Commons Chamber

Tuesday 15th September 2026

(began 8 hours, 9 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Well, again, the hon. Gentleman, the Shadow Secretary seeks to run ahead of the process that's going ahead of the process that's going on at the moment. It is very important that Parliament has the opportunity to consider this really, really important legislation. really important legislation. Exactly in the spirit that he talks about, we are now what, through the Second Reading process of that. I've been in this place nine years I've been in this place nine years now, and I would say that legislation at the beginning very rarely looks like the same at the end.

My offer to him, my indeed, my offer to colleagues across the House is to engage in that conversation. If they have concerns

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and wish to see things changed, let's have that conversation. Nick Timothy. I asked the Justice Secretary to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I asked the Justice Secretary to rule out reducing access to jury trials, and the House will have noticed that he didn't do that. noticed that he didn't do that. We're not talking about something insignificant. We're talking about an ancient English right, something an ancient English right, something dating back to Magna Carta. Just like with Labour's early release disaster, the new Prime Minister disaster, the new Prime Minister told everybody he didn't like it, wouldn't do it, but never got round to working out what to do.

Instead, the justice Secretary once again has made much of his desire to work together constructively, although I have to say I haven't seen much of it yet in our correspondence. So it yet in our correspondence. So will he publish? Will he publish the full details of the new plan now, or does he still not know what now, or does he still not know what it is?
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
Alex Norris Portrait Rt Hon Alex Norris MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
I welcome the new chair, the Select Committee. >> Catherine Atkinson thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government's progress on deporting foreign national offenders is welcome, but how will the Minister work with the Home Office to ensure that receiving countries are informed of the convictions of offenders, particularly those involving violence, sexual offending or exploitation, so that they have the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

information that they need to keep their public safe? I'm grateful for that question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for that question. I congratulate my hon. Friend, I have a double degree of anxiety. She, of course, is a former Ministry of Justice Minister will Ministry of Justice Minister will know very well of what she speaks, but also as a Derby MP, it creates a Derby Nottingham rivalry across a Derby Nottingham rivalry across the Select Committee room that I have a degree of trepidation about, but I know how excellently she will do that job. I've known her well and she is brilliant.

She makes a very important question here. You know, we have made significant strides in the removal of foreign offenders from this country, of which we make no apology for. We want to go further and again, make no apology for that either. But to do that well and in a way that endures over the years, we need to work as well as possible with receiving countries. So we want them to have the best information as early as possible. That's why as early as possible. That's why we're working with the Home Office and the Foreign Office in that venture, so that we can safely and securely remove people in a way securely remove people in a way that we can keep doing over the years ahead.
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:01
None Portrait Q11. What steps he is taking to improve programmes that reduce reoffending. (901369)
-

Monica Harding question 11, please, Mr. speaker.
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:07
None Portrait Q12. What assessment he has made of the risks to children and families from the use of unregulated child contact centres. (901370)
-

Alison Hume question.
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:16
None Portrait Q16. What steps he is taking to help tackle backlogs at Croydon Crown Court. (901375)
-

Luke Taylor de Mr Speaker.
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
None Portrait Q17. What steps he has taken to ensure the equitable regional distribution of residential properties used by the Probation Service during the early release scheme. (901376)
-

Mr.
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the impact of the Government’s proposed overnight visitor levy on the tourism and hospitality sectors in England
-

12:39
Jim McMahon Portrait Jim McMahon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, Labour )
-
-
Let's just come to the Urgent Question Rebecca Paul. >> Mr Speaker to ask the Minister for housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the impact of the government's proposed overnight

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government's proposed overnight visitor levy on the tourism and hospitality sectors in England. By Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, the government published its response to the consultation on its response to the consultation on the overnight visitor levy, the Rewiring the State Cabinet announcement committed to delivering good growth in every part of the United Kingdom, and the visitor levy supports this ambition by empowering local leaders to deliver transformational investment, building the reputation of areas across England as world leading destinations. Local leaders will be destinations. Local leaders will be able to choose to introduce a levy as a way to raise money to support growth in their regions, including in the visitor economy.

Visitor levies are common in Europe and the rest of the world. All over the G7 countries already have some form of tourism or overnight accommodation levy in place. The government have decided that both foundation authorities and mayoral authorities will be empowered to raise a levy to support growth in their areas. This approach means that places without a mayor will also be able to invest in their region, making them better places for residents and businesses as well, as well as for people who visit and enjoy their areas.

The levy will be set as a percentage of accommodation costs, and that means that low cost stays remain low cost, while those who can afford to contribute more will be able to contribute more to the places where they visit. Strategic authorities will be required to consult before introducing a visitor levy. This will inform their decision on whether to introduce a levy, how much it would cost and how revenues would then be spent. We expect that local leaders will be able to set out plans for how revenues will be invested by early 2028, and to introduce a levy before the end of this Parliament.

The government is engaged with the tourism and hospitality sectors throughout the consultation, and we will continue to do so as the legislation is developed. Because of these changes, the Labour Government is introducing. It will mean more money to be invested in our high streets and our public transport system, and England's tourism hotspots will directly benefit from footfall from visitors to improve their areas for people living there too. Thank you.
12:41
Rebecca Paul Portrait Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
-
Rebecca Paul AEA. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let's call this what it is. Labour's holiday tax. Although we knew it was coming, we never expected it to be uncapped. This government has already hammered hospitality with higher employment costs and business rates. Almost 89,000 hospitality jobs have gone. And now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. Yeah. If you tax something, you get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If you tax something, you get less of it. So if we tax tourism we will get less tourism. It's not will get less tourism. It's not complicated and less tourists mean fewer jobs. UK hospitality fewer jobs. UK hospitality estimates that up to 33,000 jobs will go along, with over 2 billion will go along, with over 2 billion wiped from the economy. And these job losses will hit young people hardest who are already struggling to secure those all important first roles.

And, Mr. Speaker, don't make the mistake of thinking this is just a tax on foreign visitors. Tax Policy Associates estimates that trips by British tourists will generate 63% of the revenue from this levy. This is a tax on hard working British families, a weekend away, a family holiday a few nights by the seaside. This will all cost more. Every pound taken in this tax is a pound families don't spend in the local pub, restaurant, cafe, shop or attraction.

And it's not just Brits on a staycation impacted, it's anyone staying overnight for any reason. So visiting a sick relative or going away on business or travelling for medical treatment, why on earth should these people be taxed simply for going about their daily lives? It is not fair. The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised to give breathing space to households struggling, struggling with the cost of living. Yet this tax does the exact opposite. British hospitality does not need another tax.

Hard working families do not need another tax. Young people looking for work do not need another tax. The government must scrap the holiday tax.
12:43
Jim McMahon Portrait Jim McMahon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, Labour )
-
-
The Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So where do we start? We are not starting from year zero. I think the idea that somehow under the the idea that somehow under the previous conservative government, there was somehow the good days for our pubs, our hospitality our pubs, our hospitality industries and our tourism economy. Just think of the thousands of pubs that closed on their watch. Just think about the bars and the restaurants and the live music venues that were left standing by themselves because they were themselves because they were ignored by the government of the day.

But now they have a government onside, which is why we've introduced measures already into this government to give pubs and live music venues that 20% business rate cut, and we have a targeted investment in our town centres and our high streets. But in the end, you can't go to a corner of England and not look at a country that was impacted by all those years of austerity and the lack of investment that went alongside it. And so the question is, do we just accept that decline is inevitable, that the rot that the Conservatives allowed to set in large parts of this country is now a permanent fixture of our national character, or we decide that there's a different route that can be taken where we invest in our economies, we invest in growth, and importantly, that we see this through the prism of this new spirit of devolution, because there is no mandation of this area is not being made to introduce a levy at all.

It's down to local leaders to make the right call for their areas to consult on those decisions and importantly, to present back to their community where the investment will go. And this won't just benefit people who visit in that investment, in those tourism hotspots in particular, and our great cities, our countryside and our rural economies will benefit also the people that live there, because they'll get the better neighbourhood services provided too. neighbourhood services provided too. And in the end, everyone will win.
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:50
Jim McMahon Portrait Jim McMahon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, Labour )
-
-
Well, as I already said, this is for local areas to decide if it's right for their place. And importantly, in reference to whether this is a new tax law or not, of course, every every tax is a tax. On the face of it. The that to be proportionate to their local area, for them to an impact assessment of the levy that's being proposed, and importantly, to set out where that money is being invested and in places where there's not a levy in place.

Just think about, well, who pays for the impact of tourism, who puts on the events and the performances that bring people into the local area, and what is that wider experience? And I would say if we think about where we go on holiday, and I went away to North Yorkshire for summer, my experience wasn't just the accommodation that we stayed in. It was visiting the local village and the local town and driving around the local area. And so we just need to think about that.

Visitor experience is wider than just the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accommodation where they stay. It's Toale. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As someone who represents a seaside constituency in Bournemouth West, the vast majority of my hoteliers are supportive of an overnight levy, are supportive of an overnight levy, in part because BCP Council has axed its standalone tourism department and because we get 10 department and because we get 10 million visitors every summer and no increase in resources to deal with that. Yeah. And the Minister, in his opening remarks, mentioned in his opening remarks, mentioned that most other G7 and European nations also have some sort of overnight levy.

We're really used to that. If you've travelled in Europe. So can you tell us what lessons the government has taken from these experiences overseas?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Minister. I congratulate her for the champion that she does for Bournemouth and reflect as well Bournemouth and reflect as well that the experience there, in terms of the cuts to local government over many years has impacted on over many years has impacted on those on the ground services that would have been provided, both on neighbourhood services, in terms of that quality of place and also that that quality of place and also that economy focus on tourism, and we need to start rebuilding that.

And this is one way, potentially, of this is one way, potentially, of doing some of that. And in terms of the lessons learned, there are places that might approach this from a like a flat rate. So it doesn't matter where you go. Everyone will pay, say £5 or whatever. But actually, we believe
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:55
12:56
None Portrait Mr Speaker
-

12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:01
Jim McMahon Portrait Jim McMahon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, Labour )
-
-
Minister says this is a framework. >> Are larger mayoral areas. For example, in my own area in East Yorkshire and Hull, can he guarantee that any money raised in a town like Bridlington or Hornsea a town like Bridlington or Hornsea is spent there and not spent in a larger conurbation, such as the city of Hull, and make sure that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a national framework for any. Any mayor who wishes to introduce such a tourist tax. AEA Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, it's certainly for the foreseeable future that there's no intention to introduce a tourism intention to introduce a tourism levy in that area. Well, who, who who knows? There may well be a change of heart, let's say, in the change of heart, let's say, in the future. Listen, in the spirit of devolution, I don't think it's right for a government to impose terms and conditions and in a way terms and conditions and in a way that binds local areas, doing what they instinctively believe is right for their area.

But equally, they will have to present the plan through the consultation. They'll have to do the impact assessment and they'll need to get local agreement to do that. And surely agreement to do that. And surely the best democratic, if you like, accountability framework are elections. And the thing about elections. And the thing about mayors is that they are directly elected and accountable to the voting public.
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
Chris Murray Portrait Chris Murray MP (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, Labour)
-
-
Well, he seems to be getting ahead of the review that he just asked for, in a sense and predetermining that this somehow isn't a positive measure. Listen, because this is a framework and it's about devolved powers, clearly the impact assessment has to be done within the areas where this done within the areas where this has been introduced. Until you know where it's been introduced, you can't do a national assessment of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this impact by the nature of it. Chris Murray. I don't understand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't understand. The Edinburgh Festival Fringe in my constituency are world class tourist attractions, and I know that the House understands this because I bumped into about half of members in August. It is. Edinburgh members in August. It is. Edinburgh is the third biggest ticketed event in the world after the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics. And this Cup and the Olympics. And this summer Edinburgh Edinburgh became the first place in the UK to implement a city wide visitor levy of 5%, which will raise £50 million to invest in the local economy, to benefit tourists and locals.

And this year, despite the implementation of it, we actually saw a ticket sales increase by 8%. Now it's still a work in progress. But will the Minister meet me and But will the Minister meet me and officials from Edinburgh to understand our learning from from the visitor levy, and we're welcome the visitor levy, and we're welcome to invite any sceptics as well, sir.
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:13
Noah Law Portrait Noah Law MP (St Austell and Newquay, Labour)
-
-
Well, I think he makes the case here about why the percentage rate approach is so important. It's fair approach is so important. It's fair to say that there are large parts of our tourism economy that provide that low cost, but good quality family experience. And actually a percentage rate means that they will pay proportionately less than, will pay proportionately less than, you know, hotels here in the capital. And I think that's right and proper. And it will be a requirement that all areas will carry out an impact assessment to understand the impact on their local economies, and then also to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

present where the investment will go afterwards. Noah Law Madam Deputy Speaker. Any devolution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of powers, investment or fiscal policy down to Cornwall is welcome, which is why I'm pleased our government is progressing ahead to government is progressing ahead to give us the powers to raise a visitor levy. Whether or not Cornwall Council should choose to go ahead and utilise that levy. But, go ahead and utilise that levy. But, as you might expect, representing an area with a significant visitor economy, it's my expectation that economy, it's my expectation that that money not only be invested well, but that it is done to support the common goods on which businesses in that sector and the communities they operate in rely on.

So can the Minister assure me that So can the Minister assure me that the manner in which the levy will be raised remains flexible, so local leaders can use it in a way that's appropriate to the area, and that's appropriate to the area, and it doesn't just recycle back into Cornwall Council's.
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:26
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, if she will make a statement on the implications of the closure of the Saudi East-West oil pipeline for UK energy security, fuel prices and global oil supply, and on the steps the Government is taking in response
-

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if she will make a statement on the implications of the closure of the Saudi East-West oil pipeline for UK energy security, fuel prices and global oil supply, and on the steps global oil supply, and on the steps the government is taking in response.
13:26
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Firstly, the United Kingdom strongly condemns the Houthis decision to resume conflict in decision to resume conflict in Yemen and their recent attacks on Saudi Arabia, including the targeting of civilian and energy infrastructure. We offer our condolences to those injured and affected and stand with Saudi affected and stand with Saudi Arabia, the internationally recognised government of Yemen and our partners in the region. I know my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken with his Saudi counterpart, as has the national security Adviser.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are closely monitoring the situation as part of our overall response to the situation in the Middle East and the disruption to the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi authorities confirmed over the weekend that the East West oil pipeline is temporarily closed following an attack on 11th September. The Saudi government has not yet provided further information on the duration of the closure. The pipeline enables Saudi crude oil to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, and since the start of the Middle East conflict, it has been used to reroute a significant share of exports.

This temporary pause comes at a time of rising prices, and I know that many in this House and the public will be worried about the potential impacts. Fuel supplies to the UK have remained resilient since the start of the conflict. As people across the country would expect us to do, the government will mitigate, where possible, the potential impacts on our economy and on our domestic security, and we will continue working closely with industry and with devolved governments on detailed contingency planning for all events.

We are working tirelessly Madam Deputy Speaker with our international partners to find a permanent solution to the conflict and to minimise the knock conflict and to minimise the knock on impact on households, and we will keep looking at what more we can do to insulate families from the effect of rising energy bills.
13:28
Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Tim Farron. the Minister for his reply. Saudi's closure of the 1200 kilometre East West pipeline is a massive blow. This is the pipeline that allowed Saudi Arabia to export millions of barrels of crude a day, and has been the key alternative route to the Strait of Hormuz since Donald Trump's war led to that regular closure. It has predictably led to further increases in already high oil prices $106 per barrel just today, with reports that Saudi Arabia could exhaust crude available for export within days unless that pipeline resumes operation.

So the consequences are huge for my constituents and everybody else's already paying through the nose for fuel as a result of the war in Iran now being hit by even higher prices. Because of this, rural communities relying on heating oil are especially vulnerable to shortages and price hikes. The impact on farmers and food production could do further damage to the UK's food security. Tragic reality is that whilst the UK will struggle in if the pipeline is not reopened, it could mean starvation for millions on the African continent.

The latest crisis puts a further spotlight on our failure as a country to be energy secure. Even those few people, Madam Deputy Speaker, that are not yet convinced that climate change is real and needs tackling, surely now understand that energy security really, really matters. Neither Houthi rebels, nor Putin, nor Iran, nor Trump can turn off our waves, wind, sunshine or nuclear industry. It's time for siren voices to stop whining about wokery and start focusing on security. So I asked the Minister, what reserves of oil does the United Kingdom have? Will the government accelerate domestic energy generation? Will the government implement a £0.10 temporary fuel duty cut? Cuts in bus and rail fares so that people in Cumbria and across the country are not plunged into further hardship as a result of this crisis.

What plans has he to accelerate the Warm Homes Plan, which sadly has only insulated 0.3% of the expected homes this year, especially in communities like mine, where a quarter of our housing stock was built before 1900 and in need of more bespoke solutions. And yeah, Madam Deputy Speaker And then what will he do to bring an energy price cap onto heating oil and extra work? Will he explain he's doing with our allies in the Middle East and NATO to ensure the pipeline reopens as soon as possible?
13:31
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
Minister MacLellan. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question for bringing the question to the House. I will endeavour to answer all of those points, but if there is any that I do not answer, I'll follow up with them in writing. To start with, the discussions that the government have been having with the Saudi authorities, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Saudi Foreign Minister on Sunday, and we will keep talking to the Saudi Arabian authorities to understand exactly what the impact of this might be and what the plans from that government are.

As you all know, we have a diverse and resilient supply of energy in this country, and that is something that we continue to stand by and we are not, at this moment in time, concerned about the impact on supply for the UK. He also spoke about heating oil. I think he will know we have had conversations about this in the past. The government have already provided £53 million in support to local authorities in order to assist those people who were particularly hard hit in March, when the cost of heating oil increased significantly.

And we, of course, will be looking through the autumn and into the winter about what support might be necessary to go further. But I know in some local authority areas that money has not been nearly exhausted yet, and I would encourage local authorities to be using the funding that is available to them to support those on heating oil. I think he has made a really important point towards the end of his question there around our reliance on foreign sources of oil and gas, and I think it's a really important point that members of the opposition fail to seem to grasp, even though they used to grasp it when they were in government, that we need to move away as quickly as possible from the roller coaster of fossil fuels and actually produce energy in this country that we control, where we control the security and the supply.

And just finally, to address this point around the Warm Homes plan. He will know that we have committed £15 billion to the Warm Homes plan. And we are and have been pushing for more, more of that funding to reach communities where already delivering that through the Warm Homes Local Grant and the Warm Homes Social Housing Fund, and will be coming forward in the coming weeks with more schemes for the for people across the country to take advantage of that scheme. Joe Morris thank you, Madam Speaker.
13:33
13:33
13:34
Andrew Bowie Portrait Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)
-
-
events in the Middle East have quite rightly brought the state of Britain's energy security back to the forefront. We are witnessing growing geopolitical instability, and it is having and will continue to have a direct impact on our to have a direct impact on our energy security supplies and, of course, bills. The attack on the Saudi East West pipeline will Saudi East West pipeline will exacerbate this. 4% of global oil supply flows through that pipeline. That is not insignificant. Saudi That is not insignificant.

Saudi Arabia is a key strategic friend and ally of this country. Our relationship is integral to the security of the region and our national interests. So I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what discussions he or the Secretary of State for energy have had with their Saudi counterparts regarding security of supply. And if the UK government has offered any support in this regard. We do not know when the pipeline will once again be operational. And Saudi oil stocks has already been said for export could be depleted within days.

With the safety of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz remaining uncertain, the continued squeeze on energy supplies will only get tighter. Brent crude has reached $106 a barrel this morning and shows no sign of slowing. And it is exactly because of this situation that I cannot understand the government's actions because, ironically, Madam Deputy Speaker, today should have been the day this government announced that they were finally going to approve the jackdaw gas field. But they have bottled it. They put it on ice because they are too scared of Zack Polanski and the Green Party in the Holborn and St Pancras byelection.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are talking today about national security, and the government is putting party before country. Great Britain has become increasingly and dangerously overreliant on supplies of oil from overseas. We could be reducing some of that reliance right now by drilling and making use of our own resources, be it oil from Rosebank or gas from jackdaw. This is a moment of great geopolitical uncertainty. It is a moment when all countries around the world are looking to ensure and shore up their energy supplies.

No other government, of no other nation would make such a brazenly craven decision to chase votes in a byelection ahead of its duty to defend our national and our energy security. So, given the seriousness of this moment, given the threats to our energy and indeed national security, will the government change course on their position on the North Sea?
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:42
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:48
13:49
13:49
13:50
13:51
13:52
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:54
13:55
13:55
13:56
Stephen Morgan Portrait Stephen Morgan MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Portsmouth South, Labour)
-
-
family of protected UK whisky, geographical indications further strengthening the UK's four nations of whisky. The registration of English whisky as a protected geographical indication, or GI, recognises it as a distinctive product with qualities and characteristics linked to the geographical origin. It reflects geographical origin. It reflects the growth of a dynamic sector, with more than 70 distilleries now producing or maturing whisky and exports reaching 30 countries worldwide. This is also good news for local growth and British agriculture distilleries are supporting skilled jobs and attracting investment in regions across England, while supporting British farmers by using British grown grain.

We want to see that success continue. Turning to the specific decision before us. This followed the UK's statutory geographical indication process. The application was assessed against the requirements set out in legislation and subject to an opposition process, allowing parties with a legitimate interest the opportunity to object. Those parties who objections were considered admissible, had the opportunity to consult with the applicant regarding their objections. Following careful consideration of the evidence, it was concluded that the application met the relevant legal requirements for registration.

