Westminster Hall

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 14 October 2026

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Nepal: UK Government Support

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the situation in Nepal.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Government’s response to the recent terrible floods in Nepal. I hope that the debate will be an important opportunity to demonstrate the strong links between Britain and Nepal and to understand more about the response to those dreadful floods. I also want to ask the Minister for an update on the response and on Britain’s continuing support for the longer-term reconstruction of the affected area and the development of Nepal more broadly. I will start, however, by echoing the Prime Minister’s words on the disaster by saying that Nepal has always been there for Britain, and now Britain needs to be there for Nepal.

As everybody here will know, we have a very strong—some would say special—relationship with Nepal that goes back over 200 years. The Gurkhas served in the British Army throughout the 19th century and in world war one, world war two and numerous other conflicts since, including Malaysia, Brunei, the Falklands and Afghanistan. More recently, Gurkha soldiers were deployed to deal with the civil emergency in south Wales when they helped to tackle the very serious wildfires this summer.

I also want to acknowledge and celebrate the significant civil contribution of the British Nepalese community, most notably in my own community and others around the country where British Nepalese residents work in the NHS, our local transport system, small businesses, IT and many other walks of life. There is enormous pride in that connection in Reading and the areas across the country with significant Gurkha and Nepalese communities, and there is also a great deal of support for and concern about the situation in Nepal.

I offer my deepest condolences to all those affected by the floods, both the families who lost loved ones and those whose loved ones are still missing. It was a truly awful disaster that affected thousands and thousands of people. I understand the latest estimates are that around 1,400 people lost their lives and that 5,000 are still missing. The images are very difficult to describe. As my colleague Pratikshya Gurung, a local councillor on Reading borough council who is originally from Nepal, said to me at the time, it was so awful that people simply could not watch the news. They could not watch their television because of the horrors that were unfolding. We can all remember the images. Our hearts go out to all of those involved, both families who lost loved ones and families whose loved ones are still missing.

The floods have left grieving families, orphans and lost family members. Sadly, several families in my community in Reading, both in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies, lost loved ones. There has also been a terrible effect on the very large British Nepalese community in Aldershot. I offer my condolences to all the communities around the country. I understand many colleagues will want to speak about their own communities or just offer their support more generally. I pay tribute to the work of other Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), for Aldershot (Alex Baker), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and many others. Many were not able to attend today, but they wanted to offer their support.

I also thank the Nepalese armed forces, emergency services, medical staff and many others who led the rescue operation in August and early September, and also their international colleagues, including British personnel. They serve with distinction, and many of them continue to serve in the difficult aftermath of the disaster.

I am very proud of the links between Britain and Nepal and the support offered by the British Government, charities in Britain and local communities. I look forward to the Minister updating us on that later. I pay particular tribute to the help offered by our armed services and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in the immediate aftermath. I understand from briefings I have had with Ministers that there was incredibly close working between British and Nepalese forces, and that a range of technical help, as well as financial support, was offered to deal with some very specific issues. The FCDO offered a £5 million fund for immediate support, and it increased consular assistance, bringing extra staff into the embassy in Kathmandu.

I thank the Government for that prompt response and for the continuing support Britain is offering to Nepal, as the second biggest bilateral donor to the country. I also thank Ministers for the support they have given me and other members of the Nepal all-party parliamentary group. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and Baroness Winterton provided vital assistance with casework and with briefings on the fast-moving situation.

I turn now to the support provided by charities. The Disasters Emergency Committee has played an important role, and I am pleased to see the continuing work it is undertaking in Nepal. UNICEF provided me with a briefing and support, and the United Nations has done important work in this situation.

More locally, I pay tribute to the community groups, including the Greater Reading Nepalese Community Association and others around the country, who provided such heartfelt and important support. I would like to mention a number of local residents, particularly Bhimsen Khadka, who is the chair of the association in Reading; Dev Bahadur and his wife Aruna Gurung; Chandra Budhathoki, who is the head of the Forgotten British Gurkha charity, which provides important support to retired Gurkhas in our area; Pratikshya and Deepak Gurung—Pratikshya is a local councillor; Ram Galami, a retired serviceman who works to support service personnel; and Bipin Duwadi, the chargé d’affaires at the Nepalese embassy, who has been extremely helpful in providing briefings and encouraging ongoing links between Britain and Nepal and those of us who have Nepalese communities in our constituencies.

I will offer an indication of what it felt like at the time, because it is worth understanding the sense of feeling—I am sure colleagues will deal with this as well. We had a spontaneous vigil in Reading town centre outside our large Marks & Spencer store on Broad Street, which is the main shopping street in the town. It was on a Sunday evening, and hundreds of people showed up. It was organised by the Greater Reading Nepalese Community Association. However, there was huge support from people who are not from Nepal—people from all walks of life across the town—and that was echoed across the country, from what I understand.

The sense of support was incredible. The sense of patriotism—both Nepalese and British patriotism—the deep connection with the armed forces and the sense of solidarity between people was quite overwhelming and powerful. For example, Pratikshya, who is a local councillor, had a resident turn up at her house randomly and say, “I would like to give you 50 quid towards this campaign, because it’s so important to me.” We had other people coming up to us in the street when we had the vigil and asking if they could light a candle to show their support. The level of support was very impressive and, indeed, overwhelming. I would like to thank all those who helped, and that help is continuing and developing.

My office and other MPs’ offices have been active in working with local campaigners. I pay particular tribute to English Martyrs school in Reading, and English Martyrs church, which are some of the many organisations that have offered their support—they are offering to do some fundraising through a sponsored walk. That is typical of the kind of community-based activity that is under way, which will support the help for victims and the much-needed long-term reconstruction of the country. I would like to thank everyone for that.

I appreciate that other colleagues need to address the issues in their communities, but I would like to ask the Minister a series of specific questions, and I look forward to hearing his answers. One of the biggest impacts has been on families both in Britain and Nepal, and some of the casework is very difficult for us to deal with as local MPs. I cannot go into individual cases, but what has happened to so many families—those in Britain with relatives there, and those in Nepal—is really awful. People who were on pilgrimages to the lakes where the water came from are still missing, and in some cases they are older people. One gentleman from Reading, a retired Gurkha who was on a pilgrimage, is still missing, and there are many others, including from other British communities. Many Hindus make pilgrimages to those sacred lakes. It is worth considering the serious impact on families in the short term and the longer term, and I look forward to the Minister saying a bit more about that.

A very large number of people have been affected—something like 84,000, including about 32,000 children, some of whom are orphans. I was speaking to someone about that earlier this week. Some orphans are being cared for in Buddhist monasteries in the area, and some are being cared for and put up in schools. What happened is still having very real practical implications. This is a terrible human tragedy, and there is an ongoing need for practical development and assistance in the area. Nepal is a developing country—it is one of the world’s lower-income countries.

Will the Minister provide an update on the humanitarian response and the ongoing work in the area, including within the affected river system? There is a need to rebuild bridges, schools and homes, and to provide greater resilience if climate change is increasing the risk of such threats. In particular, will the Minister address the environmental issues and the long-term concerns? There was a smaller flood this week in the Gorkha district. The Budhi Gandaki river flooded, and a number of people are now missing. It was a mudslide—a large amount of mud and rocks went into the river—so it is not quite the same, although it is happening in the same geographical location. There are great concerns in the British Nepalese community that this type of disaster may occur again.

I declare an interest: several members of my family are environmental scientists. My dad visited Nepal for a programme in the 1990s, through which a number of countries provided assistance to developing countries to provide greater resilience against natural disasters of this kind. Separately, I visited Nepal as a walker with my wife some years ago.

Will the Minister address the particular risks in mountainous regions such as Nepal with very steep river valleys, high levels of rainfall, glacial lakes and glaciers that may sadly now be melting because of the climate emergency? What are the practical implications? How can the UK and other advanced countries provide greater resources, including monitoring and early warning? What measures can be taken to provide greater resilience to the communities involved, which now appear to be far more at risk of threats from this type of disaster, even on a smaller scale?

I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions. More generally, will he talk about the ongoing work that Britain is doing with Nepal to encourage its development? Nepal hoped to move out of a certain category of developing countries. It did not quite make it, but it is developing and there is incredible potential. Its new Government are working closely with our Government. The first official visit to the new Government was made by a British Minister, which is an important indication of the special relationship between our two countries. There is scope for greater trade and support, and the British Nepalese community is very active in our country. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I realise that this is not his brief, but will he contact his colleague in the Ministry of Defence and ask for an update for the community on the unrelated issue of pensions for a certain group of Gurkha soldiers—those who retired before 1997 and have a different pension arrangement from that of more recent retirees?

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak, Ms McVey. I am really grateful to Mr Speaker and the House authorities for granting me the opportunity to have this debate. I look forward to hearing more from colleagues and the Minister.

09:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Thank you for what you do as Chair. I commend the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for bringing this issue forward. He set the scene incredibly well, with calmness, assuredness and knowledge; I thank him for that, and I look forward to the other contributions. This debate matters not narrowly in a diplomatic sense but in a deeply human and moral sense, so I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute.

In September, Nepal experienced catastrophic flooding that swept through the Kathmandu valley and surrounding regions. If we close our eyes for a second, we can almost imagine that torrent of water and the debris that came with it, which swept everything ahead of it. That reminds us of the fickleness of man and how dangerous nature can be when things go wrong. Towns were submerged, homes were destroyed and lives were lost in devastating numbers. One image that sticks in my mind is the border post: people were walking across or crossing in buses and cars, when the flood suddenly came and everything disappeared. That is how quickly things happened.

Hundreds of people perished, thousands more were displaced and entire communities were left without shelter, clean water or hope. I say those things not as statistics, but as someone who has an interest in Nepal—of course, every one of us is here because we have an interest in Nepal. I chair the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, which visited Nepal. The last delegation was led by Fiona Bruce, the former Member for Congleton, and the APPG produced a report afterwards to reflect some of our concerns.

I should have said earlier that it is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He has a quiet and sure way with him and reassures us about things that concern us. I have three requests for him, which I gave to civil servants beforehand.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend is outlining the horrendous events in Nepal. Does he agree that one heartwarming thing that arose in the midst of that devastation was the number of faith groups across the UK, especially in Northern Ireland, that rallied round to raise significant amounts of money to help with the horrendous problems that many people in Nepal continue to face?

[Jim Shannon]

I was going to refer to that, but my hon. Friend beat me to it. In the middle of the devastation, heartache and despair, we can be encouraged by those who have made a significant effort to help.

Among all the devastation, what reminded me of how close people were to their final times in this world was the school where the principal, aware of the flood coming down the valley, got all the children out and higher up the mountain. They ran to get away, and those seconds saved their lives, as the flood came down and submerged the school where they had been 10 minutes earlier.

I do not want to be churlish about the genuine relief efforts that followed or the significant contributions made by those in my hon. Friend’s constituency and all our constituencies—indeed, the hon. Member for Reading Central talked about those earlier. However, the humanitarian crisis created by the floods has compounded an existing and deeply troubling pattern of religious persecution—the situation was already fragile before the waters rose.

Nepal’s Christian community, its Muslim minority and other religious groups were disproportionately affected in the aftermath. I say this to have it recorded, because my churches and those with friends or family in Nepal are getting reports about aid distribution. For example, Open Doors International and Aid to the Church in Need, two significant Christian groups involved, have both documented evidentially that aid was not always distributed equitably.

Reports gathered by the APPG indicate that minority faith communities in Nepal—who are marginalised as it is, and who already face the threat of Nepal’s anti-conversion laws, which have got stronger, more draconian and more focused—found themselves further disenfranchised in the recovery process. They were already marginalised and at the back of the queue, but they were even more disenfranchised when it came to aid. Neighbours who share a faith with local officials received assistance first, and those who did not waited. That is not speculation; witnesses confirm that they heard it from community leaders, who spoke with quiet dignity about what they had endured. That is certainly never our intention with aid, but unfortunately it happened in Nepal.

Nepal’s anti-conversion legislation effectively proscribes the sharing of faith. I am a Christian, but I believe strongly that those of other faiths should have the right to practise their faiths, just as I do. I believe that in my heart, and I expect others to believe that. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening in Nepal. This has created a chilling environment even as aid workers have sought to reach the most vulnerable. Amnesty International has raised serious concerns as well—this is documented at a high level. The APPG report following Fiona Bruce’s visit as the leader of the deputation underlines that freedom of religion or belief is intrinsic to human dignity and human rights, and that a disaster must never be used as an instrument of discrimination.

My three asks of the Minister are these. First, will the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s humanitarian response to Nepal specifically include mechanisms to ensure that religious minority communities are not discriminated against in the distribution of aid? I would love to say that things have improved. When I first came to Parliament, way back in 2010, there were floods in Pakistan, where I have many friends; the floods swept right down through Pakistan, destroying much in front of them. Christian groups in Pakistan were not getting the aid that was coming through. Unfortunately, some 15 or 16 years later, we find that Christians in Nepal are not getting an equal distribution of aid.

Secondly, will the Government engage with the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief to ensure that our diplomatic presence in Kathmandu is actively monitoring FORB conditions during this crisis? That is really important, and I am sure the Minister will confirm that that is the case, but I put the question on the record. Thirdly, will the Minister kindly write to me with a timeline for that engagement?

I will conclude, because I am conscious that others want to speak. The lifeblood of any credible foreign policy is its consistency. We must stand for the same principles in Kathmandu as we proclaim in this Chamber. I always end with scripture, because it is important that we focus on what the good book tells us. Proverbs 31:8-9 talks of standing up for the oppressed and speaking for those who have no voice. Today, in this House, we have the privilege of being that spokesperson for the people in Nepal who do not have a voice in the country they live in. I commend this debate to the House, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

09:49

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a real honour to speak in this important debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), and particularly pleased to follow such powerful speeches setting out the proud relationship between our countries, the UK and Nepal, which has existed for such a long time: the steadfast contribution of gallant Gurkhas over many decades, right to the present day; the interpersonal links between our countries, which are incredibly strong; and the contribution made today by Nepali-British people to our public services, economy and culture.

I am very proud of Oxford’s Nepalese community, who contribute so much to my city. That community—our neighbours, friends and workmates—are now grieving the loss of many family members and friends. Of course, their loss happened in such shocking circumstances, and speakers have referred to the images we saw, which looked like they were out of some horrendous feature film, not like events that were really taking place and affecting people in circumstances that had been so peaceful—people on pilgrimage, for example, in one of the most beautiful places on Earth and people in their homes and workplaces. We in the UK and in my city now have a window on to the sharpest end of the climate crisis.

Many Nepalese people live on the Rose Hill council estate, where I live. Oxford’s Nepalese people have made a huge contribution to our city. Many retired Gurkhas live in Oxford, and we are always moved to see that reflected in our remembrance service every November. However, many Nepalese people also serve in academia; healthcare, as in Reading; childcare; businesses, such as the many Nepalese restaurants we are very pleased to have in our city; and many forms of public service, including by volunteering to support the community, with the Nepalese contribution to OxClean being particularly notable. There is a long and strong history of us working together over so many decades—indeed, centuries—and we have to intensify that now.

I recently had the privilege of meeting Mr Tulasi Paudel, from Help for Nepal and the Nepalese community in Oxfordshire. I am very grateful for that group’s work and for that of the Gurkha Nepalese Society Oxfordshire. Retired Captain Paudel explained the human impact of the devastating recent events my colleagues and friends have just talked about. As others have done, I express my sincere condolences to all those affected and the many thousands who still do not know what has happened to their families.

As has been mentioned, we still see damaged roads and bridges, which have cut off entire communities. Survivors are still in need, often of shelter, despite the best efforts of those who have come to their aid. Clean drinking water is still a huge problem, as are medical supplies and food. The UK’s £5 million package of humanitarian assistance to support those affected was most welcome. The UK has historically provided support to strengthen Nepal’s resilience to climate-related disasters, but Mr Paudel and I believe that more can and must be done.

Yes, of course this relates to humanitarian support, and we have heard helpful comments on that subject from other speakers in the debate. That assistance will be particularly important as people seek to rebuild their lives after such a horrendous set of circumstances—losing everything. But we have to work together politically and multilaterally as well. During the UN General Assembly session that has just ended, I, along with Mr Paudel, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, calling on him to work with the Nepalese Government on their calls for practical global action to tackle climate change and for climate justice.

We also pushed for our countries—the UK and Nepal—to work together in the run-up to the COP in Antalya and at every international event at which climate action is discussed. The Himalayas are a vital water source for a large part of Asia. What happens to the Himalayan cryosphere has consequences far beyond Nepal. The people living beneath the Himalayas should not have to pay the greatest price for a climate crisis that they contributed so little to creating.

The UK has an important opportunity to stand alongside countries such as Nepal, given the strong historical and present relationship. Nepalese people have given our country so much. Now we have to stand alongside them. We must help to ensure that the voices of vulnerable Himalayan communities calling for climate action are heard and acted on, so I call on my hon. Friend the Minister and our Government to seek out every opportunity to develop common positions on climate action with Nepalese counterparts and to use their voice to amplify that of our Nepalese friends.

09:59

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join others in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing this very helpful debate. Nepal is a country of remarkable people, soaring beauty and extraordinary fragility. Its people are brave and resilient, but also increasingly vulnerable. The poverty levels in Nepal are still shockingly high; more than 20% of the population live below the poverty line and, on the key human development indexes, Nepal ranks 146th out of 193 countries.

I first visited Nepal at the end of its civil war—a conflict that killed more than 17,000 people and left more than 100,000 displaced. The scale and length of that conflict still leave a long tail, but now it is the grim reality of climate change that headlines the ongoing story of Nepal’s vulnerability and fragility.

As other hon. Members have already referenced, the catastrophic floods of 26 August killed at least 1,455 people in Nepal, with more than 5,000 still missing, according to the latest figures. It was good to see the UK quickly announce £5 million in emergency humanitarian assistance, delivered through UN agencies, the Red Cross and local organisations. It was also good to see the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Winterton, visit Nepal quickly in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.

It is worth referencing that Nepal’s estimated recovery and reconstruction requirements are approximately £5 billion, including measures to improve resilience against future disasters. On its own, Nepal will simply not have the scale of finances available to put the right measures in place. It is therefore surely incumbent on the UK, as a long-standing friend, to continue to engage with the Nepalese and the international community to find a solution to those financing challenges.

Our relationship with Nepal extends well beyond development assistance; it encompasses the Gurkha service, which has been referenced already, cultural links, educational connections and a significant Nepalese diaspora in the UK. In Harrow, I have regular contact with the significant Nepalese community, notably with Raj Tripathi, who is an active member of the Nepalese community in south Harrow. I have attended community fundraising efforts, bringing residents together to raise money for those affected by the disaster. I pay particular tribute to the south Harrow business community for coming together to raise funds to send to Nepal and help their friends begin to recover.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

We do not have a substantial Nepalese community in Cornwall, but I want to mention Mr Sharma and his family, who own Balti Curries in my constituency. They immediately launched an appeal and raised more than £2,600 in a short period of time. That shows how important the community is, even in places such as Cornwall.

[Gareth Thomas]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent and to her support for his fundraising efforts. The speed with which the British Nepalese community has responded to the disaster—raising funds and getting them back to friends and families in the affected communities—has been nothing other than impressive.

In his speech, will the Minister dwell on how the international community will respond to the disaster going forward? Inevitably, when a humanitarian disaster strikes there is a lot of media attention, which helps to galvanise different parts of the international community. Sadly, it is often once the media attention moves on that the most important assistance is needed, to make sure that the long effort to rebuild communities and create more effective development assistance going forward is put in place. Britain has a long track record of an effective development operation. Given our links to Nepal, and given its needs, surely we have a particular responsibility to stay the course, working with China and India on efforts to raise the funds and see them used in the most effective way possible to support the recovery of those communities.

The last time I visited Nepal, it was to look at development work that was just beginning to help manage the impact of climate change. I mention that because, at the UN General Assembly, Balendra Shah, Nepal’s Prime Minister, described the floods as “not just a local tragedy”

but

“a warning to the world”,

and argued that climate change is destabilising the Himalayan ecosystem. Scientific studies and World Weather Attribution analysis suggest that climate change likely contributed to the glacier retreat and permafrost thaw, increasing instability in the mountains, although researchers have suggested that it was not the sole cause of the collapse. Experts argue that the disaster highlights the need for stronger glacial monitoring going forward, further honing of early warning systems, hazard mapping and cross-border information sharing. They note that the current coverage of such systems in Nepal and across the Himalayan regions remains relatively limited. I feel the UK could certainly add value in sorting that out.

The UN has highlighted extensive damage to roads, power networks and water and sanitation systems, again underlining the importance of rebuilding infrastructure in ways that reduce vulnerability to future disasters. Infrastructure is usually the preserve of the multilateral banks in the international development system. We play a key role in funding the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and others. It would be good to hear from the Minister in this debate, or by letter if that is not possible, what role Britain is playing to make sure that the World Bank and other bits of the multilateral system are stepping up their efforts in that regard.

