Residents of the Grenfell Tower block had raised concerns about safety for years, as had the fire service. They warned about the risks and about the conditions in which they were living. Yet those warnings were repeatedly overlooked. The same year of the fire, I attended an international workers conference in Madrid, where one session focussed on health and safety, particularly looking at disasters in places where factories collapsed or fires spread because of safety standards being neglected.

Places in the global South. And when I mentioned Grenfell, delegates from Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Bangladesh and elsewhere already knew about it. They were shocked and horrified that something like this could happen in the United Kingdom, one of the richest countries in the world, and asked how on earth this could have happened. And that's why this memorial is at really matters. It must honour those who've died. It must support the bereaved families and recognise the deep and lasting impact on the community.

And I welcome the fact that the community will be involved in all stages of its design. But it should also stand as a reminder of the dark and deadly side of capitalism, and act as a lesson about the catastrophic consequences of neglect and safety regulations, of ignoring warnings of the people whose homes and lives were at risk. Those victims have waited long enough for justice. Those responsible must be held to account and must be prosecuted where necessary. Remembering Grenfell must mean more than remembrance alone.

It should force us to act quicker to ensure that everyone has a decent and safe home, and tragedies like Grenfell can never happen again.
20:20
Chris Vince Portrait Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )
-
-
Chris Vince thank. >> Chris Vince thank. >> You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I thank the Secretary of State for his opening to this debate and for his opening to this debate and his commitment to remember the 72 victims of this terrible tragedy and their families? And can I add my thanks to the. My hon. Friend from Kensington and Bayswater for an incredibly passionate speech, and I think actually his leadership in representing those communities that have been so dreadfully affected by this absolutely terrible tragedy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it's hard to believe that this was nearly nine years ago, whereas I was at home and then in my place of work, watching from afar, this these terrible events occur. My constituent, Rod Wainwright, who I have had the honour to mention in this place a number of times. Well, he wasn't he was on the front line, but he wasn't on duty. He was called in at 1 a.m. and spent 15 hours on the scene under near impossible conditions, without being relieved.

Rod still blames himself for not saying saving more people on that terrible night, but I add again and echo the comments made by my hon. Friends. It's people in suits, these faceless people in suits who are to blame for this terrible tragedy, and not heroes like Rod Wainright. Recent events in Harlow, where fire crews from across Essex came together to tackle a blaze and industrial unit where temperatures rose to 1700 degrees Celsius, made me recognise the incredible, difficult job that our fire fighters do and I want to put on record my thanks to them to deal with that issue so speedily and ensuring that no injuries happened.

In the Grenfell Tower tragedy, 72 people lost their lives and so many others like rod, had their life irreversibly changed. Now, members across this House may well question the timing. The recommendations of the inquiry have taken to be acted on. The challenges local authorities and local fire services face. Harlow has a number of high rise buildings. As you, as the Secretary will be aware and also the. The challenges faced by permitted development and. I've written to the Minister about those safety challenges some of them face, and no one.

But no one can deny. Madam Deputy Speaker, that this tragedy should, could, and must be a seminal moment not only for building safety, but also in how we think and treat everybody in our community. I welcome this government's commitment to a lasting memorial, and I recognise the hugely importance of this memorial being led by the community who have been so terribly affected and so terribly let down by this charity, this tragedy. And I absolutely welcome the cross-party consensus to ensuring we get this right.

I hope it will be a fitting tribute to the 72 people who lost their lives, their families and people like rod, whose lives were irreversibly scarred just because they stepped up to help and answered the call. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
20:24
Amanda Martin Portrait Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)
-
-
Amanda Martin thank you, Madam >> Amanda Martin thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fire at Grenfell Tower on the 14th of June Grenfell Tower on the 14th of June 2017 was a catastrophe that exposed systematic failures in regulation, in oversight and in the value placed on the lives of people in social housing. 72 people died. Hundreds more lost their homes, their community, their sense of safety. And families are still living with that loss every single day. Tragically, nothing we can do in this place can bring back those 54 adults and 18 children.