Madam Deputy Speaker, let me be clear this recognition does not alter the protected status, reputation or production requirements of Scotch whisky, Welsh whisky or Irish whisky. Nor does it alter the government's commitment to the whisky industry and its leading global success. Scotch whisky is one of the UK's most important food and drink exports, but Scotch whisky is far more than an export. It is part of the culture, history and identity of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. It is enjoyed at Burns Night celebrations, at family gatherings and special celebrations both at home and across the country.

As I said, it is one of the great national treasures. I recently visited Glen Geary, one of Scotland's oldest distilleries, where I was delighted to enjoy a wee dram and see firsthand the craftsmanship and heritage that make the Scotch whisky so famous across the world. The Secretary of State was speaking with the Swa's chief executive only yesterday. This government will continue to protect and champion the whisky industry Scotch, Irish, Welsh and English, both at home and in key exports around the world.
13:58
Wendy Chamberlain Portrait Wendy Chamberlain MP (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Wendy Chamberlain. of the APPG for Scotch Whisky, and I also hold an IBD General Certificate in distilling. On Friday evening at 5 p.m. DEFRA announced that it approved the English Whisky Guild's application for English whisky to receive geographical indication status, despite objections from the Scotch, Welsh and Irish Whisky associations. Let me be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, my objection is not to English whisky obtaining geographical indication status. English whisky has a long and legitimate history in its own right.

My concern is specifically about the definition of English single malt whisky that DEFRA has now approved. Under this definition, English single malt whisky only requires distillation at a single distillery, rather than all the stages of the production taking place at a single site. The term single malt whisky carries a long established reputation and meaning for consumers. It risks disadvantaging Scotch producers who have invested heavily to comply with the traditional single site production model, and that includes distilleries in my own constituency such as Kingsbarns, Eden Mill, Dartford Mill and Lindores.

Scotch whisky is also one of the UK's most important export industries, supporting jobs, investment, tourism and economic growth across rural communities, weakening an internationally recognised definition risks damaging consumer confidence and diluting brand value. At a time when the Scotch whisky industry is not in the route health. But I think the government mistakenly thinks that it is. This new definition could also be misleading for consumers who reasonably understand a single malt whisky to be a product produced entirely at one distillery.

So I ask the Minister, why was this announcement made after the House had risen on a Friday evening, and why the appeal period finishes before this House returns from recess? Can the Minister explain why a decision that undermines the integrity of the single malt definition was approved, a decision that creates an uneven playing field across the UK and risks disadvantaging distilleries that have invested to uphold long standing industry standards. Why did the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tell this House in March of last year? DEFRA will not be watering down the definition of single malt whisky because I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is exactly what they are doing.

Can the Minister also set out what discussions he has had with the Scotland and Wales offices, and what assessment has been made of the implications of this decision for the UK Internal Market Act, and how were those implications considered?
14:01
Stephen Morgan Portrait Stephen Morgan MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Portsmouth South, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> Mr. >> May I start by thanking the hon. Member for her continued interest in these matters and for her in these matters and for her leadership in the APPG for Scotch whisky. I know how important the Scotch whisky industry is to her constituents and communities across Scotland. Since taking up this role, I have been keen to engage with the sector and I mentioned in my opening remarks the valuable visit that I had to Aberdeenshire in August and I look forward to continuing to work with the APPG and the Scotch whisky industry and the wider sector as we continue.

I must stress in response to the hon. Member's questions, that Scotch whiskies protected status, reputation and production requirements are unchanged and the English definition of single malt has no impact on how single malt is made in Scotland. The government remains committed to supporting the success of the Scotch whisky industry and the wider UK whisky sector. She asks with regard to the decision making process, I must stress again that this is a regulatory decision and a decision made by the Secretary of State, so let me assure her that this government remains absolutely committed to supporting and championing Scotch whisky at home and abroad.

Nothing in this decision changes the protected status, reputation or production requirements of Scotch whisky. I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss any further concerns that she may have.
14:02
14:03
14:03
Harriet Cross Portrait Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
-
Sharon. >> Sharon Minister Harriet Cross. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Across the country, businesses are under increasing pressure, competition, cost of doing business, ever increasing taxation and regulatory burdens are making it as hard as it has ever been for our rural businesses to get on. While I recognise that whisky producers and indeed farmers and the wider supply chain in England will welcome this announcement, those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are viewing it with concern. The whisky industry is a crucial sector in Scotland, supporting over 40,000 jobs, adding billions to our economy and showcasing great Scottish produce abroad.

Consistency in regulation is key across the UK. How is the government going to ensure that Scotch single malt whisky industry is not undermined by this decision? In particular, given that distilleries in England will not have to follow the same single site production standards as distilleries in Scotland to get the single malt status. Has the Minister engaged with the Scottish Government on this issue to ensure that the Scotch whisky industry is not put at a disadvantage because of this announcement? But, Madam Deputy Speaker, a new designation for English whisky does not compensate for the hostile business environment being created by Labour.

The government is piling costs and regulation onto food and drink producers, including distilleries across the UK. The ever increasing level of whisky duty, the exclusion of distilleries from the British industrial competitive scheme and now the extended producer responsibility, which is going to add £1.4 billion of costs to producers. All of these mean that the government is making life ever more difficult for businesses struggling to keep their head above water. The huge and growing cost of doing business is making it difficult for businesses to survive, especially in rural areas.

So what steps is the government going to take to ensure that these mounting costs, especially for food and drink producers, are not going to mean that we see more and more businesses going under Minister?
14:05
Stephen Morgan Portrait Stephen Morgan MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Portsmouth South, Labour)
-
-
May I welcome the shadow Minister to her place on the opposition bench and thank her for opposition bench and thank her for her contribution and questions, and for the recognition that she has placed on the vital contribution that Scottish whisky and all whisky makes to our national identity. It would be remiss of me, Madam Deputy Speaker, not to remind the House that the last government allowed tariffs on single malt whisky exports to the United States to cost industry more than £600 million in lost exports.

And they stood by while one of Britain's most iconic sectors paid the price. By contrast, this government acted. We secured an agreement that brings tariffs on Scotch whisky exports to the US down to zero. So when it comes to standing up for British whisky in its biggest export market, I do think that producers will be not taking lectures from the party opposite on this side of the House. We got a deal done, both in terms of the India deal and reducing the US tariffs.

As one of the members of this House has previously said, Scotch whisky is a national treasure and one of Britain's great exports. Nobody is trying to take anything away from it, and they go on to say there is plenty of room in the market for a growing English sector alongside Scotland's consumers, not lawyers, should decide what ends up in their glass. I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton put it very well. This government agrees that Scotch whiskies reputation and protections must remain robustly defended, while recognising that other parts of the UK's whisky sector can also grow and succeed.

We will continue to engage with others and with the devolved nations to make that a success. Speaker.
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:11
14:12
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:15
14:16
14:16
14:16
14:31
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Final Report and Recommendations
-

14:32
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
The order. Final report and recommendations. I called the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Yvette Cooper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And can I. Apologise for the timing of the. Statement and thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Statement and thank the opposition for their understanding on this. Madam Deputy Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a permission, I would like to make a statement on the report of the three year public inquiry into events at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2018, led by Lady Justice Thirlwall. by Lady Justice Thirlwall. Published today. I am grateful to Lady Justice Thirlwall for her thorough and devastating report. At the heart of this inquiry have been 13 families who lost their newborn babies, or who saw them experience serious collapse or injury at the hospital.

Ten and 11 years ago. I cannot begin to fathom the grief and pain of the parents and families. The mother of baby J describes her grief. She says, I cannot emphasise enough the impact of this on our whole family, who we are as people, parents, work life, spouses, children. It has cast a shadow of sadness over every lives those parents have had to face the unimaginable. And I recognise that they have waited many years for the details set out in this report, and also that it will continue to add to the distress and the loss that they have endured.

They should be in all our thoughts throughout all the discussions of this report today. The public inquiry was commissioned by the then Health Secretary in September 2023, following the conviction of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of a further six babies. Lady Justice Thirlwall has been clear it was not her role to look at the convictions or the legal process or the court evidence, and nor, and she is explicit about not cutting across the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Instead, her focus was on the experiences of the babies of the parents of the babies named in the indictment, the conduct of those working at the Countess of Chester Hospital, including whether action should have been taken earlier, and the effectiveness of NHS management, governance, scrutiny and regulation in keeping babies in hospitals safe. And that is also the focus of this statement. In the words of Lady Justice Thirlwall, the report sets out a dispiriting and at times shocking account of multiple repeated mistakes and failings by organisations and individuals.

The inquiry describes the increase in neonatal deaths in 2015 and 2016 at the hospital. The concerns about the possibility of deliberate harm that were raised by clinicians at an early stage, but then repeated failures of organisations and individuals to act. Shocking failures to put the safety of babies first, shocking failures on safeguarding, failures in governance, in regulation, failures in the most basic duty of candour, failures in professional curiosity, and a repeated failure to refer concerns to the police, which, the inquiry is clear, should have been done at a much earlier stage.

And Lady Justice Thirlwall comes to the devastating conclusion that some babies would have been saved if action was taken earlier. Central to these findings are what Lady Justice Thirlwall describes as a complete failure at all levels to invoke safeguarding procedures at any point. She explains no one seems to have thought that safeguarding action is required when a member of staff is suspected of causing deliberate harm. Suspicion is enough, and the inquiry also identifies failure among external bodies, including the CQC, who failed to consider the data and ask the right questions, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, who should have known as soon as they were engaged, that this was a matter that needed to be referred to the police.

The inquiry finds repeated failures of governance and candour by the trust and individuals within it, and disturbingly, it refers to an exercise in spin to steer away from referral to the police and Madam Deputy Speaker. That is an appalling finding. An exercise in spin. Instead of putting the safety of babies first. Worst of all, the trust repeatedly failed the parents. It failed to keep their beloved baby safe. It failed repeatedly to provide them with information which they had a right to know.

It failed to ask their consent for sharing information with external experts and other organisations, or to keep them up to date with investigations that were taking place, and for parents to be kept in the dark for years about what was happening is, as Lady Justice Thirlwall has said, reprehensible. So let me address the issues for the families and for the parents directly, because the suffering endured by these babies and their families is impossible to comprehend. On behalf of the government and the health service, I am profoundly sorry for the failures set out so clearly in this report for the harm, distress and unthinkable loss for their families and for the failures to keep their babies safe.

Our responsibility now is to act. And let me be clear. The safety and care for babies, the safeguarding of every patient, the respect for families. All of these go to the heart of our NHS values, and they must be at the heart, not just of what we say, but what we do. So let me turn to the recommendations. Lady Justice Thirlwall has made 17 recommendations on what needs to be done to keep babies safe. The inquiry recognises that in many areas, things have changed since these terrible events took place, including welcome improvements at the Countess Hospital in services for women and children.

However, the inquiry is very clear that new action is needed. I take these recommendations extremely seriously. The government will, of course, consider the entire report and set out a full response. But let me highlight some key areas today on the crucial issue of safeguarding justice. Lady Justice Thirlwall recommends compulsory training, a new protocol, employment requirements Madam Deputy Speaker. A revised NHS safeguarding framework was published in April 28th, 2026. But I have asked the Chief Nursing Officer to urgently review the framework and the training in the light of this report.

We need to look urgently at this, but let me be clear this goes beyond laws and procedures, many of which are already clear. This is about leadership and responsibility. Safeguarding is everyone's business and safeguarding must be everyone's priority. Concerns must be heard and acted upon. Staff who speak up must be protected and taken seriously. And I expect every leader, every board across the NHS, every professional and manager, every member of staff to uphold their safeguarding responsibilities and I will not hesitate to hold the NHS to account for the highest standards of every level, because at its heart, this is what the NHS stands for care for patients and most of all, keeping the most vulnerable patients of all.

Safe on safety and reassurance for parents. Lady Justice Thirlwall recommends the introduction of video baby monitors for neonatal units. I agree. I have asked my officials to urgently develop plans for cot cams, which can also help parents feel better connected to their babies when they aren't able to be with them in person. The inquiry says the sudden, unexpected death in infancy and childhood guidance must be updated. I agree that is now under way. It welcomes the introduction of medical examiners but said it should have happened ten years earlier.

I agree we will set out further plans to strengthen their neonatal expertise following the inquiry's recommendations. When the government sets out its full response. It recommends much stronger controls on insulin insulin storage. The NHS has begun that process with new guidance in January of this year, but we agree with the recommendation. To go further, it recommends new regulation on NHS managers, not just on clinical professionals. The government has consulted on and confirmed plans to apply a borrowing scheme to senior leaders and managers, not just to clinicians, so we will legislate to introduce the scheme as soon as parliamentary time allows, and we will consider the chair's recommendation to expand it further.

The report also makes recommendations for the regulators, including the CQC, which we will ensure are taken seriously and on technology. We have implemented the Maternity Outcomes Signal System, which provides near real time safety alerts, but we agree we must do more. And I agree with the report that when the very worst happens and parents face bereavement, they need to be supported to the best of our ability. The report recommends the National Bereavement Care pathway for neonatal death should be rolled out in 2027.

I agree and can confirm that all trusts are signed up to implement it, and I will ensure that it is repeated in all versions of the NHS planning framework. While I am the Secretary of State, finally, Lady Justice Thirlwall highlights problems with past inquiry recommendations not being implemented. So my department is setting up a recommendation hub to properly track our implementation process progress internally, not just for this inquiry but for others right across the NHS. But we will work with the Cabinet Office now on improvements in this area to respond to this inquiry.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this afternoon I will discuss with the Maternity Task force our plan to bring forward in the health Bill amendments to create a new maternity and neonatal Commissioner to address the serious concerns around safety and standards that have been raised. Later this week, I will meet with Justice Lady Justice Thirlwall to discuss how we take forward the conclusions of this report. But I want to highlight a final issue that has struck me while reading through the different volumes of this inquiry, because there is a section of the report that refers to the way senior oversight of neonatal care had been downgraded in the reorganisation of the Countess Hospital.

It includes the fact that the board and the medical director reviewed deaths within the hospital. However, it only covered adult deaths and the report says the board did not receive any reports about the deaths of babies and children at any stage during the period the inquiry was considering. This was a serious failure of governance, which no one on the board seems to have noticed. This is further evidence of the inadequacy of the structure, which removed the voice of children and babies from the board, and the lack of profile of paediatrics and neonatology.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am clear. The safety and the safeguarding and wellbeing of babies must never again be treated as a side issue. And as I reflect on some of the safety reports we have seen in recent years on maternity services, let me also be clear maternity and neonatal services cannot operate on the margins. They must be at the forefront, a central priority in what our NHS must do at the vital and precious start of a family's life.

I want to thank the families for the extraordinary courage and dignity they have shown. I also thank Lady Justice Thirlwall and all of her team for their rigorous work. This must be a turning point for the NHS. When concerns are raised, especially about safety and safety, the safeguarding they must be heard and acted upon and it is time to put maternity and neonatal care and safety at the top of the NHS agenda where it belongs. I commend this statement to the House. commend this statement to the House.
14:44
Damian Hinds Portrait Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
I call the shadow Secretary Damian Hinds because over the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Secretary of State has six minutes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State and I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and advance sight of it. And we all thank Lady Justice Thirlwall and her team for Justice Thirlwall and her team for their incredibly important work. As the Secretary of State said, the report is both thorough and devastating. These were crimes that shook our whole nation, and no one shook our whole nation, and no one who has not lost a child in this way could possibly imagine the depth of these parents suffering.

The task now for the NHS, for the state and for us as parliamentarians, is to ensure that from their unthinkably terrible loss, at least come reliable guards against such tragedy happening again. For this is sadly not the first or the only time that serial, tragic, avoidable deaths have occurred within our health service. And there are themes that recur dismissal or undermining of whistleblowers, concerns about institutional or personal reputation or organisational disruption hampering the primacy of focus on immediate patient safety.

And because actually, naturally, the idea of a healthcare worker deliberately harming patients is so unthinkable to decent people. Alternative explanations are sought instead. Now, today, Madam Deputy, were not at the stage of the Secretary of State being able to say that the government accepts all the recommendations in full, and we understand that it is a very substantial piece of work, she says. They will consider, of course, the entire report and set out a full response. When does she anticipate that to happen? In the time available? Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just ask if I may, a few questions on on a subset of the aspects here.

So we welcome the points on the suspension. Sorry, the suspicion of deliberate harms protocol. And she's absolutely right that the the message has to get out that in such case, suspicion is enough. And we must change the way that people think about that. But the report notes that the existing Freedom to speak up system has operated unevenly through the NHS. It also notes that there remains a need for national oversight body, though the National Guardian's office is no more. There are still many NHS staff, the report says, who do not feel it possible to raise patient safety concerns without risking career detriment.

So what else can be done to establish independent escalation pathways outside of the management hierarchy? I do worry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that some of what is there is being removed. If an individual exhausts exhausts a trusts mechanisms for raising concerns, they could currently go to the Council of Governors at the trust, but that will be abolished by the health Bill. Or to NHS England. That will also be abolished by the health Bill. So if a consultant reports a concern to the board and doesn't get a hearing, where do they go? Is the Secretary of State the next person, the next stage in that in that line? I must also ask about another of the government's current proposed changes the abolition of the Health Service safety investigations body.

Now, neither it nor its predecessor body were in existence at the time of the murders. In any event, it wasn't set up to investigate individuals or criminal activity or deliberate harm, but it did create a legally protected, safe space for staff to raise alarm bells confidentially outside the normal line manager hierarchy, and that could help to break silences and contribute to the cultural changes that are required. And the report does say that H. S IB continues to fulfil a needed function.

So I ask the Secretary of State, will she reconsider the proposal to to to end it? To many people, an obvious question arising from these terrible cases will be surely someone up the chain must have noticed the sheer numbers. The severe statistical anomaly in fatalities. And there was. The report covers. There was an alert signal in the data in 2015, but the analysis was only being reported on with a long lag. And clearly what is required is real time reporting and automated analysis to identify abnormalities in deteriorations or unexplained deaths that could trigger immediate independent external review.

And the Secretary mentioned in her remarks the near real time process now in place. Could she say a word about how close that comes to that fully real time? Ultimately, not only automated, automated complementing, of course, human understanding to trigger independent external review. The inquiry's findings on this are also linked to its recommendation that NHS systems become interoperable by the end of 2028. And does she think that timetable is achievable? Recommendation one, as she mentioned, is on the use of cameras in Cots with remote monitoring for parents and the department are to set out a roadmap by March.

Remote monitoring, of course, has become widespread in people's own homes, and there is cot side video. I understand and use quite a number of trusts, but this, I think, would be rather more that is typically in place in those hospitals today. And can she outline her initial assessment of how this can be achieved and when? Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the most sobering findings in this is that in her review of recommendations from previous inquiries into NHS bodies over 30 of 30 years, while some significant changes have been made, many recommendations have not been implemented, and Lady Justice Thirlwall supports formation of a joint committee of Parliament to ensure recommendations are pursued, and recommends that the National Audit Office should audit implementation of statutory inquiries into the NHS.

I think I heard the Secretary of State say they were going to create an internal hub. Really is that. I asked the Secretary of State just to consider, is, is that enough? Would it not be better in the spirit of the duty of candour, that these things were done through through the institutions, through the National Audit Office and with this Parliament? Madam Deputy Speaker, our thoughts, our prayers remain with all those families in the unimaginable pain of their loss. While nothing now can undo that pain, it is vital that all possible lessons are learned and more important, acted upon with determination and urgency.
14:51
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
Anna Dixon Portrait Anna Dixon MP (Shipley, Labour)
-
-
relevant government Minister? Frontbenchers may take part in questioning. I call Anna Dixon. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm pleased to be giving this statement on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member. Before I turn to the findings of our report on government compensation schemes, I government compensation schemes, I want to begin by recognising the individuals and families whose lives have been profoundly affected lives have been profoundly affected by the events that gave rise to these compensation schemes.

Behind every application, every claim and every payment is a person who has experienced loss, injustice or harm, often through no fault of their own. No amount of money can ever fully restore what has been taken away. Compensation cannot return. Last years repair, damaged health, rebuild broken trust, or erase the suffering that many have endured. Nevertheless, where mistakes have been made, where public bodies have failed or where citizens have been harmed by the actions or omissions of the state, compensation represents an important acknowledgement of that injustice.

It is one of the clearest ways in which government can accept responsibility, recognise the experiences of those affected and demonstrate a commitment to making amends. Properly designed and delivered, compensation is not simply a financial transaction. It is an expression of accountability and, crucially, of compassion. It signals that those who have suffered have been heard, that their experiences have believed, and that society recognises the wrong that has been done to them. For many people, the true value of a compensation scheme lies not only in the financial support it provides, but in the recognition and dignity it can offer.

That is why it is so important that such schemes are fair, accessible, timely and centred on the needs of those they are intended to serve. It is against the backdrop that the National Audit Office conducted a review into the way that compensation compensation schemes have been handled, and the Public Accounts Committee conducted an inquiry whose findings were published last Wednesday. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to recognise the subpostmasters and their families affected by the horizon scandal. The victims and bereaved families of the infected blood scandal.