We must recognise that there is an ongoing responsibility to support Nepal’s development beyond just providing humanitarian aid and ideas. Nepal needs more trade and investment. Although India and China should and could do more in that regard, given our historical role and our links to Nepal in the Commonwealth, we can surely do more to help Nepalese businesses to access trade opportunities in the UK. Will the Minister encourage his officials to explore options for a British-Nepalese investment conference to boost trade and explore opportunities for British businesses perhaps to invest more in Nepalese businesses in the UK? Lastly, I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central in asking for an update from the MOD about the issues affecting MOD pensions for a number of Gurkha veterans.

10:08

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am particularly grateful for your latitude given my slightly tardy arrival. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing the debate.

As many hon. Members have said, the floods have caused catastrophic damage and loss of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) mentioned, Nepal’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority has highlighted that 1,455 people have been confirmed dead and over 5,000 are missing. Few of us will forget the devastating scenes that we saw on our television screens as whole places were swept away as a result of the floods. Sadly, given the number of people missing, the death toll is likely to continue to rise and the flooding is likely to continue to affect many other lives. With homes, schools and health services ruined, and whole communities devastated, it will take a long time to rebuild. As hon. Members have said, that is why the long-term commitment and support of the UK Government, in partnership with the Nepalese Government, is so important.

This horrifying event has impacted not just Nepal and those in Tibet, but the Nepalese community around the world, including those in the strong Nepalese community who have proudly made the UK their home. I am proud to represent one of the largest Nepalese communities in the UK, including many Gurkha veterans, and I know how much of an impact the incident has had on our local community. I was pleased to join a local vigil organised by the Basingstoke Nepalese community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central mentioned, it was incredibly well attended by people of all backgrounds.

We reflected on not just the profound loss and impact of the floods, but the acts of heroism, small and large, that have been carried out by many people in Nepal. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the school principal, Rajendra Dawadi, whose quick thinking saved the lives of 900 children. There is also Chhiring Tamang, the school bus driver whose quick thinking to drive 50 children across a bridge before it was swept away saved their lives, and Priya Adhikari, Nepal’s first female helicopter pilot, who flew more than 100 rescue missions during the crisis.

Those acts of heroism came alongside small acts of support, including by those in the Basingstoke Nepalese community who have been leading fundraising efforts to support those affected by the floods back home. I pay tribute to the chair, Bijay, the general secretary, Jagadish, and the whole committee in Basingstoke for its work in leading that support.

I also welcome the support that the UK Government have given to Nepal and the British nationals affected by the floods. As others have mentioned, that includes £5 million in humanitarian assistance for emergency shelter, healthcare, food, clean water and sanitation; the longer-term partnership, which has existed for a long time, of £100 million for Nepal’s disaster resilience, humanitarian assistance and climate adaptation; and the wider financial support that others have mentioned through institutions such as the World Bank. Other acts include consular support, staffing and deployment, diplomatic engagement, ministerial visits and engagement with affected communities in the UK. The support was incredibly well received by the local community in Basingstoke and again emphasises the long-standing partnership and friendship between our two countries.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned, the disaster highlights once again the disastrous impacts of climate change. It shows the important leadership role that the UK can play, must play and is playing to combat what is the greatest threat to our economy, society and security here in the UK and around the world. I welcome the fact that the Government remain committed to meeting our climate targets here at home, and that the new Foreign Secretary has rightly placed climate and nature security at the heart of our national security and foreign policy decision making. As the floods have shown, and as the Foreign Secretary has said, climate change and nature loss are not just issues for climate and environment Ministers alone; they are defining challenges for our economy, foreign policy and national security. No one recognises that more than the people of Nepal, and it was a big theme of the vigil event that we hosted in Basingstoke.

I conclude by asking the Minister what further action the Government will take to support Nepal in recovering from the floods, seeking reassurance that the Government will remain engaged in helping the recovery in the medium to long term. To echo my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, because it will be such a long recovery, that long-term support will be so important. Long after the floods have been forgotten and are no longer being played on the news, we must remain a steadfast partner. I also seek reassurance that support will remain available for affected British nationals, including those who may have loved ones among the missing. I also echo the urging of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central for the Government to finally resolve the pensions issue, which I have been working on with the local Gurkha community in Basingstoke. Finally, I again pay tribute to the local Nepalese community that I am so proud to represent.

10:13

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing this debate. Judging from the contributions that we have already heard, how we are continuing to support Nepal after the devastating floods there just a few months ago is a matter of great interest to the House.

I am grateful for the tone of the debate, and for the way in which it has outlined the UK’s engagement with and support for Nepal at this very challenging time, within the context of our long-standing relationship and friendship with each other. I also recognise the very strong relationship that we have with the Gurkhas, who form a very important part of the British Army. I was privileged to visit the Royal Gurkha Rifles in Brunei and to see their exceptional skill, as well as the way in which we work together on tropical jungle warfare, and how the Gurkhas form a key part of the British Army’s elite capabilities in such warfare. They also support the training of other forces in the region.

I know that we all want to offer our deepest condolences to those who lost loved ones in the floods. Whole communities were affected, with schools and homes being washed away. Tens of thousands of people either lost their lives or were badly affected by the floods, and many people are still unaccounted for. Just yesterday, I heard from someone about how they were going ahead with funeral prayers, because they realised that their loved one was never going to come back and that they would never find her body. Nevertheless, it was important for them, as it has been for other families, to be able to find some closure, and for people to support each other at this time. There is a long-term relationship between our countries and we need to provide long-term support to Nepal as it continues to recover.

I want to recognise the scale of the impact of the floods. A recent report has indicated that the total cost of damage is around $2.7 billion, which is extraordinary. When we consider how and where the floods struck, we think of the hydropower plants where so many people were working and of the pilgrimages that were affected, with people coming to Nepal from a range of countries, including India. Also, the Tibetan region was affected.

What the floods have also shown is how important it is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, that we ensure we work internationally. I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on how we are working with the Indian Government and the Chinese Government, as well as with international NGOs and the international community, including international finance institutions, on helping with recovery and on long-term development in Nepal.

I also thank the Nepal all-party parliamentary group for the meetings that it held very quickly after the floods, including with Bipin from the Nepalese embassy in London, to ensure that there is a connection in the conversations taking place between Nepal and our communities here in the United Kingdom and our parties across Parliament, as well as a dialogue between the UK Government and the Nepalese Government.

I thank the Minister who is here in Westminster Hall today—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore)—and another Minister, Baroness Winterton, who I know changed her plans when she was abroad to make a quick visit to stand in solidarity with Nepal on behalf of the UK and to demonstrate the UK’s leadership in helping to co-ordinate some of the humanitarian efforts, and to understand what the Nepalese Government need from the international community at this time.

That dialogue continues, and I am also grateful to Baroness Winterton for the interest she has shown in the conversations that I have been having with the Nepalese community in my constituency. There is a very large Nepalese community in Hounslow, and particularly in Feltham and Heston.

I am also grateful to our former mayor, Bishnu Gurung, himself a Gurkha veteran, and to those in my constituency from the region affected. I particularly want to thank Dawo Lama, Sushila and Padma for their inputs, which I will share. I also want to thank Maneera from KTM ROX, who held a fundraiser that was really appreciated by the community. It was a way in which people were able to come together, as other hon. Members have mentioned, to support each other and to raise vital funds as well.

On my visit to Nepal back in May, I was fortunate to visit not just Kathmandu but Lumbini, which is a UNESCO world heritage site and the birthplace of Lord Buddha. It was also an extraordinary experience to visit the Maya Devi temple. The backdrop to that visit was a wish to understand how we can work together as two nations to support Nepal’s economic ambitions and growth.

I was reminded of how closely we worked with Nepal after the 2015 earthquake. I also visited Nepal with my constituents at that time. It was a long-term partnership to support recovery. It is important to recognise the ambition that the new Nepalese Government have demonstrated: they want to see a future in which Nepal is much more on the world stage in terms of industrial partnerships, growth and ambition. That is the reason why I want to reference the call for a British-Nepalese investment conference by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). I hope that can be taken away by a Foreign Office Minister and discussed with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade.

I was pleased to be able to discuss the ambitions of the Nepalese Government on one of the first ministerial visits to Nepal after the elections. Data from the World Bank indicates that the Nepalese economy grew at a rate of 2% in 2023, 3.7% in 2024 and 4.4% in 2025. The Nepalese Government have aspirations for an average real economic growth rate of 7% over the next decade, and that aspiration has been underpinned by a fundamental restructuring of economic incentives, intentions to simplify the business environment in Nepal to also attract more domestic, foreign and diaspora investment, and reform of the tax regime and digital economy. That was set out in detail in May in The Rising Nepal, an English-language newspaper in Nepal.

It is important to recognise what the Nepalese Foreign Minister has been saying about Nepal’s immense potential for clean energy production, alongside agriculture, tourism, industry, information technology and human capital, which I have spoken about during dialogues in Nepal and in conversations with the diaspora community here in the United Kingdom. That ambition is an important backdrop for the conversations that we are having: we must recognise that coming together is so important to support the long-term recovery in Nepal following the devastating floods. We must keep our focus on how we support greater resilience in Nepal.

I also want to pick up on the points that have been raised about ensuring that Nepal has a programme for stronger resilience, disaster prediction and understanding the data, which might be specific to the environment. As we know, Nepal and the Himalayas are a unique and important global destination not just for leisure and mountaineering, but for spiritual retreats. Because of its unique place and natural assets, it is also open for partnerships around the world in a way that aligns with our own aspirations, not just to support a clean and green energy transformation in the United Kingdom through our ambitious targets, but to show global leadership and support countries with great potential and opportunities for investment and capability support from across the world.

I would therefore like to understand from the Minister, for my second question, what work we are doing to support investment to ensure greater resilience. I am grateful for the conversations I have had with scientists in Nepal about this. They see great potential for British scientists and universities to be part of that story in Nepal, and if there is one thing we have learned from this—and from Members’ contributions about more recent natural disasters elsewhere and the shared risk—it is that we should be looking at this project with greater urgency. Indeed, I suspect these larger-scale projects will require international finance and scientific partnerships.

My constituents have also raised with me the importance of keeping climate change on the agenda. It is important not just to look at the short-term politics, whether in the UK or the US. We have to look at the underlying direction of travel that we must continue to take to tackle climate change. As the Nepalese community have said to me, Nepal has not contributed to climate change, yet it is suffering in the way that we have seen. That risk will continue unless we continue to show global leadership as an international community, not only by taking climate change seriously and preventing it, but by ensuring resilience to tackle its impacts.

Let me come to the UK’s response, for which I am grateful. The £5 million that was immediately announced has been an important part of the UK’s wider response to the flooding and its deployment of support, in combination with the UN, Red Cross and NGO interventions. Some of that humanitarian support has been absolutely critical, but we must also continue the important work of supporting regions that have not had the investment to recover. Constituents who are from the area, one of whom has been a civil engineer in hydropower and whose colleagues were affected, have raised with me the importance of building bridges and roads, and also ensuring safeguarding for young people and the 1,000 children who have lost their parents.

To wrap up, the recovery and relief efforts, the humanitarian efforts, the road building and bridge building, and the safeguarding of children are all issues that have been raised. If the Minister does not mind, I will write to him about that and particularly about the affected areas of Trishuli, Tupche, Sole and the Kispang rural municipality, which my constituents have raised with me.

10:29

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing this debate about our support for a country that is a friend and an ally, and one to whom we have owed gratitude over more than 200 years.

I start by adding my condolences to the families and friends of all those who lost their lives or remain missing in Nepal and Tibet, following the August floods and the floods in Nepal over the weekend. I pay tribute to the UK rapid deployment team and humanitarian crisis response specialists who have supported British nationals and the wider crisis response to the floods in Nepal. Those brave and skilled teams are a clear example of the UK’s world-leading excellence and expertise.

The news might have moved on, but the people of Nepal face rebuilding their country while experts note that such disasters might become more frequent in the region in the coming years. Indeed, the UK Government’s national security assessment of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse cites severe degradation or collapse of the Himalayas as particularly significant for UK national security.

The August floods were not unexpected. Nepal’s mountains are warming rapidly. In 2023, the UN Secretary-General reported that they had lost almost a third of their ice in just over three decades. The wider Hindu Kush Himalaya region is also warming significantly faster than the global average. All the while, international agreement founders when it comes to action that truly meets the moment.

Rebuilding comes at a great financial cost. The Government of Nepal have written to the UN loss and damage fund to request $20 million, which is 0.7% of the reported $2.7 billion it has estimated in physical damage to infrastructure and economic losses. The loss and damage fund itself is suffering from a lack of finance. It has reportedly already received requests totalling $2.8 billion from 119 countries, but only $400 million has been given by the international donor community. The demand vastly outstrips supply. With the impact of climate change intensifying, and with the super El Niño in the process of biting, it is deplorable that the international community continues to fail when it comes to preparing for climate shocks.

Although I welcome the rapid deployment of UK personnel and the £5 million in humanitarian aid to help with the crisis, that £5 million is not enough and does not reflect the closeness of our relationship with Nepal. I remain deeply concerned about the wider UK aid budget, which has been slashed to 0.3%. That includes the cutting of the UK humanitarian crisis reserve by 12%, from £85 million to £75 million, leaving less flexible money for rapid support in humanitarian emergencies. Cutting the humanitarian crisis reserve at a time when many of the world’s poorest countries—the ones often most vulnerable to the impact of climate change—are dealing with those impacts is strategically illiterate. I ask the Minister, as I have before: when will the Government set out a road map for a return to spending 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance, and will the Government revisit the cut to the humanitarian crisis reserve?

Climate finance has also been cut—there has been a halving of the UK commitment to the Green Climate Fund and a significant cut to our international climate finance, despite an ambitious new Government ICF strategy. The reality does not match the rhetoric. It is also a matter of national security for us here at home, as I have mentioned. The national security assessment of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is brutal in its assessment of the impact on our national security and prosperity, with crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks. It points out the critical ecosystems that support major global food production areas and impact global climate, water and weather cycles, and their importance, including in the Himalayas, and how their degradation and collapse will lead to water insecurity, severely reduced crop yields, fisheries collapse, changes to global weather patterns, release of trapped carbon exacerbating climate change, novel disease and loss of pharmaceutical responses. It will drive migration and serious and organised crime and lead to black markets in scarce food, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals, with non-state actors gaining control over scarce resources, and there are pandemic risks. As instability grows, it leads to conflict and military escalation.

Wider development finance can provide some solutions, but definitive action on debt sustainability, illicit financial flows and reform of the multilateral development banks is necessary. Given that the countries most vulnerable to climate change are often also vulnerable to debt distress, it is imperative that the Government use their upcoming G20 presidency to take real and meaningful action on the issues, as well as charting a course forward on climate finance.

This is, after all, a fairness issue—a justice issue. Nepal is responsible for only 0.1% of global emissions, yet it is bearing the consequences of runaway carbon emissions and global inaction in tackling them. As the Nepali Prime Minister recently said at the UN General Assembly, countries like Nepal are

“hit by the climate we did not warm and hit again by the wars we did not start.”

What does fairness look like? Estimates that we heard at the International Development Committee, on which I sit, put the UK’s fair share of international climate finance, as the world’s sixth-largest economy and fifth-largest historical emitter, at £9 billion a year. Add in inflation and the changes to the Government’s accounting methodology, and the ODA element of ICF4 diverges even further from the UK’s fair share. Given all those factors, our ICF allocation is roughly 50% lower than ICF3.

Failure to tackle the climate crisis will erode development gains and push more people into humanitarian need, resource competition and a vicious cycle of poverty and instability, and will damage the UK’s reputation as a leader in climate and development. With COP31 fast approaching, what will be the Government’s strategy for real and meaningful action? How will the Foreign Secretary go beyond words to action that is reflected in tangible UK commitments, both domestic and globally? The floods in Nepal have shown us what can happen and what will continue to happen if we do not act.

There is still time to take action. World Bank research estimates that climate change could force 260 million people to move within their countries by 2050, but that immediate action to reduce global emissions could reduce that number by up to 80%. I urge the Minister and the Government to take bold steps with our development and climate strategy, our aid and our G20 presidency so that the catastrophe in Nepal does not become the norm for communities everywhere. The UK has an opportunity to lead, and we should take it.

10:36

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) on securing this important and timely debate.

The devastating floods that struck Nepal on 26 August have brought unimaginable suffering to communities across the country. More than 1,400 people lost their lives, thousands remain missing and entire communities have been swept away. Homes, roads, bridges and vital infrastructure have been destroyed, leaving families displaced and livelihoods devastated.

On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I extend my deepest condolences to the people of Nepal, to those who have lost loved ones and to everyone still waiting for news of missing family members. I also extend our condolences to the people impacted by the further flash floods in the past few days. Our thoughts are particularly with the families of the British nationals who remain unaccounted for after the August floods.

I visited Nepal last year on a development visit, and I saw just how deep and enduring the ties between Britain and Nepal are. I visited communities that had been devastated by horrible events in years gone by, and seeing their fear really brought home the effect that such events have. As British nationals who do not see such events, trying to get our minds around that is difficult, but we must try.

Our relationship with Nepal has been forged through generations of friendship, about which a number of Members have talked powerfully, and through shared service and the extraordinary contributions of the Gurkhas. I served in the military with a number of Gurkhas, and I saw how kind, honest and hardy they are.

We have heard a number of brilliant and very pressing contributions. The hon. Member for Reading Central really brought the issue home. It is difficult to comprehend the numbers, but 84,000 people have been affected, 32,000 of whom are children. He spoke powerfully about our deep friendship with Nepal.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that in periods of devastation, we often see humanity at its best. He talked about his community and the various faith groups that are raising money to address the tragedy. I commend his constituents.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who, as former International Development Ministers, both have deep expertise in this field, brought home the point about the effects of anthropogenic climate change. We are seeing those effects; although they might not be globally equitable at the moment, countries like Nepal are experiencing them. We have to work here in the UK to ensure that, on the international stage, we push big emitters to bring down global carbon emissions and reduce the effects in places such as Nepal.

The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) talked about acts of heroism, large and small, both in Nepal and back here at home. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) raised an interesting point, which is something I saw on my trip to Nepal last year. With Nepal being wedged between India and China, which both have significant development output into Nepal, it is important that we work with those two countries to ensure that we are not duplicating efforts or working towards different goals.

At these moments, our bonds of friendship matter enormously. I acknowledge the work undertaken by the British embassy in Kathmandu. Our consular teams, humanitarian organisations and emergency responders have worked tirelessly in exceptionally difficult circumstances. The Government were right to provide every possible support to British nationals and their families while working closely with the Nepalese authorities and search and rescue teams. We welcome the deployment of the UK’s rapid deployment team and the announcement of £5 million in emergency humanitarian assistance. However, the situation has now entered a particularly difficult and distressing new phase. Following the Nepalese Government’s decision to end formal search and rescue operations, thousands of families have been left without answers about the fate of their loved ones.

I would therefore be grateful if the Minister would address several questions. First, reports indicate that 33 British citizens still remain missing. Will the Minister confirm the latest verified figure, and explain what further consular and diplomatic steps are being taken to establish their whereabouts? What representations have been made to the Nepalese authorities following the decision to end formal search operations? What arrangements are in place to ensure that any human remains discovered during reconstruction are properly identified and families informed?

Secondly, many face the painful uncertainty of not knowing what happened to their loved ones, which is compounded by the complex legal and administrative processes surrounding missing persons and death certificates. What practical assistance is the FCDO providing to help British families navigate those processes? Will dedicated consular support and family liaison arrangements remain in place for as long as they are needed?

Thirdly, will the Minister update the House on the delivery of the £5 million emergency assistance package? How much has been disbursed, and what assessment has been made of its effectiveness? How are the Government ensuring that assistance reaches isolated communities, particularly those in the affected valleys, where damaged infrastructure continues to hinder access? When we were in Nepal, we met the Gurkha Welfare Trust and saw the work that it does, going out into remote areas and ensuring that Gurkhas who have served the UK military receive their pensions. That is paramount, and the FCDO and the MOD must ensure that that work is still happening. We would also welcome clarification on whether British humanitarian specialists remain deployed, and what further assistance is being provided to Nepal as it moves towards recovery and reconstruction.

As ever, it is right that Britain responds to such devastating and exceptional circumstances, the scale of which is almost unimaginable to us here in the UK. Our country has a proud tradition of standing alongside international and close friends, and we have made the case for that repeatedly today. In a time of crisis, we should continue to take that responsibility very seriously. Equally, it is right that His Majesty’s official Opposition ask these questions of the Government—not to diminish the importance of the support being provided, but to ensure that there is clarity about the Government’s priorities, transparency about how British assistance is being delivered and accountability for the outcomes it achieves.

In a crisis of this magnitude, it is essential that assistance is properly targeted, that it reaches those in greatest need and that there is a clear understanding of how requirements are changing as the immediate emergency gives way to recovery. Can the Minister therefore set out how the FCDO is assessing the effectiveness of the UK’s response and what criteria will inform decisions about any further assistance, particularly in the light of the renewed flooding? Ultimately, our response must be judged not simply by the money committed but by the difference it makes to those affected.

I will conclude by reaffirming the Opposition’s solidarity with the people of Nepal. Britain has a proud and long-standing close friendship with Nepal. We must continue to stand alongside its people through this tragedy and the aftermath. I hope the Minister can provide the reassurance that British families and the wider Nepalese community so desperately need.