And as the Secretary of State noted in his statement, there is still so much to do to find truth, justice and to ensure it doesn't happen again. We owe it to those families, to the bereaved, to the survivors, to those who fought so hard for justice, to ensure that what happened on that dreadful night is never, ever forgotten, and that those responsible are held to account. But this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, is about the memorial, the foundation that will properly fund the community led work on this memorial and its narrowness, ensures it is the community who will choose the best way to do this.

I want to thank my hon. Friend from Kensington and Bayswater for his words, his work and his leadership for truth and justice. And I want to associate myself with his words that we cannot stop till we have accountability, justice and action for change. I represent Madam Deputy Speaker. Portsmouth North is a working class city that knows about close knit communities, about resilience in the face of loss, and about the importance of remembrance. And when I was a teacher before I came to this house, I spent years helping young people understand not just what happened in the past, but why it matters that we remember.

The archive, exhibition and memorial site will serve that purpose for generations to come. We must be able to look at what happened at Grenfell and understand why the safety of every person, in every home, in every tower block matters. And it is a responsibility that falls on all of us. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the survivors, the bereaved families and the community groups who have campaigned with such dignity, determination and such immense courage. They asked only to be safe in their homes, and they were horrifically let down by a chain of failures across government, regulators and industry.

And we should be clear about one of the lessons, and indeed, the title that comes out of the work of journalist Peter Apps in his brilliant book apps, noted for years before the fire, experts, campaigners and residents raised warnings about dangerous materials, weak fire safety rules in high rise buildings. Yet in the atmosphere of deregulation, the political drive to cut red tape, these warnings and indeed these people were repeatedly delayed, dismissed and ignored and at shockingly recounts how, when pressure was put on, officials to strengthen fire safety guidance, one response was chilling in its bluntness show me the bodies.

This imaginable, unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell is that the bodies did come. 72 lives were lost in a disaster that was not inevitable. But the results of choices made over many years to weaken oversight and treat safety regulations as a burden rather than a protection. Cutting red tape Madame Madam Deputy Speaker may have an attractive ring as a political soundbite, but red tape can also be the crucial regulation that keeps us safe in our homes, our cars, our workplaces, and our public realms.

Yeah, and with that tragic lesson at the front of our minds, it is right that the attention turns to a memorial. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, the least we can do is stand with the Grenfell survivors. The campaigners support their vision and together pass this legislation without delay. So we not only remember them today and in debates in this place, but into the future.
20:28
Gareth Bacon Portrait Gareth Bacon MP (Orpington, Conservative)
-
-
Hey. >> Hey. >> I call the. >> Shadow Minister Gareth Bacon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, With the leave of the House, I would like to thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their work today the Minister for their work today to shepherd this important bill through Second Reading. I also want to extend that, thanks to all of the hon. Members of the House who have contributed with thoughtful comments and points as we strive towards strive to work across the House to see this memorial realised. So my thanks to the hon.

Members for Kensington and Bayswater. Taunton and Wellington. Hammersmith and Chiswick, Tooting, City of Durham, Harlow and Portsmouth North for their comments during this debate. As I outlined earlier on, it is of great importance that the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War is remembered with a fitting and lasting memorial built in a peaceful and appropriate way, according to the wishes of the survivors and the wider Grenfell community. This memorial will go some way towards helping the nation to remember the 72 who lost their lives, but it is first and foremost a space for the Grenfell community.

The avoidable national tragedy that is the Grenfell Tower fire must also be an unavoidable memory in this place, because it is important that policy makers keep in mind the duty that we have to protect British citizens from failure, negligence and unsafe practices. As has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, we must not forget to remind ourselves of the raw emotion that comes with the creation of this memorial space. Since the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Lady, the Member for Newcastle under Lyme, understandably announced the decision to dismantle Grenfell Tower just over a year ago in February 2025.