The Windrush generation denied the right to remain in the UK. LGBT veterans, including Victoria in my constituency, whose service to her country was repaid with imprisonment and dismissal from the Royal Navy because of her sexuality. All of those whose experiences have informed the committee's work. I want to particularly thank everyone who responded to our survey and everyone who gave evidence to our inquiry. Many of the testimonies we received were deeply moving and all were invaluable. If government is to improve how compensation schemes operate in future, it must listen carefully to the experiences of those who have already been through them.

Our inquiry found that too often people experience lengthy delays, complex processes and uncertainty about what will happen next. The vast majority of respondents to the Public Accounts Committee survey felt the schemes that had experience were unfair. Three quarters told us that the claims process itself had been distressing or retraumatising. One respondent told us it has become a lumbering, slow bureaucracy. It is failing in its duty to get payments to people quickly. Another said after decades of fighting for recognition, we believed we were finally at the finish line and instead we are being treated with suspicion, as though we are trying to defraud a system rather than seeking acknowledgement of a wrong done to us by the state.

One of my own constituents, the wife of a postmaster, told me the stress caused by the horizon scandal causing alopecia and a blood clot. On applying for compensation, she was told that her suffering was irrelevant. Despite being the co-owner of the post office, compensation was paid to her husband, from whom she is now divorced. These experiences highlight whether quality of scheme design matters so much, and we heard many such similar stories. Compensation is not simply about the final payment, it is about the journey people make to reach that point.

A journey which must be fair, transparent and humane. We heard from Sir Alan Bates, whose work was instrumental in exposing the horizon scandal. He told us that schemes often end up reinventing the wheel, and he argued for an independent organisation capable of carrying expertise and experience from one scheme to the next. And that is what this report is recommending. Peter Gibson, the chief executive at Fighting with Pride, representing LGBT veterans, highlighted the importance of making realistic commitments that can actually be delivered.

Kate Burt, representing those affected by infected blood, emphasised the importance of meaningful engagement with communities and ensuring that lessons from previous schemes are genuinely applied. Victims have lost trust in the bodies administering government compensation schemes bodies, which they view as responsible for the initial harm caused. The committee therefore recommends, and I'm pleased to see the Cabinet Office Minister on the front bench recommends, that the body administering compensation should work with individuals and organisations representing victims. Many claimants told us that they found it difficult to trust the processes administered by organisations that they associated with the original harm, and that's why witnesses repeatedly argued that independence is essential if schemes are to command confidence.

The answer is not to choose between independence and expertise. The answer is to combine them to establish an independent body capable of developing specialist expertise, preserving institutional memory, promoting good practice and earning the trust of those it's there to serve. So that's a key recommendation of this report that the government establish an independent body to design and administer government compensation schemes. Madam Deputy Speaker, we should also remember that for many people, the compensation process is not simply an administrative exercise.

Making a claim often means revisiting some of the most painful experiences of a person's life. It means being asked to recall events they've spent years trying to tell, to come to terms with gathering evidence from decades ago recounting experiences of injustice, discrimination, illness, loss and trauma, often to complete strangers. The committee heard repeatedly that the process itself can reopen old wounds. Witnesses spoke of victims feeling as though they were having to fight the same battle all over again. That is why good scheme design matters so much.

It's not simply about how much compensation is awarded, it's about ensuring that the process to come to that outcome is compassionate and designed around the needs of those who've suffered. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe this report also highlights the unique role of the Public Accounts Committee. Our role is to look across government, to identify recurring challenges, to bring together evidence from different departments and ask what lessons can be learned. One of the clearest conclusions from our report is that the government requires stronger mechanisms for retaining and sharing knowledge across compensation schemes.

Every confiscation compensation scheme is inevitably different, but the fundamentals of good scheme design are not. The committee concluded that government needs a more systematic approach to applying what has been learned. Right reverend Paul Foster, Windrush commissioner, told us it is critical that impacted groups are involved in designing schemes from the outset, and that design is aligned with trauma informed principles that consider how the claim process can be traumatising for people. Madam Deputy Speaker compensation schemes exist to provide redress, but they should also provide confidence.

Confidence that people will be treated fairly. Confidence that lessons have been learnt, confidence that future schemes will be better than those that came before. All those who shared their experiences with our committee have given government a valuable opportunity to improve, and we should not waste it. Our responsibility now is to ensure those lessons are not lost, not stored away in reports, not revisited, only when the next scandal emerges, but embedded permanently into how government approaches redress. The committee's recommendation is therefore clear.

Government should establish an independent body to design and administer government compensation schemes, a body capable of retaining expertise, carrying lessons forward, capable of delivering redress swiftly, fairly and with the confidence of those they serve. Above all, a body capable of restoring trust. The victims whose experience informed this inquiry deserve nothing less. Gordon.
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
None Portrait Points of Order
-

Right.
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
None Portrait Ten Minute Rule Motion: Student finance (review)
-

are shuffling, now is the time to shuffle over. Now come to the ten
15:50
Tom Gordon Portrait Tom Gordon MP (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
shuffle over. Now come to the ten minute rule motion. Student finances review Tom Gordon. >> Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to declare an interest as a graduate with both a plan to as a graduate with both a plan to and a postgraduate loan. Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to require the Secretary of State to review student finance in England, to require a review, to consider loan repayment arrangements and thresholds, to arrangements and thresholds, to require a review to consider terms and conditions. Applying to student loans when they were issued to loans when they were issued to require a review to consider the relationship between student finance loan repayment thresholds and average earnings, and for connected purposes.

Before I begin, I'd like to send my deepest condolences to the Prime Minister on the loss of his father. I'm sure the whole House will be thinking of them. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not the speech I intended to make. It's in fact, not even the bill I put. I thought I'd be presenting. I originally, when I secured this slot, was planning to bring forward a bill that would remove time restrictions on disability bus passes. And before I could even get to my feet or even table that bill, the Prime Minister handed me my first big win in Parliament, to which I am eternally grateful for him.

I thank him for that and for his new approach to politics about problem solving, not point scoring. I can only hope he continues in that spirit and hands me another big win today, because the timing could not be any better. I would just like to start by paying tribute to the chair of the Treasury Select Committee and all the members of that Select Committee for their very thorough work on this matter that we heard about earlier. The report asks student loans broken or unfair? And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we all know the answer on both counts.

Both broken and very much unfair. And let me be clear from the outset, this is not a single individual political parties failure. Every party that has sat on the government benches has had a bit of a shoddy record on this particular issue. Conservatives, Labour and yes, even the Liberal Democrats. It might come as a surprise. Nobody comes to this debate or this chamber on this issue with their hands clean and honesty has to start with these three things. That repayment thresholds, the terms that graduates were sold and whether those thresholds have kept pace with earnings.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I grew up in a mining town in a working class family. My mum had me when she was 18, and I was very much the first person in my family to go to university. The people like me taking out a student loan wasn't an option. It wasn't. It was a necessity. It was not a luxury. And it was the only way that I could get through the door of university, which saw me take up a biochemistry degree and a master's in public health at Newcastle University.

Today, my student loans combined stand at over £65,000. Between my two loans, £0.15 of every extra pound I earned goes on repayments on top of tax. And this is the cruellest part for many people across this country. The poorer your family, the more you have to borrow. In 2016, maintenance grants for poorer students were scrapped and replaced with loans so that students who have the least borrow the most graduates with the biggest debts are then charged interest on every penny of it.

A system that was meant to be a ladder of opportunity has become a penalty for being born poor. This is not social mobility, it is social injustice. With interest. When I signed up, like millions of others, I was told a story. The Department for Education slides compared repayments to a mobile phone contract about £15 a month or so, we were told. Government commissioned videos told teenagers the threshold would rise, with earnings sold like a phone contract paid back like a second income tax.

The Treasury Select Committee examined those materials and concluded they amounted to mis selling. No other lender in this country would be allowed to sell a loan to an 18 year old, or on one set of terms, only to rewrite them before the ink was barely even dry. If a bank did this, the regulator would shut it down. When the government does it, they call it a policy change because Ministers wrote themselves out of Consumer Credit Act, and they've been getting away with it ever since.

And with no regulator watching, borrowers are left in the dark. Now, many of my university friends, when they saw I had this ten minute rule bill, suddenly my phone and WhatsApp groups that hadn't been active in a number of years lit up with everyone getting in touch. One of my friends, Jasmine, was telling me that she was refused a straight answer on what she owed. Then her balance jumped by a few thousand pounds because interest had not been properly added back in 2021. In her words, I am livid and my friend Rebecca had to open a case just to get back a refund she would owed.

No. No customer of any other lender would put up with that. In 2010, the universities Minister told this House that the threshold would rise periodically to reflect average earnings and that the government was committed to the progressive nature of repayment of a repayment system. That was not a hope. That was a promise made in this place, and it has been broken again and again by governments of all persuasion. And we saw those thresholds for repayments been frozen again at the last Budget for another three years, from April 2027.

And on top of this, it's a system where the interest piles up that you take out on that loan before you can even repay a penny. When where you earn more, the higher the interest rate you're charged. Madam Deputy Speaker, At its heart, this is an issue about fairness, and the injustice does not fall evenly. My friend Rebecca, she took maternity leave while she was at home with a newborn, not making repayments and not earning her balance rose by the best part of £2,000 in interest.

Women have been charged interest for starting a family. Thinking of those living with long term health conditions who cannot work full time or have to take time off sick, they're already fighting their bodies and now they watch their debt grow while their earnings often stall. This is damaging to our public services and to our economy. I've heard from people who are turning down promotions because after tax and loan repayments, the extra pay is simply not worth the extra responsibility. I've heard from doctors refusing extra shifts because once higher tax rates added National Insurance and the student loan repayments, they keep less than half of every extra pound.

And at a time where our NHS is calling out for extra staff and extra support, we are punishing those very people for trying to work harder. Madam. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a generation on track to be the first in modern times to be worse off than their parents. They did everything they were told. They worked hard. They went to university. They tried to better themselves. And what did they get in return? Well, in addition to a housing crisis, in addition to a property ladder with a bottom rung sawn off and a really grim graduate jobs market, they've been added on top, a 9% tax that that will earn on everything above a threshold before it ever reaches their bank account.

I have friends who've put off having children because they cannot afford childcare, while hundreds of pounds a month leave their payslip in student loan repayments. This is an injustice at its starkest. A generation told to borrow for the future, now paying for it with their now paying for it with their future. The Prime Minister has rightly talked about bringing back hope. I agree with him wholeheartedly and there is no better place to start than honouring the deal that my generation were promised.

So how has the government responded to the Treasury Select Committee's cross-party call to reverse the freeze, which it called a moral obligation? It says keeping all aspects of a system of student finance system under review. But it doesn't sound like it's going to reverse that freeze. Martin Lewis called it a very disappointing response that does little to help the millions of students already struggling right now. The government's answer is, in effect, we will do better for future students, but millions of graduates are already paying under these terms today.

They cannot wait for a better system to be built for people who have not yet borrowed a penny. Madam Deputy Speaker, I said at the start that every party of government has a hand in this, and I say it again because it is exactly that point where I believe we can reach a cross-party consensus. No party can claim the moral high ground, so every party can help be part of the solution. So my message to the government, my message to the Prime Minister is simple in the spirit of problem solving, not point scoring.

Can this government commit to a genuine fix, not another promise to keep things under review. Looking honestly at the deal graduates were promised and the deal they are getting restore the link between repayment thresholds and earnings. Guarantee that terms will not be changed after people have signed them and put right the wrongs that have already been done. And let's make sure that fix reaches every borrower, not just those who are yet to walk through a university's door. The Prime Minister has already shown this House that when he hears a good case, he acts on it.

And I'm asking him to do that again, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Select Committee asked whether student loans are broken and unfair, and we know the answer. The only question left is whether together we will commit to putting it right. I'd just like to add, before I finish and conclude the absolute tremendous efforts of Rethink Repayment and Oli Gardner and the team who've been pushing on this issue for the best part of two years. Internally, within my own party, I've been banging the drum to try and make this an issue that we, the Liberal Democrats, can be part of the solution.

And I'm really, really pleased that we've seen members from across this House add their names in support of this ten minute rule bill. So I commend this bill to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill, as many of that opinion the bill, as many of that opinion say. I many that say I Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Vikki Slade Liz Jarvis. Ann

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Vikki Slade Liz Jarvis. Ann Davies doctor. Danny Chambers Sian Berry. Cat Eccles. Cat Smith. Christine Jardine. Layla Moran. Ruth Cadbury Alex Sobel and myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Student Student finances Student finances review Student finances review bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Student finances review bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? Friday

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? Friday the 15th of January 2027. Wonderful. Or Frontbenches itching to shuffle Or Frontbenches itching to shuffle over? Then do so now. No no no you can't. It's a lie, it's a lie. Dispatch Box, you've got to go around. If the front benches on both sides are ready. Mr. Simon, if you. Marvellous. We now come to the backbench debate on the potential benefits of a full ban on fracking. I call Claire Young, who will speak for around 15 minutes.

Clay.
16:01
None Portrait Backbench Business: General Debate on the potential merits of a full ban on fracking
-

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful to the backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate and for giving me the
16:02
Claire Young Portrait Claire Young MP (Thornbury and Yate, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
opportunity to lead it. In December 2025, the Minister for energy told this chamber that the evidence base is not there at the moment to is not there at the moment to suggest that low volume hydraulic hydraulic fracturing activities hydraulic fracturing activities have the same associated risks as fracking for shale gas. I am leading this debate because I want to challenge that statement and to challenge that statement and bring the government's attention to why I, and many others believe that the understanding of fracking that the understanding of fracking that the Minister refers to is not suited for purpose.

And I want this House to consider the evidence for that argument. Let me begin with the point that matters most. We do not have a ban on fracking in this country. We have a moratorium and the two are not the same. A moratorium is a pause, and a pause can be lifted. The previous energy secretary, currently the Foreign Secretary, told his party conference last autumn that this government would legislate to ban fracking for good. This government has been in power for two years, and yet I see no indication that a full ban is due.

Maybe the Minister will care to correct me, but it seems that this government is not taking decisive action to stop all fracking activity. The reason this activity continues is because of a legal loophole, and it is worth being precise about it. The Petroleum Act 1998 defines fracking by the volume of fluid injected more than 1000m³ at any single stage, or more than 10,000m³ in total. Stay below those figures and the moratorium simply does not apply. The intent is identical to fracking.

The technique is identical. A company injects fluid at high pressure to fracture rock and release the gas inside. But because the volume is lower, the law treats it as something else entirely and waves it through. At burnaston, on the edge of the North York Moors. Europa Oil and Gas proposed exactly this a so-called proppant squeeze at volumes designed to sit just under the threshold. In correspondence obtained under Freedom of Information, the company itself referred to the operations fracking in its planning material.

It insisted that it was not. The label changes. The drilling rig does not. The reform mayor of Scarborough said. Frack ahead. Although the local council voted unanimously against the plans and the Secretary of State did not choose to overrule that. However, I am concerned about the direction this is taking. Before I move on, I would like to insert a small caveat. I am supportive of the geothermal sector. It's a genuinely renewable source of energy and a small number of geothermal cases employ low volume hydraulic simulation.

My case for a permanent ban asks for fracking to be classified by intent, and therefore make sure that the geothermal would not be under threat. I think this is important because it is an industry which has great potential in this country that has yet to be realised. Despite the fact that it is extensively used in other European countries. So I want to be clear that lower volume fracking as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

form of fracking is something entirely different. Well, the hon. Lady give way. I will give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give. Way and was grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she try and just clarify a little more on this? Because when you have a seismicity event of freeze of maths, let's say one with a, a hydraulic frack for energy, treasure of gas, frack for energy, treasure of gas, how is that different from the seismicity of one on a geothermal site? It's the same seismicity. It's the same event. It's sort of scarily called an earthquake, but it's not.

And to all intents and purposes, it's about the equivalent of moving rapidly from behind your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

desk on a chair. What is the difference between the two? I would like to clarify that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to clarify that. I'm not suggesting that we should clarify that we should measure, clarify that we should measure, that we should judge these things by seismicity, because those are not things that you can predict in advance. The point is that in one, advance. The point is that in one, you are extracting fossil fuels with the geothermal. That's not the effect that you're having. I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's a different process with different effect. Yeah. The Burniston site, she talked

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Burniston site, she talked about North Yorkshire County Council planning committee rejected not just in seismicity grounds, but on issues about groundwater, groundwater pollution, traffic and a whole range of other issues. Aren't these sort of low level fracking sites that that are coming, that are technically legal, still

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that are technically legal, still have a range of issues for us to deal with? Claire Young. Thank you very much for your intervention. I quite agree, and I think that that's the that probably better explains explains the point that maybe I was making to do, which is that other issues, like the potential for groundwater contamination are different in the situation where you are fracking for fracking for fossil fuels. Where had I got to. Yeah. So.

Ministers tell us that the evidence base is not there to show that lower volume fracking fracturing carries the same risk as fracking for shale gas. I would gently say to the government that the evidence is there and it's sitting in their own records. The earthquakes that triggered the 2019 moratorium at Preston New Road did not follow some enormous injection. They followed a series of lower volume stages, every one of them below the legal threshold. The tremor that shook Lancashire felt across the area at magnitude 2.9, came in the days after a stage that used just 142m³ of fluid.

The then Oil and Gas Authority concluded that it was not possible to predict the timing or size of these events. The volumes proposed at Burnaston were higher than the volume that caused that earthquake. This matters well beyond seismicity. It matters for our countryside, for the rural communities and protected landscapes that would host this drilling and gain almost nothing in return. It matters for our waters, as has already been mentioned. Parts of Yorkshire were under hosepipe ban in 2025, and yet we are asked to pump scarce water deep underground and accept the risk of contaminating the aquifers that families and farms depend on.

And it matters for the climate. Every new source of onshore gas means more methane, more emissions and a direct collision with the carbon budgets this House has voted for. Not to mention our net zero ambitions. I know there are voices reform amongst them, who say that the answer to high bills is to return to fossil fuels and to frack our way out of trouble. I understand the appeal of a simple answer, but it's the wrong one. Gas is priced on an international market, drilling a handful of wells in the English countryside would not move that price, and the companies doing the drilling would sell at whatever the market pays.

Fracking would not take a single pound off a family's bill. What it would do is divide communities, tie up local councils in years of planning battles, and lock us into the very fuel whose price swings cause the crisis in the first place. We would be more exposed. So I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question their intentions. Yes. Their fracking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Their fracking. Is a massive scar on the countryside, far more visible and far more disruptive than, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

far more disruptive than, for example, an online or an onshore wind turbine. Absolutely. And I'm just about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. And I'm just about to come to this point because in many cases, the very same people many cases, the very same people that would argue for fracking will will argue that they would want fewer windfarms, fewer solar farms and renewable energy sources due to their bloating of the countryside. So I ask those voices, how is fracking supporting the upkeep of our countryside? How is it better than those other uses which would produce clean energy? And how is our contaminating our water supply, helping anyone? The honest route to lower bills and to real energy security is the one this country is already capable of taking cheap, clean, home-grown power.

And by that I mean renewables. But also in my own constituency, the prospect of new nuclear Aylesbury shows the part that low carbon generation can play alongside renewables in a secure system. That is where the jobs are. That is where the investment should be flowing, and that is the future here. So let me come to my ask. And it is a single, clear one. I feel as if this government may need some clarity. I ask the Minister to commit today to defining fracking by its purpose and its effect, not by an arbitrary measure of fluid used so that every form of hydraulic fracturing is captured, the loophole is closed, and the permanent ban.

This government has promised, is written into law rather than left in a conference speech and forgotten. Our countryside, our water and our climate deserve nothing less. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Yeah. The question is, as on the Order Paper and I call Alison Hume.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper and I call Alison Hume. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate for Member for Thornbury and Yate for securing a debate on this important issue. I first became aware of issue. I first became aware of small scale fracking when Europa oil and gas applied to explore for gas at Burnaston, a village just on the edge of the picturesque North York Moors in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby. I was surprised to discover that companies can still submit applications of this kind.

Surprised that it wasn't blocked by the moratorium on fracking, which was introduced after earthquakes linked to fracking operations in 2019 at Preston New Road in Lancashire. And it turns out it's because UK legislation defines fracking based on fluid volume thresholds of 1000m³ per stage, or 10,000m³ in total. This leaves a legal loophole for oil and gas companies to exploit. So, because Europa oil and gas plans fall below the legal threshold, they are not calling it fracking, but prop and squeeze instead.

Let's be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, prop and squeeze is just hydraulic fracturing at lower fluid volumes. The intent and technique are the same. Europa wants to explore for and two extract gas through, causing the rock to fracture by injecting a substance into it at pressure. This is fracking. There is strong evidence to suggest that
16:13
Alison Hume Portrait Alison Hume MP (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)
-
-
small scale fracking carries the same risks as larger scale operations, particularly around seismicity. A report recently published by Professor Haszeldine published by Professor Haszeldine at the University of Edinburgh found that earthquakes from high volume fracking and low volume volume fracking and low volume fracking are equally large and equally unpredictable. And this echoes findings commissioned by the echoes findings commissioned by the then Oil and Gas Authority in two events at Preston New Road, which also showed that seismic impacts cannot be accurately predicted regardless of fluid volume.

Faced with this advice, why would we take the risk of allowing small scale fracking to continue? Other environmental concerns with fracking remain, too. These include potential groundwater contamination from methane migration or the chemicals in frack fluid, methane leaks, air pollution, and damage to the landscape. And of course, fracking at any volume leads to more greenhouse gas emissions, which contributes to climate change. After experiencing the hottest summer on record, I hope the environmental consequences of continued gas extraction are at the forefront of our minds.