09:36

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms McVey. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing this debate to discuss the devastating floods that struck Nepal in August. I thank Members for their contributions to what has been a thoughtful and well-informed debate and for the way in which they have spoken about the impact of this tragedy on the people of Nepal and communities here in the United Kingdom. May I pay my own tribute to the British Nepali community in the UK? Our long-standing friendship is one that we are deeply proud of, and I pay tribute to not just the people here today but those across our communities in the United Kingdom.

The UK stands with Nepal in its time of grief. Our deepest condolences are with those who have lost loved ones and their livelihoods. The scale of this tragedy has been immense. Thousands of families have been affected, communities destroyed and critical infrastructure damaged across some of Nepal’s most vulnerable regions. More than 1,455 people have tragically lost their lives, including British nationals, and many more remain missing. Our thoughts are with the thousands of Nepalis living in the UK, who have watched events unfold with deep concern and personal anguish, and I join Members in acknowledging the dedication of the search and rescue teams, emergency responders and volunteers who have worked tirelessly in extremely challenging conditions.

Against that backdrop, the United Kingdom moved quickly to support those affected. An FCDO rapid deployment team supported the consular response in the region. We are co-ordinating closely with Nepali and Chinese authorities, while specialist police family liaison officers are supporting British families in the UK. As many Members have referenced, we also announced £5 million in humanitarian assistance to support the immediate relief efforts. That funding is helping trusted humanitarian partners to provide emergency shelter, clean water and sanitation services, protection support, health assistance and other lifesaving interventions for those affected by the floods. To answer one of the shadow Minister’s questions, we are tracking the funding through those trusted UN partners and ensuring that the money is going to where it is needed. Humanitarian and engineering experts have also supported the response and assessment effort.

I would like to recognise, in particular, the remarkable response from the Government and people of Nepal. Faced with one of the most devastating disasters in the country’s recent history, Nepal’s authorities mobilised rescue operations at scale, supported displaced communities and began the immense task of recovery and reconstruction. We pay tribute to their professionalism, resilience and determination.

In answering Members’ questions as I go through my speech, I start with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank him for his warm words about me; they are reciprocal. He is a constant force in this House and a constant advocate for freedom of religion and belief. He knows of my personal commitment as the Minister responsible for this particular area of policy. Nepal is officially a secular country, but I want to reassure him that we do offer support to communities, including Christian communities, to ensure that the humanitarian funding and aid we are allocating is received in the correct way in different communities.

The UK and Nepal have a long-standing partnership on climate action. Many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), mentioned the need for us to have more collaboration in this space, both bilaterally and multilaterally.

In Nepal and globally, climate change is increasingly becoming a national security issue, and it has been at the forefront of the new Foreign Secretary’s focus. Melting Himalayan glaciers and more extreme weather across the Hindu Kush Himalaya are driving cascading disasters, threatening lives, infrastructure, energy systems and economic growth. The recent Rasuwa-Bhote Koshi floods showed how a single climate-related event can disrupt trade, hydropower, transport and livelihoods simultaneously.

To answer questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West on climate and disaster resilience, the UK Government believe that is central to how we deliver reconstruction and build our partnership with Nepal. That is not just through reconstruction but science, modelling, engineering and practical hazard intelligence and resilience.

I assure all Members that the next steps mean working bilaterally and multilaterally in a period of recovery on how we can build resilient infrastructure. Later in my speech, I will go further into how we can work multilaterally with the international financial systems to offer more support on wider reconstruction.

As climate shocks become more frequent and unpredictable, they risk eroding hard-won development gains, as has been mentioned, increasing vulnerability and imposing significant economic costs. My hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central and for Harrow West challenged me on the point that climate damage does not happen only in coastal communities but in countries impacted by melting glaciers and the wider challenges of climate change. For Nepal, that could not be more stark. Nepal is a mountainous country, and climate resilience is, therefore, not just an environmental priority but a foundation for future prosperity and stability. That is why we are repositioning elements of our development partnership to support Nepal’s recovery and resilience agenda. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as a former Indo-Pacific Minister. She is right to highlight some of the challenges that we must now put in the multilateral space.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East also challenged me on multilateral development banks and international financial institutions. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), challenged me on words to action. That is why I am pleased to confirm that on 24 September, during UN High-Level Week, the Foreign Secretary convened a multilateral meeting of Ministers from Australia, Kenya and across the European Union, and announced a specific fund from the UK Government of £333 million for climate-driven instability and resilience projects for vulnerable communities impacted by climate change. That will, of course, apply to countries such as Nepal.

No bilateral donor can finance construction at the scale required. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned the World Bank; it has estimated that damage and reconstruction costs run into billions of US dollars. Our role is, therefore, not simply to provide aid but to help shape much larger flows of international finance.

The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that climate and development finance must increasingly focus on preparedness and resilience. Through our engagement with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and other institutions, we are encouraging approaches to invest earlier in resilience with early-warning systems, disaster-risk finance and climate adaptation, which are key to how we move our work forward internationally.

[Monica Harding]

Is the Minister confident that the work of British International Investment, particularly in Nepal, is targeted on climate resilience and adaptation?

[Chris Elmore]

It is the absolute focus. I will talk further about the Foreign Secretary’s engagement with the World Bank this week, and hope to answer her in more detail. We want international financial systems to become better at helping countries at risk to prepare for foreseeable climate shocks. That was an important part of the United Kingdom’s engagement at the UN General Assembly in September. I was pleased to meet the Nepalese Foreign Minister to discuss some of the challenges they are experiencing post the climate event, and how we can work more collaboratively.

The Foreign Secretary highlighted the strong links between environmental pressures, climate vulnerability and broader security and stability challenges. The World Bank annual meetings this week provide another opportunity to advance progress on that agenda. The Foreign Secretary will speak alongside Nepal’s Finance Minister to highlight UK support for strengthening hazard intelligence and early-warning systems in Nepal, and for ensuring that crisis financing is available when countries need it most. To answer the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s question, I do think so, because that work is being led by the Foreign Secretary at the World Bank this week with the Nepalese Finance Minister.

Alongside our work through international institutions, we have maintained close engagement with Nepal through the communities here in the United Kingdom. Many Members rightly raised that today. As has been mentioned, the Minister for Indo-Pacific visited Nepal in the immediate aftermath of the floods, becoming the first foreign ministerial visitor and demonstrating the UK’s solidarity with Nepal at a difficult moment. As our response has evolved, Ministers have maintained regular dialogue with Nepalese community leaders, group representatives and the all-party parliamentary group, to whom I pay tribute.

On 2 September, the Minister for Consular Services, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), visited the South London Sanatan Mandir in Coulsdon to convey condolences to the affected temple community. The Minister for Indo-Pacific, my noble Friend Baroness Winterton, also held an online meeting with representatives of the Nepalese diaspora in the UK on 4 September to update them on the UK’s support. Those conversations matter. The Nepalese community in the UK maintains deep family, cultural and economic ties with Nepal, and many have been personally affected by these events. Their experiences, insights and concerns continue to inform our understanding of the situation on the ground and of the support that will be required in the months and years ahead.

Many Members have paid tribute to the Gurkhas. I would like to add my own tribute for their long-standing solidarity, not just through the British military but through our shared history across conflicts since the first world war. On pensions, I will ensure that every Member, including the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central, will get a written response from the Ministry of Defence. It is led by the Department, but I will ensure that a response is given to all hon. and right hon. colleagues.

Consular support is ongoing. UK police family liaison officers continue to support affected families in the UK where appropriate. FCDO officials continue to liaise with Nepalese and Chinese authorities to establish facts and support families, and we are aware of 36 British nationals who remain missing. As reconstruction progresses, we will continue to work through what more we can do to support families in the UK, particularly as we wait for the missing to hopefully be found.

I have some brief final points on trade and investment between Nepal and the UK. I reassure hon. Members that we are working with Nepal on what is important to them and I will keep the House updated on that work. Rather than committing to something today, it will be an ongoing piece of work that we will do with Nepal to see what works between us.

In moments of crisis, friendship is underlined not only through words of sympathy but through practical action. We will continue to use our voice in multilateral institutions and international forums to ensure that Nepal’s needs remain firmly on the international agenda. The Nepalese people have shown extraordinary courage in the face of immense tragedy and the United Kingdom stands with them as they begin to rebuild and look to the future.

10:58

[Matt Rodda]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, the House and the Members who have spoken today, including the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and the spokeswoman for the Liberal Democrats. Today’s debate has raised some important issues, and like the Prime Minister, I believe that Nepal has always been there for Britain, so now Britain has to be there for Nepal. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s response, and, in particular, about the work under way this week at the UN and the World Bank, where the Foreign Secretary is working closely with the Nepalese Finance Minister. I look forward to hearing more details about that and the vital consular and reconstruction work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the situation in Nepal.

Chetwynd Bridge

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for Chetwynd Bridge.

It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in Westminster Hall this morning, Ms McVey.

Unfortunately, I have to start with a bit of an admission and some bad news. Unfortunately, “Chetwynd bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down; Chetwynd bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down”. I will not punish hon. Members in the Chamber with a full rendition of a rewritten nursery rhyme, nor will I be singing. Unlike London bridge or indeed another bridge in our capital, further down the river, Chetwynd bridge is not especially famous, and it is unlikely ever to be the subject of a song or a nursery rhyme.

But that is why today’s debate is so important: for me and, I am sure, some colleagues sitting behind me, to take the opportunity to impress on the Minister the vital significance of this bridge to communities in Staffordshire and South Derbyshire, and to remind him that, just like in that song:

“Wood and clay will wash away…Bricks and mortar will not stay”

and iron and steel have been bent and bowed. I promise that will be the last bit of nursery rhyme that I bring in today.

What we know is that Chetwynd bridge needs a replacement, and I will cover more of that shortly. For a number of months, colleagues and I have been arguing for the Government’s structures fund to be used to fund that replacement. As I said to the Minister last night, it is good to see him for one last dance on Chetwynd bridge.

A little background for those who are unsure about where Chetwynd bridge is: it crosses the River Tame in Staffordshire, very close to the Derbyshire border. One end of it sits in my constituency and the other in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards). It is also very close by the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett). It is the oldest cast-iron bridge in the country. It is older than Hammersmith bridge, and also longer—not that it is a competition, but we are older and longer. It was completed over 200 years ago in 1824, so this year we will see its 202nd birthday. It is grade II* listed for many of those reasons. Since 2019, it has been closed to heavy traffic.

Options for patching up the structure have been exhausted over decades and decades. Without a weight limit, the bridge would be at risk of further damage, which could lead to its complete closure, with all the real economic problems that that would cause for my part of Staffordshire.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Robertson]

How could I say no to the hon. Member?

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to raise the issue of historical infrastructure such as the grade II*-listed Chetwynd bridge he refers to, which is suffering under heavy traffic and weight restrictions that isolate communities and hurt local trade. Does he agree that, when local authorities or county councils step up with significant multimillion-pound funding bids to protect our heritage and build modern bypasses, the Government must also ensure that the structures fund delivers for those vital arterial routes, so that small businesses and local commuters do not fall through the cracks?

[Dave Robertson]

I had not even primed the hon. Member to say that, but I very much appreciate his intervention. Later, I will talk about some of the businesses and the real importance of this crossing as an arterial route in Staffordshire. If I can beg his indulgence to hang fire, I will get there shortly.

The current partial closure of the bridge means that it is open to small vehicles. However, because of the protections that Staffordshire county council has had to put in place to prevent heavy goods vehicles from using it, it is currently signalised and one way. That leads to delays even for small goods vehicles; for heavy goods vehicles it is even worse, because the nearest detour is an 18-mile journey through the already congested centre of Burton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier).

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his work, and I am proud to support him on this campaign. He is right that it affects my constituency—both businesses, which have to get goods through the key arterial route, and residents. The campaign has support across parties and from the local authority. Does he agree that the structures fund should be put towards it?

[Dave Robertson]

I appreciate the intervention from my hon. Friend and neighbour. The issue is really important. It is economic, social and cultural. When I say that the detour goes through the middle of Burton, it really does go through the middle of Burton. It is not just going close to the town; it goes through the middle of one of the biggest towns in, I think, Britain’s fourth biggest county. That 18-mile diversion is really significant. It is not just a bit of an inconvenience. It is significant for anybody just trying to get around Burton, because there is a huge amount more traffic on those local roads.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant speech about a campaign that we have been trying to run for a long time, and I am grateful that the Minister is present to hear us. Farmers in my patch have complained about the cost that the diversion is adding to their businesses, because sometimes they need to use an extra 20 litres of red diesel. Given the cost of living crisis and the challenges facing businesses, that is not acceptable, and it is also an environmental problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we get this bridge? We have been promised it for 20 years now, and it is about due.

[Dave Robertson]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is a real advocate for Chetwynd bridge, as are all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. It is a really important piece of infrastructure for a huge part of the country, affecting at least four constituencies and likely others much further afield. I completely agree with her, and we are all eager to see the outcome of the structures fund.

On the impact of different vehicles using the bridge, I will start with the emergency services. Ambulances are currently able to traverse the bridge, being below the weight limit, but they get caught up in the queues that form because it is signalised and one way, where it should be two lanes. A modern fire engine, however, weighs upwards of 12 tonnes; fill it with water and it weighs even more. Those vehicles are not allowed to cross Chetwynd bridge, which results in an 18-mile detour to go north via Burton, or south all the way down to Elford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire.

This year we saw the devastating impact that wildfires can have, including the terrible situation in Stourbridge over the summer. Every single pump that Staffordshire fire service could activate was out fighting wildfires. The service dealt with well in excess of 1,000 outdoor fires just this summer. Getting those pumps to where they need to be is vital. The 18-mile detour means minutes lost, time wasted, property damaged and potentially lost and, really worryingly, lives at greater risk.

Fire engines not being able to get around that part of England is probably the most extreme example of the disruption, but for businesses in our region—to come back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—its impact is daily and serious. In the last couple of decades, Lichfield has experienced significant growth, because we are part of the golden triangle of freight and logistics in the midlands. I think Lichfield and the A38 corridor are within a three-hour drive of 90% of the population of the UK.

In the Lichfield constituency, more than one in 10 jobs depend directly on road haulage. Next door in Tamworth, the figure is 7.3%. Significant numbers of jobs rely on road haulage being able to get things around the country quickly. Those retail and wholesale sectors, which are heavily dependent on road haulage, are our largest employers. This is not just a “nice to have”; it is essential to the local economies that are the beating heart of the entire national economy.

Chetwynd bridge is just a few miles from Fradley Park, an important logistics hub spread over 173 acres. As a result of the partial closure, HGVs incur additional time and cost to their journeys, not to mention increased polluting impact—18 miles for an HGV is a lot of carbon footprint. I am pleased that the terms of the structures fund placed special emphasis on road haulage, recognising the significance of the sector. The impact on businesses at Fradley Park is serious and ongoing. I thank the Minister, in his previous portfolio, for his engagement on the construction of the structures fund, specifically looking into whether replacements would be considered. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth and I last wrote to him about that in May.

Beyond that, I have already stressed the knock-on impact on haulage, which is felt acutely at Catton estate, which is just up from the bridge on the Tamworth side in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire. Catton estate hosts numerous festivals, including Bearded Theory, which has a capacity of 15,000, and Bloodstock, the UK’s largest metal festival, which has a capacity of 20,000—I assume you have been at least once, Ms McVey.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

A date for the diary.

[Dave Robertson]

Festival organisers and the estate all support the urgent replacement of the bridge, which is the primary access route to the estate. They have told me and my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for Tamworth about the serious impact on the events set-up of not being able to bring lorries across the bridge and having to use the detour. They are really concerned about what a permanent closure might mean. If we do not get this replacement, a permanent closure is inevitable—it is a case of when, not if.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his incredible leadership and work on campaigning to get this bridge sorted. He knows Ollie Neilson, who runs Catton Hall and who shared with me that just three festivals run at the estate in the last 20 years have brought £20 million to the local economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about emergency services or people having a fun time at festivals, but about the local economy?

[Dave Robertson]

I could not agree more. The Government want to talk about growth in every postcode: well, here is some growth for our postcode. Lifting the restrictions will make it easier for people to move around our parts of Staffordshire and Derbyshire, which will directly impact the ability of businesses to invest internally, to grow and to continue to drive our local economies. It is really important.

Before I come to my conclusion—I have a couple of minutes—I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire, for Burton and Uttoxeter and for Tamworth for all their work and support on this matter. The bridge does not affect just one constituency; it affects at least four, and its effects go much further afield, into Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire.

[Sarah Edwards]

I know time is short, so I thank my hon. Friend for indulging me one more time. The bridge is essential to all our constituencies, so closing it is not an option. We have already spent £14 million to try to fix it, and it did not work. It is a heritage bridge. Does he agree that we need a new bridge and that we must have support from the Minister to ensure that it will help all our constituents?

[Dave Robertson]

I 100% agree. The bridge is essential. It is a big piece of infrastructure.

I understand that the Minister will not be able to give me a yes or no from the Dispatch Box today—I am aware of how this works—but my hon. Friends and I are eager to hear a timeline for the progress of the structures fund. The Chetwynd bridge scheme is effectively shovel ready. Staffordshire county council is prepared to commit just over £6 million to the project and is asking for just over £40 million from the structures fund to support that. It wants this bridge open in 2029. This is a shovel-ready project that can be driven really quickly. Using the structures fund to invest in communities like ours is a great opportunity for the Government to show growth in every postcode—to show that politics can work, that big Government can work for people and that we can get investment into the places it needs to go. Can the Minister set out a timeline for the structures fund, and will he or the relevant Minister meet with me and my hon. Friends to discuss that timeline further?

11:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I commend the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) to seeing this crucial bridge in his constituency replaced.

The Government are committed to improving the condition of local roads. I recognise that restrictions and closures are sometimes unavoidable for safety reasons, but their costs are considerable. Diversions cost businesses money, take up drivers’ time and can increase congestion on other roads, and I also recognise what my hon. Friend said regarding emergency services.

I want to ensure that all highway authorities have what they need to manage their assets as effectively and efficiently as possible to avoid those impacts. We are therefore supporting highway authorities with record investment of £7.3 billion for local highways maintenance over the next four years. That clearly demonstrates our commitment to tackling the poor state of our local roads, which is the result of historical under-investment.

We are also ensuring that every single pound of our record investment goes further. The long-term certainty of our four-year settlement allows authorities to plan ahead and shift from reactive fixes to proactive, preventive maintenance, which reduces unplanned disruptions and means that funding can be spent more efficiently.

Alongside our record uplift in highways maintenance, the Government have launched the structures fund. Too much of the country’s vital transport infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate, creating risks for communities, businesses and the wider economy. Across the country, around 3,000 bridges are currently unable to carry the heaviest vehicles, restricting freight and agricultural traffic. The Government believe that repairing or replacing those assets is essential if our transport network is to remain safe, reliable and resilient for the future.

The structures fund will provide capital funding for repair or replacement of major local highway structures that local highway authorities cannot afford to restore from their own budgets. Eligible assets include bridges, flyovers and retaining walls. The Government want those investments not only to repair ageing infrastructure, but to ensure structures are fit for modern transport demands and more resilient to extreme weather events.

As climate risks increase, strengthening critical assets now will help to avoid future disruption and long-term costs. Local highway authorities had until 3 August to put structures forward for investment, and we expect to announce funding awards in the autumn. I was pleased that Staffordshire county council put Chetwynd bridge forward for the fund, and so effectively conveyed the strength of local support for its plans to replace the structure.

It is a testament to the country’s excellence in engineering that a pre-1830s cast-iron bridge still forms part of our road network. I recognise the challenges that modern traffic poses to such old assets, and I appreciate the stewardship that Staffordshire county council has demonstrated over the last few years in managing it. I also appreciate the crossing’s importance to local communities, businesses and key stakeholders, such as the National Memorial Arboretum.

I recognise the traffic management and compliance challenges posed by the current 7.5-tonne weight and 2.3-metre width restrictions, but road users will no doubt appreciate that it remains open to some traffic. I commend again my hon. Friend’s commitment to seeing this crucial bridge in his constituency replaced. He remarked earlier that Chetwynd bridge is not famous—but trust me, Ms McVey, after endless campaigning, it definitely feels famous to me.

My hon. Friend’s constituents should be in no doubt how hard he fights for his community. Although he did not invite me to Bloodstock, I would be delighted to accompany you, Ms McVey. I recognise that the current restrictions are causing his constituents disruption, and we will of course update them as soon as possible when we announce the successful structures fund schemes.

Question put and agreed to.

11:18

Sitting suspended.

Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

14:30

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government oversight of underperforming NHS trusts.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am the MP for Chelmsford in Essex, and my local trust is the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust. A few years ago, it was decided to put three hospitals under the same trust. My local Broomfield hospital is not actually in my constituency. It is in the neighbouring North West Essex constituency, but for all intents and purposes, it is my hospital because it is the main one serving my constituents, and it fills my inbox every single day with tales of woe from both patients and staff.