We have heard of the distress this news brought to some members of the Grenfell community, so it is vital that as the government moves closer to fully dismantling the Grenfell site, it continues to engage with the bereaved and all those affected to ensure that voices are not just present but listen to and that their concerns, memories and experiences are understood. I have also raised the importance of this funding being protected. It is imperative that as the process to build and maintain the Grenfell Tower Fire Memorial progresses, the funding that has been promised and the means by which it can be preserved is also safeguarded.

Whilst our greatest duty is to build on the lessons of the failures that led to the catastrophic fire, it is also our sincere duty to uphold the promises made to the whole of the Grenfell community since that night, and it is for that reason, as I mentioned at the start of the Second Reading, this side of the House will not seek to divide, but if a division is required seems unlikely. But if it is, we will vote to pass the Bill into law to ensure that the memorial is built.

This memorial is not part of the technical and regulatory changes that had to come as a result of the fire, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, the Cladding Safety Scheme and all the effort undertaken by the government with specific regard to the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry's findings. And it's not possible. Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, to put right the disastrous wrong that occurred on the 14th of June 2017. But this memorial can help to appropriately commemorate it. We will therefore be in support of this bill today.
20:31
Samantha Dixon Portrait Samantha Dixon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Chester North and Neston, Labour)
-
-
I now call the Minister Minister Samantha Dixon. >> Hey. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I want to begin by thanking right, honourable and hon. Members from across the House for how they have approached today's debate. The care and the seriousness with which members have spoken reflects the weight of Grenfell's legacy. For bereaved families, for survivors, for the local community and for the country as a whole. Whatever our political differences, today's debate has shown a shared understanding that this bill is about the lasting impact of Grenfell on the national conscience.

It's about doing what's right and keeping faith with those most affected by the tragedy, and it's about the collective promise we made as parliamentarians that Grenfell would be remembered with dignity, truth and permanence. Before I turn to the points raised in the debate, I want to restate what this bill does. It's a simple bill with a simple purpose. It gives Parliament's authority for the spending needed on the Grenfell Tower memorial so it can be built, cared for and sustained over the long term.

It also approves the spending on another site where elements of the tower are laid to rest, preservation and also an archive and exhibition. The bill does not set the design or the location of the memorial, nor its covenants or how it's run. Because this bill is not about taking control, it's about supporting the community led work that's already underway and making sure it has the financial backing it needs. And I want to thank the members of the community who are watching this evening, and also the co-chair of the community for attending our debate this evening.

In this, the bill helps ensure that Grenfell is not forgotten and continues to support this government's wide ranging programme of reform. Members from across the House have raised different issues about the memorial itself, about the legacy for the future in terms of legislation, remediation, long term maintenance and the police's investigation. I want to pay tribute to everyone who's contributed today. I want to refer to the hon. Member from the opposition, for the Member for Orpington and to welcome his constructive approach and to agree with him that the victims are at the heart of this legislation and to reassure him that we can.

And also the Member for Kensington and Bayswater, that we continue to work with the local authority, with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to complete the refurbishment to to work as they complete the refurbishment works and to deliver for their residents. We must walk alongside that community and we will continue to do so. We must never lose sight of the people who are at the centre of this particular tragedy, and I just wanted to welcome the question from the Member for Taunton and Wellington about the Grenfell Project Fund, and to assure him this does not relate to the funding for the memorial, as he'll know, this is.

This fund is administered by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and I'd ask him to contact the council to confirm their ongoing support for this. As the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick pointed out, we will never forget and we should never forget, the Member for Tooting spoke most eloquently about how we should remember, and the Member for the City of Durham reminds us that this is about the whole of the country and the communities across our country, and how we respond to them.

We also, as the Member for Harlow pointed out, remember those who served on that day and the legacy that it leaves with them, too. And I particularly want to thank the Member for Portsmouth North for recognising the work of the journalist Peter Apps and that he has done in this particular respect for this community. He is well regarded, well respected and if no member has read. If any members have not read the book to which he refers, I would strongly recommend that they do so.

Grenfell was a devastating tragedy. Its impact has been international. As members have observed, as well as national. It has lasting consequences for everyone who is directly affected. The tragedy exposes serious failures, and. It also left searching questions that the state continues to answer the responsibility to remember Grenfell and to do so properly rests with all of us. As right, honourable and hon. Members have said, this bill does not address every issue to arise since that terrible night of the 14th of June 2017.