In our manifesto, we committed to ban fracking. Our forthcoming Energy Independence bill commits to do the same. However, unless we implement a full ban on fracking, companies like Europa, oil and gas will continue to exploit the existing loophole. Rathlin energy are about to start small scale fracking at their West Newton site in East Yorkshire, one of 66 current licences across the country. Our Labour government talks about banning fracking and safeguarding the places we love, and I have the greatest respect for the Minister, and I appreciate the time that the Department has spent discussing this issue with me.

But respectfully, does he not see that at least the government acts boldly and closes the loophole? Communities across the country, such as those in West Newton and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Burniston, will have fracking operations on their doorstep. These. Communities love where they live,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Communities love where they live, don't they count? It doesn't matter to them whether it's a mini frack to them whether it's a mini frack or the full scale version. The net result is the same drill pads, result is the same drill pads, drill heads, gas flare and noise 24 over seven lights during the over seven lights during the exploration stage and continuous HGV lorry movements. We cannot categorically say it is safe for the environment either. The government has called for more evidence on the safety of small Cat Smith sorry, small scale fracking, but the sad truth is it looks like the evidence will be gathered on the back of another incident like Preston New Road.

I don't want this for my community in Burniston, as I'm sure other hon. Members and friends do not want it for theirs. Madam Deputy Speaker, unless we legislate to ban all forms of fracking in our upcoming Energy Independence Bill, then our fracking ban will be symbolic rather than material. We have a unique opportunity to show climate leadership. We have an opportunity as a government to stand up to the frackers, to make our legislation watertight, to safeguard the natural environment. Listen to the concerns in our communities and to meet our climate commitments by introducing a comprehensive ban based on process and intent.

We can finally put an end to fracking once

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and for all. Wera Hobhouse thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate on securing this important debate and for her important debate and for her excellent introduction. I also have to sort of say I have full to sort of say I have full solidarity with the communities of the hon. Lady from North Yorkshire the hon. Lady from North Yorkshire in my inn near Bath. In 2015 there was a threat to fracking, so I know exactly what the arguments are.

I know exactly how fearful the communities are, if this is coming to them, and therefore we all have to stand together to support her and her community to stop fracking. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for a complete and permanent ban on fracking. Frack
16:17
Wera Hobhouse Portrait Wera Hobhouse MP (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
fuel is a fossil fuel. Its immense, our reliance on expensive gas, and our reliance on expensive gas, and it flies in the face of our net zero commitments. It also flies in the face of protecting our environment. I don't know who ever environment. I don't know who ever has made this argument that an onshore wind turbine or a solar onshore wind turbine or a solar panel is a scar on our natural environment, but fracking isn't. It environment, but fracking isn't. It is a bigger scar that we can inflict on our communities, and we should not be fooled.

The gas is produced by fracking, contribute directly to global warming and climate change, the effects of which are not a distant threat but already taking place in the. In the UK this summer, 28,000 deaths were linked to extreme heat, wildfires destroyed homes and our countryside. Over 25 million people faced restrictions on their water use. We cannot continue to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

energy of the past, but must urgently replace it. Well, my hon. Friend. Give way. I am happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am happy to give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps, like me, she may have seen several screenings of the People's Emergency Briefing over the summer recess. That paints a devastating picture of what happens if we continue down this route, which would include fracking. Does she agree with me that we need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she agree with me that we need a national briefing to educate people on this issue? I thank him for his contribution and I absolutely agree. It is important that across the country, people understand why here in Parliament and in the UK, government must lead on climate change. There are many, many people already aware, but there's also still a lot of misinformation spreading around and trying to sort of reset the progress that we have already made.

We have to not get distracted by the naysayers and what the people I call the flat earthers. I know that's a bit of an insult, but this is a science. It is a science, and we must listen to the science. Not only does fracking contribute to climate change, it is also very unsustainable in other ways. It's it demands vast amounts of water, which is completely at odds with public safety and security. When droughts are becoming increasingly common. Additionally, the pollutants, as has already been mentioned, released from fracking sites affect air and water quality, posing serious health risks to local communities living nearby.

Lower volume, frankly, is clearly linked to unpredictable earthquakes and pose a serious threat to public safety. Yet there are currently multiple proposals for low volume fracking across Yorkshire and Lancashire, and my hon. Friend has already explained the difference. These cannot be permitted to go ahead. In fact, the current legal definition of high volume fracking would not even cover the activities of Cuadrilla in the lead up to the earthquake caused by fracking at Preston New Road site in Lancashire. This is despite the moratorium being introduced as a consequence of this very earthquake.

Fracking is not sustainable and it is not safe. It is incomprehensible that in 2026 it is not banned outright. The government's proposal to a new onshore oil and gas licensing is a welcome step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. It would have no impact on areas that are already licensed for fracking, which would remain covered only by a moratorium, which can easily be overturned. It would fail to close the loopholes in the moratorium by hydraulic fracturing is defined only by high fluid volume thresholds.

The public supports a ban on fracking. In fact, when asked to choose, 60% of people would rather have a solar farm nearby than a fracking site for very, very good reasons. Labour made their position on fracking very clear before they came into power. They pledged in their 2024 manifesto to ban fracking for good. Yet now that they're in power, the government seems to have forgotten about their pledge the Energy Independence Bill. As has already been mentioned, is an opportunity for the government to honour their promise and deliver a full ban on fracking.

The bill must do three things. First, it must close the loopholes, which allows applications for damaging low volume fracking and other harmful fracking techniques like acid fracturing. Second, it must introduce a permanent ban. In law, this would put an end to the current situation where fracking is permitted, simply because a Minister needs to make a statement to reverse the moratorium. And third, it must ensure that a ban on fracking applies to all areas covered by existing licences. I urge the government to act now and introduce a full ban on fracking to protect the security and safety and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

health of the public and our environment. Thank you. Phil Brickell thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I congratulate Deputy Speaker. Can I congratulate the Member for Thornbury and Yate on securing this debate? And as a keen environmentalist, I want to keen environmentalist, I want to speak in support of full and permanent ban on fracking today in my constituency. People care deeply my constituency. People care deeply about our shared natural environment. They care about access to nature. They care about protecting the landscapes that define our communities.

I see that every time I visit the West Pennine Moors and enjoy our local landscapes, those moors and fields are a place of recreation, reflection and escape, and they are part of our local identity in Bolton West. What they are not is a resource to be gambled with in pursuit of a speculative industry that has never enjoyed public support in my constituency. Now, way back in 2015, there were demonstrations against fracking in Horwich after the then conservative government granted licences to drill there in Black Rod, in Rivington and in Belmont.

And many of us will remember even larger demonstrations against fracking in neighbouring Lancashire over the years. Local people consistently turned out in their droves because
16:23
Phil Brickell Portrait Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)
-
-
they were worried about the consequences for their communities, their environment and their quality their environment and their quality of life. And it is impossible not to mention the extraordinary events to mention the extraordinary events of 2022. The then Prime Minister, Liz Truss, effectively turned a Liz Truss, effectively turned a vote on fracking into a confidence vote in her own government, and that evening, fracking extracted that evening, fracking extracted her from her job far more effectively than it has ever extracted shale gas fracking became a symbol of a political establishment, refusing to listen to communities and refusing to recognise where public opinion had already moved.

My own concerns have always been primarily environmental and ecological, and these are fears raised still to this day, repeatedly by my constituents. Indeed, my friend Horwich resident and long standing environmental activist Stuart put it more clearly than I be able to. He told me that for him, the biggest problem is the toxic chemicals entering the watercourse, and it's an echo of the sentiments rightly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby earlier in this debate today. Now, that captures the heart of the issue.

People are worried about the risk of pollution to the water table and the wider environment. Indeed, once groundwater is contaminated, the damage can last for generations. So let us today ask ourselves one simple question is fracking really worth it? The reality is that fracking has always asked communities to take environmental risks in exchange for highly uncertain rewards, and the truth is that the country at large has never bought into it. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. I'm struck in my constituency how there are those who work in the oil and gas those who work in the oil and gas industry and those who are pushing for, for for more solar. But when it comes to renewables, when it it comes to renewables, when it comes to fracking, it's the one area where both sides are likely to find agreement that it is not wanted and it is not supported.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wanted and it is not supported. Does he also find in his Constituency. That that common ground around fracking being something that no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fracking being something that no one wants is evident. Phil Brickell. I thank my hon. Friend for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

His contribution. And that. Expectation that across the divide there is opposition to divide there is opposition to fracking is something I certainly see in my mailbox in Bolton West. Madam Deputy Speaker, my constituents know all about the costs of industrial exploitation. Back in the late 19th century, the Back in the late 19th century, the northwest was a hotbed of industrial extraction. Coal mining in particular, left its mark across the moors and surrounding communities in a way that still scars landscapes and still undermines ecological well-being.

We should not spend the 2020s trying to recreate the energy debates of 50 years ago. Instead, we should be embracing the technologies of the future. That is exactly why I proudly stood on Labour's manifesto commitment to make Britain a clean energy superpower. It's a commitment this government is now delivering through its Clean Power mission and its commitment to legislate for a ban on fracking. But the choice is not between fracking and keeping the lights on. The choice is between investing in the industries of the future, or clinging to the arguments of the past, and I know which side of that choice my constituents are firmly on.

Indeed, just last year, 200 jobs were secured at Hitachi Astemo in Horwich following £100 million of investment. That was investment into the electric vehicle supply chain, turning our back on fracking but embracing those opportunities of the future. And that is a powerful vote of confidence in my constituency, because those are exactly the kinds of jobs we should be championing high skilled, high tech jobs that support clean economic growth while driving the transition to that renewable economy of the future, not speculative drilling, not fossil fuel dependency, not reopening arguments that committees, communities settled many years ago.

And after successive record breaking temperatures and growing evidence of man made climate change, reducing emissions and accelerating the transition to clean power is not optional. It is essential a full ban on fracking protects communities. It protects our environment. It protects treasured landscapes like the West Pennine moors and the surrounding fields. It sends a clear signal that Britain's future lies not beneath the ground in ever harder to reach fossil fuels, but in the clean industries, innovation and jobs that will power the decades ahead.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

For those reasons, I strongly support a full ban on fracking. Richard Tice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Richard Tice. Madam Deputy Speaker Well, this is a fascinating debate, full of nonsense and misinformation. Let's nonsense and misinformation. Let's just set the context, shall we, of what we're talking about. It's not actually a debate about fracking. actually a debate about fracking. It turns out it's a debate about gas, shale gas, for example. And I gas, shale gas, for example. And I just urge the hon. Members in this House and those watching to just ask ourselves, why is it that
16:29
Richard Tice Portrait Richard Tice MP (Boston and Skegness, Reform UK)
-
-
everybody in this country is arguing and distressed and arguing and distressed and concerned about the price of electricity and energy? Why is it that the price of gas in the United States is a mere 20% of the price States is a mere 20% of the price of gas here in the United Kingdom? Well, I can tell hon. Members it's because for the last 20 plus years, because for the last 20 plus years, yes, the United States has been enjoying the benefits of shale gas that they have extracted through one method of extraction, which is called fracking or hydraulic fracking.

I'm delighted to give way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the hon. Lady. Figures of comparisons, how much frack fuel we can actually produce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

frack fuel we can actually produce in this country compared to the US. I'm delighted to, Madam Deputy Speaker, to assist the hon. Lady who is clearly not informed whatsoever. We have somewhere whatsoever. We have somewhere between 30 and 50 years of gas for the whole of the United Kingdom available onshore in Lincolnshire available onshore in Lincolnshire alone. Madam Deputy Speaker in in. Yes, exactly. The hon. Member. It may pay your attention to listen. In Lincolnshire alone, there is some ten years worth of shale gas, a decade's worth for the United Kingdom that could generate thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs.

So the context of this is very simple. In the United States, it has been transformational to the US economy. It's the reason they have much lower gas prices. It's the reason they have much lower electricity prices. And in Lincolnshire alone, as I was just explaining, Madam Deputy Speaker, the density of shale gas in the Gainsborough Trough is believed to be double that of the most productive shale gas in Pennsylvania of the Marcellus Shale. So the opportunity is enormous.

And even if hon. Members were to disagree with me completely, which I suspect may be the case, and maybe a middle ground might be to say, well, before we make a seismic decision, maybe the answer might be to do a proper test that could be independently monitored, independently supervised, and checked for, let's say, a year or two years. I'm a generous man, of course, and that can then be verified. And you could do that with a number of different wells using a number of different techniques, because there are indeed.

Madam Deputy Speaker, numerous different extraction techniques depending on the depth to which one goes. There's some 11 techniques that can be included, including low volume hydraulic fracking, including high volume hydraulic fracking, including acidic oscillation, and on and on the list goes. Why would we be so dogmatic, so stubborn, but bluntly so negligent against the financial interests and prosperity of all of our citizens to refuse to use this glorious energy treasure that has made the United States so wealthy.

The the potential is enormous. Tens and tens of billions of investment into our community, tens and tens and tens and tens and tens more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

billions of tax revenue, potential community benefits, enormous lighter weight to give. The hon. Gentleman. I thank the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I understand that he thought last summer, whilst being the hottest on record, was actually the hottest on record, was actually more of a millionaire's Paradise than the awful situation it was for than the awful situation it was for many in our country. Does he not understand the science of climate understand the science of climate change, that he is encouraging that we continue to aggravate? Or is he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simply a flat earther entirely? I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I really do his contribution, but I really do think we have to get real here. The climate has changed for millions of climate has changed for millions of years and it will continue. There is not a scrap of evidence, Madam Deputy Speaker, that net zero, Deputy Speaker, that net zero, which is a new concept of about a decade, that how all of a sudden you get to net zero and that's you get to net zero and that's going to stop climate change.

I mean, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I'm doing well. I'm in full flow. Before I come back to the hon. Lady, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It said in its I think it was sixth report that even if you got to net zero tomorrow, it would take somewhere between. They did say this with high confidence, which is reassuring. They said it would take somewhere between 200 years on one context and a thousand years on the other context, to make any difference whatsoever to sea level rise.

Maybe the smarter thing to do is to adapt to climate change than think you can stop it. But I come back to the the essence of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is which is the importance of having the decision as to whether we as a nation are prepared to impoverish ourselves by writing off one of the greatest treasure opportunities that we have, that almost any other nation in the world that has got this energy, treasure, quite rightly, quite sensibly, financially, productively uses that energy treasure.

But the mood of this place is, no, we're going to impoverish ourselves. We're not going to use that treasure. We're going to make people ever poorer, because we're going to insist on putting all our bets on renewable energy that we keep being told is going to be cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. But actually, we now know from the experts, even if the price of gas goes to zero by the time of the next general election. Madam Deputy Speaker, our energy bills will be higher because the costs of renewables are going up and up and up.

And guess what? When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, which occasionally happens here in the United Kingdom, you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need back up. And so it's basic common sense. I give way to the hon. Lady. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The gentleman for giving way. The hon. Gentleman has made The hon. Gentleman has made extraordinary claims about the reserves of shale gas, but there's currently no proven, commercially proven reserves of shale gas in the proven reserves of shale gas in the UK. And yet he is suggesting that there are billions and billions, there are billions and billions, tens of billions at hand just to be plucked, whereas the evidence actually shows that the cost of renewables is going down constantly. So I ask the hon.

Gentleman to pay courtesy to the conventions of the House, that we speak truth in this place, and to cite his sources.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. I will cite the sources, look at everybody's energy bills. They're going up and up and. Know the sources for your.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Know the sources for your. Claim, Madam Speaker. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The hon. Lady did point out the. Conventions and courtesies of the House. She has to ask. The honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable. Member if he will give way. And it's also and this might be helpful for everybody, if intervention is going to take place, they should be going to take place, they should be through the Chair Please don't face the back of the chamber. It makes it incredibly hard for the microphones to pick up comments,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and indeed is quite discourteous to the chair to turn your back on me. Richard Tyson. Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Lady asks a fair question as to the evidence. Well, the evidence is from the experts who I've just from the experts who I've just cited, who say that even if the price of gas goes to zero, our energy bills are going up and up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

energy bills are going up and up and up. The next bit of evidence Madam Deputy Speaker I'll just carry on because I'm in full. Clarify the question I actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

asked. I give way to the hon. Lady. Madam Deputy. Speaker, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I'm requesting that he cites his sources for the claims he has made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as to the reserves of shale gas in this country. I was just coming on to that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was just coming on to that. Indeed, the British Geological Survey has, for example, made clear, Survey has, for example, made clear, clear estimates that there are vast sums. Know there are there have been tests. Madam Deputy Speaker, been tests. Madam Deputy Speaker, into the Gainsborough trough, which is why I made the claim about the density. Madam Deputy Speaker And then, of course, there is the evidence of successful business people who invested hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds because they had done the geological work and they realised that it is a huge, huge opportunity and they are still there.

And that is the evidence, because when people are prepared to invest sums of money, you know that they've done the research. And I just come back to this point. It is gross negligence of the highest order, frankly, probably of a criminal order to refuse to even try to not even say, OK, Richard, I disagree with you, but let's have an independent test a couple of years, a couple of different sites, a couple of different techniques, surely as a middle ground, because in the possible event, Madam Speaker, that those on my side of the debate are correct and those on the other side of the debate are incorrect.

Surely we have then taken advantage of this great opportunity. I then come on to, because I realise that time is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pressing. I'm delighted to give way to the hon. Lady. In the Madam Deputy Speaker. In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the Madam Deputy Speaker. In the spirit of sort of cooperation, saying, all right, even if we did saying, all right, even if we did this, could he explain the damage and disruption to communities in and disruption to communities in the UK if we tried? On the scale of the US has done where there are vast amounts of empty country with vast amounts of empty country with no people disrupted by fracking. Can he explain how that compares

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and how disruptive it would be for our communities in the UK? Would you like to do. She makes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would you like to do. She makes. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. There are some 20 million people in the United States who people in the United States who live within a mile of fracking pads, shale gas pads, whatever one might wish to call them. In Lincolnshire. wish to call them. In Lincolnshire. I have seen the. The numerous nodding donkeys, oil drilling wells just in. In my county of Lincolnshire, you wouldn't know they're there because guess what? They're hidden behind trees.

And contrary to some information that a previous hon. Member said, actually the reality is that a, a a shale gas. Well, once it is drilled, you barely know it exists. It's a couple of metres high and you can have ten pads on the size of about two football pitches behind trees. No one would even know they are there. The misinformation, the false information, the deliberate, deliberate nonsense being peddled is depriving this great country of the opportunity to reduce our bills.

Because if we carry on as we are, then our bills are going up and up and up. Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, just today we hear that the forecast increase in bills for I think January will be at least 15%. So we should at least have the courage to explore some alternatives. And I need to deal with this whole issue of of seismicity. Some people call it earthquakes, which is a very scary sounding thing. And at the at the Preston Road site in near Blackpool, there was a limit of just 0.5 on the Richter scale, 0.5, which now, because the Richter scale is logarithmic, 0.5 is the equivalent of one of the clerks to the House from just gently moving their chair backwards and standing up as they leave.

At the end of the day, that is 0.5. Hon. Members might like to think of if they. If they stood up, if they had a melon in their hands and they held it to shoulder height and they dropped it just here, that would be about 1.5 on the Richter scale. But if a bus were to go past your house, that would be in the order of 2.5, which is about the equivalent of the sort of limits applied to construction sites. So I just think we need some appropriate context, some appropriate understanding as to the realities of the situation.

And I think that the the opportunities here must be worth at least exploring. And I fully accept for those who, who have a, a different view to us on, on issues around renewables, we can all agree diversity can be a wonderful thing. Diversity of, of, of technologies and sources. And maybe one day I'm 62 madam. Maybe I'm only after I'm long dead. Renewables might be cheaper, but at the moment that is not the evidence. Whereas the evidence in the United States is that shale gas is driving bills all the way down.

So I think that we owe it to ourselves. I give way to the hon. Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Member for giving way. And I wonder if he would accept the somewhat a voice in the accept the somewhat a voice in the wilderness, because fracking is unpopular with reform voters. They don't want it. I'm standing here representing my constituents. Madam Deputy Speaker in Scarborough and Deputy Speaker in Scarborough and Whitby. Can he honestly say he's doing the same for his in Boston

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doing the same for his in Boston and Skegness? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can absolutely say that to the hon. Lady, indeed to the good constituents across Lincolnshire, and maybe therefore, rather than arrogantly in this place, just thinking we're going to ban this process across the whole United Kingdom. Given that the new Prime Minister is keen on devolution, maybe this decision is indeed could be devolved to individual counties that have the energy, treasure, maybe the joy of Lincolnshire jobs for Lincolnshire Gas, Lincolnshire gas for Lincolnshire, jobs for Lincolnshire growth.

It's like a patriotic dream in the great county of Lincolnshire. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, if it was devolved and even in a devolved world, the entire country said we do not want fracking in all of our devolved places. How would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you feel about it then? Obviously. Madam Deputy Speaker, at least I would have put forward at least I would have put forward my argument to everybody, and people would have had an individual choice, as opposed to what feels to me a a somewhat overarching umbrella of, no, you naughty, naughty children, you must not consider this, even though the evidence around the world is that actually where there is cheap gas, guess what? You get higher GDP growth per person.