I thank other Members whose constituencies are served by the same trust for coming along today. Other hon. Members from across the House, served by other NHS trusts, will probably be experiencing something similarly unfortunate. I look forward to hearing their stories, because it is incredibly important to get NHS trusts to perform properly, serve their patients and look after their staff. Looking after the most vulnerable underpins everything we do in society, and I am afraid to say that the Government are not getting it right. That is what I am here to talk about.

Earlier, somebody not too far away from me said, “I think I am in the worst trust in the country,” and I said, “I will go round for round with you on that one.” Later, I will give some details about why I believe that.

Back in March, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), announced that the Mid and South Essex trust would be placed into an intensive recovery programme, and we waited to find out the details. The reason for the programme is that, over several years, Mid and South Essex has been massively underperforming. There have been huge issues, and I do not exaggerate when I say that they fill my inbox every single day. We are talking about long waits, delays to treatment and difficulty accessing care. When patients do access care, they are not getting the service they need and, most importantly, they are not getting the outcomes they need and deserve.

I pay tribute to the staff who work at Broomfield hospital, in the Mid and South Essex trust and in all the trusts across the country. They are working in difficult circumstances, and quite a lot of the time they are using infrastructure that is not fit for purpose and has not been properly invested in over many years. They are doing their very best, but unfortunately, they are not getting the support they need. I have met the staff, patients and leadership of Mid and South Essex foundation trust many times over a sustained period, and I know hon. Members from across the House have done the same. Unfortunately, I believe it is one of the worst trusts in the country on both patient and staff measures. We pushed for changes locally, but national support is needed.

Let me talk about the range of issues that have been raised with me. I have walked around Broomfield hospital both with the senior leadership team and with the less senior leadership, shall we say? I do not think it should be possible for me to walk around a hospital and point out things that are so obviously wrong, yet I could. There were lights outside theatres that had not been working, I was told, for 10 years. Those are things that should be relatively easy to fix, but when patients have to write to me about mould growing on the walls and windows of a children’s ward, something is going seriously wrong.

Two weekends ago, an 80-year-old gentleman told my staff that he had queued out the door of the emergency department on a Saturday for an hour. He is in his 80s and nobody even bothered to offer him a seat. Something is going drastically wrong when we have lost sight of the importance of common decency and human compassion when looking after patients. When consultants retire, they are not being replaced, and their waiting lists are just being disbanded.

People are writing to me about those sorts of things all the time. Patients have very few ways to raise their concerns. They can go to the patient advice and liaison service, but unfortunately the delays in getting responses back from PALS are enormous. MPs can raise an issue with the trust leadership and go through PALS as well, but we still do not get the responses that we need. There seems to be a lack of communication between leadership and staff, and we seem to have lost sight of what is important—the things that just make sense to keep on doing.

There was a roundtable earlier this week for the leadership of Mid and South Essex and the Essex MPs whose constituencies are in that trust. While not all the MPs could come along—I know many sent their staffers—I was certainly there. We talked about heat and the very long, hot summer we have had. We talked about how that has impacted on the running of the hospital. The chief executive told me that it meant some of the theatres had to be closed because there was too much humidity. Obviously, that has a knock-on effect on patient waiting lists, outcomes and experiences.

The chief executive said that the hospital had been gifted some air-conditioning units by a very generous national company. That sounds great, but the hospital cannot plug enough of them in because the electrical circuits cannot cope. It is a fairly new build hospital—it is a combination of PFI and some older buildings—yet we cannot plug in enough air-conditioning units to keep our theatres open. I was told that humidity is not reduced by air-conditioning units, but I am not too sure about that. I am sure there are other ways of reducing humidity.

I said to the chief executive that it was a really hot summer, and with El Niño, we are possibly expecting an even hotter summer next year. I asked the chief executive whether they are developing contingency plans to make sure that we can deal with that, because we know that long, hot summers are going to keep on happening. He said, “No, we’re not.” My mind was blown that he said that out loud. I say this as gently and courteously as possible, but it is obvious that the trust is massively struggling. It is not just the staff working day to day; it is the leadership. It is a new leadership team, and they have obviously lost sight of the importance of focusing on certain things.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes some important points. We share a hospital trust. Many of my constituents in Basildon and Billericay go to Broomfield hospital. Some of them go down to Basildon hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), as well as the Southend hospital in another neighbouring constituency.

I want to pick up on that point around contingency planning, because Basildon hospital, which is part of the trust, is particularly bad for corridor care. It is very clear to me that it is a major issue that is really hammering people. I want to make a very brief point about that care.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Very brief.

[Mr Holden]

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Stuart.

A constituent came to me who was handed a second-hand book on grief, with somebody else’s notes in it, after he had just lost his wife. It really struck me that, whether it is corridor care or that almost thoughtlessness, care is actually missing in parts of the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust.

[Marie Goldman]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we are in the same trust, and that our constituents experience each other’s local hospitals. I want to build on what he said about the experience of patients. It is really important that we remember the patients in all this. We can talk about financial planning, keeping budgets down and sticking within the envelope of how much we are supposed to be spending, but at the end of the day, it is patients who are suffering.

One patient wrote to me in February—it was February this year, but just to give an idea of how long this has been going on, it could have been February two, three or five years ago. They said:

“I waited four hours for triage, and it was eight hours until I was admitted to a ward. I spent much of that time sitting on the cold floor, by the open doors or standing as there were not enough seats.”

It is not just about patients; it is also about the staff who work there. A nurse wrote to me just last month, in September 2026, to say:

“I have worked at the trust since 2008 and when I first joined, I was so proud to say I worked there. The next few years this feeling remained but for the last 8 years or so things have definitely taken a nosedive. The trust seems to run on broken promises and the good will of front­line staff. I am no longer proud to say where I work. I know many staff feel the same and worry for the safety of the patients, the staff and the trust.”

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The merger of Basildon, Broomfield and Southend hospitals six years ago has turned out to be an abject failure. That is not the fault of the patients, and it is certainly not the fault of the very hard-pressed staff; it is the fault of the management. We have seen endless revolving-door changes of management. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is now time for Clare Panniker, the east of England regional director of the NHS who was the first chief executive of the trust and, indeed, the cheerleader for the merger, to intervene and finally put this problem right once and for all?

[Marie Goldman]

I think this is bigger than just one person; it needs much more attention from the Government and across the board—and I do not just mean the local trust board. It needs a lot of oversight and intervention, and really quickly. We are talking about an intensive recovery programme that was billed by the then Health Secretary as being a rapid improvement programme. I have not seen anything rapid yet, I am afraid. The programme was announced in March, and I am still waiting to see any real outcomes. It is supposed to deliver results within six months. I know they waited until the new chief exec was in place in June, so we are now a few months in, but patients—my constituents—are really suffering.

Let me give a few stats. For cancer being diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days, the national median is 78.6%. The average for Mid and South Essex is 64.3%, placing it 114th out of 117 trusts. For elective patients waiting under 18 weeks—in this case, higher is better—the median is 65.2%. In Mid and South Essex, it is 50.4%, placing it 117th out of 117. For elective patients waiting over 52 weeks—lower is better—the median is 1.5%. In Mid and South Essex, it is 8.1%, again placing it 117th out of 117. I would rather not claim the prize of having one of the worst trusts in the country, but here we are—the numbers don’t lie.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech about the importance of NHS trusts being able to meet their targets and provide care. My local trust, similarly, is not in my constituency. University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS foundation trust has been missing its cancer targets, with 40% of patients waiting two months, which is just not good enough. Does she agree that despite the fact there have been announcements and increased funding, we are bearing the brunt of the cut after cut that we saw under the previous Government, and it will take a long time to turn this around unless we have increased intervention from Government?

[Marie Goldman]

Yes—the hon. Member makes a really important point. I have no problem with making cuts if they are genuine efficiencies. If we look at a system and go, “Do you know what? There’s wastage over here, so we can cut it from here because we’re confident that things are going to continue to do well over there”, but that never seems to be the case. It seems to be a case of just cutting, and to hell with the consequences. I find that really frustrating.

The bottom line is that patients suffer from it, and that is never good for the economy. If we want to boil it down to money, economics and finances, that is never good for the economy, because when people have worse outcomes, they tend to need to stay in hospital for longer, which costs more money. It is ridiculous—it is a crazy way of running things.

A staff survey was done in the trust last November, and the results speak for themselves. Members can look it up, but this is the money answer that tells us pretty much everything we need to know, even if we read nothing else. Staff were asked whether they would be happy with the standard of care provided by the organisation if a friend or relative needed treatment. The national average for those agreeing is 60.83%. For Mid and South Essex, it is 38%—my word! Nearly two thirds of staff working in the trust are saying, “I wouldn’t want my friend or loved one to be treated there.” That has to be ringing enormous alarm bells. If we are not throwing everything at turning this around right here, right now, I do not understand the point of Government.

I am conscious of time and I have taken three interventions, so I will go on for just a few more minutes.

There have been six years of interventions at the trust, starting after the merger in 2020, when the Care Quality Commission rated it “Requires improvement”. In April 2024, we had a recovery support programme, which was a successor to special measures, and in March this year, as I have said, we had the intensive recovery programme. Six years and two programmes, with no CQC improvement.

We have had so many health inquiries in this country—inquiries into maternity and other services—and they have all made loads of recommendations. Can the Minister say how many of those recommendations have been implemented, across the country and in Mid and South Essex? How are we keeping track of that? Let’s not reinvent the wheel. We have had inquiries that have told us what is going wrong, so let us make sure we are implementing their recommendations.

I have written to the Minister three times, and three times I have had a response back. I have welcomed the announcement and asked questions about the detail, but I have had different details back each time. In June and July, I was told that the responsibility lies with the trust’s board, with targeted external expertise. In the July response, I was told that there was a recovery compact and a six to 18-month recovery period. In the September letter, I was told we would be getting enhanced support from NHS England regional and national teams.

It struck me when rereading those letters earlier today that there is very little reference in them to improving patient outcomes or experience. They focus a lot on money. I genuinely think that we need to get things right and then deal with the money afterwards. Sometimes we have to invest to get things to the point that they need to be, and then step back and make savings; we cannot do it all in one go—I can tell hon. Members right now that it just will not work. There is too much of a focus on financial performance right here, right now. We can get to that later, but we must first sort things out for the patients who are suffering right now.

The September response promised long-term sustainability. I just have to point out that NHS England is reportedly set to be abolished in April 2027, which is inside the recovery window I have been given. That creates a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty. Where will we be getting consistency on this?

Members will be pleased to know that I am on my last page, but I do have a list of questions for the Minister. Where is the “external expertise” coming from that will be helping Mid and South Essex? I get fed up with the merry-go-round of chief executives moving from one failing trust to another. Why on earth do we think we will get a different answer or outcome? If they did not fix it over there, why do we think they will be able to fix it over here? Where is the genuine expertise with a tried and tested track record coming from?

Who chooses the experts? Who reviews whether the support is working—or are they going to be marking their own homework? Who holds the trust to account? Do not just tell me “the board” or “MPs”—that is not the answer. What specific support is Mid and South Essex getting? If there is no improvement within the six to 18-month window, who will intervene then, and what will be the consequences? How is this long-term if NHS England is going to disappear in April 2027?

Finally, where is the commitment to making things better for the people this really matters for: the patients and the staff? I conclude by paying tribute once again to the staff who do amazing work under very difficult circumstances. Patients—my constituents—deserve better.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I need to introduce a time limit of three minutes.

14:48

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman).

The staff at Salford Royal are absolutely amazing. I have seen their dedication, and I have joined them on picket lines as they have campaigned to improve patient safety as much as their own workplace conditions. I have also met whistleblowers ringing the alarm on patient safety, and I have repeatedly raised their concerns and patients’ concerns and called for them to be listened to by trust management. Sadly, they have been let down and now the situation is critical.

The Minister may know that Salford Royal was the poster child of NHS safety; it was one of the best hospitals in the country, if not the best. Savage austerity and round after round of cuts have undoubtedly brought our NHS to the point of collapse right across the country, but the fact that an individual trust’s services can fall from “Outstanding” in 2018 to “Requires improvement” a few weeks ago warrants her personal oversight and intervention.

I will briefly canter through how matters got to this point. In 2018, the CQC rated Salford Royal NHS foundation trust as “Outstanding”. The stand-alone hospital trust then merged to form a super-trust across Greater Manchester called the Northern Care Alliance. Just a year after the merger, the CQC rated the newly formed trust “Requires improvement”—a long way from Salford’s previous position.

Between 2023 and 2024, worrying reports about patient safety started to emerge, and there were then various interventions. In 2025, there was a rapid quality review process, and that September the CQC issued its first section 29A warning notice regarding the trust’s surgical services, citing inadequate staffing arrangements and ineffective systems for identifying and managing patient safety risks.

A few months later, in August 2026, another warning notice had to be issued due to significant concerns about the trust’s management of risk, patient safety complaints, freedom to speak up, and workforce wellbeing and inclusion. That brings us to the latest CQC report, a couple of weeks ago, which rated the hospital “Requires improvement” and identified 12 regulatory breaches relating to safe care and treatment, governance and staffing.

All that is very worrying, but one staff member recently told me:

“It really is getting worse, especially with theatres, and they’ll try and blame the current industrial action, but it’s not those days. It’s normal days, they are just horrendous. Staff crying. Staff exhausted, increasing sickness rates.”

It is clear that there is a crisis unfolding, and the staff are exhausted. I urge the Minister to meet me to discuss what action she can take to get the trust back on the steady and safe footing that its staff and patients deserve.

14:52

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and to follow the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman).

I have four NHS trusts serving my enormous constituency, which is the second biggest in England: the North Cumbria foundation trust, which is ranked 117th out of 134; the Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear foundation mental health trust, which ranks 39th out of 58; the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay foundation trust, which ranks 97th out of 134; and the Lancashire and South Cumbria foundation mental health trust, which ranks 54th out of 58.

What do those four trusts have in common? They are run and staffed by outstanding people who are wonderful, compassionate, committed and capable. They all also struggle with a common underlying challenge: rurality, which this Government, like their Conservative predecessors, fail to understand and, indeed, to tackle.

Let me start with the Morecambe Bay trust. It has three hospitals, but it is funded as if it had just one. This year, NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care are forcing £32.5 million-worth of cost savings on the trust, causing it to have to close 42 beds, despite the fact that it has been at level 4 of the operational pressures escalation levels framework—the highest level of alert and extreme pressure on services—a total of 14 times over the last 12 months, including three times in June, July and August.

We have some of the worst cancer waiting times in the country, and it is no surprise, because in south Cumbria we have no direct or close access to radiotherapy treatment. The OECD average, and the target, for the proportion of people with cancer who receive radiotherapy is 53%. In the UK, that figure is a mere 36%, and Lancashire and south Cumbria is the worst area in the worst country in the OECD, at only 29%. In north Cumbria, people use the Penrith urgent treatment centre, which is brilliant, but it is often under enormous pressure because the nearby Keswick urgent treatment centre—in the constituency of the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours)—is often closed because of understaffing.

Mental health provision in the two mental health trusts is under enormous pressure. When Cumbria has a suicide rate twice the national average, that is unacceptable. In addition, the local council is proposing to close Applethwaite Green care home in Windermere because of a 31% cut that the Government have made to the council’s funding this year. Why have the Government done that? Because they do not get rurality and they do not fund services in rural communities.

I want to finish by mentioning a Policy Exchange report, the foreword of which was written by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the title of which reads: “The Rural Penalty: How NHS funding formulas are disadvantaging rural and coastal areas and putting health devolution at risk”. It is not just putting health devolution at risk; it is putting the health and the lives of my constituents at risk, and I hope the Minister will put that right.

14:54

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this important debate.

Too many communities have paid a price for the failure of NHS trusts. In Ipswich, we know that all too well. Two trusts serve my community: East Suffolk and North Essex foundation trust, which provides our acute hospital services, and Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust, which is responsible for our mental health services. Unfortunately, both, but particularly the latter, have a history of patients enduring long waits, inconsistent standards of care and services that fall well short of what patients have every right to expect. Families were sidelined, and concerns went unanswered.

For many years, NSFT has been synonymous with failure. In 2015, it was the first mental health trust in the country to enter special measures, and it was later put into an NHS recovery support programme. Two years ago, I stood in this very room and described NSFT as

“arguably…the worst performing mental health trust in the…country.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 177WH.]

That judgment reflected a litany of failings stretching back many years.

It is important to acknowledge that genuine progress has been made. The picture today is markedly different from the one even just a few years ago. The number of patients waiting more than 18 weeks has fallen by over 80%, crisis services have improved, and more than 95% of patients experiencing a first episode of psychosis now begin treatment within two weeks of referral, which represents outperformance of the national standard. Although the trust is still rated “Requires improvement” overall, several services are now rated “Good”. That is testament in part to the leadership of NSFT, which brought stability to the trust after years of disruption.

I am grateful to be hosting a quarterly meeting between NSFT and MPs in the region to ensure that progress is made. We can learn from the problems at the trust that improvement is possible even in the organisations with the most difficult legacies. However, we must not confuse progress with success; this is a first step and the beginning of a recovery that has a way to go.

The Government’s reforms are finally starting to turn the page of years of failure. We have invested record-breaking amounts in our health service, reducing waiting lists, cutting ambulance response times in my area and expanding our workforce, so we should be tentatively hopeful. Neither NSFT nor ESNEFT, which I would talk about if I had more time, are yet where patients deserve and need them to be, but there are reasons to be optimistic.

I make a plea to the Minister to ensure that we are fully funding mental health, as it desperately needs to be. Our trust never recovered from brutal cuts in 2014 and massive redesigns. We are on the path to recovery. We now have stability, and I recognise the progress made so far, but we must build on it and maintain a relentless focus on delivering the improvements that all our local patients deserve.

14:58

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing the debate.

I represent the Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn trust, which serves 300,000 people across Norfolk, north Cambridgeshire and south Lincolnshire and was ranked 134th out of 134 trusts in the league table released in September last year. That very disappointing result was uncomfortable for the trust and its staff, but transparency can galvanise action. Performance is simply not good enough at the moment. Only 65% of cancer patients are treated within the 62-day timeframe, against the standard of 85%, and only 64% of patients at A&E are seen within four hours. The trust has also heard worrying reports from the Royal College of Surgeons about culture and management weaknesses, and in August the CQC rated emergency care as “requiring improvement”.

When the league table was published, I was told by Health Ministers that intensive help would be made available to deliver better care, but it is not clear what extra support has actually been provided. Cancer and elective waiting times have improved slightly. A&E diagnostics have not. There have certainly been more reporting requirements, but they will not drive improved performance and productivity, nor will requiring a 10% budget saving or the current management instability. We had a temporary chief executive and then a supposedly permanent appointment, and there is currently no recruitment for a managing director, with the post being covered by the Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group deputy chief executive. We need visible, active, full-time leadership, on site, to deliver better care. What support is the national performance framework providing? A year on from the league table, how are Ministers holding the trust to account?

Dedicated staff are working in a hospital that is not fit for purpose, which is why we secured a commitment, which this Government have honoured, to a new QEH. New facilities and improvements go hand in hand, but it should be about improving services, not removing them. That is why I am extremely concerned about leaked proposals showing that the Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group is considering downgrading A&E, maternity and intensive care unit services. The plans have been drawn up behind closed doors, with no transparency, by organisations that are seemingly unaccountable and that fail to recognise the needs of my constituents and those across the area. Clinicians have warned of the impact on patient safety. The proposals are completely unacceptable and should be ruled out now. Indeed, the group leadership has repeatedly said publicly that it wants more services closer to home. If that is the case, those services must include a proper 24/7, tier 1 A&E; maternity services; and an ICU in King’s Lynn.

QEH is at the heart of my community, and we all want to see sustained improvements. I urge the Minister to give my constituents and the staff at the hospital the reassurance they want by ruling out any downgrading of services at QEH on this Government’s watch.

15:04

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing the debate.

I wish to raise the serious and long-standing problem of ambulance delays at the Royal Stoke university hospital, which is run by the University Hospitals of North Midlands trust and is situated in the neighbouring constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central. Many of my Stoke-on-Trent South constituents, local campaigners such as Ian Syme, and West Midlands ambulance service have repeatedly raised with me their concerns about this crisis.

Ambulance handover is the point at which responsibility for a patient transfers from the ambulance crew to the hospital team. NHS England guidance specifies that it should take place within 15 minutes of an ambulance arriving at a hospital. Between April and September this year, the average wait at the Royal Stoke was one hour and 33 minutes, and the longest was 17 hours and 41 minutes. Only 16% of handovers met the 15-minute standard, making the Royal Stoke the worst-performing hospital in the west midlands on that measure. House of Commons Library research indicates that it is the third worst in the country. Such handover delays cause harm and increase the number of avoidable deaths. This is not a recent problem: for most months since 2023, the trust’s handover times have been among the longest in the country.

To be clear, this is not an attack on frontline NHS staff. Our paramedics, ambulance crews and emergency department staff are working under immense pressure, often to the point of burnout, and I acknowledge some of the outstanding work that happens at the Royal Stoke. But there is a false narrative that the problem is the result of more people turning up to A&E. It is not. A&E attendance figures at the Royal Stoke remain broadly stable, so deeper questions need to be asked about the overall culture, the patient flow through the system and the response of senior leadership.