Nor does it intend to. There still is a great deal of work to do elsewhere on justice, accountability, reform and making home safe. I remain committed to that work and to acting on the Grenfell inquiry recommendations so that they lead to lasting change. This bill instead has a different, more focussed role. It supports the community in creating a memorial, a place of remembrance by making sure it can be properly funded with Parliament's consent. I am grateful to members from all parties who have spoken in support of the Bill,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I commend it to the House for. The question is that the bill be. Now read a second time. As many as I say, I. I of the contrary, no. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. Money, motion to be moved formally. Money, motion to be moved formally. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many that say on the Order Paper as many that say I. I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Order. Under the allocation of time order today, we now move to the Committee of the whole House. Order. Order. Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill.
20:38
20:39
Samantha Dixon Portrait Samantha Dixon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Chester North and Neston, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Clause one is the co operative provision in the Bill. It provides the government with the statutory authority required for the government for expenditure on the construction and long term management of a Grenfell Tower Memorial. It also authorises expenditure on preservation and archive exhibition and any site where elements of the Grenfell Tower are laid to rest. It also permits land acquisition in support of those activities where needed, and for work to be done on that land.

It ensures that all expenditure for these purposes is properly authorised by Parliament in accordance with established public finance principles. The clause does not determine the design of the memorial, the planning process, governance or ownership arrangements. All decision making responsibilities. The design remains with the community led Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and construction is subject to the statutory planning framework. The clause is tightly focussed, allowing the government to incur expenditure on the activities I have identified to the Committee. Clause two.

Madam chairman provides the short title of the act. The short title will be the Grenfell Tower Memorial Expenditure Act 2026. I commend these clauses to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee. The question is clause one stand part of the Bill? As many of that part of the Bill? As many of that opinion say, I. I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. The question is that clause two, some part of the bill, as many that say I. I. I of the contrary, no. the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Order, order. That concludes proceedings Order, Order, order. Order, order. Whip Order, order. Whip to report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to report that the. Committee has gone through the bill and directed me to report the same.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Without amendment. Under the order of the House of today, we now move to Third Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now Minister move. Third Reading. Form I move formally. The question is that the bill be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be. Now read a third time the. As many opinions say, I. I of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. That concludes that bit of business. Do the front benchers want to shuffle over before I go through the exercise, or they can through the exercise, or they can We have two We have two S's. We have two S's. I We have two S's. I would We have two S's.

I would leave We have two S's. I would leave the house. I'll take them together. OK. Motion number five, public procurement. Motion number six on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

electricity. Minister to move. The. The question is, as on the order papers that say I. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I of the contrary, no. the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it, the ayes have it. Thank you. This house do now I do beg this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This house do now I do beg this house now to adjourn. I beg to move this house. Do now adjourn. The question is that this house do now adjourn. We have Douglas Alexander on Compensation Act 2006 and asbestos related lung cancer. Douglas McAllister.
20:43
None Portrait Adjournment: Compensation Act 2006 and asbestos related lung cancer
-

Yeah. I move the adjournment debate on the subject of the Compensation Act 2006 and asbestos related lung
20:43
Douglas McAllister Portrait Douglas McAllister MP (West Dunbartonshire, Labour)
-
-
cancer, because I wish to bring to the attention of this House an injustice in the way the law treats injustice in the way the law treats victims of asbestos related disease, and to urge the government to review the operation of section review the operation of section three of the Compensation Act 2006 to ensure it supports sufferers of asbestos related lung cancer. A simple change in the law will ensure that all victims of lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work are treated equally to those suffering from mesothelioma.

Although asbestos has been banned in the United Kingdom for more than 25 years, it is deadly. Legacy continues each year. Around 5000 people in Great Britain die from cancers caused by asbestos exposure at work. It remains the single biggest workplace killer in the country. In my constituency of West Dunbartonshire, this issue is particularly prevalent. My constituency is among Europe's worst hotspots for deaths linked to a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work, with more than 340 deaths since 1980, I have lived in Clydebank all of my life and have seen first hand the devastating effects of asbestos.