And it's so important people understand this because in the 80s and 90s, our energy use per person increased by some 20%. But yet in the last 20 years, our energy use per person has tragically declined by some 20%, whilst our GDP per person has collapsed from in the 80s and 90s over 3% per person per year to just about 0.5% per person per year. Maybe there is a direct link between the growth of the electricity and energy prices because of renewables in the last 10 to 15 years, and the declining growth.

I just feel that before this House considers a a full ban, that it hasn't properly explored all of the options, all of the abilities to do a. It's a popular word in this place, an impact assessment. Let's have an impact assessment by having some independently monitored shale gas wells using different techniques at different depths, independently monitored and supervised. And then with that full information, this house can come back and it can make a decision. It could decide to devolve or it could decide decide that actually we make a national decision.

And there. Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude.
16:45
Brian Leishman Portrait Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)
-
-
Brian Leishman Madam Deputy Speaker, you know, it's 100 days until Christmas, and in the last 20 minutes, we've just had a little minutes, we've just had a little glimpse into pantomime season. But on to business. Decades of governments taking wrong political decisions have made climate change decisions have made climate change not just an environmental emergency, but also a crisis rooted in social and economic inequality. Major oil and gas corporations made nearly $93 billion in profits in the second quarter of 2026.

Saudi Aramco $33 billion net income Exxon Mobil $14.5 billion profit. Shell's net income was just under $10 billion, and BP made quarterly profits of nearly $6 billion. This is an international oligarchy benefiting from war and conflict, holding governments and citizens hostage just so record profits can be made. This rampant capitalism has created dire economic inequality, growing poverty and ultimately it is leading to climate destruction. Companies that want to frack only care about making profit, pursuing shareholder dividends.

They certainly don't care about workers or communities. Madam Deputy Speaker the need for a change in political direction could not be greater. Climate protection, environmental sustainability and the provision of a genuinely just transition for workers and communities all demand the restructuring of our economy. We absolutely do not need fracking. We need a green industrial revolution. And Grangemouth in my constituency, is the ideal location to house it. I am in complete agreement with the new Prime Minister's diagnosis about the societal consequences of mass deindustrialisation and deregulation.

We've seen working class communities ex-industrial heartlands become decimated, and I have been heartened these last couple of weeks. The Prime Minister has made enthusiastic contributions at the despatch box about the future for sustainable aviation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fuel in Grangemouth. Torfaen. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, my hon. Friend makes a good point about renewables at Grangemouth. Does he agree with me that the regional economic potential of the Forth Valley, potential of the Forth Valley, which includes my constituency of Stirling and Strathallan, has Grangemouth as a key component? It Grangemouth as a key component? It is huge and that fracking is not the future that Grangemouth, the Forth Valley or the wider country

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wants or supports. I thank the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend and constituency next door neighbour. He is, of course, 100% correct, because that is exactly the sort of action that Grangemouth, the wider Forth Valley area, that he saw ably represents in this area. We all need that. But to focus on my community, just for just now, my community has been the victim of corporations amassing phenomenal wealth on the back of the talent and the skill of workers.

And then these corporations decide to move on, meaning mass redundancies and leaving behind an asset stripped community. I say to the Minister that our Labour government has the chance to change that. Let us move away from fossil fuels and fracking. Instead, let's accelerate building the renewables industry in Grangemouth. Let us use state funds like the £200 million dedicated from the National Wealth Fund set aside to finance this green industrial revolution. Quite frankly, that money has sat untouched for far too long.

I say to the House that we could do something amazing in Grangemouth. We could combine the pressing need of the environmental agenda, which is so upon us with providing genuine social justice and Madam Deputy Speaker. Now it's time for a little more socialism. The government could take some form of ownership of these new industries, a popular policy amongst the general public. We could create new, green, well-paid, secure jobs, apprenticeships that would transform the life chances of local young people.

And with public ownership, we could reinvest profits back into the local Grangemouth community, regenerating Re-energising life in the town, lifting living standards for generations to come. That's the sort of corporate social responsibility that has been so missing in recent times from Grangemouth industry. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've said many times, and you've heard me say many times that Grangemouth is a blank canvas for us to build something truly special. The crucial question is, Minister, what kind of country do we want to live in? One that continues to allow oligarchs and international capital to exploit people, place and planet? Or do we use politics? Our opportunity in government to be bold and transformative? Minister let us build Grangemouth for the future in the image of a Labour government that wants the best for workers and communities.

Let us make Grangemouth the exact. The example, the shining example of what can be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done and let's do it quickly. Ellie Chowns thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's an honour to follow on from my hon. Friend on follow on from my hon. Friend on the opposite benches, the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, who has made a passionate and utterly convincing case for the need for a green energy revolution and the benefits that this will provide, benefits that this will provide, not only environmentally but socially for the communities that we are here to represent. We've
16:51
Ellie Chowns Portrait Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
-
we are here to represent. We've heard fantastic arguments from across the House today for the reasons why we should have a full ban on fracking, not just about the earthquake risks, not just about the environmental damage to local communities, not just because it's completely publicly unpopular. As another, another hon. Member pointed out, British citizens do not want fracking. Banning fracking fully is a very, very popular policy. But fundamentally, there's one key reason why we must have a full ban on fracking, and that is because we must keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Now we know that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

live in a hugely warming world. We know that. I will give way. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Member for taking an intervention. I understand her view about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, but does she not agree with ground, but does she not agree with me that while we've still got a need for fossil fuels, it's much better for jobs, it's much better for the environment, much even better for the the exchequer that we actually produce our own oil and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gas, rather than rely on imports from elsewhere. Thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Look, fossil fuels are traded globally. The reality is that if we open up new production of fossil fuels, that will do nothing for bills, almost nothing for energy security, and it will be a complete distraction for the investments that we must make in the transition to the clean, green, renewable energy future. That is our only hope of a sustainable economy, not just in the long term, but in the short and the medium term as well.

These are the industries of the future, and people who argue that we should somehow continue to invest in the equivalent of typewriters during the era of the personal computer, or continue to invest in horses and carriages, if I may finish my point, continue to invest in horses and carriages during the era of the development of the car are simply stuck in the past. We cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to have our heads in the sand. I will take an intervention from. This most grateful talk of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This most grateful talk of having heads in the sand. I think the hon. Lady has just agreed that it would be better to send our it would be better to send our money overseas, to send our skills overseas, and to send our jobs overseas, and to literally be impoverished in a tent, on a sandbag, in with our heads in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sandbag, in with our heads in the sand. Is that really the future that she wants? No, that's a complete myth. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. That's a complete mischaracterisation of my argument. I mean, you know, we know that jackdaw, for example, would generate 27 jobs. I mean, you know, there's a number of people that fit on the top of a double decker bus. This is not. Yeah. Seriously. I can give you the reference. Unlike the, the, the extraordinary statistics that the hon.

Member was citing in his speech, which apparently have no basis in actual evidence. Fundamentally, we have to stop pouring fossil fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. And that means we need a full ban on fracking. I'll give way to the hon. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it not true that in the end, this is a choice? It is not just this is a choice? It is not just that we invest publicly large amounts of money into the transition to net zero and nothing transition to net zero and nothing into the oil and gas industry. Our energy bills are subsidised and we are subsidising the oil and gas industry. Is that not true? And it is therefore not a distraction to is therefore not a distraction to to to continue to say, oh, this is a very expensive thing and that is renewables that we need to subsidise.

And then the cheap and not expensive thing of oil and gas, that is a completely wrong argument.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We do subsidise publicly oil and gas. I thank the hon. Member for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. It is indeed true that there is considerable public subsidy for oil and gas, as well as subsidy for oil and gas, as well as revenues as it should be from the windfall taxes, because the hon. Member opposite pointed out the fuel, the fossil fuel companies are fuel, the fossil fuel companies are making tens of billions of pounds of profit raked in from consumers. of profit raked in from consumers. Fundamentally, renewables are the cheap, clean, green energy of the future, and we need to shift in that direction as fast as possible.

Now we're here talking about fracking. I mean, there is no commercially viable fracking shale gas reserve in the entirety of the UK. So this is you know, this is a an extraordinary I know the argument that there is commercially viable production is itself a nonsense. Well, the honourable you simply have to look up the information from from the British Geographical Survey. I've already given way to the hon. Gentleman and several other people. So I will move to my conclusion. Madam Deputy Speaker, fundamentally, we're living in a burning world.

11 of the hottest years on record were the past 11 years. The three hottest years on record were the past three years. This trajectory is going up and up. And this isn't just a question of graphs on paper and reports from the World Meteorological Organisation. We are feeling this in our communities. The Prime Minister, when he was considering decisions on things like this, should be listening to communities in places like Stourbridge, West Sussex, Stoke on Trent, where people have had their homes burned by the wildfires that have been supercharged by the climate change that is already built in.

It would be utterly irresponsible to pour yet more fuel on that fire of climate crisis. We need to recognise the reality that is hitting us in the face, and that is a barrelling and accelerating climate crisis. We need to do everything we possibly can to change direction, and the very least of those things has to be a full ban on fracking. So I call on the Minister. Will he clarify that when the Energy independence Bill comes to this House? I understand after the recess, will it include a fulfilment of the government's previous promise to fully ban fracking as a statutory thing, not something that can be simply overturned by a ministerial diktat? And will he apply it to existing licences because we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground and supercharge our transition to the green clean energy revolution? That is the only fundamental basis of a sustainable and prosperous future for all of the UK.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which brings us to the front bench contributions for the Liberal Democrats. Richard Foord thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Member for Thornbury and Yate the Member for Thornbury and Yate for securing this vital debate. With the backing of the backbench With the backing of the backbench Business Committee, I am very far from being an elder of this House, but I'm among the minority of
16:58
Richard Foord Portrait Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
but I'm among the minority of members to have been present that day, that evening, during the the last Parliament to see at the end of the list Truss premiership. That period is most associated with the mini Budget, the Truss. Kwartengs mini Budget. But of course, as the hon. Member for Bolton West pointed out, it should really go down in the history books, as in its association with fracking. What fewer people recall is that the Truss era fractured, gave out volatile gases and combusted.

On the 19th of October 2022, with a Conservative Party rebellion. It was rebelling over the ban on fracking for shale gas. Bill 40 conservative MPs did not vote with their government. They did not vote against an opposition motion to ban fracking. Some of the conservative MPs abstained because they were not in the House, but others abstained on a matter of principle, and I commend them. The case for, for one, was the former Minister, Chris Skidmore, who was certainly one of those principled MPs who would never vote in support of such a proposal.

I want to set out why the rebels were right, and it is fair to say that this moratorium is, is is not sufficient on two grounds. The first, because it is inadequate, the second, because of climate change. More broadly, the moratorium came into effect in 2019 after serious concerns were raised about how fracking could cause damage to nature and our communities. This ban may not cover all forms of fracking and could potentially leave significant loopholes if not addressed.

And I have to say, I thought the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby gave an excellent speech, and I completely agree with her that what we see at the moment is the exclusion of small scale fracking, often referred to as proppant squeeze. Those guidelines in the 1998 Petroleum Act are outdated and define the fracturing of rock for shale gas to involve the injection of more than 1000m³ of fluid at each stage of the hydraulic fracturing. So we need to see the closure of that loophole.

And we need to see the introduction. Of a proper ban. In 2019, the Preston New Road fracking site in Lancashire recorded more than 120 seismic events. The British Geological Survey typically detects between 2 and 300 earthquakes across the whole country, across the whole year before the fracking moratorium came into effect, drilling licences over shale gas reserves were issued across 127 constituencies in England and Wales, and there is a risk that communities will suffer not just from the seismic activity, but from the polluted groundwater and the damage to natural habitats that flow from it.

A full ban on fracking would provide certainty to our communities. The Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, has argued in the past that government would need objective evidence in order to close these loopholes and include low volume fracking in the ban. And I ask, what additional evidence does the government need? There is large support in this country for a full ban on fracking. Almost half the country believes we should not be fracking, and less than 30% of the British population support it.

It can lead to water scarcity. It can lead to risks polluting our air, our soil, our health and our biodiversity. Green space and nature are absolutely an intrinsic part of the life in the UK, and we should be protecting our wildlife with everything that we have. Ministers have previously suggested that all forms of fracking would be considered within the scope of this ban, and the Energy Secretary, the former energy Secretary, said. At the 2025 Labour Party conference. So let's ban fracking and send the frackers packing.

So I welcome the point that was made in this debate by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, who reminded us of some of the traditional Labour arguments about social justice, but that they could equate to new jobs in new industries. What the public does support is action to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. 8 in 10 people say they are concerned about climate change. They want a transition to clean energy in Mid and East Devon. Protecting our natural environment is a priority for thousands of people who've corresponded with me on the subject.

Reports of nature in decline and the loss of our precious wildlife and biodiversity is very concerning to them, and I hope this debate will not only protect communities from the damage of fracking now, but that it will, in a small way, help to protect future generations from the worst impacts of climate change. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire talked about the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and it is fair to say we have just seen the summer's hottest average temperature around 130 times more likely because of human induced climate change.

Last year, of all the electricity generated in the UK, 47% was generated from renewable sources. It represents a four fold increase in renewables since 2012, and far in advance of the pace of progress that was forecast. Yes, we will continue to see some oil and gas, and we will continue to need some oil gas in the years to come. But really, frankly, why would anyone want us to hitch ourselves to the slow wagons of which fracking is one, as other countries

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gallop away behind the technologies of the future? Yes, I will. I thank the Member for taking the intervention. So the member has the intervention. So the member has agreed that we will need oil and gas for for years to come. So can we clarify what the Liberal Democrat position is? Do they support Rosebank and Jackdaw? Do they support new licences and do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they support jobs up in Aberdeen? Well, I can tell the hon. Member I know this is a matter local to I know this is a matter local to him, so he will be interested. But in the Liberal Democrats we are very concerned about the emissions from greater extraction of fossil fuels, both in in UK waters and and around the world. And I have to say that the oil in particular is, is a pointless extraction exercise, given that we are exporting it so that other countries can can refine it in and take profits from it.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness referred to a similar point, and he made repeated references to treasure. And for those who know the story, Treasure Island. He is the Squire John Trelawny of this house, a rich landowner who pays for the ship but talks too much and trusts the wrong people. There is a real danger that investments in fracking will be a catastrophic mistake, as the fuels, the facilities and the resources become stranded assets. There is a real risk that they will lose their value prematurely.

As the tide of renewable technology advances around them. And to finish where I started, I am concerned about the Conservative Party's journey towards political extinction. Polling suggests that support for any fracking is a complete misreading of where our constituents are. We Liberal Democrats could gloat on these benches quietly that the Conservative Party has misread the room, and we could enjoy the electoral dividends that this brings. But we would much rather that the Conservative Party returned to the consensus.

Climate change is one of the gravest issues that our generation of politicians is sent to this House to tackle. Let's not make a catastrophic mistake here.
17:06
Harriet Cross Portrait Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister Harriet Cross. congratulate the Member for Thornbury and Yate for bringing today's debate. And as we have heard from a number of the speeches heard from a number of the speeches today, including from hon. Members such as that from Scarborough and Whitby, Bath, Bolton West, North Whitby, Bath, Bolton West, North Herefordshire and others. There are a range of strongly held views about fracking, not least concerns about the distinction between high and low volume fracking, environmental impacts, seismic activity and wider impacts of onshore gas production on local communities.

And I want to start by acknowledging this view. Local communities, in particular rural communities, too often find themselves the hosts for onshore infrastructure, be that energy, mining or transport projects. It's important, indeed critical, that these communities should have a say. Should any proposals for fracking projects come forward. There are, as we've heard, mixed views on the suitability and capability of onshore fracking in the UK. So instead of us here deciding whether the UK does or does not have a viable reserves that can be fracked, I want to instead touch on two more broader principles, things that we should all be considering when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discussing not just fracking, but indeed any industry. Oh yes. I'm grateful for her.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way because she's talking about principles. And the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth has reminded us of some principled conservative backbenchers who rebelled against the Liz Truss government to block plans for government to block plans for fracking. Now, we've all also heard that the leader of the opposition's view is that any conservative who view is that any conservative who wishes to stand as an MP for her party must reject net zero. So can I simply ask her to confirm today whether conservative MPs who are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposed to fracking are welcome in? The leader of the opposition's Conservative Party? Thank you. After that very, very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. After that very, very long intervention, we finally got to the point. We are not opposed to net zero. We're opposed to a 2050 net zero. We're opposed to a 2050 net zero target, which makes the country weaker, poorer, which costs jobs, particularly in my jobs, particularly in my constituency in north east Scotland. But back to the principles which I was talking about. Firstly, it is right that where possible, countries utilise their own resources. This is a fundamental part of a country's national security, whether for jobs, investment, industrial capability or resource security, ensuring a domestic supply of crucial materials and products should be a concern for all governments.

This is becoming ever more pressing in a world that is increasingly uncertain, and where the flow of goods and products is becoming less predictable than we have known for decades. And the second principle, and one I think only one member touched on today, is market forces. It is not for us sitting here to tell the market whether or not an industry is commercially viable. Private companies with private money or bank financing are looking to invest in a range of competing opportunities.

Will decide that. The reason I mentioned this is relevant because whether or not fracking is or isn't banned is only half the story. Should fracking be permitted, but companies cannot make it viable, it will not happen. And that is a genuine concern when it comes to fracking. The amount of reserves we have in the UK and the viability of producing those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remains an open question. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, a secure domestic gas supply. Of course. I'm most grateful to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. And on that point. Surely the fact that companies have already invested companies have already invested over £200 million in the potential for shale gas onshore proves that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for shale gas onshore proves that they believe that the reserves are very considerable. Well, as I say, companies, private companies will invest where they see opportunities. They will risk their money how they want, and it's up to them to either gain or lose in the investments that they make. A secure domestic supply of gas is a crucial consideration when it comes to our energy security. I want to see UK safeguarded with a domestic supply of gas, which we use and need every day.

But my Deputy Speaker, there is a viable gas source that does not need onshore fracking, a source that has been producing in the North Sea safely entering our gas grid for decades. While today we are discussing whether or not fracking should be banned. We should be more concerned about the government's hostile policies when it comes to North Sea oil and gas production. Take jackdaw, a gas field which has been produced which could produce enough gas to power 1.4 million homes in the UK this winter.

About 6% of our gas needs. Those worried about onshore fracking should reflect. But there is a choice here because they cannot be against all sources of gas. Would they prefer gas from jackdaw or another North Sea gas field from onshore fracked resources or imports of LNG? Because the option is not no gas,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's just where the gas comes from. Yes. I thank you for giving way. Is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for giving way. Is it not true that delaying the transition, whether that's 2050, transition, whether that's 2050, that the hon. Lady doesn't want to accept. But whatever delay we we make, it will make energy more expensive for our citizens? And is it therefore not highly can't change overnight. So whether or not we ban our own gas or import gas, that need does not change. The demand is what's important, not the supply. And the demand is what's going to dictate or not any sort of target or progression to other energy sources.

And I think the crucial question hanging over us in this debate today is why? Why is there a desire for a full fracking ban? Is it a concern about the environment, about seismic activity? And yes, I'm sure that is part of it, but I expect it is more of a continuation of the hostile attitude we have become too accustomed to towards UK oil and gas production. Putting the merits of fracking as a means of production to one side, it cannot or at least should not be denied.

But the UK producing its own resources where at all possible, be that gas or oil or food or cement or steel. The list does go on. Is a good thing. It's good for jobs. It's good for skills, good for investment, security of supply, good for industrialisation. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's good for national security. Yes. If the domestic production of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the domestic production of. Gas is so fantastic for the UK economy, why did successive conservative governments massively constrain the amount of gas that can be stored in this country to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can be stored in this country to prevent those huge fluctuations in price that we see? Because unlike this Labour government, we weren't banning government, we weren't banning production, new production from the North Sea. So we would have had a flow of gas from the North Sea. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, let's be serious. No one who has spoken in this debate today concerned about the loophole in the moratorium, needs to fear, because there is no way that this Labour government is going to use any loophole which might mean more UK gas production, because their record offshore shows that their plan is incoherent and self-defeating.

They'd prefer to ban new imports. They'd prefer to tax the industry so highly that investment is drying up and moving abroad at the expense of jobs and livelihoods. Here in the UK. They'd prefer to pay Norway £20 billion every year to import gas from there instead of from the North Sea. And we know that just today they've decided to put votes in a by election ahead of permitting jackdaw and presumably Rosebank before those results. And the result of doing all this, the UK will import more LNG gas, LNG, which is more carbon intensive, which, with relevance to this debate, LNG, which largely derives from fracked shale gas.

So it's not true to say that Labour or the Liberal Democrats or the Greens oppose fracking, saying that it's not true to say that they oppose oil and gas. What they oppose is producing gas here in the UK, and therefore they oppose oil and gas jobs here in the UK. Yes, this debate today is about fracking, but it is more pressing. Issue is protecting the UK's established oil and gas sector, its jobs, its supply chain and the expertise which are disappearing.

And the steps the government can take for this are simple. Indeed, the Conservatives have set them out many times. We must end the ban on new licences. We must permit Jackdaw and Rosebank, end the energy profits levy and we must get Britain drilling again.
17:15
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
Minister Martin McCluskey. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate for bringing this debate to the House this this debate to the House this afternoon and for the backbench Business Committee for approving it. Business Committee for approving it. After the hottest summer on record. I would argue that the need for climate action is more acute than ever. We've seen really visibly this summer why it is so necessary. And so I have to start by saying it astounds me with what we've heard from the hon.