In August, the CQC conducted an inspection of the A&E and correctly instructed that the 15 corridor care spaces at the Royal Stoke be closed. I support the principle behind that decision, but closing those spaces does not address the problems that led to patients being treated in corridors in the first place, nor have those closures caused the long-standing ambulance delays, which existed before. In September 2025, NHS England took enforcement action against UHNM, yet a year later—this September—average ambulance handover delays at the Royal Stoke still hit two hours. There has been a failure of oversight and accountability.

Having attended the recent UHNM board meeting and spoken with the integrated care board chair, I acknowledge that actions are being taken to address the problem. I am pleased that, on my suggestion, the ICB chair has agreed to convene a joint meeting of senior people and MPs to address the issue of ambulance handover delays. However, more needs to be done, and questions must be raised as to how we got into this situation in the first place.

My constituents deserve safe, timely treatment. Our frontline staff deserve a system that allows them to do their jobs properly. Will the Minister commit to taking direct oversight of ambulance handover delays at the Royal Stoke, commission an independent inquiry and set a clear timetable for improvement?

15:04

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this extremely important debate.

I serve the population with the highest number of frail elderly people, and the irony is that our hospital is frail and elderly. It is the third oldest in the country, and the poor quality of the estate massively impacts the service that can be delivered to my community. More than 80% of it is not fit for purpose. We were one of the areas promised a new hospital by the previous Conservative Government, but sadly we are now in wave 2. There have been more than 700 sewage leaks across the hospital in recent years, and that impacts on clinical areas. Members can draw their own conclusions about how that has shunted treatment for patients down the line.

The tower block at Torbay is swathed in scaffolding to stop bits of it falling off and braining patients. In February, my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and I wrote to the Minister, backing our NHS managers, who desperately need an £8 million investment to sort out the tower block. We wrote again, and I met the Minister in September to bang the drum again, and we got £1.8 million, rather than £8 million.

Devon and Somerset fire and rescue service has now served a fire safety notice on our trust, as it has serious safety concerns about patients, and the CQC served another warning notice in the last few days. The chickens have now come home to roost. We need action. We need the cheque that I asked for in September in the post to tackle the fire safety issues in the tower block.

The staff are doing incredible work, but the patients deserve better. Will the Minister meet me and other colleagues from south Devon constituencies to explore the impact of the fire safety notice and the CQC warning? There are rumours swirling around the internet about the closure of beds in Torbay hospital.

15:07

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing the debate, which is about—politely—underperforming trusts. This is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and I will be talking about the breast cancer failings at my local trust, County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust.

In April 2025, the trust began going through the case files of women who had been patients of its breast services between 2023 and 2025. Of the 538 women whose cases have been reviewed, 321 experienced some form of harm: 77 suffered significant harm, 20 underwent unnecessary mastectomies, and the trust has confirmed that one woman has died, and it is currently investigating the situation. Let me take a moment to reflect on that. The women in this room know how much pain we are deemed to have to endure and put up with. But to hear that women put their trust in our NHS at a time of great stress and anxiety and had their breasts removed unnecessarily is truly abhorrent.

The trust has rightly changed leadership and is now undertaking a further review of the treatment given to women by the breast services from 2015 onwards. The cases of a further 4,500 women need to be reviewed by specialists. The current rate of review—538 cases a year—means that, without further resource to fund more specialists to review the cases, the process could go well into the 2030s. Recent Health Service Journal modelling estimates that the work could cost the trust £4.5 million. The trust does not get any financial support for that work, which I find counterintuitive, as the victims need answers and justice, and the trust must learn the lessons from what went wrong while also carrying on its vital duties.

Campaigners are calling for a public inquiry—I support them and understand why—but I fear that it will take years and years for answers to be found and lessons to be learned. The Prime Minister recently agreed and said in a BBC interview:

“Of course there needs to be the fullest possible inquiry…we will ensure that those affected have all of the answers that they need”.

He said that there are different routes to the truth but, without additional resources, how can the trust be expected to keep other services running effectively while conducting the inquiry? It will inevitably go into debt and probably be bailed out by the Department of Health and Social Care—that is, the taxpayer.

Given that the Health Bill, which is focused on abolishing NHS England and giving direct powers back to the Secretary of State, is going through the House, we have the legislative opportunity to change the culture from fearing and fighting for scrutiny to funding and facilitating it. Our trust needs to provide the answers and support the affected patients in a timely and compassionate manner, and to improve and change services to gather the information necessary to do that. We all in this House agree that patients across the country deserve better.

15:10

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the chair, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing the debate.

When we discuss underperforming trusts, we must recognise that some NHS trusts are operating in circumstances that would challenge even the best management teams. The Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS foundation trust serves a largely rural and coastal population, with an ageing demographic, workforce pressures and significant barriers to access. I do not want to blame the Royal Devon leadership team. This is certainly not about blaming hard-working staff, because they do a brilliant job in very trying circumstances. But let us face it: the geography and demographics are stacked against them.

The chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, has repeatedly highlighted the unique health challenges facing rural and coastal communities, including when he visited Devon in May this year. Sir Chris has warned of

“the health challenges of coastal towns”,

and that attracting staff in such areas is significantly harder, noting that transport links are often limited. In his 2023 report Sir Chris warned:

“People living in peripheral areas experience issues relating to accessing primary and secondary healthcare, domiciliary care, medicines, shopping and transport. The response times of health care professionals are often longer because of the distances involved, which is particularly important for emergency presentations”.

Steve Brown, the director for public health in Devon, said:

“In Devon, our records show that some people are dying up to 15 years earlier than they should because essential building blocks of health…like reliable transport…and services that people can reach…are missing.”

My constituent Hilary Robarts-Arnold, from Seaton, wrote to me to describe the lack of transport and the difficulty of getting services in east Devon. Her husband is increasingly frail and suffers from skin cancer. Until recently, he attended dermatology services at Axminster hospital, seven and a half miles away. Those local services have now gone, and patients are instead forced to trek to Exeter, if they can. For her and her husband, that would be 22 miles, which is simply not possible because it is just too challenging a distance. As a result, his cancer is not being dealt with. The RDUH told me that

“this is a workforce and capacity issue, not a reflection of the clinical priority we place on patient care”.

If Government oversight of NHS trusts is to be meaningful, they must recognise the realities of rural and coastal healthcare and weight funding accordingly.

15:13

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this vital debate, which could not be more timely for my constituents. I want to use my contribution to offer a warning from Wales about what happens when Governments distance themselves from the decisions being taken by NHS trusts or boards under their control.

Community hospitals across Powys, including in Knighton, Llanidloes, Llandrindod Wells, Ystradgynlais, Welshpool and Machynlleth, face a perilous future, with vital local services potentially lost. Powys teaching health board is currently running a consultation called “Better Together”, which proposes that the number of hospital beds be slashed from 146 to as few as 60, with further cuts made to minor injuries units, mental health services and X-ray units.

My constituents and I fear that the proposals essentially amount to closure by stealth for some hospitals, particularly at Llandrindod Wells and Ystradgynlais. All the GP practices in Powys have written to express their concerns about the proposals, which have provoked enormous public opposition, with nearly 10,000 people signing my petition against the cuts and hundreds attending public meetings that I have organised across the county.

At the same time, in order to save money, the same health board has been slowing down treatment times for patients awaiting surgery in neighbouring health boards and trusts in Shropshire and Herefordshire. Despite that, the new Plaid Cymru Welsh Government have repeatedly refused to intervene, insisting that the issues are operational matters for the health board. We now face the extraordinary situation in which a health board is putting forward proposals that appear to directly contradict its Government’s own stated policy to improve step-down care.

Welsh Ministers refuse to take responsibility and step in before it is too late. The health boards and trusts in Wales are accountable to the Welsh Health Minister, yet successive Welsh Health Ministers have refused to take responsibility for their funding. Welsh Ministers are responsible for the financial contributions of health boards; they cannot wash their hands of the consequences when those boards propose deep cuts to frontline services.

It is striking that, while Governments elsewhere in the UK have sought to strengthen scrutiny and intervention in struggling NHS trusts, the approach in Wales has too often been to place greater distance between Ministers and local health boards. It is important that the Welsh Health Minister takes responsibility for his job and the Welsh health service that he runs, listens to the people of Powys and scraps the proposal for the removal of hospital beds across our communities.

15:16

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for raising this issue and giving us a chance to participate in this debate.

The new intensive recovery programme has identified several NHS trusts in England that are underperforming as a result of waiting lists, persistent financial difficulties and leadership instability. The trusts identified include North Cumbria, Mid and South Essex, Hull, North Lincolnshire and Goole, and East Kent. Performance across those trusts and beyond has raised serious questions about whether patients in England are receiving consistent access to cancer treatment.

I want to focus on cancer treatment in particular. The NHS has a long-standing target that 85% of patients should get treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral for suspected cancer. However, the performance at many trusts is substantially beneath that, and it is having serious consequences on patient outcomes. For example, in 2023, the death of a patient admitted to Mid and South Essex was linked to the trust’s failure to meet any of NHS England’s cancer waiting time targets. At that trust, only 47.7% of patients began treatment within 62 days, and by 2025 the number had further declined—in other words, it was getting worse.

At the County Durham and Darlington trust, which the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) referred to, the situation is similar. Significant failings were identified in breast cancer care, as she illustrated very well. A review of the care received by women between 2023 and 2025 found that 32 women had undergone unnecessary surgery, 20 had experienced a late diagnosis and a further 78 patients were found to have suffered moderate or severe harm. A review has been committed to, demonstrating that the true scale of the issue is likely much bigger than we know.

Analysis of NHS cancer waiting time performance found that nearly every English NHS trust missed cancer targets. In Northern Ireland, we have also experienced serious concerns regarding cancer care. For example, recently there has been a call for a public inquiry into urology services at the Southern Health and Social Care trust, where it was identified that cervical screening services had reported some results incorrectly. Patients were told their scan was clear, and then shortly afterwards told it was not. That is an absolute scandal, and it caused patients and families considerable distress. Northern Ireland’s waiting time statistics further illustrate the pressure on cancer services. Some 30% of patients began treatment within 62 days, and that percentage has been on a downward decline.

I know the Minister has no responsibility for Northern Ireland, but she has responsibility for the trusts here. I look to her to ensure the promotion of effective oversight and accountability in all our trusts. Underperformance is widespread and must be addressed. These failures are undermining public confidence in the health service. A suspected cancer diagnosis is already a distressing experience, and patient outcomes are not being helped by lack of clarity and reassurance.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Last but not least from the Back Benches, I call Adam Dance.

15:19

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Stuart. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate.

Despite the hard work of staff, the performance of my NHS trust, from maternity services to stroke care, has been at the forefront of people’s minds because of underperformance. Since the merger, Yeovil hospital has been the poor relation. Thankfully, we managed to get our maternity unit in Yeovil safely reopened after a CQC report found serious failings and the trust closed the unit. We got Government oversight, as Baroness Amos reviewed our trust’s maternity services during the closure, and she concluded that

“from the evidence we collected during our visits and the concerns expressed by staff, we remain concerned about patient safety at Yeovil District Hospital.”

I am hearing that concern too, so I really want to hear from the Minister about the particular steps being taken now to improve oversight and support patient safety and staff in rural maternity units.

Another priority issue for people in Yeovil is stroke services. After targets were not met, the NHS in Somerset closed Yeovil’s hyper-acute stroke unit as part of a service restructure. Patients will now have to travel to hospitals in Taunton or Dorchester. Local campaigners and I kept being told that there was a strong evidence base to suggest that a restructure would improve the service, but when we made a freedom of information request we found data suggesting that, in 2024, if stroke patients from Yeovil had been taken to Taunton, only 13% would have made it within the target call-to-needle time of 180 minutes, while only 30% would have made it to hospital in Dorchester in time. We have been working with the NHS in Somerset to get things such as pre-hospital video triage, to help to cut waiting times, and a refurbished acute stroke unit at Yeovil hospital, but we are still really concerned about travel times and outcomes.

That is why we need Government oversight—specifically, a review of stroke services in rural areas, focusing on the evidence and the consultation process around service provision, health outcomes for patients and travel times. We need a proper national picture of how rural areas are being impacted by service restructures and mergers, because what works for Bristol or London will not always work for south Somerset and other rural areas.

Sadly, I have heard really concerning reports of bullying and poor work culture across our entire NHS trust. That is why I believe the Government urgently need to improve oversight of working cultures and tackle bullying in NHS trusts. That should start with training for leadership teams across NHS trusts on bullying. Where there is poor performance, working culture is often a key factor.

There is real scope for improved oversight of NHS trusts such as ours in Somerset. Ultimately, however, without Government support and funding, we will not be able to improve our NHS services.

15:22

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

I appreciate your allowing me to speak at the last moment, Mr Stuart, and it is an honour to speak under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for bringing this very important and timely debate to Westminster Hall.

I want it to be clear that although the list of figures that I am about to bring forward is concerning, I do not place any of the burden of blame on the shoulders of frontline staff—indeed, the more concerning the figures, the more gratitude and appreciation I show the staff for enduring these challenging circumstances and the challenging work environments they turn up to each day to give the highest quality of care—so much so that whistleblowers have brought to my attention, at great personal risk to their careers, concerns and details about the state of care and operational functionality at Basildon hospital.

I can give a quick example: a surgeon reached out to me, stating how senior management had come in and put in place the organisation and throughput practice that they thought best, while the surgeon was sat there with his own experience, seeing that surgical spaces were very often left empty because of the way processes were being put forward and forced upon the staff. Some changes have been put in place, but—although I have not personally been able to verify this—a consultant said to me that actually more management staff than consultants have been hired in the last couple of years.

I want to share some figures. I have almost a dozen bullet points here, and every single one is rather concerning, but suffice to say that Mid and South Essex trust—of which Basildon hospital, in my South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency, is part—ranks 131st out of 134. The Care Quality Commission ranked Basildon hospital as inadequate, and it was so concerned with the state of affairs there that it performed multiple repeat visits to try to improve things.

Complaining alone is not enough, but the hon. Member for Chelmsford raised two points that are really striking. The first is that problems should not be obvious. I should not turn up to a medical practice as a layman and be able to spot clear errors. I remember visiting the mental health ward at Basildon hospital; there was a foyer with overgrown grass, weeds up to your chest, garbage and concrete strewn everywhere. I was walking around with the CEO, and I said, “What’s happened here?” He turned around in complete shock, as if he had never seen it before, and said, “Oh, I’m not sure. Sometimes you just go nose-blind”—staggering. The problems do not just start there, but that is the standard of things.

While many of my constituents will be concerned to hear that Basildon hospital was ranked poorly, I want to stick up for the staff there and say that I will personally continue to use that hospital, because I recognise how important it is. I will make one last point, as I am being encouraged to conclude—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

14:44

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate.

Tackling underperforming NHS trusts is essential if we are serious about taking the necessary strides forward for patient safety and experience—as well as for the wellbeing of NHS workers, who are suffering anxiety and burnout at an unprecedented and frankly unacceptable scale. The Liberal Democrats have put forward our robust plan to end corridor care and transform patient safety, with essential measures needed to fix our NHS and relieve the pressure at both the front door and the back door of the service.

Years of Conservative mismanagement and neglect of the NHS have left many trusts on their knees, with huge challenges from which to recover. The onus is now on the new Labour Government, with their intensive recovery programme, to finally create the right conditions for failing trusts to succeed where their predecessors have failed.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about the challenges that NHS trusts face. My local hospital, Torbay hospital, has an ageing tower block that has now received a fire enforcement notice, which could affect up to a quarter of the beds in the hospital. Panic is spreading today in the local community about what this means for future treatment. Does she agree that when things become as urgent as that, with a quarter of the beds in the hospital potentially having to be closed by the fire brigade, the Government desperately need to bring forward the new hospital programme funding, so that repair and remedial work can begin immediately to restore this part of the hospital?

[Helen Morgan]

I do agree, and I echo my hon. Friend’s call. The estate that people work in is part of the fundamental problem that we are trying to tackle across the NHS.

I hope all the Members here who have made excellent speeches highlighting shocking failures in their own trusts can take heart from the fact that it is possible to tackle the issues in underperforming trusts. In my time as the MP for North Shropshire, I have seen meaningful changes for my constituents. From 2018 to 2023, Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust was obviously underperforming, with CQC inspections consistently rating it as inadequate. That included inadequate levels of safety and services—reflected in the horrifying stories received at the time in my inbox and those of the other Shropshire MPs, and on doorsteps—and a churn in the management team that led to constant uncertainty about what was going to happen there. The human consequence of those stories was devastating.

When I was first elected, the overwhelming issue was the abysmal ambulance waiting times, related to poor handover times, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) highlighted. I will never forget the letter I received from a headteacher: after a pupil dislocated his knee playing football, he and the teachers waited so long for an ambulance in the dark and cold on a winter night that he was at risk of developing hypothermia by the time the ambulance arrived. We heard countless devastating stories, including ones where the ambulance had taken so long to arrive that it was too late, and the outcome was fatal.

Following a targeted campaign, which included me joining the West Midlands ambulance service team for an eye-opening shift, wait times have significantly improved, and we see far fewer of these cases in our inboxes. But challenges remain, not least in corridor care in the accident and emergency department, which has at times been rated one of the worst in the country.

A constituent told me of the shocking experience of her aunt Cath during this period, who was admitted to Royal Shrewsbury hospital following a serious stroke. One night, Cath fell out of her hospital bed and broke her hip after staff had failed to put up the necessary guardrails. She spent nearly half an hour trying to attract the attention of staff on the ward with the alert bell, but they were so overworked that they did not respond, and in the end she was forced to dial 999 from the floor of the ward. She was left in the ridiculous position of explaining to the call centre staff that she was actually on the floor of a ward in Royal Shrewsbury hospital before the staff reached her. That cannot be right. We heard of many heartbreaking situations where cancer patients’ scans could not take place because waiting lists had meant that they were booked in the wrong order and of fatally long waits for diagnosis in some cases, with the trust failing to hit key targets across the board.

Finally, the 2022 Ockenden report shook my community with its devastating finding of over 200 preventable deaths of babies and unimaginable harm done to families. Campaigning and voicing justified anger, which everyone has done today, and working with Ministers on the failings can bring about change. That was essential in Shropshire, and though things are not perfect, it is encouraging to see the improvements that have been made so far. It has been a really difficult environment for staff to work in. I pay tribute to them and the new leadership team for all the hard work that they have put into turning this extremely difficult situation around. The trust’s CQC rating has recently been upgraded, although it still requires improvement, with emergency department waiting times and understaffing as key focuses. However, there is much to be pleased with. Reviews have noted a positive culture, and the trust has recently been shortlisted for several awards for its performance improvements.

We must celebrate the many trusts in the UK that provide high levels of care and innovation, and support those making significant improvements. For underperforming trusts, it is our duty to our patients and constituents to ensure that we campaign to bring them up to good standards, and I congratulate everyone here today on doing just that. However, if conditions for care are stretched and staff are expected to deliver the impossible with limited time and resources, it is patients who suffer. How can we transform patient safety? To start, we need to hold failing leaders to account, as I have discussed. Reports have pointed to a culture of unaccountability among NHS leaders, which has accompanied recent scandals and undermines public confidence. Failing trusts need to be held to account, and our amendments to the Health Bill would help do that by retaining the necessary structures for accountability.

First, we must retain the independent patient voice, Healthwatch, which was established in the wake of the Mid Staffordshire scandal. Although still in its infancy, HSSIB, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, should also be retained because it promises to improve the patient safety environment. Our amendments would also introduce duties and a standardised framework for the reporting of suspected health system failings and medical malpractice by coroners, medical examiners and members of ICB and NHS trust boards.

Whistleblowing routes to the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, HSSIB and the police would be accompanied by statutory protections. We would also place a corresponding duty on senior leadership to escalate any concerns they have about safety or malpractice to the relevant boards. My colleagues in the other place will be re-tabling those amendments at the next stage of the Health Bill, and I urge the Government to accept them.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady referred to whistleblowing, as did the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) before her. Does she agree that there should be more encouragement for those who want to blow the whistle, but also protection for their jobs?

[Helen Morgan]

I fully agree, and that is why HSSIB has a role to play, because it provides a safe space for people to raise concerns without fearing for their jobs. The National Guardian’s Office, which is also being removed by the Health Bill, enables and encourages safe whistleblowing across the NHS, and it is important that we retain it.

The Thirlwall inquiry highlighted constant reorganisation as a problem as well. I received a notification in my inbox this week that Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB had clustered with Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB to get ready for a merger, but that it is all on hold now because it does not line up with local government reorganisation. It is really problematic for local health services when their management teams do not know whether they are coming or going from one month to the next. I urge the Minister to deal with that problem as well.

It is clear that urgent action is needed to turn around underperforming trusts for the safety of their patients, the welfare of their staff and the value delivered for the taxpayer. I hope the Government will look at the measures we have outlined and accept some of them in the Health Bill as it passes through the House of Lords, so that we can really affect people’s lives and put back their confidence that the NHS will be there for them when they need it most.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I call the spokesman for His Majesty’s Opposition, Dr Caroline Johnson.

15:34

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate on a subject important not only to her constituents but to all of us right across the country. The performance of the NHS is key to the health of the nation. It gives us all the best chance of good health and recovery, which is important for our social wellbeing and brings economic benefits.