This issue is deeply personal to the community I represent. I have worked closely with the Clydebank Asbestos Group for a number of years, an organisation which does so much to fight for truth and justice for sufferers of asbestos related illness. Towns such as Clydebank and Dumbarton and the surrounding villages were built on heavy industry and, above all, on the proud tradition of shipbuilding along the River Clyde. Generations of local men and women worked in the great yards such as John Brown and Company, and in the engineering works, factories and power stations that supported them.

Those industries built ships that sailed the world and powered Britain's economy. But they also exposed thousands of workers to asbestos without adequate protection. They trusted their employers to keep them safe, and in too many cases, that trust was betrayed. To give a bit of background context, the origins of section three of the Compensation Act 2006 lie in a series of court decisions that exposed a serious problem in the law for victims of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos.

In the case of Fairchild against Glenhaven funeral Services, the House of Lords recognised the unique position these victims face. Asbestos diseases can develop decades after exposure, and because it is impossible to identify which particular fibre caused the illness, the court accepted that it should be enough for a claimant to show that an employer had materially increased the risks of the disease. However, a later ruling in Barker against Corus UK created a new difficulty by deciding that employers should only be liable for their share of the risk.

In practice, that meant victims could lose a large part of their compensation if some employers or their insurers could no longer be traced. Parliament recognised that this outcome was deeply unfair and rightly acted quickly to unanimously pass the Compensation Act 2006, ensuring that people suffering from mesothelioma could recover full compensation from any one negligent employer. Section three of that act, therefore, created a crucial protection that allows victims of mesothelioma to recover full compensation from any one negligent employer, even if other former employers or their insurers cannot be traced.

That reform was passed with unanimous support because members recognised that people diagnosed with a terminal asbestos related cancer should not be forced to pursue complex claims against multiple

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employers, while facing an extremely limited life expectancy. My honourable. Friend, please give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend, please give way. Yes, I'll give way to my hon. Friend. My honourable. Friend for giving way. He's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend for giving way. He's making a very powerful argument. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole reasoning of section three of whole reasoning of section three of the Compensation Act was because of the difficulty in identifying the difficulty in identifying employers who actually expose the claimant to the particular fibres that caused mesothelioma? And it is a huge anomaly that that section should apply to mesothelioma cases caused by asbestos, but doesn't apply to other people who've developed lung cancer due to asbestos.

And so this is an injustice that should really be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remedied as soon as possible. Yes, yes. Can I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention? He is, of course, quite correct. Can I also recognise his obvious expertise in this his obvious expertise in this matter? I believe that my hon. Friend practice law and in particular personal injury prior to being elected to this House and I thank him for his intervention and for all he does for his for all he does for his constituents in Wolverhampton West. I will give way to Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the beginning of the debate. 90s. I believe 90s. Mr. Faster next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

90s. I believe 90s. Mr. Faster next time, Mr. Shannon. I run the hallway. Can I first of all congratulate the hon. Gentleman for West Dunbartonshire for bringing this forward over the years as elected representative, years as elected representative, madam chair, as a councillor and as an MLA back in Northern Ireland, I had a number of constituents who had unfortunately succumbed to to mesothelioma and lung cancer as a result of working in Harland and Wolff in the in the shipyards.

Over the years, there were things that took maybe ten, 20 years to to catch up on them. But does he agree? Looking we perhaps maybe the Minister could look towards Northern Ireland. What has happened there? I think it's ever trying to be helpful. Symptoms and negligent causes are similar in Northern Ireland has its own set of guidelines. It's what they call the Green Book to assess damages, general damages for lung cancer and mesothelioma in Northern Ireland are typically estimated between 125,000 and 250,000.