Member for Boston and Skegness during this debate, where he asked the question, who would forgive us? And the question I would put back to him is, who will forgive us if we, as he has done, deny the climate science? Who will forgive us if we fail to plan for a transition that is happening now, not a transition that is coming in years to come, a transition that is happening now that work and jobs rely on. And who will forgive us if we pass on to our children and grandchildren, the next generation, a world that is worse than when we inherited it.

And to me, that is the question that sits at the heart of this debate. Now, there may be parts of this debate where we may disagree, even with those who have a lot to agree on in terms of climate and the science. But I think on those points around the basics of climate science, there is much that we can agree on. So it is important that the house industry, communities and the wider public have clarity about what the government's position is on this issue, the evidence base behind it and the safeguards that apply.

So let me remind the House of our position. And that comes in three parts. First, our clear commitment to ban fracking for shale gas. Second, the distinction between that activity and low volume hydraulic fracturing techniques used in conventional oil and gas operations. And as the hon. Lady acknowledged in her speech, other industries, such as geothermal. And thirdly, the broader reality is that the benefits of getting off fossil fuel roller coasters significantly outweigh the costs, with clean energy providing cheaper power travel and homes for our country.

This government has been clear in its commitment to ban hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, commonly known as fracking. There is currently no fracking for shale gas anywhere in the United Kingdom. Now, members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby and many others, asked about the Energy independence Bill. The Energy Independence Bill was announced in the King's Speech and will meet our commitments to not issue new licences, to licences to explore new fields that is onshore and offshore, including those that could be used for fracking, for shale gas, that will deliver on our commitment in law to ban fracking.

The effect of moratorium on fracking for shale gas in England remains in place for existing licences because of concerns about the prediction and management of induced seismicity. Those concerns are not minor, they are not theoretical. And all three instances of fracking for shale gas in the UK, there was evidence of induced seismicity, including earthquakes strong enough to be felt by surrounding communities. Now, where communities have concerns about safety, environmental protection and local impacts, the government has a responsibility to proceed cautiously and transparently.

Fracking for shale gas is used for gases located within very small pores of shale rock and cannot be extracted without repeatedly fracturing the rock. It typically requires injecting high volumes of fluid and propane at high pressure, and at multiple points in a horizontal well to create high numbers of fractures extending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just. To give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. Does the Minister agree with me that not only did the hon. Member from Boston and Skegness exaggerate the amount of available gas that might be in the UK, less than 10% of such be in the UK, less than 10% of such gas is usually recovered and that trails off after a year normally. But it's also not actually pulled But it's also not actually pulled out of the ground by nodding donkeys.

It typically is a structure called a Christmas tree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they use, not nodding donkeys, as he described. Thank you. I would agree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I would agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. I would also say we are not said. I would also say we are not Pennsylvania. We are not Texas. We are the United Kingdom, and we will operate on the basis of our operate on the basis of our national interest, our energy security and our national security. And returning to the point I was And returning to the point I was making about the process of, of of high impact fracking, this can lead to seismic activity that can be felt on the surface.

It differs considerably from the proppant squeeze used in conventional gas extraction and also in geothermal that uses smaller amounts of fluid to improve the production rate of gas in shale rock types. The government's commitment is directed at hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, where the combination of geology, scale of the fracturing network, fluid volume and operational design has raised specific concerns. Next, let me say a little more about some of the other issues raised by hon. Members throughout the debate. We recognise that some concerns have been raised about low volume hydraulic fracturing techniques, such as proppant or acid squeezes used in conventional non shale oil and gas operations.

And it pains to say that this is not the same as hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction, and is not associated with the same safety issues. Low

**** Possible New Speaker ****

volume hydraulic fracturing has been happening in the UK for decades. I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. And would he accept that this using prop and squeeze is a loophole, because the industry have started using it as a way to get started using it as a way to get round the moratorium, and therefore Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would thank the hon. Lady for her for her question. I think the hon. Lady, in her introduction to the debate, also raised the question or raised the point about geothermal, the specific issues relating to high intensity hydraulic fracturing that we have seen is in shale, not in the types of fracturing used in conventional oil and gas, which is also, as we say, used in geothermal. Now, I have heard some division across the House this afternoon about from these benches, a suggestion that we use a definition that is linked to only oil and gas, therefore keeping geothermal out of it, and suggestions from elsewhere that a full ban might also impact on on uses such as geothermal.

I think that points to why we have to be very careful and very specific about what it is we are trying to, what it is we are trying to achieve with this. As I was saying, low volume hydraulic fracturing has been happening in the UK for decades, used in not just oil and gas, but in the water industry and also in geothermal. In that time, there has been no clear evidence that it induces seismicity that can be felt on the surface. Low volume hydraulic fracturing operations are routinely used in conventional oil and gas operations.

They target different types of rocks, create fractures close to the wellbore, and are typically short single stage operations, as opposed to the continuous fracturing characteristic of shale gas fracking. In practical terms, those operations are limited in scale and purpose. They are designed to improve flow from an existing conventional reservoir, not to fracture large areas of shale rock. They do not involve the same high volume, multi-stage process associated with shale gas fracking, and they have not produced the same evidence of induced seismicity.

Furthermore, all such activities are subject to a robust regulatory regime. I know the hon. Member for Bath and the my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West spoke about safety. Operators must obtain planning permission and environmental permits and health and safety approvals before proceeding, covering issues such as groundwater protection, management of emissions, handling of fluids and waste, and monitoring requirements where health and safety approvals are required. Operators must meet the standards expected for well integrity and operational safety.

Planning processes also provide a route for local impacts to be considered before activities proceed, and we recognise the strong interest expressed in the Burniston application, for which the planning authority has now refused permission. So let me be absolutely clear there is no loophole and no hidden route by which shale gas fracking can resume. The evidence based policy position is clear. The effect of moratorium remains in place, and the government will not issue new onshore licences in England, including those that could be used for fracking for shale gas.

That is a reassurance that communities across the country are entitled to hear. Finally, let me turn to the wider arguments sometimes made about energy security and domestic production. Some, like the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, who spent his speech denying the climate science, suggests that fracking for shale gas would strengthen our energy independence or reduce consumer bills. However, oil and gas, as has been mentioned in the debate by a number of hon. Members, are traded on international markets, and increasing domestic production does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not shield consumers from global price volatility. I will give way. I am most grateful. I just need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am most grateful. I just need to clarify. Another hon. Member. When I referred to nodding donkeys, I was specifically said oil wells, I was specifically said oil wells, just for the clarity to help the hon. Member with regard to the the gas price. Can the Minister explain gas price. Can the Minister explain why the wholesale price of gas in the United States is 80% cheaper the United States is 80% cheaper than the wholesale price of gas in the United Kingdom? I think it completely undermines what he's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just said. He has inadvertently misled the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Absolutely not. As I said a moment ago, we are not the United States. We are not Pennsylvania. We are not Texas. It is a different energy market. There is nothing to suggest that extraction of shale gas in this country would reduce the cost this country would reduce the cost of energy, just as there is no evidence that suggests that extracting more oil and gas from extracting more oil and gas from the North Sea will reduce the cost of energy.

If that is the point that the hon. Gentleman was making,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of course. That Minister taken the intervention. But does he also agree that we actually produce our agree that we actually produce our own oil and gas that gives the Exchequer more money, and if they want to use that to take money off

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to use that to take money off people's bills, then that's up to them. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And that is a that is a different that is a that is a different argument to the one that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness was making. But what is clear is that it will not directly reduce the cost of energy in this country. Recent years have shown that the answer is not to double down on fossil fuel production, but to reduce our dependence on those markets over time through clean, home grown energy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth was setting out in his speech. This will ensure that our oil and gas workers and supply chains benefit from the clean energy transition, and that we support prosperity, jobs and economic growth, communities and energy security. This government's approach is both clear and pragmatic. Ending new licences and introducing transitional energy certificates. Maintaining the effective moratorium and accelerating the transition to clean, home grown energy that improves resilience, supports jobs, reduces emissions and gives consumers greater protections from global price shocks.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the House should be in no doubt our position is evidence based, and it is clear we will not issue new onshore licences in England, and we will maintain the effective moratorium on fracking for shale gas, because the concerns that led to it have not been resolved. Together, these measures ensure fracking for shale gas is not taking place in England. We will continue to ensure that conventional oil and gas activities are properly distinguished, properly regulated and properly scrutinised. That is a responsible course of action for communities,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for consumers, for our climate commitments and for the country's long term energy security. Claire Young to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Claire Young to. Wind up. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to thank all the backbenchers who have spoken in backbenchers who have spoken in this debate. When the Member for Scarborough and Whitby talked about how prop and squeeze is being used how prop and squeeze is being used for fracking, the word I am, I was minded to say a rose by any other name. But fracking certainly isn't name. But fracking certainly isn't sweet. The members of the hon.

Member for Bath, Bolton West and North Herefordshire all made good arguments about the climate change and other environmental concerns, and the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth set out the need for a green industrial revolution. I don't have time to dissect in detail the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness speech. I would. I am concerned that he may be suffering from some amnesia. He. He seems to
17:28
17:30
17:30
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
expressing my gratitude to the backbench Business Committee for granting the time for this debate today, and to the best of my knowledge, this is the very first knowledge, this is the very first dedicated full House of Commons Chamber debate on sepsis. In the Chamber debate on sepsis. In the past, this devastating condition has been discussed. Only Westminster Hall debates or raised Westminster Hall debates or raised through brief interventions for questions and having sepsis debated on the floor of the main chamber during World Sepsis Awareness Month.

This month is a major milestone not only for Parliament but for the clinicians, charities and the bereaved families across the country who have campaigned so tirelessly to bring this condition out of the shadows. And I'd also like to thank the co-sponsors of this debate. Firstly, the hon. Member for Ashfield, who cannot be here this afternoon, but who led an important Westminster Hall debate on this subject two years ago. And the hon. Member for Dartford, the vice Chair of the APPG, we know the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sepsis strikes indiscriminately, ruthlessly and with terrifying speed, without Regard for background class or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regard for background class or indeed political allegiance. And so it is vital that we all stand united in our determination to tackle this deadly condition. It is a challenge that completely a challenge that completely transcends party politics. Madam Deputy Speaker, on Sunday, communities across the world marked World Sepsis Day. The international theme for this year could not be more apt. Invest in sepsis, save lives. The World Health Organization recognises sepsis as one of the leading causes of death and disability globally.

Estimating the sepsis related illnesses account for one in every five deaths worldwide. And here in the United Kingdom, NHS England has made clear the sepsis claims more lives each year than lung cancer and represents the second biggest killer in our hospitals after cardiovascular disease. Every single year, an estimated 245 000 people in the UK develop sepsis and, tragically, more than 48,000 lose their lives. That is a higher annual death toll than bowel, breast and prostate cancers combined.

But behind every single one of those figures is a family left grieving and asking the same agonising question what if? What if the symptoms had been recognised in our earlier. What if antibiotics had been administered sooner? What if someone had similarly had simply asked, could it be sepsis? Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, I do not approach this debate purely as a parliamentarian dispassionately analysing policy responses to one of the leading causes of avoidable deaths. I stand in this chamber today because almost a decade ago, by the grace of God and the extraordinary skill and care of NHS staff, my life was saved.

In January 2017, I was a relatively fit and active 40 year old member of Parliament. I developed what I assumed was merely a winter infection. Like many people, I thought I could push through it, take some paracetamol and carry on working. I travelled out to Strasbourg to take part in the Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe, on the Sunday evening. But within days my condition collapsed. An ordinary throat infection triggered a catastrophic immune response. My body, in attempting to fight the infection, began attacking its own tissues and organs.

By Thursday, after seeing a French GP, I flew back to Britain on Friday, attended the official launch of the local enterprise zone that I campaigned hard for in my constituency. But as soon as I arrived there, I was so ill I had to rest in the back room. And on Saturday morning I got out of bed, started putting my suit on over my pyjamas, and told my wife, Laura, that I had to come down to Westminster to vote. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, like many in politics, my behaviour can at times appear to some people to be a little idiosyncratic.

But fortunately Laura realised that even for a member of Parliament, this was not entirely normal behaviour. She rushed me to Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, where my blood pressure plummeted into septic shock. My organs began shutting down and my life was hanging by a thread. The medical team had to place me in a medically induced coma. Doctors told my family what I was in the coma, that my chances of pulling through were no better than 1 in 10. And for 11 days I lay in intensive care on life support.

Or as my family sometimes remind me, I slept through the difficult bits. When I did finally wake up, my muscles had wasted away. I could barely lift my arms, let alone stand or walk, but could easily have been so much worse. What if Laura had left me to get some rest that Saturday morning, while she took our daughter to our dance class? Or above all, what if the nurse who examined me at A&E hadn't had the insight to check whether the symptoms, which could easily have been mistaken for other illnesses like flu or meningitis, might be sepsis.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the doctors, intensive care nurses and other staff at Russells Hospital, Russells Hall Hospital that I can never repay. But as long as I have the honour of serving in this house, I will use my voice to fight for sepsis patients and for their families. There is a common misconception that sepsis is primarily the result of hospital acquired infection, but the evidence demonstrates the exact opposite. A major 2024 population study, led by Professor Van Staa analysing linked primary care and hospital data in England, showed that the vast majority of sepsis cases the community acquired developing in homes, in workplaces and local communities long before a patient reaches an acute hospital bed.

That research also uncovered deep health inequalities in sepsis risk. The risk of developing sepsis is significantly heightened by socioeconomic deprivation, by frailty being housebound, and by chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes and learning disabilities. Prior exposure to antibiotics and previous two months was also identified as a strong risk factor. And while ethnicity was not an independent biological factor, black and Asian individuals did suffer from a higher prevalence of predisposing conditions, including diabetes, chronic liver disease and severe anaemia, which put them at a greater risk.

So tackling sepsis is not merely a technical, clinical issue, it's also a fundamental challenge of health inequality and community prevention. Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the most critical clinical lessons of recent years is the direct link between viral infections and sepsis. For decades, the public and medical community viewed sepsis almost exclusively as a bacterial complication. But the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated that viral infections can trigger the exact same catastrophic septic response. The overwhelming cytokine storms, microvascular clotting, and rapid progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome, and multi-organ failure seen in Covid intensive care units were classic manifestations of viral sepsis.

It is thought by many experts in the field that the vast majority of Covid deaths were the direct result of septic reactions. Sepsis is not defined by the pathogen. It is defined by the body's life threatening immune reaction to any severe infection bacterial, viral or fungal. This reality extends directly into long term recovery. Millions who had Covid-19 are still living with long Covid. The septic sepsis survivors have known this reality for generations under the name of Post-sepsis syndrome.

In my case, it was a little more than some nerve damage and tiredness. Even a decade later. But for many, the symptoms are more severe and up to 50% of sepsis survivors suffer prolonged physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments from debilitating fatigue and cognitive brain fog to severe muscle weakness and PTSD. The clinical insights gained from viral sepsis during the pandemic must now be used to build integrated recovery pathways for all sepsis survivors, but to kerb preventable deaths.

A health system must act decisively in several areas, and I'll just go through four in the interest of time. Firstly, in ensuring consistent rapid recognition, time is the single most decisive factor in sepsis survival. Clinical research shows that administering appropriate antibiotics within the first hour of a patient presenting to an emergency department with sepsis reduces the risk of death by a full one third, compared to delayed treatment. Secondly, in ensuring that where sepsis is suspected, appropriate clinical escalation pathways are in place where sepsis is suspected, early warning systems such as NEWS2 have saved countless lives.

And the ongoing rollout of Martha's rule across the NHS trusts, which has already saved thousands of lives, is vital in ensuring that patients and loved ones can trigger an immediate, independent, critical review when they sense deterioration. Thirdly, we must take advantage of innovation in rapid diagnostics. We know that administering broad spectrum antibiotics within that golden hour that I spoke of massively increases survival rates. But clinicians often face the dilemma of judging whether that is compatible with responsible antimicrobial stewardship.

But deploying rapid molecular diagnostics, bedside biomarker technologies, and wearable continuous physiological monitors can remove that guesswork and provide targeted care before septic shock takes hold. And it can be too late. Fourthly, while Britain has in many ways led the way in developing and enhancing sepsis care and treatment, we must be open to learning from established international models and practices. Sweden utilises standard sepsis alerts to prioritise patients at triage, and implements mandatory post-discharge telephone follow ups.

France, where I was when I was taken ill, has since introduced an integrated national sepsis plan spanning pre-hospital recognition, emergency pathways and structured rehabilitation to help patients return to employment. And Australia established a national sepsis clinical care standard built around seven quality statements, ensuring end to end consistency from triage through to survivorship. Madam Deputy Speaker, in July of the Sepsis Modern Service Framework by the Department of Health and Social Care, is an important step towards doing that and learning the lessons from around the world.

And I warmly welcome it. This framework is one of the first to be published under the ten year Health Plan. Its headline goal to reduce deaths, severe complications and long term harm from sepsis by at least 25% by 2035, is a target that every member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this House can endorse. Of course. I thank the member. For giving way and is making a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way and is making a really, really moving speech. And although 1 in 100 cases of sepsis in adults is linked to meningitis, 1 in 10 for children with harrowing consequences, like Hamish, who as a classmate of my nephew Louis and classmate of my nephew Louis and Sussex, he had all four limbs amputated. I want to pay tribute to his resilience of getting on with life and going to university, but can I ask the hon. Member if he agrees with me, that because of the link between vaccines and the prevention of sepsis, he'll join with me in calling for the Menb vaccine to be repeated for teenagers next year and every year until all children are protected.

So we can reduce the risk of sepsis

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in young people. The hon. Lady makes a really important point, and we know how these conditions can obviously come around in a in a, in a cycle in around in a in a, in a cycle in order to break that cycle. We'll need multiple years of vaccination. need multiple years of vaccination. The modern service framework contains a number of vital commitments, but I particularly commitments, but I particularly welcome action for on improving the audit and feedback of sepsis related clinical data across trusts.

Action five on updating training for NHS staff, social care workers and unpaid carers. Action nine on optimising care pathways and expanding access to rapid diagnostics and specialist advice. Action 11 on standardising digital specifications for early warning systems like NEWS2 and action 12 on reviewing and addressing capacity gaps in critical and enhanced care. Madam Deputy Speaker, the strategy on paper will not be enough to save a deteriorating patient on a cold winter weekend in an overcrowded emergency department.

In the other place, my noble friend and our former colleague Lord McKinlay of Richborough, who has spoken with enormous courage about his own life altering encounter with sepsis, has repeatedly tabled written questions seeking clarity on how this framework will be delivered. Regrettably, the answers provided by Ministers in the Lords to date have been rather generic and vague and lacking in operational detail, and we cannot accept boilerplate responses on a condition that kills 48,000 people each year. So I have two direct questions that I hope the Minister will answer in her responses.

In her response to today's debate. Firstly, what are the specific milestone driven timelines for the delivery of each of the action set out in the modern service framework? When will trusts and integrated care boards be expected to have these standardised pathways fully operational? And secondly, can she can she assure the House that the Department of Health and Social Care is prepared to commit the dedicated investment required to make this framework work? When we call for investment, we must be clear funding sepsis care is not an open ended cost.

It is one of the most cost effective investments that the department can make. Sepsis currently places an enormous financial burden on the National Health Service and the wider economy. Too often, cases of missed or delayed or delayed diagnosis and treatment result in weeks of high cost intensive care unit admissions and emergency readmissions due to incomplete recovery in complex surgical interventions, including amputations requiring lifelong prosthetic and social care support, or in the permanent loss of working age adults from the workforce.

Investing in rapid bedside diagnostics, digital early warning systems, specialist outreach teams, and structured post-sepsis rehabilitation can dramatically reduce the lengths of stay in intensive care, lower readmission rates and keep people in work. Early intervention is not only clinically imperative, it is economically sound and the theme Invest in Sepsis- Save Lives is a call for smart preventative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

healthcare investment. I come to a close, but I will briefly. Very briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly. Prevention is key, and an estimated 20 to 30%. Of sepsis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cases are urosepsis. And I've. Just learned today from my campaign with Good Housekeeping. Magazine that a gentleman who's Magazine that a gentleman who's lost his wife due to a UTI related sepsis. Does he agree with me that if we are to really tackle sepsis, if we are to really tackle sepsis, we need to look at infection sources as well and get better diagnostics and treatment for those, particularly for ones such as UTI, that are still not properly focussed on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. And of course, some infections are almost unavoidable. But where infections such as UTIs But where infections such as UTIs can clearly be reduced with the right care and precautions, then we must do everything we can to reduce those risks. Madam Deputy Speaker, every member in this chamber has every member in this chamber has constituents whose lives have been permanently transformed by sepsis. Some members have been directly Some members have been directly impacted or have watched as close family and friends have encountered sepsis.