The first question is this: how do we know which trusts are performing well and which are not? First, we need to decide what good performance looks like. We can look at that in a couple of ways, in particular in relation to outcome and experience, both of which are important. The outcome, for example, may be a death. That will come to us all eventually, but the experience might be one of comfort, in line with the wishes of the individual—as good as can be delivered. Conversely, one could on the face of it have a good surgical outcome from a trust but a poor experience of care during that experience.

Experience is measured in a number of different ways: individual staff, such as consultants, have patient feedback as part of their appraisal and revalidation; the friends and family test enables people to give anonymous feedback; the number of complaints or compliments can be measured; and trusts do their own surveys—but those are all to some extent internal processes.

[Marie Goldman]

I would love to hear more of what the hon. Lady is saying, but none of us can hear her well. My plea to the hon. Lady is to speak up a bit.

[Dr Johnson]

Sorry, the microphone went off, but it has just come back on again.

The processes are mostly internal. Healthwatch is an independent patient voice, which looks at people’s experience across the health service in a way that is independent of Government. As part of the Health Bill, however, the Government plan to abolish Healthwatch and to bring it inside the Department. Will the Minister comment on whether they still plan to do that?

When he was Mayor of Greater Manchester and in charge of its integrated care board, the Prime Minister wrote to the Government to suggest that they might be on the wrong path. As Prime Minister, does he still think so? What instructions has the Minister had in relation to that? People are sometimes frightened to provide feedback to trusts, but they will be more willing to do so when they have confidence in being heard independently.

Other ways in which the Government measure experience relate to waiting times—how long it takes to be seen in clinic, how long it takes to be seen in A&E, how long it takes from the decision to admit a patient to actually admitting them, or how long it takes for a procedure or an operation. The Government produce lots and lots of figures but many of them, I am afraid, go in the wrong direction.

The Government have a dashboard for the referral to treatment statistics, and the waiting lists are rising. The number reached a low point in March 2026, just after the reports of exceptional numbers of removals, but it has now risen by 222,000 in the past four months. I am afraid that the numbers waiting for a procedure or operation are higher now than at the general election. This year, many more people than in 2024 waited more than 12 hours in A&E after a decision to admit them. Staff sickness rates, mentioned earlier in the debate, are also consistently higher than they were before the general election. Statistics across the NHS are not going in the right direction.

The Government also measure outcomes through the financial management of a trust, leadership and Government metrics, the number of procedures performed, the number of “never” events, and CQC inspections. Again, the Government are planning to fold HSSIB into the CQC, which many commentators have warned against; the Liberal Democrats and we the Opposition have spoken against the abolition of HSSIB. When the Government take the Health Bill through the Lords in Committee in the next week or two, I hope that they will think again. The Government also plan to roll a number of other things into the CQC at the same time, including events management; I wonder whether they are asking an organisation that they acknowledge has been struggling to take on too much.

If poor performance is identified, who is responsible? Is it the consultant or the matron? Is it the directors’ suite—the chief executive or the chair? Ultimately, if a trust is underperforming at the moment, governors are supposed to hold the board to account. The Health Bill abolishes those. The ICBs—the commissioners—can hold the trust to account but their budgets have been halved, so will they have the capacity to do so? Many of them have merged, and some of those mergers have been paused by the Government. This is all a distraction. NHS England has a role, but it is being abolished too. Apparently, the overall headcount in the DHSC and NHS England is to be halved. How will they have the bandwidth to provide the scrutiny that the Government say they will have?

Having identified the management of poor performance, the Government chose five trusts—North Cumbria, Mid and South Essex, Hull University Teaching Hospitals, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole, and East Kent—to have a special intensive recovery programme in March 2026. However, it is not clear what has been instituted in those trusts, what outcomes that programme is developing, how long it will last or what the Government will do for those trusts that fall just outside that group of five.

How will the Government improve the variability between trusts that do not fall into the bottom cohort? How did they choose the five trusts that were chosen? As we heard earlier, there are several metrics by which some trusts could be considered in the bottom five, but they were not chosen, and some metrics by which those that were chosen may not be in the bottom five. How has the Minister chosen those trusts and how does she intend to improve those that do not fall into her chosen few?

The Government have promised a workforce plan, but the workforce is the most important thing. Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in this debate about the really good staff in their trusts working extremely hard in very difficult conditions. The previous Conservative Government developed a long-term workforce plan. This Government decided that they wanted their own workforce plan—they won the election so they are very much entitled to make one. But they have still not written it. They promised it by the end of 2025; we are rapidly approaching the end of 2026 and it is still not with us. Can the Minister—[Interruption.]

15:41

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:55

On resuming—

[Dr Johnson]

Before the interruption, we were talking about the importance of workforce to the health service and to any improvements that we wish to make to services. The previous Conservative Government developed a long-term workforce plan. This Government decided to develop their own, which is fair enough, but it is very delayed. Can the Minister tell us, without using the words “in due course”, “imminently” or “soon”, when it will be published, preferably giving a date?

Returning to other plans, the Government say that maternity and neonatal care is their priority, which is good, but when they came into government, they said that they had a plan to improve it. They spent the first 12 months writing their 10-year plan, which said that they would produce a maternity and neonatal plan. They did a review, which took six months longer than it was supposed to. They were then two years into a parliamentary term. That plan says that they will have a commissioner, who they have yet to appoint, and another plan for a modern service framework, which is apparently due by Christmas. Can the Minister guarantee that, two and a half years into the Parliament, they will have a delivery plan for maternity improvements?

The bottom line is that I am concerned that the Government are too busy reorganising the NHS to deliver on their promises. NHS performance is declining in many areas. There is huge variability between trusts and departments. The Government picked five for intensive treatment. What about the others? Can the Minister clarify that it works? The Government are internalising patient experience, which means that it may suddenly look much better, but how will anyone have confidence in the figures if they are produced by the Government marking their own homework? The abolition of NHS England has been badly planned. ICB cuts, mergers and paused mergers are simply a distraction. The removal of the need for governors removes another layer of accountability and scrutiny.

The Government say they are working at pace, but it is a very slow pace. The workforce plan and the maternity plan have been delayed, but so have things like the Hughes report. People suffering from valproate and mesh have been waiting and waiting. It is getting towards three years since that report was published. They have waited long enough. I urge the Minister to say when the Government intend to respond to that report.

The Government need to get a grip of who is holding the trusts to account, so that when the Health Bill comes out the other side of the Lords, there is a clear chain of command. Perhaps it will lead up to the Secretary of State, but it is clear that they will not be able to micromanage every detail. There needs to be a clear path so that people know who is accountable, who will drive improvement, who to congratulate when improvements are made and who to hold accountable when it goes wrong.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Thanks to the discipline of the speakers so far, there are some extra minutes for the Minister to take interventions if she so chooses.

16:00

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

That is very kind of you to encourage me, Mr Stuart. What are the timings now?

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

We will finish at 4.15 pm, so ideally we will allow the wind-up at 4.13 pm.

[Karin Smyth]

Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

I want to try to get back to most colleagues. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate, and all Members who have spoken about the experiences of patients, because this is absolutely about the experiences of patients, families and the NHS staff in all our constituencies.

When an NHS trust underperforms, however we define it, the effects are very real. Patients wait longer, staff work without the stability and support they need, and public money is not used as effectively as it should be. Since becoming a Minister, I have made it clear that I think Members of Parliament should be part of conversations with local trusts. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for hosting his trust in the way he has and seeing an improvement in his constituency, as he outlined, with mental health being considered as well as acute services. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), spoke about her work in supporting her local trust and seeing those improvements. It can and does happen.

Many of the trusts that have been discussed today have faced problems built up over many years. In fact, I remember some of them from being a manager in the health service over the past 20 years or so. There is rarely one cause or a quick fix. There are varying problems, whether they be workforce shortages, poor estates, weak leadership, organisational change or rising demand, and some of those can reinforce one another. Let us be clear for patients and members of the public who are paying attention and for all our constituents: this Government will not accept poor performance, and we are determined to accelerate the recovery, particularly in the most challenged trusts.

I will just clarify some of the rules. Everyone knows that NHS England is an arm’s length body. That was a decision taken a number of years ago by my good friends the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when we were in opposition. The Health Bill, which is progressing through the House of Lords, changes that arrangement to put the NHS together with the Department of Health and Social Care. The Bill was not opposed in principle by any political party, because we all know that the arrangement has not worked.

As we bring the two bodies together, it is important to maintain the distinction between running large trusts and running the system as a whole, with operational performance oversight. It is a skilled job. It is hard to run a big trust. It requires good clinical and operational managers, and good leadership and knowledge. The complete separation of the Department and Ministers from NHS England meant that the oversight and what we could see in our constituencies as Members of Parliament was not linked up under the previous Government. That is one thing that will improve. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) just said, of course Ministers will not be micromanaging. It is a skilled job. The complete separation that removed oversight from local trusts has been a dysfunction of the system over the last decade.

To be clear, I regularly meet teams and Members of Parliament in my role. I want to share how some of that operational oversight works. I will highlight two major areas. One is the oversight framework, which provides a clear and consistent assessment of every NHS organisation. In her expertise, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham recognised that there are many ways to judge performance, but the new framework looks at what matters most to patients and taxpayers: waiting times, quality of care, use of staff and money, and leadership capability in order to have good-quality patient care. They cannot be separated in my view. I have made sure that it is transparent for the public and Members of Parliament. That is quite controversial; some people do not like what they call league tables, but I think it is important that people can see that.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will move through some of these points for the moment. For providers with the most entrenched financial, operational, leadership and structural challenges that impact patient care—that is what these trusts are about—we are taking a more holistic approach to that enhanced support because, as the shadow Minister asked, how do we choose? They are the most challenged long-term systems.

At a national level, the intensive recovery programme is providing short-term, intensive support for organisations to help strengthen their immediate operational and financial stability while developing an organisation-owned plan for long-term sustainability. We cannot keep going round in this circle; at the end of the day, these organisations need to be well run and well led, and local systems need to own that problem. That is also part of our wider devolution agenda. I think I outlined that in my letter to the hon. Member for Chelmsford in September, but I am very happy to meet again and go through that in more detail if that is helpful.

The first IRP cohort includes Hull, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole, East Kent, North Cumbria and Mid and South Essex. Each faces very different circumstances, so there is not a one-size-fits-all response. I will touch on some of them, for hon. Members have raised their own issues with them.

There is interest in Hull and Northern Lincolnshire and Goole. Following an independent review, the decision has been taken to dissolve the Humber health partnership arrangements. In Hull, the focus is on strengthening core hospital services, making the best use of specialist services, improving productivity and reinforcing clinical leadership and accountability. For Northern Lincolnshire and Goole, the priority is to move more care into neighbourhood and community settings, reflecting the demands in those areas. There are good signs of progress.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford and others who intervened highlighted Mid and South Essex. The 2020 merger of those three trusts has not delivered the planned benefits for 1.2 million people. Staff culture and morale remain a serious concern, with little improvement, as was highlighted in those terrible survey results over the past five years. We have heard those. The trust has long-standing performance problems linked to how demand is managed across the wider health system in that part of Essex. Work is under way to improve the long waits, improve patient flow, strengthen governance and make better use of the estate. I shared the analysis in productivity packs with everybody earlier in the year, and I am sure that everybody looked at them in detail, but I am very happy to go through them again. It identified more than £122 million of productivity opportunities. It is not simply about saving money.

Better organisation across sites and stronger clinical integration should improve patient experience, reduce delays and raise quality for patients. The clinical strategy will make greater use of neighbourhood and community care in line with our 10-year plan and focus on maternity and planned care treatment. This is backed by £80 million for Southend hospital’s long-standing structural estate problems and support for a neighbourhood health centre in Maldon.

I will touch on North Cumbria because, for the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and for Yeovil (Adam Dance), the work going on there really highlights what can and needs to be done in rural healthcare. I remind hon. Members that hospitals in some of those areas are additionally funded to cope with some of those rurality issues. We highlighted that in our 10-year health plan. We absolutely understand that across the country, there are different issues with regard to rurality. I will not talk about Kent, because it has not been raised, but again, it has very different issues. That is why those areas have been chosen. They have long-standing and deeply entrenched problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised ambulance handover delays. I did not know she was going to raise that today, but to assure her, the continued problem with the ambulances was raised with me in my oversight meeting with the team yesterday. Those issues are flagged by NHS England and its operational management across the country. They are long-standing issues, as she knows, but I gently disagree with her. She is absolutely right in her assessments of history, but this issue is not a failure of oversight and accountability. Good co-operation, collaboration and management are the responsibility of the services locally. The oversight has worked. We know that this is a problem. We and her constituents can see that. We very much want the services to work together to resolve that flow so that the ambulance handover works much better.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) highlights, sadly, her constituency’s downward improvement trajectory. She asked to meet me, and I am very happy to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) did the incredibly difficult job of raising the terrible distress for women in her constituency. She highlighted a terrible case, and I will make sure that she has a meeting with the Minister to go through how that can be supported on behalf of her constituents. I know that she will work closely to make sure that they are served better.

We are seeing early improvements through the IRP, but we need to demonstrate progress through safer care, better operation and financial performance. We have clear milestones and credible plans for stronger organisations. Support nationally is time-limited but proportionate, because trusts ultimately have to stand on their feet. Intensive oversight is not about naming and shaming. Staff in challenged trusts are working in exceptionally difficult circumstances. As we need to encourage people to work there, we must show them that it can be better. The purpose is to remove barriers to improvement, provide the right expertise and hold boards and NHS leaders to account for results.

The Government will continue to work with NHS England. I am committed to keeping Parliament informed of significant developments. We will judge our approach by its effect on patients and staff, not by the creation of more processes. The oversight framework and the intensive recovery programme provide a clear route from identifying the risk to taking targeted action. There is much more to do. It can only be done in local circumstances with co-operation and transparency, including working with Members of Parliament. Where we hear examples of trust chief executives not doing that, I am prepared to call it out. It is not acceptable.

There is more to do, but we want practical, safer and more timely care, and stronger organisations. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to debate this issue today. It is important for MPs to be part of the discussion. We want to improve all trusts, but we are focusing on those with long-term issues, sometimes having been affected for decades. The people in those areas deserve better, and we are determined to make sure they get it.

16:11

[Marie Goldman]

I thank all Members who have taken part in this important debate and the Minister for her response. Hon. Members from across the House have pointed out that rural constituencies are not the same as urban constituencies, and that they have very different needs. They have pointed out that we need investment in the infrastructure at our hospitals. Some hospitals are failing because their buildings have been neglected for decades. That needs to be fixed. None of us is here just to criticise. We are all listening to our constituents, to patients and to staff. It is our duty to call problems out and demand better, and that is what we have done today.

I do not like hyperbole, and often when people talk about life and death, it is hyperbole. That is not the case here. It is literally life and death for people on waiting lists. People have tragically died because they have been on a waiting list too long or because they have been mistreated or misdiagnosed, as we have heard from Members.

I make a final plea not to concentrate only on the finances. Finances will help with rural issues and infrastructure issues, but they will not help with cultural issues. The CQC did a well-led inspection of the Mid and South Essex trust recently. The stark line coming out of it was that staff are afraid to speak up for fear of reprisal. Money is not the problem with that system; it is a cultural problem, and we need to do something about it.

The Minister said that we could meet again. I gently say that we have not actually met yet, so I would love to take her up on the opportunity to meet for the very first time. I thank her for her response, and everybody who took part in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government oversight of underperforming NHS trusts.

School Funding: Stockport

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

16:15

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered school funding in Stockport.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I start by declaring an interest: I am in my 20th year of being an unpaid primary school governor. I am currently at the wonderful Fairway primary school in Offerton.

I am sure that we all agree that being an MP is a real privilege, and one of the best things that we get to do in this job is spend time in schools. Young people get to the nub of issues. They have very little filter, and they always leave me feeling much more positive about the future of our country. However, the school visits that I have made since being elected have included conversations with headteachers who—while they are doing remarkable things for their pupils and their school communities—are having to explain which posts they cannot fill, which support they have had to cut and which requests from parents they have had to turn down because the money is just not there.

The chief executive of the Honeycomb education trust, which includes Mellor primary school in my patch, told me that he had recently been left with three choices: lose three or four members of staff, lose a headteacher or take early retirement himself. He chose retirement. That is what the funding position is doing to experienced and celebrated school leaders such as Jim in my constituency.

Schools across Stockport are expected to provide the same educational experience for students as the rest of the country. Yet schools in my constituency and across the borough are funded at disproportionately lower levels per pupil compared with other places, including neighbouring Manchester. That is the case for much of the rest of the country.

Funding for our education system can be complex. Education has two core funding streams: the education cash limit budget, which comes through the council, and the dedicated schools grant, which is the core funding provided by central Government through the Department for Education for education purposes. That budget reaches schools mainly according to the number of pupils that are enrolled. Other considerations are also taken into account, including deprivation, number of children on free school meals, number of children with English as an additional language and low prior attainment.

The rate attached to each child, and the number of children in the school, decides almost everything about a school’s budget. The primary schools’ unit of funding in Manchester is £6,404. In neighbouring Stockport, it is £5,623. It does not cost almost £800 more to educate a child in Manchester than it does in Stockport, and it is hard to justify that big gap.

At secondary schools, the funding in Manchester averages £8,452. Stockport receives £7,320. That is a gap of £1,100 for every pupil and is £350 less than the national average. We are not just a little bit below the average in Stockport. Among all the authorities in England, Stockport’s secondary rate is one of the lowest in the country. At the top of the table are the inner London boroughs, some of which receive over £10,000 per pupil. The distance between the top of that table and those areas near the bottom is hard to defend.

Those differences in funding are having a dire effect in Stockport. I have been told that 68 of the 78 schools in Stockport are heading for a deficit, and that school reserves have fallen from £11 million to around £5 million. The schools that are attempting to remain financially resilient are joining multi-academy trusts based outside Stockport, and others are being pushed towards mergers.

When speaking to Jim from the Honeycomb education trust, he laid out the additional burdens that school leaders are facing in addition to limited funding. Those include the removal of the trust capacity fund, national insurance contributions that were not fully funded, long-term staff sickness absence and a growing number of children with special educational needs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. On special educational needs in particular, it is a very similar story in Northern Ireland where there has been historical underfunding. Does she share my concern about how some of the press are carrying stories about the number of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? They are almost suggesting that the ADHD numbers are not correct. In my constituency, I can see clearly that the number of people with ADHD is rising. I have six grandchildren, and three have some educational challenges. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the ADHD figures are rising and are correct?

[Lisa Smart]

I, too, have family members with ADHD diagnoses. We as a society have got much better at understanding neurodiversity. We understand the strengths of those who are neurodiverse and how best to educate and work with them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a better understanding of our fellow citizens is a good thing, and if that comes with a diagnosis, let us welcome that.

Councils receive a high-needs budget to pay for specialist places and extra support in mainstream schools. In Stockport, that came to just over £56 million this year, with more than 1,100 students holding high-needs places last year. That brings me to the deficit on the high-needs budget, which hangs over councils across England, and which Stockport knows well.

By March 2027, the cumulative deficit on Stockport’s dedicated schools grant is expected to reach about £68 million. Because of the statutory override, that sum sits in an unusable reserve, rather than on the council’s balance sheet, where it could be put to better use. The Government have said that, as part of their wider reforms to special educational needs provision, they will write off 90% of the accrued deficit at March 2027. For Stockport, that is an estimated £61 million, so of course I welcome that. It is the right thing to do, and councils have been asking for it for years. However, the override is due to end in March 2028, with a new funding model due to begin in April 2028. In between, Stockport expects to build up a further deficit of about £60 million across 2026-27 and 2027-28. The Government have said that more support will be confirmed, but that puts councils and schools in a difficult position, as they have to set budgets without knowing whether a sum almost as large as the first write-off will be covered. Schools and councils want to work with a clear understanding of what they should expect.

The council and families across the borough deserve better than that uncertainty. Parents of children with special educational needs should be provided with the certainty that school places will be available to them and that they do not have to worry about whether they will be funded. They should not be told that it depends on a funding model that is yet to be published. I would be really grateful if the Minister can update us on when schools should expect publication of the new funding model.

Funding disparities can disproportionately affect students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Stockport is one of the most polarised boroughs in the country. We have communities that are among the most affluent in the region, and we also have the most deprived ward in the whole of Greater Manchester. Children in that ward start school with disadvantages that, on average, will never pick up. A funding system that sees only the prosperous areas of a borough and sets the rate to match lets down those children. That is why Stockport is a founder member of the f40 group—the campaign of the lowest-funded local authorities—which has pressed for years for a fairer distribution of education funding. The case has not changed. The gaps mean that an average one-form-entry primary school in Stockport receives about £164,000 less each year than it would if it were based in Manchester. Headteachers in my constituency cannot simply absorb such a gap.

The pressure is not only on budgets. In Marple and the surrounding villages, families living in the catchment area of Marple Hall school find that their children are not offered a place because the school is oversubscribed.