The distinction between the treatments remains in place, so it does a member not agree, as I think he does, that the loophole must be closed once and for all. And tonight, perhaps we can start that by the Minister doing just that very thing. Madam, can I thank you very much for letting me in? You're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very kind. Would it be a German debate? Would it without Mr. Jim Shannon? Douglas McAllister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Douglas McAllister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member is, of course, correct. And can I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his intervention? He is correct to recognise this point, and this is recognise this point, and this is an issue which, of course, cuts across the United Kingdom and all across the United Kingdom and all nations, and not least in Northern Ireland, with the very rich and proud shipbuilding past. And I thank him for his very considerate intervention this evening.

The difficulty, of course, is that the same principle does not apply to sufferers of asbestos related lung cancer, despite the fact that the diseases are strikingly similar. Both are caused by asbestos exposure and have incredibly similar symptoms. To the extent that medical professionals struggle to differentiate between the two, both are devastating and often fatal. In fact, around 60% of people diagnosed with asbestos related lung cancer die within a year, which is a higher proportion than those diagnosed with methyl thelioma.

Yet the law treats the victims of these two diseases very differently when it comes to compensation. That difference is not based on medical evidence or moral principle. It exists simply because asbestos related lung cancer cases were not considered. When the legislation was introduced in 2006. I would ask the Minister, when she responds, whether or not she agrees this situation is irrational and unfair. I want to emphasise that this debate is not to do with the legality of proving whether the cancer is asbestos related or not.

It is specifically related to cases where the patient has been formally diagnosed with asbestos related lung cancer. For people with asbestos related lung cancer, the current legal framework creates a significant and deeply unfair obstacle. In many cases, individuals who are exposed to asbestos by multiple employers over the course of their working lives. Under the current legal framework, compensation must be apportioned between different employers responsible according to the extent to which each contributed to the risk of the disease.

Victims must therefore bring claims against every employer responsible in order to recover full compensation. Of course, the problem is that these illnesses often develop 30 or 40 years after exposure, and by that point, many employers no longer exist. Companies have closed, industries have declined, and insurance records have been lost or destroyed. As a result, victims are frequently unable to trace every employer or their insurer who exposed them to asbestos. When that happens, they are only able to recover the proportion of compensation attributable to the employers that can be traced.

This means that people suffering from a terminal disease can lose substantial amounts of compensation, simply because some negligent employers have disappeared over time. Madam Deputy Speaker, this double standard of sorts has had profound consequences. There are numerous cases where victims have lost tens of thousands of pounds in compensation because former employers could not be traced. The shortfall in compensation payments can be seen clearly in one case in England and Wales, compensation that should have amounted to £112,000 was reduced by more than £76,000.

In another case, a victim lost almost 70% of the compensation that would otherwise have been awarded across 33 documented cases concluded over the past seven years. The total compensation lost in this way amounts to less than £900,000, so this is not a vast sum in the context of the wider compensation system. But for the families involved, it would make the world of difference to their quality of life at a time of immense hardship. One case that illustrates the human impact particularly clearly is that of James Leo Hennigan.

Mr. Hennigan was born in 1938 and spent much of his working life exposed to asbestos dust. He died from lung cancer in 2013. After his death, his son, Carl Hennigan, pursued a claim for compensation on behalf of the family. Six of Mr. Hennigan's former employers were successfully traced and admitted liability for exposing them to asbestos. However, several other employers who had also exposed him to asbestos could not be found and neither could their insurers. As a result, although the full value of the claim was £170,000, the family received just £61,100.

Nearly two thirds of the compensation was effectively lost. Had Mr. Hennigan been diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer strikingly similar to asbestos related lung cancer, his family would have received full compensation. The disease itself did not affect Mr. Hennigan any less severely because some employers could not be traced. The suffering endured by his family could have been eased, but because of the specific terms set out in section three of the act, their rightful compensation was slashed. The solution to this problem is simple and not unprecedented.

Parliament has already established the appropriate legislative model, extending the principle contained in section three of the Compensation Act to asbestos related lung cancer would allow victims to recover full compensation from any one negligent employer or insurer. The responsibility would then fall on that employer or insurer to pursue contributions from other responsible parties. This approach ensures that compensation is delivered quickly and in full to the person who needs it most, while still allowing the cost to be shared appropriately.