We know the speed with which it strikes, but we also know that with early detection, immediate treatment and high quality critical care, thousands of lives can be saved. We have the clinical evidence. We now have the modern service framework. What we now need is clear delivery timelines, rigorous parliamentary accountability, and the necessary financial backing to make its ambition a reality. And if the Minister can deliver this and provide the resources and tools that the NHS needs to implement it, then the modern service framework truly can be a turning point in the fight against this silent killer and the battle to save thousands of lives.
17:48
Caroline Nokes Portrait Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP (Romsey and Southampton North, Conservative)
-
-
Before I put the question, could I just pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his bravery in Gentleman for his bravery in sharing his personal story and, of course, to the noble Lord McKinley course, to the noble Lord McKinley in the other place, who has spoken so often and with such power on this subject. The question is, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Order Paper Jim Dickson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm very pleased to be co-sponsoring this debate alongside the hon. Members for Kingswinford the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire and Ashfield, both of whom are fellow officers of the sepsis All-Party parliamentary Group. And I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for that amazingly moving speech, revealing speech and for sharing it. His experience in a way that I hope all members will take note of and will make a difference in the way government takes these issues forward.

And I'm also grateful to the backbench Business Committee for granting the time for World Sepsis Awareness Month, with World Sepsis Awareness Month day having just taken place on Sunday. I was pleased to welcome my constituent, John Snow, to Parliament last year, and I'm also extremely appreciative that he's with us today in the gallery alongside his wife, Karen, and his daughter, Gracie. John developed sepsis in 2024 after first believing he was suffering with muscle pain. The situation rapidly deteriorated, resulting in hospital admission with heart attack like symptoms and his lips turning blue.

John and Karen weren't aware at this point that John had many of the signs of sepsis. Within hours, his kidneys had shut down, needing dialysis and his body went into septic shock, with doctors putting
17:50
Jim Dickson Portrait Jim Dickson MP (Dartford, Labour)
-
-
him into an induced coma. It was unclear if John would survive, and the coma lasted for two weeks, the coma lasted for two weeks, during which time John was transferred from Darent Valley Hospital in Dartford up to Saint Hospital in Dartford up to Saint Thomas's, just across the river from where we are now. After a month, thankfully, John pulled through. But this good news was accompanied by the desperately difficult decision from his doctors that he needed to have a quadruple amputation.

He's received amazing support from the Dartford community, who have rallied round to help fund support for his family. A special mention must go to the wonderful Dartford Working Men's Club, led by the amazing Nick Barham, who not only held fundraisers for the family but have held sepsis awareness events to ensure more people know about the symptoms. Notwithstanding this great community effort, there remains so much to do to improve support for people like John. Post infection. I've been privileged to have kept in touch with John and Karen during John's exceptionally brave recovery journey.

When we met in July, he told me of the exceptionally long delay he was experiencing in receiving his new prosthetic hand. John was cast for the prosthetic at the end of last year, but due to issues relating to the move of his local prosthetic centre, it wasn't assembled, leaving him worried his body may change and the prosthetic wouldn't fit. The challenges this causes are compounded by the fact that he cannot have the casting for the second prosthetic hand until he's had the first one for a year, a timer that has not yet been able to start.

John has already also experienced delays and dysfunctions in his facial surgery, which he is currently undergoing with the support of surgeons and doctors. John's case illustrates how much we have to do to spread knowledge about sepsis, and also to improve the care for those who have it. I'd like to commend, as others have, the campaigning work of Lord McKinlay of Richborough, who has not only helped to raise awareness of sepsis and our health system, but has also met John and provided encouragement to him in his recovery journey.

I would certainly give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I too want to. Pay tribute. To Lord McKinlay, because when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To Lord McKinlay, because when Hamish's story made the papers, he took no hesitation to go and visit Hamish. As an 18 year old and help Hamish. As an 18 year old and help him through his recovery and I think I. When I first met Lord think I. When I first met Lord McKinlay myself in Buckingham Palace, when we just been elected, the first thing I went to him and say, what a hero. You know, what an say, what a hero. You know, what an incredible man to do that every time a similar case happens.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the hon. Member for that intervention? I think what you've described and what I've described is the mark of the man. He not only suffered that appalling setback in his life, has come setback in his life, has come through it with huge brio. Is an active member of the Other place, active member of the Other place, but has also gone the extra mile to help others who are in his predicament. And I can't thank him predicament. And I can't thank him enough for the work he's done for sepsis.

Those who've experienced sepsis and John, my constituent and as Craig himself would say, sepsis remains something we do not know enough about. And what knowledge we have isn't as widely known as it should be. And I just thought it would be helpful to remind all those present and anybody watching of the signs to look out for in adults, as set out by the UK Sepsis Trust. Slurred speech or confusion, extreme shivering or muscle pain, passing no urine in a day, severe breathlessness.

It feels like you're going to die. Skin mottled or discoloured. If you or another adult develops any of these signs, it is important to seek urgent medical attention. John's story highlights both the work we need to do to raise awareness of the early signs of sepsis, but also how we support those who have been diagnosed with it. There remains too little data on sepsis, with inconsistencies in the definitions used across the country. The Office of National Statistics data indicates there were 27,971 deaths in England in 2025, which mentioned sepsis on the death certificate, but this is almost certainly not the full story.

I'll certainly give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just verify that lack of data? Are we also addressing the issue that the lack of the infection source is not recorded as infection source is not recorded as well? And is that somewhere where we need to make significant improvements if we're to prevent sepsis? I know it's a slight repetition, but that worries me about the data collection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the data collection. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Absolutely. I think the data problems go much more the data problems go much more widely than simply understanding who has died with sepsis as a related cause, and who has suffered sepsis at some point in the system. All the sorts of prevention issues and early diagnosis issues that you've highlighted, I think, also go to the heart of the problems we have with data, and I hope the Minister will address this in her response.

So I very much welcome the Sepsis Modern Service Framework, which was published last July and contains a much needed plan to improve prevention, recognition, diagnosis, treatment and recovery for people affected by sepsis. It should mean doctors are equipped to spot sepsis sooner and improve outcomes for patients like John and others who have been mentioned this evening. I hope when the Minister responds at the end of this debate, that she will outline how the modern service framework will change the way the NHS supports John and others recovering from sepsis.

So the delays he has experienced in getting his prosthetics and other people have experienced in the system become a thing of the past. Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker and I am grateful. contribute. In this very important debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In this very important debate during Sepsis Awareness Month. And can I also pay tribute to the hon. can I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Dartford and Ashfield for bringing this very, Ashfield for bringing this very, very important debate. The danger posed by sepsis cannot be overestimated. As we have heard, overestimated. As we have heard, five people lose their lives every single hour to to sepsis. And last year my mother was one of those.

It claimed deaths from sepsis rise sharply in the. Over 65 older people are more vulnerable to sepsis because ageing weakens the immune system, increases the likelihood of chronic illness and infections, and reduces the body's ability to recover from severe infection, making sepsis more likely to become life threatening. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am acutely aware at my age that one of my significant organs is visually fading and failing, and that is my skin. But the serious point is, as
17:57
Julie Minns Portrait Ms Julie Minns MP (Carlisle, Labour)
-
-
our skin fails, the increased risk of cuts, tears and the formation of of cuts, tears and the formation of ulcers becomes ever more prevalent, all bringing with them the attendant risk of infection. And attendant risk of infection. And that, sadly, was the case for my mother that sepsis is the second biggest killer after cardiovascular disease is evidence of why awareness is so important. The awareness is so important. The earlier sepsis is recognised and appropriate help sought, the better the chance of preventing a devastating outcome.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to use this debate to just share the experience of one of my Carlisle constituents, Kelly Patterson. Kelly. Developed by Lewes Sepsis in December last year. She describes how she didn't know she had it until she woke up on a ward, having spent three days in intensive care. Kelly's story is an important reminder of just how unpredictable and unexpected sepsis can be, and what she particularly wanted me to emphasise today is that there is no one single experience of sepsis.

It can affect people in very different ways, and the seriousness of what is happening may not always be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immediately obvious, and that I'll happily give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I was wondering.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whether she would agree with me that there there's really good practice across other countries, including in Australia, where they including in Australia, where they have a national sepsis standard with standardised clinical pathways and a public awareness campaign similar to ours, which is aligned with that simple question could it with that simple question could it be sepsis? There is work that's been happening across the globe that has reduced sepsis mortality. So does she agree that it is worth looking beyond our borders to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very important point. I think the more best practice we I think the more best practice we can bring to our country that's available elsewhere, the better. Awareness cannot stop at the point of diagnosis. Surviving. Surviving of diagnosis. Surviving. Surviving sepsis can be a major event in someone's life, and the effects can continue well beyond the immediate continue well beyond the immediate illness. Patients and their families may need information, support and help as they recover.

This is why I welcome the government's Sepsis Modern service framework. It represents an important step forward in how we approach this condition. It sets out a long term plan to improve sepsis care across prevention, recognition, diagnosis, treatment and recovery with the ambition of reducing deaths, life threatening complications and the long term effects of sepsis by at least 25% by 2035, by 25% by 2035. That ambition is significant, and the success of the framework will be measured in early recognition, prompt treatment and ongoing support for survivors who need it.

The frameworks focus on better data. Research and innovation is particularly welcome. Improving how we identify sepsis, developing faster and more accurate diagnosis and learning from patients experiences can all help clinicians intervene earlier and improve outcomes. I hope through the Sepsis Modern service framework, we can make sure that when people do seek help, they are heard. Sepsis is recognised as early as possible and they receive the care and support they need. Which brings us to the front bench contributions I call Democrats.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I also pay tribute to the Member for South Staffordshire for Member for South Staffordshire for so vividly highlighting his personal experience of sepsis. That personal experience of sepsis. That was a very emotional speech and it was very good to see him sitting here and looking so healthy as well. Over around 1 in 5 deaths worldwide Over around 1 in 5 deaths worldwide associated with sepsis. That's 11 million deaths a year. And I recently met Ron Daniels, who's the founder and Chief Medical Officer of the UK Sepsis Trust, to discuss the new sepsis modern service framework.

And we very much welcome its ambition to reduce deaths and life threatening complications and the long term impact of sepsis by at least 25% over the next decade. But if we're serious about achieving this, we need to get much better at detecting infection.
18:02
Danny Chambers Portrait Dr Danny Chambers MP (Winchester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Early sepsis is the body's extreme response to infection. Viral, response to infection. Viral, bacterial or fungal, and it can cause organ failure, permanent cause organ failure, permanent disability and death. And crucially, it can deteriorate incredibly quickly. Now there's no one single quickly. Now there's no one single diagnostic test for sepsis. Its symptoms overlap with many other conditions, and clinicians are conditions, and clinicians are often having to make decisions with incomplete information. And this is why rapid diagnostic tests are so important.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, I recently held a meeting with Winchester Hospital, local GPS and local authority and the laboratories and manufacturers of various rapid diagnostic tests to look at what the barriers are to implementing rapid diagnostic tests, especially so people can have them in the community for earlier diagnosis and also prevention of hospital admissions. Better diagnostics mean earlier treatment. It means being able to use the right antibiotic for the right infection. It means preventing patients deteriorating into sepsis and also means using fewer unnecessary antibiotics, which ultimately result in antimicrobial resistance developing.

And this is another huge growing public health concern. Now prevention matters too. That means reversing the falling vaccination rates we've been seeing in recent years to prevent these infections occurring in the first place. It also means ensuring that hospitals have the facilities to isolate and care properly for infectious patients. And crucially, it also means tackling corridor care and long wait to A&E. Because when someone is deteriorating in those conditions, they're often not diagnosed well. Every every hour matters, as we know.

And in the case of care, a long waits. That means people's diagnoses are more likely to be delayed and the treatments will likely to be delayed. Madam Deputy Speaker, there's one group of patients I want to specifically talk about, and that is cancer patients. Now we rightly focus on treating the cancer itself. But infection and often sepsis is the second biggest cause of death of people with cancer. Now, this may seem surprising, but the cancer itself can cause a reduction in in people's immunity.

But also the chemotherapy and various treatments cause people to become immunocompromised. This weakens the immune system, makes them more prone to getting infections. It also means that repeat infections mean they're more likely to get have repeat uses of antibiotics, and have antibiotic resistant infections. And so the consequences of infection on people with cancer can be even more serious. And that's why I find one omission from the government's national cancer plan quite striking. It's an 86 page strategy setting out how we're going to transform cancer care by 2035.

And yet infection is only mentioned once in those 86 pages, and that's just in the foreword. Now, this isn't a minor oversight. This is a glaring omission to that risks undermining the entire cancer strategy, because we'd never produce a cancer strategy that treated radiotherapy or chemotherapy or surgery as a peripheral to cancer care. So we need to ensure that we're treating infection, which is the second biggest killer of cancer patients, as integral to cancer care, infection prevention, rapid diagnostics, antimicrobial stewardship and surveillance absolutely need to be central to cancer care, not as an afterthought.

And if we fail to address infection properly, we're setting the entire new cancer strategy up to fail. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have finished sepsis contributes to tens of thousands of deaths in the UK each year, as well as leaving many survivors with life changing physical and psychological consequences. But I have one specific request of the government this evening, and that is to update with the Minister would commit to updating the National Cancer Strategy to incorporate infection control, sepsis and rapid diagnostic tests as absolutely integral to cancer management, and we welcome the new sepsis modern service framework.

We just need to deliver it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Caroline Johnson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and I first must start interest as a paediatrician, a member of the Paediatrics and Child Health, Paediatrics and Child Health, member of the British Medical Association and a mother of three Association and a mother of three children. I then would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for securing this debate alongside the hon. Members for Dartford and the hon. Member for Ashford, but in particular to thank my hon.

Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for his speech, which was hugely moving, and I can't believe it's been such a long time since it happened, but it's great to see him looking so well today. I'd also like to express my condolences to the hon. Lady for Carlisle and the brave speech that she gave as well. I remember sitting in this chamber a little over two years ago. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm sure you were there as well. When the hon. Member for South Thanet, Lord McKinley, the then member for Lord East Thanet, Lord McKinley, received a rare standing ovation in this place from from the house and from the galleries as he returned to Parliament following his remarkable recovery from sepsis.

His. His journey has been incredible, and his story is one that has brought renewed attention to the disease killing, which kills nearly 50,000 people every year. For context, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is around the same number of people who die from bowel, breast and prostate cancer combined, but with the attention to prevention, to early identification of infection, to early diagnosis, to better treatments, and the avoidance of
18:08
Caroline Johnson Portrait Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
-
antimicrobial resistance. We can reduce this and save people's lives. reduce this and save people's lives. As I said, raising awareness of sepsis and how suddenly it can change someone's condition is very change someone's condition is very vital. And the previous conservative government got the ball rolling in this regard. My right hon. Friend the Member for right hon. Friend the Member for Golden Godalming and Ash adopted the UK Sepsis Trust. Just ask could the UK Sepsis Trust. Just ask could it be sepsis campaign in 2016, when he was as health secretary? The Conservatives also backed sepsis Research with over £1 billion through the National Institute for Health and Care Research and research is important because it will help us improve the diagnosis and treatment, and it will help us understand why some people get an infection and it makes them a little bit ill, and some people get an infection and it turns to sepsis.

Why? Why? It helps to better understand. Now this is a good start. But of course there is, as always with medicine, more to do. And it's pleasing to see the previous Starmer government build on this work by including introducing the modern service framework for sepsis. And we have modern service frameworks now for other diseases, and it seems good to have one for sepsis specifically. The guiding light of this framework is the government's ambition to reduce sepsis deaths by 25% by 2035.

And I think that's something with which we could all agree. But saying it won't deliver it, it has to have a plan, and a plan has to be deliverable and funded as well. So I ask the Minister, what funding has the government committed to implement? The framework that has been written? As we know, early diagnosis is paramount, but sepsis is notoriously difficult to diagnose and very and very rapid as well. Madam Deputy Speaker. I remember seeing a patient, the mum had got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom, not something she did normally.

Wasn't quite sure why she had. On that particular night I was walking back along the landing. She thought, it's a bit cold. I'll just check and she checked. Her son had his blankets on and was warm, but she did so just in the light from the landing. Spotted little Mark on the little boy's leg, turned the light on and saw that he was developing that rash that doesn't blanch, that goes with meningococcal sepsis. And she brought him in. And he survived. And he went home.

Well. But I shudder to think what would have happened if she'd waited till she woke up and routinely at 7:00 in the morning. So someone was watching. Make sure that she was safe. He was he was safe. And I'm so glad that that was the case. But it is so very, very rapid. As others members have testified to. And there's no single test. There's no single thing we can monitor or measure that helps flu like symptoms mimic many other common illnesses. And on top of that, as we've heard already, diagnosis and treatment are absolutely time critical.

Now, the UK Sepsis Trust has developed the sepsis six oxygen cultures antibiotics, fluids, lactate management and urinary output monitoring. And all of these should be carried out within the first hour. The government's MSF commits to rapid diagnostic tools and more advanced genomic sequencing. What infrastructure and workforce investment is required by the government to set this up? And over what time frame does the government envisage that this will be achieved? And talking of workforce. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government decided to ditch the previous government's NHS workforce plan to create its own, which is, of course, absolutely its right.

But their replacement was originally due to be published in early 2025 and was most recently promised as imminent just before the summer break, but we're now well into September 2026 and there's still no plan. The Minister in the other place was asked for more details about the workforce plan. In her written answer, simply stated that the government will provide an update on the ten year workforce plan in due course. So could the Minister please update us on when this plan is going to be published, preferably with a date rather than an expression of soon or imminent? Madam Deputy Speaker? I wanted to also talk about Group B streptococcal infection.

This is something I've seen in paediatric practice, particularly in babies. It's a common bacteria which lives harmlessly in the gut or lower reproductive tract, but there's a risk it can enter the bloodstream, causing neonatal sepsis when passed to newborns. The GBS three trial is looking to prevent and reduce the impact of Group B strep, and the government's framework commits to supporting that. So could the Minister tell us more about how the government plans to do that? And I might have noticed I wanted to talk about prevention, because prevention is something the government has has said is one of its big shifts in in medicine.

Some sepsis can be prevented or reduced. And research has shown, for example, that if ibuprofen is given to children with chickenpox, it increases the likelihood of them developing sepsis. We know that completing the antibiotic course is important. We know that hand washing technique is important, and keeping things clean is important, particularly in preventing sepsis that is acquired in hospitals. Management of chronic disease reduces the risk too. And then there's vaccination. Madam Deputy Speaker meningitis B is possibly one of the most scary infections and conditions that one sees as a doctor, because it progresses so quickly and it can cause brain damage, amputations and death.

But there is a highly effective vaccine, which was introduced for infants born in the middle of 2015 onwards. But as the outbreak in Kent, Dorset, Berkshire last year showed, with three young people dying, it can still come back in. Older children. The Jcvi met met in July 2026 and suggested an increase in the vaccination schedule for these young people. The Jcvi recommended that young children who had had one dose of vaccine should have another. At age 15, they recommended two doses for those who hadn't had it, and a catch up for older people starting university very shortly.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it will be freshers week, and around 580,000 young people will head off to university for the first time with great excitement. But university students are seven times more likely to get meningococcal sepsis, invasive meningococcal sepsis than people who do not go to university, and the government have only managed to vaccinate 246,000 of those, something that the UK Health Security Agency issued a document about last week. They said that 97% of invasive meningococcal disease in 15 to 24 year olds last year was caused by meningitis.

B so I ask the Minister questions that I asked her last week in the vaccine debate, but haven't received an answer to yet. When is she going to review and respond to the requests for vaccines in the younger children that haven't had them yet? Those those doses are 15. And the two doses for those who haven't had a dose yet. And what is she doing to increase awareness for those people starting university in the next week or so? Mr. I will, of course, give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Vikki Slade. I thank Shadow Minister for giving way, and I'm really grateful to her raising this, really grateful to her raising this, as I raised it earlier on, my son George and his girlfriend Maisie both had their two doses in the last few weeks as they turned 18, but my. My constituent Victoria asked me to write to the Minister a asked me to write to the Minister a few months ago about education and awareness, and I was really disappointed that the Department disappointed that the Department for Education didn't think it was necessary to start adding this into the sort of DHSC programme in secondary school about meningitis awareness.

I wonder whether the Shadow Minister would support me in doing that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Caroline Johnson. It's clearly important that young people are aware of the signs young people are aware of the signs of infection, particularly such a serious infection, so I would agree with that. But I'm interested in with that. But I'm interested in what the Minister is doing to try and prevent those infections by ensuring that the right people have the right vaccines to do so. And also, the government is changing the way the vaccines are commissioned from NHS England, commissioned from NHS England, which they're abolishing to I'm being caught in.

The Deputy Speaker seems to have got a cop, so I shall I shall finish here. The Icbs are going to be responsible for vaccinations. Is this what. How is this change going to impact on vaccines, and how is it going to impact on vaccines for students who live in one place and go to university in another in particular? So to sum up, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's ambition to reduce sepsis and sepsis deaths should be welcomed, and it is good to have the modern for service framework in place.

But I am sure that charities such as the UK Sepsis Trust and families affected by sepsis will be most grateful. If the Minister could provide further clarity on the government's roadmap and the funding required to reach this important destination.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Diana Johnson thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker And can I Madam Deputy Speaker And can I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for securing this Staffordshire for securing this important debate from the backbench Business Committee on the floor of Business Committee on the floor of the House of Commons during World Sepsis Awareness Month, and I also Sepsis Awareness Month, and I also want to thank him for his tireless advocacy on sepsis as the co-chair of the APPG and in his excellent opening speech, he spoke very movingly about his own experience, and he said that consultants gave him a 10% chance of survival when he was ill with sepsis, so the odds were that he would not be with us today.