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a really strong statement about the schools in her patch and in wider Stockport. The oversubscription of schools impacts Cheadle too. Schools such as Woodford primary school have been oversubscribed for some time. Does she think that if we crack the funding issue and make funding fairer, that would help the admissions system and give parents the peace of mind that they can choose the school that is best for their kid?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, for raising that point. There are a number of challenges when it comes to admissions, and funding is part of the answer. Multi-academy trusts, which are their own admission authority, work alongside local councils, which have the responsibility to find a place for a child, but their wishes and desires do not always align. I am doing work—I have been in correspondence with the Minister—to find a way through that. Every child deserves a brilliant education at a good local school, and parents should be able to choose the right school for their child, so I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.

I have heard directly from parents about the effect on them of their children having to get a bus that drives past Marple Hall to get to the school where they have been assigned a place. School funding challenges are also reaching organisations that work alongside our schools. One of my constituents, David from Romiley, runs a social enterprise with his wife that delivers educational activities in primary schools. He came to see me because of the Government’s decision to end the PE and sport premium. He is now expecting to have to make redundancies among his staff.

Will the Minister look again at how the national funding formula treats areas such as Stockport? A system that locks in historical allocations and averages out pockets of real deprivation does not match funding to need. Will the Department review the way the formula is built and, if so, set out a timetable for doing so? Will the Minister confirm what support will be available for the deficits that build up in 2026-27 and 2027-28 before the override ends? Councils need certainty now, not in the spring. Will she commit to publishing those figures in good time?

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate. This is a very important issue. The hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and I, although we are from two different political parties, work well together on issues like this. Does she recognise that Stockport council has had £2 million in the inclusive mainstream fund allocation under this Government? The council has also had just over £2 million for the Experts at Hand programme. Does she share my frustration that Stockport council has met the 20-week deadline for only 18% of education, health and care plans, in comparison with the English average, which is said to be 50%?

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that more funding coming to our borough is absolutely welcome, and he is completely right that the three of us, although we are not always ideologically aligned, work well when it comes to the shared ambitions for our borough. I strongly agree with him on that. I also agree that EHCP turnaround and the service that parents and families have been getting in Stockport have not been good enough. The three of us have raised that with the council, which has a clear aspiration and duty for it to improve. I also agree that some of the funding discrepancies are historical, and we need to work to fix them. The children who are going through our education service deserve better.

Additionally, when will the detail of the new special educational needs funding model, which is due to take effect from April ’28, be published? Will the Department consult councils and schools before it is finalised?

The children of Stockport are as bright, hard-working and deserving as any in the country. They should not be funded as though they are worth a little bit less, or indeed £800 less, than children in a neighbouring borough. I urge the Minister to look again at how we fund our schools, give councils certainty about special educational needs funding before the override ends and give the children of Stockport the fair deal they deserve.

16:29

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I appreciate the hon. Member for Stockport opening this important debate.

[Navendu Mishra]

Hazel Grove.

[Georgia Gould]

Sorry—and I apologise to my hon. Friend for giving away his job. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for opening the debate and for her commitment as a school governor for more than 20 years. Our school governors do such valuable work, and I can hear how passionate she is about these issues. We are, too. Investment in funding for education and schools is critical, and is a huge priority for this Government.

As the hon. Lady set out powerfully, teachers do important work around the country. We want to back them. That is why we have prioritised investment in education by making a significant investment in the core schools budget in financial year 2026-27, with an extra £2.3 billion for schools. That means that the core schools budget will total £67.6 billion, compared with £65.3 billion in 2025-26. That is a significant investment that shows how important education and schools are to this Government.

The hon. Lady also mentioned how important it is that wider infrastructure around schools continues to be funded. I was a council leader for many years and my experience of working closely with schools was that through the cuts we saw to local services—whether in support for young people or families—schools were increasingly picking up those wider pressures. That is why we are investing in all of the crucial services that sit around schools: Best Start in Life hubs, which deliver early intervention; Experts at Hand, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport talked about and which provide much-needed speech and language therapists and educational psychologists to support schools; or Families First partnerships, which bring back the early help and intervention that was cut. We are investing in addressing child poverty, whether through the extension of free school meals or the end to the two-child benefit cap. All that reduces pressure on schools and builds back those teams around schools.

The hon. Lady also talked about the importance of supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities, and about stepping in to support teachers. That was one of the main pressure points, and we have deeply heard the extent of those pressures on families, young people and educators. That is why we are taking forward the reforms to special educational needs and disabilities. We have consulted widely on the future model, which overhauls the system to create one that invests a lot earlier and brings funding directly into schools so that they are able to meet those needs in the long term. We have started that investment ahead of a full reform. We are putting £4 billion into early intervention, some of which is going directly into schools through the inclusive mainstream fund, and some into councils through Experts at Hand. There is also a significant £3.7 billion capital investment in creating new specialist places.

[Navendu Mishra]

I appreciate the Minister’s points about the capital investment, but not a week goes by when a parent does not contact my office about their frustration with the local council not meeting the assessment deadline. I encourage the Minister and the Department to engage with Stockport council, because 18% is just not good enough. There is also a point to be made about parents from low-income backgrounds often just giving up, whereas people from other backgrounds perhaps continue the fight, contact their local councillors or pursue legal remedies.

[Georgia Gould]

I absolutely agree that it is not an acceptable performance. As a Department, we are determined to hold councils to account on their performance regarding children with special educational needs and disabilities. For too long, that has been on individual parents, as my hon. Friend set out, and for some parents, with all the challenges they face, that is incredibly difficult.

We have asked every local authority in the country to develop a SEND reform plan and are monitoring the data within that plan quarterly. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove set out, we are supporting local authorities to relieve 90% of their deficit, and that money is contingent on delivery of those SEND reform plans. We are putting in capacity support of £200 million around the country to support that as well as, where needed, to support intervention. We will be working closely with Stockport council, and I am very happy to meet Stockport MPs to discuss that in greater detail.

In terms of future years of deficit support, we have said that we will take a similar proportionate response to supporting local authorities, but that is contingent on them being proactive about reforming the system, supporting parents better and working with the authority. We have been clear on those expectations and how we will be holding them to account for delivery.

More broadly, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked about the distribution of the national funding formula and how it allocates funding. As she set out, it allocates funding based on pupil numbers and pupil characteristics. It means targeting funding at schools that have the greatest number of pupils with additional needs. In 2026-27, 11% of the schools national funding formula has been allocated through deprivation factors and 18% has been allocated for additional needs overall. That corresponds to £5.6 billion for deprivation and £9.2 billion for additional needs. There is a focus on the wide range of factors relating to the individual needs of children and young people that sit within the formula across the board. We have committed to keeping both the NFF and high needs funding under review as part of the system changes that we are working on more broadly.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said, there is extra investment already going in for Stockport through the inclusive mainstream fund, Experts at Hand and the capital investment. We are also putting support into schools to better manage their budgets and support their collective buying power. There is our new energy for schools service, the supply teachers and education recruitment framework and a free banking comparison tool. We are also developing a national procurement framework for management information systems, helping schools to reduce costs and ensure that more funding is directed into provision for the children and young people that we want to focus on.

We are seeing greater investment in education, but also in those wider services that support young people. We want to ensure that that supports early intervention and supports schools with the wide range of pressures that they are facing. I am committed to working alongside Members to make sure that this works in every part of the country. I am very happy to take forward that conversation about the particular challenges facing Stockport.

Question put and agreed to.

16:36

Sitting suspended.

Nuclear Energy: Scotland

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

16:44

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of nuclear energy in Scotland.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to see that so many Members wish to speak about this issue. I welcome the Minister to her first debate.

I grew up in Aberdeen, the home of North sea oil and gas. I was there when Aberdeen became a cosmopolitan city. At first, workers from the US and Australia arrived to work on the rigs; then came people from all over the UK. Local Scots developed the skills to join the offshore workforce. Our economy boomed, local businesses grew, businesses relocated and new businesses emerged. New housing was built, and the price of existing homes skyrocketed as incomes rose. The oil extraction bandwagon arrived and communities thrived. Scotland benefited from the economic boost and became known as an energy producer. Now, those oilfields are in decline, the reserves are depleted and the oil and gas bandwagon is leaving town. We must ensure that we do not lose the skilled workforce, and offer it an alternative future in Scotland.

Although the climate emergency means that we need to move away from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources, no country has achieved that with renewable electricity alone. Scotland already produces the electricity that it needs from renewables, including hydro and onshore and offshore wind, with the balance of demand coming from Torness nuclear power station—although that is due to end in 2030. With a much greater demand for energy across the UK, Scotland could again be known for energy production and the good-quality, high-paid jobs that it brings.

Our green transition has been successful—I welcome that, and the continued economic growth that it brings—but the wind does not always blow, and we import much of the equipment. We still rely on gas power stations to meet demand and keep the grid stable. Nuclear offers something different. Rolls-Royce is designing small modular reactors that could be built by British workers and give us steady, low-carbon power, whatever the weather. Nuclear offers a future for the people who work in oil and gas, ensuring that they are offered real opportunities outside oil and gas and that we do not lose them to work abroad.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, with whom I spoke before the debate. The high potential for new nuclear development, which could generate over 1,000 jobs and has the backing of workers and trade unions, is good. Although Northern Ireland has no nuclear modular reactors at all, does she agree that, with energy security becoming increasingly important, there is a significant opportunity for Scotland and Northern Ireland together to attract more jobs and investment? This is an unmissable opportunity to create thousands of skilled jobs and to secure a reliable energy supply not only for Scotland but for Northern Ireland.

[Susan Murray]

I agree. The important thing is that we identify suitable sites.

Nuclear power generation offers skilled, well-paid jobs and a long-lasting and predictable energy supply. For the first time in history, more than 100,000 people work in the industry across the UK—but, sadly, they are not in Scotland. Since 2014, England has gained more than 47,000 nuclear jobs, but Scotland has gained just 661. One in 10 workers at Hinkley Point C is a Scot forced to travel hundreds of miles each week to work in England.

Let us compare that with Wales, where the Wylfa small modular reactor will bring an initial investment of £2.5 billion to Anglesey and up to 3,000 jobs at peak construction, all at one site. The Welsh Government have signed an agreement with Sizewell C that could be worth up to £900 million to their supply chain. The SNP has signed no such agreement, despite the UK Government offering to sit down with its Members to put opportunities on the table. I welcome the Minister’s recent attempt to start talks with the Scottish Government on maintaining production at the Torness site beyond its current scheduled closure in 2030. Will she ensure that young people in Scotland can access apprenticeships at new sites such as Wylfa? I do not believe that young Scots deserve to have their career opportunities limited by the short-sighted political games of the SNP.

Communities that already host nuclear know its value. East Lothian council passed a motion asking the UK Government to investigate the possibility of a new power station on the Torness site. The community wants nuclear to remain, but regardless of the community’s wishes or of how many families could be supported by jobs, how much it could reduce energy bills and how much it could improve UK energy security, the SNP’s position will prevent that.

The SNP ignores the economic benefits that low-carbon nuclear power generation could bring to Scotland. That feels like the short-sighted approach of the Conservatives when they sold off the British National Oil Corporation, then Britoil, in 1982. Given that the SNP is willing to sacrifice our energy security and the jobs that support nearly 800 families at Torness, will the Minister say what plans there are to balance the grid when Torness goes offline? How much is it expected to impact electricity prices, and how many employees at Torness have been offered alternative employment?

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Current cost estimates for Sizewell C are close to £40 billion, and the Government estimate that the necessary nuclear waste facility will cost up to £60 billion. It has been described by one Government Department as “unachievable”. Independent experts are suggesting that costs could be closer to £70 billion for the waste facility alone. Is it not unacceptable to pile those eye-watering costs on to bill payers? Should we not instead invest in cheaper, cleaner energy technology, such as deep geothermal and tidal stream energy, which could deliver the baseload?

[Susan Murray]

We should include other energy sources in the baseload. The strike price of wind has been lower than nuclear, but it is important that there is a geographically predictable source of energy for the grid. That helps to reduce transmission costs. Although the investment will be significant, it is likely to be less than the hon. Member mentioned and will produce a stable, reliable source of energy, which in time will bring down household bills.

This issue is about more than jobs within the nuclear industry. Nuclear can strengthen the UK’s energy security and give heavy industry—from steel and ceramics to new tech companies—the steady supply of power that they need to grow.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

Given that the hon. Lady has criticised other parties—I agree with her criticism—does she look with any regret at her own party’s position? In 2010, it opposed new nuclear on the basis that it would not come onstream until 2022? Does she think that if they had taken a different position then, we might be paying lower bills now?

[Susan Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for your intervention.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. His intervention.

[Susan Murray]

I apologise, Mr Stuart. I was not around in 2010. I always take situations as they are and look to the future. We have to take steps to work on where we are now and not regret what happened in the past.

A stable, reliable power supply will bring down transmission costs and household bills. Siting new small modular reactors at Hunterston and Dounreay could also breathe life back into the highlands and islands, just as oil and gas once did for the north-east. Where remote rural communities are losing their young people, a nuclear site brings the jobs and investment that gives them a reason to stay.

We have seen what happens when a country turns its back on nuclear. Germany took an approach—much like the SNP’s—of decommissioning and deindustrialising, and has gone from exporting 26 terawatt-hours of electricity a year to importing 22 terawatt-hours and relying on coal-powered plants. Now, more than ever, we have a responsibility to protect our environment. Personally, I would rather follow the lead of France than shy away from nuclear. France chose to invest in a low-carbon energy supply, and that has paid off. French households pay around a quarter less for their electricity than households in the UK, and the communities that host nuclear plants have seen the direct benefits in childcare, transport, hospital upgrades and affordable housing.

Scotland could see the same—well-paid jobs, new house building, increased tax revenue and real community benefit, giving people a future and good, well-paid and secure jobs—but the SNP says no. At a time when Scotland faces chronic housing shortages, bus services have been cut by a sixth in just five years, Scots pay some of the highest electricity prices in Europe and remote and rural areas pay exorbitant energy charges, the SNP refuses to even consider such a clear solution.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for listing the many failures of the SNP Government over their time in Holyrood. I wonder whether she might think about why, once they decided not to invest in new nuclear, they did not take steps to make additional or other energy solutions available. We have not had a new pumped hydro storage solution in Scotland since 1965. Does she think about the SNP’s other failures in trying to have a sensible energy policy?

[Susan Murray]

I know that there is new pumped hydro storage coming online from Loch Sloy, and other projects are in the pipeline, but we are considering the situation for nuclear. The SNP refuses even to consider the nuclear solution, even when it is funded by Westminster.

When I speak to my Mid Dunbartonshire constituents about energy, their position is clear: they want to tackle climate change, they want the Government to look after the environment and deliver net zero, and they want cheaper bills. I want the same, as I believe do most people living in Scotland and across the UK. There is a clear solution: small modular reactors producing a predictable cheap, low-carbon energy system. The waste product of nuclear fission is a concern, but nuclear is the only form of energy that prices in decommissioning and waste disposal at the start of the project.

Scotland deserves better than the student politics and political games of the SNP, but I support the stance of the Minister for Energy not to impose unwanted nuclear infrastructure on Scottish communities. The Scottish Parliament should decide, and I am pleased that we now have 10 Liberal Democrat MSPs in Holyrood to influence the debate going forward.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady made the point that the Scottish Parliament should decide. Does she not agree that it should be the local planning authorities that decide? They should be given proper devolution, which would allow the local communities to decide whether they want nuclear or not.

[Susan Murray]

I agree that on most issues it is for local authorities and planning authorities to make the decisions, but for national infrastructure in Scotland, there is a place for Holyrood to be involved. The plans announced by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), to override devolved planning laws, should be roundly rejected.

Nuclear offers Scotland thousands of jobs, millions in tax revenue, billions in investment and an opportunity to revive the communities of remote and rural Scotland, which have far too often been left behind. I am proud to be Scottish, with our own education system, health system and legal system. To protect our Scottish identity, Scotland could once again be a leading energy exporter in a way that protects our environment, grows remote and rural communities by providing housing and jobs, and helps to pay for improved connectivity and for saving the Gaelic language.

Scotland has always worked closely with the rest of the UK, with connected and mobile people and products. Nuclear power can continue that tradition by providing low-carbon energy to contribute to our evolving sustainable energy system, to reduce household bills and to supply industry. With that in mind, I have one final ask of the Minister: to build on their assessment of Scotland’s potential nuclear power plant sites by setting out, before the end of this parliamentary term, the jobs and economic benefit that new nuclear could bring to Scotland. That way, we can see in real terms the cost of the SNP’s approach to nuclear.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

We will begin with speeches of four minutes. If everyone is disciplined, everyone will get four minutes.

17:00

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stuart. I thank my namesake, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), for securing this important debate about an issue of huge concern and importance to all our constituents. I am an MP for Edinburgh and for East Lothian; I am one of two MPs for the county, which is home to Torness nuclear power station, Scotland’s only remaining nuclear power station, with 40 years of local expertise.

Torness is scheduled to close in 2030, despite powering 2 million homes and employing 500 workers. The SNP’s arbitrary ban on nuclear in Scotland means that nothing will replace it. New nuclear at Torness is backed by the Labour-led East Lothian council, the GMB, workers, residents and me. As the local MP, I support it because it will bring jobs, protect the environment and lower bills. Everybody backs new nuclear at Torness, except the SNP.

[Graham Leadbitter]

The hon. Member suggests that new nuclear would cut bills, but the nuclear power stations that are being built are manifestly not cutting bills. Building new nuclear power stations will add to bills. A nuclear waste facility could cost as much as £70 billion; nobody has described how that is actually going to happen, even though it needs to happen, and how it will be paid for. It will probably go on to bill payers. How will that reduce bills for anybody within any kind of reasonable timescale?

[Chris Murray]

I profoundly reject everything the hon. Member just said. One need only look at France, where 15 years ago or so the French Government pursued a policy of nuclear. France’s domestic bills are a quarter lower than Scotland’s and its industrial bills are half what they are in Scotland. The minute we had the policy security that the SNP has blocked for the last 20 years in Scotland, we would be able to crowd in the private investment that nuclear would have. As it is, nuclear expertise and nuclear investment are going south into England and not coming to Scotland, thanks to the decisions of his party.

I cannot understand how the SNP can support drilling in the North sea for oil and gas, yet not support nuclear in East Lothian. The ban on nuclear is possibly the most baleful, pernicious and counterproductive of all the SNP’s policies. As someone who cares passionately about climate change, it boggles my mind that after the hottest summer on human record, in which oil and gas companies have posted record profits, SNP policy is to oppose nuclear power stations and support a tax cut for oil and gas companies.

Anybody who supports renewables and wants to see a just transition from fossil fuels to renewables must support nuclear. We need the energy resources for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. The right question we must ask is this: what is the alternative? It is either nuclear or oil and gas. I say nuclear; the SNP supports further fossil fuels. Nobody is arguing that nuclear is risk-free, but the risks of nuclear are far lower, first, than they ever were and, secondly, than those of fossil fuels, which are literally boiling our planet. The risk from fossil fuels has attenuated, but it is higher than it is with nuclear.

My final point is that we must look internationally. Germany, after shutting down its nuclear power stations, now burns more coal than any other European country. Arguably, the party that has done the most to increase carbon emissions in Europe is the German Green party, which pushed the country off nuclear. Compare that with France, where, as I said, 70% of the grid is nuclear. Industrial bills there are half those in Scotland, and domestic bills are a quarter lower. We know that if we want to gain support for the just transition, we need to get bills lower.

Every other party in the House of Commons now supports nuclear energy—even the Greens, even the Liberal Democrats; there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth. Only the SNP is the blocker. My question for the Government is this: what can we possibly do to persuade the SNP to stop blocking nuclear and allow it to lower bills and create a just transition to protect the environment?

17:06

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this debate, and I very much welcome the Minister to her place.

The Magnox reactor at Chapelcross, near Annan, provided highly skilled employment for five decades, supported families, sustained communities and helped to power the country. Like many people living locally, I am deeply frustrated that the possibility of a new nuclear plant on that site has been all but ruled out by dogmatic SNP policy—dogma that runs counter to the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the EU’s Joint Research Centre and the OECD, among others.

Mr Stuart, you will recall that when we first entered Parliament in 2005, nuclear was perceived as a declining industry, but as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, I have seen at first hand the renaissance that the industry is going through. Sadly, that is happening only in England and Wales, where billions of pounds are being invested, new technologies are being developed, supply chains are growing and thousands of skilled jobs are being created. Scotland, once at the forefront of nuclear generation, is being left behind. That is the only conclusion that any reasonable person can reach when they look at the facts.

The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire set out the numbers, but I think they are worth repeating. Since 2014, England has added more than 47,000 civil nuclear jobs; Scotland has added just 661. Scotland has missed out on almost 5,000 jobs, while many highly skilled Scots have little choice but to travel south to work on projects that could just as easily be taking place at home. Many people from the Annan area, for example, travel daily to west Cumbria when they would much rather be working closer to home.

While Scotland misses out on jobs, investment and opportunities, what do communities such as mine hear from the Scottish Government? The answer always seems to be more of the same: more pylons, more wind turbines, more solar panels, more substations, more battery storage and more expensive energy, none of which brings substantive employment to the communities actually impacted. When it comes to the skilled jobs, apprenticeships and long-term investment that nuclear can bring, though, the answer from the SNP is an unequivocal no. Dumfries and Galloway council, like East Lothian council and others, has called on the Scottish Government to take a fresh look at nuclear, because they recognise the opportunities that nuclear could bring to their communities.