Amongst those responsible, it is important to emphasise that the scale of this reform would be modest. Specialist practitioners estimate that fewer than 100 asbestos related lung cancer claims are brought each year, and only a portion of those would involve missing employers. The number of people affected is therefore relatively small, but for those individuals and their families, the consequences would be great. Beyond giving compensation to those who rightly deserve it, the small change to the Compensation Act has wider benefits beyond the individual claimants.

Patients with asbestos related lung cancer often need a lot of care and support. With adequate compensation, they could afford additional care, specialist equipment or medical treatments that might not be immediately available through the NHS. This would give patients the dignity and choice they deserve and ease the pressure on already stretched public services, making sure negligent employers and insurers pay the full compensation would also prevent the burden from falling on the state. Through the benefit system. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder the financial consequences of workplace negligence.

The 2006 Compensation Act was a great piece of legislation brought in under the previous Labour government. It just contains an unintentional oversight, one that is easily rectified. Parliament did not deliberately choose to treat victims differently, but because the space is related, lung cancer was simply not considered when the law was changed in response to legal developments concerning mesothelioma. So there is a gap in the legislation. Closing that gap would not require a fundamental overhaul of the law. It would simply involve extending an existing and widely supported principle to a closely related group of victims.

It is a simple solution, one that comes down to fairness. There is absolutely no justification for treating sufferers of asbestos related lung cancer any differently from sufferers of mesothelioma. When compensation cannot be recovered from some employers because they have disappeared, who should bear the financial burden? At the moment, that burden falls on the victims suffering asbestos related lung cancer. The law should allow those people to recover full compensation from any employer responsible. That employer can then seek a contribution to the damages awarded from other responsible employers or insurers.

In my frequent meetings with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, I have heard personal stories about how this has affected people in my community and across the United Kingdom. It is outrageous that victims and their families are not being given the support, the dignity and rightful compensation they deserve. The time for sufferers of asbestos related lung cancer to receive the same recognition as those with mesothelioma is long overdue. It is incredibly significant and appropriate that we debate this today, because 2026 marks 20 years since the last Labour government introduced the Compensation Act, 20 years of sufferers of asbestos related lung cancer are not getting the compensation they rightly deserve, and it is time to make that change.

So can I ask the Minister, will she agree to meet with me, work with me and the other relevant organisations involved with this issue to discuss how we can review and make the necessary improvements by way of amendment to the 2006 Compensation Act, so that people suffering from asbestos related lung cancer and their families can finally access the full and fair compensation they deserve. Thank you madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the Minister Sarah Sackman. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to start by thanking the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire on securing this debate this evening. securing this debate this evening. I think we've all been treated to a fine and thoughtful speech. He is, fine and thoughtful speech. He is, without doubt a tireless advocate for his constituency, for Clydebank,
20:59
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
for his constituency, for Clydebank, for Dumbarton and the communities so ravaged by the diseases which he has described. And I want to start by extending my sympathies to all of those who've suffered with asbestos related diseases made sick by their places of work and the conditions in which they should have been kept safe. There's no doubt that this is an incredibly important issue, and one which involves a complicated area of law where the common law and legislation have developed a complex and nuanced set of rules.

Let me start by setting out the general position on causation and liability in negligence claims, the usual test for causation and negligence claims is the. But for test. This is whether the claimant's harm would have happened. But for the defendant's breach in the duty of care owed to the claimant. If the claimant proves, on the balance of probabilities that it would not have occurred without the breach, then causation is established and causation in industrial injury litigation that involves exposure to asbestos can be particularly complex, given that the claimant's condition will have normally been caused by a prolonged exposure to asbestos and in many incidents by several different employers.

When determining liability and compensation, the courts draw a distinction between divisible and indivisible industries. It excuse me, injuries in England and Wales. Liability and compensation for divisible industrial diseases. This is where the condition worsens with long term exposure and is apportioned between previous employers, with each defendant liable only for the period of negligent exposure they caused. In the context of industrial injuries. Indivisible diseases are conditions where the harm is treated as a single whole injury because it cannot be medically or causally divided between different workplace exposures.