But I am very grateful that he is, and looking so well, and that he can be such a very strong voice in this place on sepsis. And I also want to compliment the work that that is carried on by Lord McKinley in the other place. And like the shadow Minister, I remembered the standing ovation that he received when he returned
18:18
Diana Johnson Portrait Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham, Labour)
-
-
to the House of Commons after the. He battled life threatening sepsis He battled life threatening sepsis in 2023, resulting in the four limb amputations. What a brave, brave and decent man and there's been many tributes around the. The chamber this afternoon. I also just wanted to refer to some of the contributions that have been made and my hon. Friend for Dartford, and my hon. Friend for Dartford, who spoke so powerfully on behalf of his constituent John, who thought, thought sepsis and is a quadruple amputee, he talked very movingly about how the community had rallied around the family to provide support, but also spoke about how we need to do much more in supporting people like John in the Post-recovery period.

And then my hon. Friend for Carlisle, who spoke again so eloquently about her mum, who she lost to sepsis last year, and I hope she will accept my condolences. And also her constituent, Kelly Paterson, and who again reminded us that sepsis affects people in different ways and how important it is to remember that. And then the hon. Member for Winchester, who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, highlighted the particular risks that people with cancer face in relation to sepsis.

And I will certainly take back to the department the concerns that he's raised today. Madam Deputy Speaker, sepsis is a devastating condition. It also costs the NHS really significant sums of money, over £1 billion between 24 and 25. So during this Sepsis Awareness month, I want to pay tribute to the charities including the UK Sepsis Trust and Sepsis Research Feat who do so much to support families, raise awareness and fund research. Their contribution to the new Sepsis Modern service framework was invaluable and they acted as a megaphone for so many people whose lives have been devastated by sepsis.

Now, my deepest condolences go out to everyone who has been affected, not least Merope Mills and other campaigners. But I know that today people are not seeking my sympathy. They actually want the the government to support the case that they're making. And if I now turn to the sepsis modern service framework, we worked hand in hand with patient representatives, clinical experts, professional bodies, NHS organisations and charities to build the framework and this has entered the history books, I believe, as the first ever large scale engagement process for improving sepsis care.

The framework spells out this government's commitment, as has been said, to transform sepsis care by 2035. It sets out priority actions to improve prevention, recognition, treatment and recovery while accelerating innovation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I completely understand that people say, OK, you've now got the framework. So now what happens next? And I do want to say that we are going to make real progress. And by doing that, we're going to raise our game in a number of areas, including science, technology and data.

And that's why the National Institute for Health and Care Research, working with academia, industry and other partners, will develop a national research and innovation action plan for sepsis by March next year. This will include research calls that cover sepsis improvement priorities, whether that's vaccination and screening, faster and more accurate diagnosis, or innovative treatments. Now, it's true that the most recent data from the ONS suggests that sepsis deaths went down in 2024. However, this data is incomplete and inconsistent.

This is due to changes in awareness, diagnosis and recording, making it harder to understand variation and improve care. Without this data, we do not have a full picture, and that's why the framework commits to collecting better sepsis data. And NHS England is commissioning a national infection and sepsis audit. This should give us a clearer picture of mortality, underlying causes and which groups are most affected. If I turn to understanding, I think it's right to say that hon. Members have highlighted that sepsis is a complex condition, which is difficult to recognise because of the variation in symptoms.

Many people are unaware that sepsis can develop from common infections, such as urinary tract infections, and few can recognise the full range of symptoms. That's precisely why raising awareness is so important. And as we've heard from members across the House today, the work of campaigners has had a huge impact across the NHS and wider society. The NHS now has a plan targeted public communications campaign to improve the awareness of sepsis symptoms and the actions to take and the.

I will. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. As was referenced earlier, the UK Sepsis Trust had a big bang in 2016 with those famous orange and red posters that you see in a lot of GP that you see in a lot of GP surgeries, hospital waiting rooms, etc. think could it be sepsis? But those information campaigns dwindle those information campaigns dwindle and they become samey and people get used to seeing them and then not thinking about them? How can not thinking about them? How can the government have an almost permanent awareness campaign that refreshes such a huge killer in our country, in the minds of of our clinicians and our doctors who do wonderful work, but they're under

**** Possible New Speaker ****

such incredible pressure that they need that constant reminder of things like sepsis. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I think the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, actually, and making sure that you maintain and making sure that you maintain good public campaigning and public campaigns around issues like this campaigns around issues like this is something that that we are working on all the time. And we're reviewing what what works the best methods to use. So I absolutely take his point. And I would say it's not a one point in time you do it. It has to be an ongoing campaign.

I also just wanted to refer to the NHS has got better at recognising as well and responding to all the causes of deterioration that we might see, including in sepsis. Since the introduction of the National Early Warning Score, this system helps to identify patients who are seriously ill through clear scored measures that are routinely recorded by their bedside, and it's used by every single ambulance trust, and 99% of acute trusts in England. And the framework will help improve the consistency of its use to further to support the way we identify sepsis.

The framework also prioritises advancements in faster, more accurate diagnosis to improve outcomes and the correct use of antibiotics. The framework will support better access to rapid tests in urgent and emergency care to tackle those services, often under the most pressure where sepsis can slip through the cracks. In the longer term, the government is promoting wearable health technologies as part of our ten year plan, so the framework will also explore new points of care tests that can determine exactly what kind of infection someone may have, alongside the use of wearable technologies to support monitoring of high risk groups.

If I could just say a few words, Madam Deputy Speaker, about escalation, I think no one knows a child better than their parents or carers. And that is why listening to patients, carers and families is vital to support sepsis recognition and escalation. Too many cases have shown the devastating consequences when deterioration concerns are not heard. The death of Martha Mills was an avoidable tragedy, but I hope her parents take some consolation from knowing that Martha's rule is saving lives and helping thousands of patients benefit from changes to their care.

I'd like to thank them for their tireless campaigning in Martha's memory, and the real change this has now brought. To remind colleagues. Martha's rule means patients, their families and staff can request a rapid review from a different team if deterioration concerns are not being recognised. From September 24th to June this year, almost 17,500 Martha rules calls were made. 5000 of those calls were made when families had concerns that their loved one's condition was deteriorating rapidly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of those, 60% required changes in treatment, With 13%, leading to transfers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With 13%, leading to transfers to intensive care and 47% leading to other care changes including investigations, procedural investigations, procedural interventions etc. And today Martha's rule is being rolled out Martha's rule is being rolled out across all acute hospitals in England. It's also important that we look at what happens, and this we look at what happens, and this has been raised in the House this afternoon to to people who survive sepsis and who can experience a long term a range of long term physical, psychological and cognitive health consequences.

As the Secretary of State has said, the NHS is cradle to grave and that means everything in between. It's not acceptable that when someone has been through the worst experience of their life, they are just left to get on with it. And that's why we are committed to improving access to post-discharge support and rehabilitation, with priority actions set out in the framework. Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, the best way to stop sepsis is through preventing infection, vaccinations and infection prevention and control are fundamental.

It's been raised already, but the outbreaks of meningitis B in England this year highlights how quickly infection can lead to sepsis and death. The outbreaks highlighted the importance of prompt treatment and the benefits of vaccination. The one off NHS Menb vaccination programme has successfully delivered almost 250 000 first doses to eligible young people across England since launching on the 25th July 26, and I would encourage everyone who hasn't yet come forward to do so and ensure that they get both doses of the vaccine for proper protection.

The framework commits to improving vaccine access, and I know the shadow Minister has a number of questions that she's put to me, and I will respond in writing because I'm conscious of the time. The framework also recognises the tension between prompt antimicrobial treatment for sepsis and the risks of unnecessary antibiotic use. The framework complements initiatives within the Antimicrobial Resistance National Action Plan. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think there are just. There's just one other thing I wanted to say, which is around funding and also implementation funding was one of the specific questions that the hon.

Member raised in his opening speech, and I want to make clear that the immediate and short term actions will be delivered with an existing funding under the current departmental allocation following the 2025 spending review. Longer term funding is subject to future spending reviews. The Department and NHS England are committed to prioritising funding for sepsis in future spending bids, and the framework is a ten year plan, and I do not pretend that we will deliver everything overnight. But it sets clear targets to reduce deaths by a quarter over the next ten years.

That is a clear metric to judge our success by, and to hold Ministers to account and implementation will be overseen by the National Quality Board. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, it has become a bit of a cliché to say things like World Sepsis Day is marked once a year, but our work continues all year round. However, I can assure colleagues, hon. Members, that the Sepsis Modern service framework is doing just that for every single day. Over the next ten years, the framework will keep pushing us to do better.

And so let me end by again thanking the hon. Member for raising this debate for his leadership of the APPG, and I look forward to working constructively

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with him going forward. Mike Wood to wind up. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank all of the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. who have contributed to the debate. The hon. Gentleman from Dartford, who spoke movingly about his constituent John, and was particularly pleased to hear not particularly pleased to hear not only how well he is now doing since recovering, but also the support that his family received from within the community, and particularly Dartford Working Men's Club, the work that they are doing
18:32
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
within the community, because if we're really to increase awareness we're really to increase awareness of sepsis so that people understand both the science and the risks of sepsis, it can't be left to the NHS sepsis, it can't be left to the NHS alone. This really does need to be a full community effort. And so it's great to hear that that working, working Men's club is taking a lead in that. He also taking a lead in that. He also spoke rightly about the importance of data.

And part of the problem we have had is the inconsistency in the way the sepsis cases are reported. That makes it so difficult to have a meaningful figure of the number of cases, the number of deaths, the number of serious disabilities as a result of of sepsis. So really do need more consistency in that. The way that's coded and the best practice guide. The hon. Lady from Carlisle. And I do join the Minister in offering my condolences on the sad loss of of her mother.

And I know how that must have been unbearably difficult time. But she also spoke about her constituent Kelly and the very important message that different people do experience sepsis very differently, both in terms of the outcomes and the lasting impact, but also the nature of of the sepsis. There are also important interventions from the hon. Lady from Mid Dorset and North Poole, the hon. Lady from Stoke on Trent South, and hon. Lady from Wolverhampton North East.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman. I referred to the I think the force of nature that is Ron Daniels, who. I think he has done so much to, to push sepsis up the public agenda, but also to change the way the NHS understands and responds to sepsis. And so I think we all owe him a huge a huge debt. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I think, spoke about how notoriously difficult sepsis is to diagnose and the difficulties that that that that creates, but also the the issues around prenatal strep and the additional work that needs to be done, both in understanding and responding to sepsis that arises.

I was pleased to hear that. And thank you to the Minister for the very kind words she offered to me personally, but also, I think, to the generally the spirit of her, of her response, and particularly around the implementation plan and, and the funding. And she, she rightly referred to Martha's rules and importance of making sure that families who, she says, do know their children better than anyone else. And certainly it allows those families to insist on an independent second opinion if they feel that there's been a deterioration in condition.

And that's so important. I would like to just briefly. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank the many, many campaigners who have worked so hard on this issue, often because they've been sadly affected or many of the families have been affected. There are too numerous to name. But if I could just very briefly mention the incredible work done by Harry Redknapp, who works tirelessly and often without an awful lot of publicity and credit, to raise awareness of of sepsis. Following his wife Sandra's illness whilst he was.

I think he was in the jungle with I'm A Celebrity when she was taken ill, but Harry does so much. Incredible work voluntarily and also the the the research and charities who work in this area. Sepsis Trust. But particularly the sepsis research, but particularly the UK. Sepsis Trust. Both Ron Daniels and Sarah Hamilton Fairley I think of really helped to keep this issue rising to the importance that it deserves. But once again, I thank all members for the valuable contributions they've made today, and I look forward to holding the Minister to account as she delivers on that model service framework.
18:36
18:37
18:37
18:38
18:40
18:41
Jim Dickson Portrait Jim Dickson MP (Dartford, Labour)
-
-
keep the information that I'm going to refer to, to material that is already in the public domain. George, who was only 22 years old George, who was only 22 years old on the night of his murder, was holidaying with friends in Aya Napa holidaying with friends in Aya Napa in the south east of Cyprus. As many people from the UK continue to do, it was the last night of his holiday and he was coming home to the UK the next day.

George had worked previously in Aya Napa but had been back in the UK, beginning what looked like it was going to be a highly successful career with Eikon Group estate agents, who paid a touching tribute to him after his death. The inquest into George's murder in Maidstone several years later, heard how a dispute occurred in the area near the Bell pub in the early hours of the 14th of August 2016. After this disagreement, two men returned with a knife, resulting in George being stabbed in the neck and tragically dying.

The names of the two suspects, Mehmet, Akpinar and Sali Ahmet, have been widely reported since this time. His friend Ben Barker was also stabbed four times in the back, but thankfully survived. And I want to pay tribute to Ben's family for their continued support in the search for justice for George. The police collected substantial evidence from the incident, including, I understand the knives used, but before any arrests could be made, the two suspects had fled across the border to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where, despite their arrests for four for a series of different offences, they were not handed back to the Republic of Cyprus for trial.

That same week, George's parents made the first of a number of visits to Cyprus, beginning their fight for justice for George. It is later believed that both suspects made their way to Turkey, where, as far as we know, they remain to this day. Since 2016 there have been two inquests, one here and one in Cyprus, that the family have attended. Both suspects have faced trials in the north for crimes related to illegal entry violations, and have served time in prison as a result, but were not extradited to the South for trial for George's murder.

One suspect was then deported back to Turkey, and the other ended up in Turkey via a circuitous route. The one trial that has taken place related to the murder was of the girlfriend of one of the suspects, Mehmet Akpinar. She faced trial in 2016 for the assistance provided to him after the murder, and would, I hope, be a witness in any potential trial. The diplomatic situation in Cyprus and with Turkey remains extremely difficult, and there is limited cooperation between the two communities in Cyprus.

It remains the case that there is no extradition treaty in place between Turkey and Cyprus to allow the suspects to be sent there for trial. Additionally, the constitution in Turkey specifically prohibits the extradition of their citizens for any offence. This leaves the prospect of a trial taking place in Cyprus as limited, despite the Cypriot authorities possessing evidence that seemingly would make a prosecution possible. The Lowe family have been ably supported by the organisation Justice Abroad and Maris barrister, Michael Polak, who I'm very pleased, is with us tonight and they are acting pro bono and whose expertise Michael's expertise on this complex situation is greatly appreciated.

He has been repeatedly writing to the Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus over the last 11 months, asking that they release the evidence they possess to the family, but has not yet received a response. Recent news coverage, including by the BBC, has included confirmation from the Ministry of Justice in Turkey that, and I quote, the investigation was referred to the Hatay Public Prosecutor's Office, which has subsequently issued a decision of non-prosecution. No grounds to proceed in respect of Mr.

Mehmet Akpinar, unquote. The report doesn't include any comment on the second suspect, which I hope may be grounds for some optimism that his prosecution in Turkey may still remain possible. The BBC report also includes the claim that a request for legal assistance in connection with the investigation had been made by the Ministry of Justice in Turkey to the UK, but they had not received a response. The family are keen to assist Turkey and receive an update from the Turkish authorities.

Regrettably, our repeated requests for a meeting with the Turkish embassy have not yet provided any result. One of the suspects is, I understand, a dual Bulgarian Turkish national and I appreciate the willingness of the Bulgarian Embassy to meet with my predecessor as the MP for Dartford. I am grateful to the Minister for her time today. Before I hand over to her to respond, I wanted to set out the questions that I hope she may be able to answer in her response.

I believe that the UK government can play a key role in securing justice for the Lowe family, given the strong relationship it has with both Turkey and Cyprus and its long standing position as one of the guarantor powers of Cyprus's independence and territorial integrity. So the questions are. Firstly, could she provide any clarity on the request that was made by the Ministry of Justice in Turkey to the UK government for legal assistance, and why it has not been answered? Secondly, will the UK government make a request to the Cypriot authorities for release of the evidence they hold in this case to assist a prosecution in another jurisdiction? I understand that were the suspects in the UK, a prosecution may be possible here.

Will the Minister's department engage with the authorities in Turkey to discuss the prospect of a prosecution and how evidence might be transferred? I appreciate the Minister may not be able to say everything in the chamber. She might wish to. So finally, I will ask, would she be willing to meet with me, along with the family and their barrister, to discuss the issues that I've raised today in more detail? At the time of his death, George's daughter was eight months old, and I understand that now.

Age ten, she looks very much like him. A sweet reminder to the family of George. It's my abiding wish in this case, that George's daughter must not grow to be an adult without seeing justice for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her dad. Minister Uma Kumaran.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Uma Kumaran. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, for securing this important debate and for his powerful support for George's parents, Helen Martin, and their family. He spoke very movingly this
18:49
Uma Kumaran Portrait Uma Kumaran MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Stratford and Bow, Labour)
-
-
family. He spoke very movingly this evening. I will do my best to respond to the points that he raised. But first, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a deeply tragic case that continues to have a profound impact on George Low's family and loved ones. I also want to acknowledge the impact this has had on Ben, who survived this violent attack on his family, who have continued to advocate on behalf of George George's family. Ten years on, I recognise the strength, determination and courage they have shown in the face of unimaginable pain and loss.

Losing a child is an unbearable pain and something you never truly recover from. At the heart of this debate is a young man whose life was taken far too soon, and a family whose lives were changed forever. They have spent a decade seeking answers and justice for George. I understand their frustration and their pain, particularly as, ten years on, they're still seeking years on, they're still seeking answers and justice they deserve. Turning to the government's action. While responsibility for this investigation lies with the Cypriot authorities, the UK government has remained actively engaged on this case.

Throughout, consular officials have maintained contact with George's family and their legal representatives and will continue to do so. We've provided updates wherever new information has been available, and sought clarification from the relevant authorities on developments in the investigation. Consular staff contacted George's family shortly after his murder in 2016, and have remained in touch ever since. On the decade ever since, they supported the family during visits to Cyprus, helped facilitate meetings with investigators and officials, and provided assistance during the UK coronial inquest.

I'm glad that the family have been able to access the specialist support services offered by the UK's Homicide Service, and have a dedicated caseworker in the FCDO. But of course, what the family need and deserve are answers about George's death. Cypriot authorities identified two suspects and issued internal and issued an international arrest warrants. The suspects are understood to have left Cyprus after George's death and are now believed to be in Turkey. The case remained open with the Cypriot authorities throughout this time.

The British High Commission in Nicosia and consular officials pushed for progress with the investigation and prosecution of the suspect. George's family have, quite understandably engaged lawyers to represent them in this effort. I also acknowledge the support, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, for Dartford of the help of justice abroad. Our FCDO officials are in contact with George's family's lawyers at the family's request. The British High Commissioner have asked the Cypriot authorities in 2024 to consider transferring the case to Turkey so that Turkish authorities could explore a prosecution this year.

Further representations were made in support of this request. Frustratingly, the Cypriot authorities decided not to pursue this option. They believed it would be difficult for Cypriot officials to provide the evidence and testimony needed to support the case in Turkish court. The FCO, the FCDO, has also engaged with the Turkish authorities directly to press them to take action on arrest warrants. We'll continue to reinforce that message with Turkey. Of course, my hon. Friend has asked me a number of questions.

Let me address them in turn, Madam Deputy Speaker. On matters to do with legal assistance as a matter of common practice, I'm not able to comment either way on a matter of mutual legal assistance. However, I can confirm that the United Kingdom officials are following up in Turkey and Cyprus to ensure that they have opportunities to progress this case and that those opportunities have been followed up. Secondly, on release of evidence, I can confirm that we have lobbied Cyprus to transfer the case to Turkish jurisdiction.

They've told us they're not in a position to do that as a result of jurisdictional issues between the two countries, I'm aware the family's lawyer has asked the Cypriot authorities for clarity on the decision, and I've asked our officials to ensure that this is followed up. Thirdly, on progressing the investigation in Turkey again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've asked officials to ensure this is followed up to ensure we fully understand the reasons for Cyprus's position. I've also asked officials to speak again to Turkey about its position on this question.

And finally, Madam Speaker, on my hon. Friend request to meet George's family on him, the answer is yes. I will speak to my colleague. Lord would to agree who would be best placed to take this meeting, and I'll ensure they get a timely response. Madam Deputy Speaker, Looking ahead, I understand the pain that George's family have felt for the last ten years. Ten years without justice is unacceptable, and any family in their position would feel the same as the Minister responding.

It's important to be clear and honest about what the UK government can and cannot do. We cannot compel another country to take specific investigative, prosecutorial or judicial decisions. Those powers rest with the competent authorities in the countries concerned, but what we can do, and what we will continue to do, is to support the family to raise the case, where appropriate, and pursue any credible avenue that would help move this forward. Looking ahead, the Cypriot authorities have confirmed that international arrest warrants remain in place and that they're ready to move forward if either suspect is detained, whether in Turkey or elsewhere.

We will continue to press Turkey to take action. Let me end by saying this ten years on, George's family continue to live with the devastating consequences of his murder. They've shown extraordinary determination in their search for justice, and I pay tribute to them for that. I also want to thank my hon. Friend for Dartford for his and his predecessors tireless advocacy on this matter. I know my hon. Friend has raised this matter consistently and tirelessly in this House and will continue to do so.

While the UK government cannot resolve the legal and jurisdictional barriers that have complicated this case, we have not forgotten George and we have not forgotten his family. We will continue to support them, continue to engage with the relevant authorities and continue to press for progress wherever we can. Above all, George was a son, a father, a loved one, and a young man whose life was cut tragically short. His family deserve answers, and they deserve to know that this government will continue to stand alongside them in their pursuit for justice.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I, the ayes
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page