It's usually impossible to know which specific exposure caused the injury. Under the normal rules, this would mean an employee who worked at different companies would likely fail in any legal claim, because they cannot prove which employer caused them harm. Mesothelioma, for example, is treated as an indivisible disease. As my hon. Friend has already eloquently set out, there have been a number of legal developments in recent years regarding liability and compensation for mesothelioma in the Fairchild and Glenhaven Funeral Services Limited case, the House of Lords created a special rule for cases such as mesothelioma, where a claimant has been negligently exposed to asbestos by multiple employers but cannot prove which exposure caused the disease.

In such cases, if an employer negligently exposed a worker to asbestos and thereby materially increased the risk of mesothelioma, they can be held liable. Even if the claimant cannot prove that this employer's exposure actually caused the cancer. In short, the materially increased risk test replaced the but for test. However, as was noted in the Barker and Chorus case, the House of Lords accepts it. Accepted that the Fairchild exception. That is, the materially increased risk test still applied. But it also addressed the consequences of that liability.

The court held that defendants were not jointly and severally liable as had previously been understood, but instead liable only on a proportionate basis, reflecting their respective contributions to the overall risk. In response, Parliament acted with cross-party consensus to enact the Compensation Act 2006 and this, as we've heard, reversed the effect of Barker and chorus for mesothelioma claims. Section three of the act reinstated the principle that victims could claim full compensation from any liable party, who can then seek contributions from others responsible for the exposure.

This is vital in mesothelioma cases, specifically, as it's not possible to establish which workplace fibres triggered the process of carcinogenesis. Equally, there is no action an individual can take that increases or decreases their chances of developing the disease. At the time of passing the 2006 act, the broad political consensus was that due to the unique pathology of mesothelioma, the Barker ruling had to be reversed. Otherwise, there was a real risk of claimants being unable to seek the compensation that they deserved.

As such, it was decided that as a unique disease, mesothelioma required a distinct legal remedy. But as we've heard in terms of the life changing effects, an ill health that asbestos related lung cancer can bring, in reality, the distinctions for many sufferers is little different for other mesothelioma claims, and the situation in the Barker ruling still applies to them. This was affirmed in the Hennigan case. Hennigan and Manchester Dry Docks Limited, where it was held that the materially increased risk test for Fairchild applies to these claims.

While the joint and severally liable principle introduced by section three of the Compensation Act is limited only to claims relating to mesothelioma, broadly, the courts accept that the materially increased risk test is proven for these claims. If medical evidence shows the asbestos exposure more than doubled the relative risk. This area of law is a mix of devolved and reserved issues, with the Scottish Parliament agreeing through a legislative consent motion to UK wide legislation with regard to what became section three of the Compensation Act of 2006, I want to assure my hon.

Friend and the House that the UK government is committed to ensuring that the necessary support is available to all individuals suffering from asbestos related conditions, including asbestos related lung cancer. Eligible individuals can receive Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. This is a weekly no fault payment for work related diseases such as asbestos related lung cancer, and the Scottish Government plans to replace the IIDB with employment injury assistance and work is underway to manage that transition. Whilst the UK government has no immediate plans to review the current legal framework in England, Wales, which has been the subject of much detailed analysis and determination in the senior courts.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the attention that he has put on this issue, and we have had the chance to speak outside of the chamber about how the law might be developed, and I am grateful to him for tabling this debate and for giving me the opportunity to set out the UK government's position in what is without doubt a complex and intricate area of law, but one which also, without doubt, has a significant impact on the lives of those who suffer from industrial related diseases.

In response to his question, dare I say challenge to me? I would agree, of course, to meet with my hon. Friend and relevant organisations to discuss how the law might be reviewed to ensure that sufferers and their families can be treated fairly. I think that is the right and careful approach, and it's one that I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to working with them on. The question is that the House do now adjourn, as many say, I. The ayes have it, the ayes have it.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page