The irony is that Scotland has some of the best potential nuclear sites anywhere in the United Kingdom. A recent technical assessment by Great British Energy—Nuclear concluded that sites including Torness, Hunterston and Dounreay all have high potential for future nuclear development, if the Scottish Government were willing to reconsider their position. Chapelcross would be ideal for a small modular reactor, and I very much continue to campaign for that to happen in my constituency.

What is the alternative? A grid that is becoming increasingly expensive and volatile—Scotland now spends £1.5 billion a year balancing the electricity system, five times what it spent before Hunterston B was retired. The communities I represent know that the country needs reliable power. They also want good, stable jobs. They understand and have seen for more than five decades that that all comes with a nuclear power station.

17:10

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, as always. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. From the outset, I notify Members of my membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; I am most definitely ideologically opposed to nuclear, although it irritates me when the phrase is used as some sort of insult, such as indulging in student politics.

Let me explain some of the reasons why I am opposed. It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that nuclear is a green energy source. How can it be when it produces radioactive waste with long-term toxicity that is hazardous for thousands of years? Nuclear is certainly not a low-carbon source either. The powerful and wealthy pro-nuclear lobby, which we in this place are very familiar with, ignores the large carbon emissions arising from the uranium fuel cycle and, of course, from nuclear waste disposal. It is proven that nuclear power generation produces up to 20 times more CO₂ per megawatt-hour than renewable sources, while the actual construction of nuclear stations releases enormous quantities of CO₂. Compared with renewables, nuclear power is definitely not a low-carbon source.

What about the astronomical construction costs? Initially, those for Hinkley Point C were estimated at £18 billion, but that has increased several times over the years; now EDF says that the cost is £32 billion and rising because of inflation. Clearly, nuclear construction costs are massively higher than those for renewable energy. The bottom line is that nuclear is just not value for money. Why does anyone think that Scotland having more nuclear sites will be any different?

The ongoing Hinkley saga also proves that it takes ages to build nuclear sites. On average, to plan and build a nuclear reactor takes nearly two decades. New nuclear power is not coming anytime soon. Nuclear is no quick fix or solution for families struggling with energy bills in this cost of living crisis—not now, and not for many years to come.

[Graham Leadbitter]

To emphasise a point that I made earlier, there are alternatives. We could invest in things such as geothermal; deep geothermal can generate huge amounts of heat, and therefore steam, to power the turbine generation of electricity. It can be done for a fraction of the price, it can be built in a fraction of the time, it is clean and it leaves no waste legacy in the way that nuclear does. Does the hon. Member agree that that would be a useful way forward?

[Brian Leishman]

I agree that we need an energy mix and yes, of course, in the testing circumstances we face now, we should look at exploring a wide variety and assortment of different energies—but not nuclear.

No real technological advances or fundamentally new designs have been made to nuclear reactors or processes in this century. Large reactors have the same generation III+ designs of the past 25 years. Even the nuclear industry admits that reactor construction and design are cheaper for companies when done on a bigger, not a smaller scale, so the idea that lots of small reactors dotted around the country will be more affordable or safer, or the answer to lower energy costs, is pure fantasy.

Finally, politicians say that the UK will likely be at war with Russia by 2030. If the war hawks are correct, big nuclear power stations or hundreds of small reactor sites up and down the country would surely make communities a target. Other truly green, more affordable and definitely safer energy sources are out there. Renewable energy sources are largely an untapped market. That is an industry the Government could create, shape and control for the benefit of our people. To finish—ahead of time as well—I make no apologies for thinking that that is a far better ideology than having toxic radioactive waste.

17:14

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing and introducing this important debate.

Over the years in my constituency, the nuclear power stations at Hunterston provided well-paid, skilled jobs and contributed greatly to the local economy. Hunterston A operated from 1964 to 1990, and Hunterston B from 1976 to 2022. Both contributed greatly to the UK grid. This year, Hunterston B became the first advanced gas-cooled reactor to be relicensed for decommissioning. Even now, during the decommissioning process, there are skilled and unionised jobs. They are not in the same numbers as before, but they are still highly skilled jobs that make a huge difference to the constituency and the local economy.

Sadly for us, as we have heard today, in Scotland a “no nuclear” policy stands. We could have so much more with a change in policy. For example, Denmark is currently reviewing its 1985 ban on nuclear power and considering making small modular reactors part of its clean energy grid. Why will the Scottish Government not do the same? Scotland has the most expensive grid in the whole UK and spends £1.5 billion on balancing every year. That is five times more than it spent before Hunterston B was retired.

Small modular reactors are advanced nuclear reactors that produce up to 300 MW per unit, which is about one third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear reactors. SMRs have many advantages linked to their design. They are physically smaller than conventional stations, have a smaller footprint and can be prefabricated and installed on site. Yet the SNP Government still refuse to move towards nuclear power, despite being the only party in the House of Commons with a blanket stance against nuclear. I was interested to read that 90% of the world’s economy supports expanding nuclear capacity as part of the clean energy strategy. The SNP are lagging behind the future of energy security both in the UK and worldwide.

Scotland has lost out on nearly 5,000 jobs in the nuclear industry, and many Scottish nuclear industry workers are forced to leave Scotland to work in England or Wales at other nuclear sites. It is quite depressing to think how much talent and skill Scotland is choosing to lose to other parts of the UK. In my constituency, an investment in new nuclear would make a great difference, bringing new, highly skilled jobs to the constituency and beyond, and offering badly needed apprenticeships for local young people. The Hunterston site has so much potential. Scotland is missing out on a great opportunity for good jobs thanks to backward SNP decisions.

17:17

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Sorry to interrupt, but I will call the Front Benchers at 5.23 pm, so if you wish to share your time with your colleague, that would be helpful.

[Lillian Jones]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing this important debate.

Scotland has a proud heritage, skilled workers, vast renewable resources and the North sea, but to make the most of those strengths we need an energy policy that is ambitious, practical and focused on the future. Can we really believe that Hunterston B has now ended generation, with no plan to build the next generation of new nuclear? For almost 46 years, that nuclear power station provided reliable, low-carbon electricity to Scotland. At its peak, Hunterston B generated enough electricity to power almost 2 million homes a year. Over its lifetime, it produced just under 300 terawatt-hours of electricity—enough to power every home in Scotland for more than 30 years—while avoiding more than 100 million tonnes of carbon emissions. It supported around 500 jobs and 250 contractors and made a major contribution to Ayrshire’s economy. That is a remarkable legacy, as is that of Torness, which is now the most productive clean power asset in Scotland’s history. Since coming online in 1988, it has generated more than 300 terawatt-hours of clean electricity—enough power for every home in Scotland for around 36 years. It also helped to avoid more than 100 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions.

Those are not just statistics; they demonstrate what nuclear power has delivered, and can continue to deliver, for Scotland. Yet Scotland has no new nuclear power station under construction and no future plan. That matters, because nuclear and renewables should not be presented as alternatives—Scotland needs both. Wind power is one of our greatest strengths, but wind does not blow every hour of every day. Nuclear provides dependable, low-carbon electricity alongside renewables. For families and businesses in my constituency and right across Scotland, energy security matters. We have all seen how global events can send our energy prices soaring. More secure domestic generation can reduce our exposure to those shocks and give families and businesses greater certainty.

It is about jobs, too. Hunterston and Torness demonstrated that nuclear investment can deliver highly skilled, unionised jobs, apprenticeships, engineering expertise and opportunities for local supply chains. We should build on that, not turn our backs on it. We should back offshore wind and invest in new technologies, and look seriously at a new generation of nuclear power.

That is the balanced approach that Scotland needs, but the Scottish Government’s energy strategy is nearly three years late. Families and businesses across Ayrshire need certainty now. They want to see new investment in new nuclear energy. Plainly speaking, they want to see the creation of Hunterston C. Hunterston showed us what is possible. Torness is showing us that it is still possible. Scotland needs the ambition to build the next generation of new nuclear. The Scottish Labour party and the UK Labour Government are ready to work with the SNP Government to deliver energy certainty, investment and ambition for our communities and young people. Will the SNP Government drop their ideology on nuclear to help Scotland’s energy future? That is the question.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I call the final Back-Bench speaker, Elaine Stewart, with a two-minute time limit, I am afraid.

17:21

[Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Stuart. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this important debate.

Generations of Scots working in the Ayrshire coalfields once powered this country. As we look to the next generation of clean, reliable energy, Scotland needs to grasp the opportunity of nuclear power to help power our nation once again. Investing in nuclear is not an argument against wind power or renewables. Scotland has extraordinary renewable potential, and wind and solar remain central to our energy future, but when the wind does not blow—although that is not too often in my area—we need reliable power to back it up. Nuclear does not replace renewables; it complements them.

While the UK Government move ahead with major new nuclear investment, the Scottish Government are refusing to act. That inaction has cost us, and we are exposed to volatile gas markets, more dependent on imported fuels and more vulnerable to foreign conflicts thousands of miles away that drive up our bills at home.

This is not just about energy security; it is about jobs and fairness. When coalmining declined, it took jobs and investment with it, and too many communities like mine still feel that loss today. Scotland has missed out on nearly 5,000 jobs, with skilled Scots workers travelling south instead of working at home. Those are not just jobs; they are apprenticeships for our young people, opportunities for the supply chain and decades of stable, well-paid employment.

That also matters for our clean energy goals. We are committed to ambitious decarbonising targets, and nuclear is a proven low-carbon technology that can help us get there without relying on gas. Countries have achieved the fastest, most reliable—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Jamie Stone.

17:23

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing this debate. As regards the good-natured jibe from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), I received it in the manner in which it was intended, but I ken his mother quite well, so I will be having a wee word in another place.

My party’s policy is to support small modular reactors, and we make no bones about it. Their roll-out can provide a hugely cost-effective and safe decarbonisation mix. We also believe that planning should involve taking people with us. That takes me straight to what the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) mentioned: Dounreay. Dounreay was an example, prior to 1954-55, of the tragedy of highland depopulation. Mr Stuart, if you drive up the A9 from Latheron to Thurso, you see cottages—crofts—without roofs; they are open to the skies. People had gone, and it was the curse. That is why there are so many people from highland families living in all corners of the world. In 1954-55, the planning application to build the reactor at Dounreay went through—can you believe this?—in three days flat; these are changed days indeed. Dounreay was a godsend for the area. It not only halted highland depopulation, but reversed it. People were moving in, and the school rolls were going up. I think it would be fair to say that in not just Caithness but the wider area of Sutherland, many a person would work at Dounreay—and still does today. Some would have a croft; they would work at Dounreay in the day and go back and run the croft in their other time. The advent of Dounreay literally kept the lights on in the straths and glens of the highlands. None of us should ever forget that.

Highland council, the local authority, is just the same as the other councils we have heard about. It is keen to get a new reactor, an SMR, at Dounreay. Great British Energy, as my colleagues have mentioned, specifically mentions Dounreay as absolutely suitable for an SMR. Here is the nub of the matter, and it is really my conclusion. At Dounreay, one of the first nuclear sites ever in the UK, we have a licensed site. That is pretty dashed important. We have a highly skilled workforce and a local population that would warmly welcome an SMR. All the bits of the jigsaw are in place—and yet we have heard repeatedly what the roadblock is.

To show the nicer side of my nature—if there is one—could I just gently point out to the Scottish Government that Plaid Cymru has embraced the concept of new nuclear in Wales? I do hope that Plaid and the SNP will talk to each other, because at the end of the day people cannot just go on punting out old policies that have no practical application whatever in Scotland. I hope they take my advice. I long for the day when the jobs come back to Dounreay through an SMR.

17:27

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing forward this debate. I also welcome the Scottish Liberal Democrats getting off the fence and finally backing new nuclear.

[Jamie Stone]

I will find out who your mother is! [Laughter.]

[Douglas Lumsden]

The Prime Minister mentioned déjà vu at Prime Minister’s questions, and I must say I am suffering from a bit of the same. I fondly remember many debates in the Scottish Parliament in which I made the case for new nuclear in Scotland, but it was always blocked by the SNP. I have always maintained that we should have an energy mix, and nuclear is vital for our baseload when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Without nuclear, it will be a real struggle for the Scottish Government to get to net zero.

I will refer to some of the contributions today. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire was right to point out skills and opportunities. This could be a real path for oil and gas workers to make that transition. Another key thing mentioned was grid stability, which I had not thought of. The inertia from the large power stations that we have just now is vital to keeping the grid stable. It would be good to hear from the Minister what plans there are to replace that once Torness closes.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) described the renaissance of nuclear and all the benefits, but Scotland is being left behind just now in relation to jobs, skills and local economies. Instead, the SNP wants to carpet-bomb our countryside with monster pylons and battery storage.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I just want to know how the hon. Member thinks that energy from nuclear power stations the length and breadth of the country would be transported about the country.

[Douglas Lumsden]

That is a brilliant point, because we would probably be building new nuclear power stations where the grid already is. We already have the grid connection at Hunterston and at Torness. It is exactly why we should be backing new nuclear.

It is clear that the SNP’s effective ban on new nuclear power is holding Scotland back, in terms of both our energy transition and our economy. Right now, Scotland has the most expensive and vulnerable grid in the UK, and much of that is down to the fact that the SNP has turned its back on nuclear. When I was an MSP, I was fortunate enough to visit Hunterston B. What a wasted opportunity that is. It has the grid connection and the space—it is all there; it just needs the political will to make it happen so that we can have Hunterston C.

As we progress to sourcing more and more of our energy from renewables such as wind, the problem of intermittency will only get worse. The irony is that the SNP’s irrational opposition to new nuclear means that a future Scotland would be completely reliant on English nuclear power when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Luckily, we have a UK grid, so we share the power with our neighbours, and Scotland will not face blackouts because of SNP failures. But while our shared grid means that Scotland will not miss out on imported nuclear energy, thanks to the SNP’s blind opposition we are missing out on thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of investment.

During my visit to Hunterston, I met the young graduates and apprentices there. It was heartbreaking to hear that, to have a future in nuclear, they were going to have to move away from Scotland—talented young people in highly paid jobs moving away because of the SNP’s dogma. It is interesting to hear that one in 10 people at Hinkley Point C are Scots.

What makes the SNP’s luddite approach totally senseless is that people in Scotland want new nuclear. We have heard it again this afternoon. Sixty per cent of the Scottish public are in favour of building new nuclear power stations to replace those being decommissioned. East Lothian, Dumfries and Galloway and Highland councils have all called for new nuclear development. Many of the jobs and much of the investment that could be generated by new nuclear would go to some of Scotland’s most deprived communities. We are in desperate need of thriving local industries, yet the SNP, which loves to talk about devolution, has overruled those local wishes.

For far too long, the SNP has weaponised devolved powers over planning to block new nuclear, which of course is a reserved issue. The SNP’s bizarre opposition to this clean and consistent energy goes against science, against all common sense and against the wishes of the Scottish public. The clear cross-party consensus from the Scottish MPs in the Chamber—apart from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and the SNP, of course—shows just how backward John Swinney’s position really is.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I very much hope that nuclear energy will have a bright future in Scotland. If we are to transition beyond fossil fuels in the long term, nuclear will be a vital part of our energy mix. Scotland must not miss out as a result of the SNP luddites.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

If the Minister wishes to finish at 5.43 pm, she will be able to give the proposer of the debate two minutes to wind up.

17:33

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Melanie Ward)]

Thank you, Mr Stuart. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing this important debate on the future of nuclear energy in Scotland, and thanking her for her kind words. I agree with many of the points that she made.

This debate comes at an opportune time. I am pleased to be responding to it, and to have heard from so many who share this Government’s desire to see Scotland harness the opportunities that civil nuclear power offers to Scotland: the opportunity to create high-quality jobs in communities across our country, and the opportunity to deliver clean, secure and more affordable energy for our people as part of the energy mix of the future, but also the opportunity to deliver on our Prime Minister’s mission to reindustrialise our country and to ensure that conversations about Scotland’s industrial prowess are not just about looking backwards at our heritage, but about building our future, with prosperous, secure and proud communities sustained by skilled jobs.

Scotland is indeed an energy powerhouse. Since taking up my position at the Scotland Office, I have had the privilege of witnessing at first hand a vast array of Scottish energy generation—wind, wave, tidal and nuclear—and, above all, of meeting the skilled and dedicated workforces that keep our nation powered. Just last month, the Secretary of State was in Aberdeen meeting representatives from the oil and gas sector and visiting Great British Energy’s newly opened headquarters.

This week, I went to the power station at Torness, which is one of the great Scottish nuclear power success stories. It provides hundreds of quality jobs in East Lothian and beyond, and it will generate enough electricity over its lifetime to power every home in Scotland for 36 years. Torness is due to stop generating power by 2030. The reason that the site’s days are numbered is the SNP’s outdated ideological planning ban on civil nuclear energy. As we have heard, it is time that that changed.

[Alan Gemmell]

It is great to see the Minister in her place, and I thank her for a brilliant visit to Prestwick this week. Let me say how proud I am to join my Labour Ayrshire colleagues in calling for nuclear back in Ayrshire at Hunterston, and how frustrated I am at the lack of skills, jobs and investment in our communities. Can the Minister say anything about why the SNP’s anti-scientific, irrational stance is continuing?

[Melanie Ward]

We have had a strong showing from Ayrshire colleagues in this debate because of the impact that the closure of Hunterston has had on their communities, as my hon. Friend points out. The SNP will need to answer to the people of Ayrshire about why it has taken away the possibility of thousands of new jobs in their communities. There is no logical reason for it.

Visiting the station at Torness brought home to me that what is at stake in this debate is families’ futures. Highly skilled workers at Torness told me that they will likely have no option but to leave their homes in Scotland when the station closes, taking those specialist skills elsewhere—to England and Wales, or even overseas. Some of those men and women are part of generations of the same family that have worked at that site, and their rightful pride in that heritage was clear to see. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire asked if Torness could theoretically go beyond 2030. The answer is that if EDF wishes to do that and makes a successful case to the regulator, indeed it is possible that that could happen.

In this debate, we need to focus on the facts about civil nuclear power. There is too much myth and fallacy around this topic. The British nuclear sector continues to operate safely and securely, and that is not simply the industry’s assertion; it is the evidence-based conclusion of the independent chief nuclear inspector in his recent annual report. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency calls nuclear

“one of the safest forms of energy generation there is”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) helpfully trailed his speech in the media at the weekend, so I asked the Unite shop steward at Torness what he thought of the suggestion that we should make decisions about what is best for the future of our country based on the potential likes and dislikes of Vladimir Putin. His answer was:

“This is clutching at straws.”

My hon. Friend also mentioned construction. I refer him to the 26,000 new jobs created by construction at Hinkley Point C.

The reality is that countries such as Denmark, Poland and Japan are actively stepping up their plans on nuclear energy, while others, such as Sweden, Belgium and Italy, are reversing their previous anti-nuclear stances. In France, 70% of electricity is supplied by nuclear power, as we have heard. To be anti-nuclear power in Europe today is increasingly to be an outlier. I say to the SNP that Scotland deserves better than that.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I welcome the Minister to her place, but to suggest that to be anti-nuclear is to be anti-baseload or anti other forms of useful energy that can provide baseload is absolute nonsense. Will she accept that looking only at nuclear, and not properly backing things such as geothermal or tidal energy, is a blinkered approach? We could be creating many jobs in Scotland from those forms of energy—God knows we know how to drill a hole and get stuff out of it.

[Melanie Ward]

I certainly did not say that we were anti-baseload, which would be a ridiculous argument. In fact, I am proud that this Government are making record investment in renewable energy; I mentioned at the start of my speech that I have seen some of it myself since I was appointed. The point I am making is that the SNP Scottish Government are leaving Scotland behind in jobs and opportunities.

Speaking of jobs and opportunities, we know that the UK and Scotland used to lead the world in nuclear power. On that note, it has been interesting to hear the comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), and the Conservative party in recent days. They may need this Labour Government to remind them that, in 14 years of Tory rule, their record on investment in new nuclear energy was zero, so their new-found enthusiasm rings a little hollow. We also reject the proposals made by his party’s spokespeople to rip up the Scotland Act 1998 and override Holyrood’s planning powers to force nuclear projects through. This Government will not take that path; we believe in the decentralisation of power, and we respect devolution.

[David Mundell]

How will the Minister persuade the SNP to change its position? If it does not do so, there will not be any nuclear in Scotland, because there will be no investment. Even if there were a Labour Administration in Scotland, people would know that it could change, and we only got nuclear investment in the UK when people understood that both Labour and the Conservatives backed it.

[Melanie Ward]

I would have more time for that argument if the Conservative Government had themselves invested in nuclear anywhere in the UK during their 14 years in power.

The fact is that the arguments made against the Scottish Government’s position are strong. The UK Government are committed to supporting this industry. We have heard throughout the debate about the 5,000 jobs that Scotland has already missed out on because of the de facto ban. We have heard about the investment taking place in England and Wales; Scotland could have that, too. We in Scotland know the story of deindustrialisation of our communities. The Clyde, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire know that story, as we heard from colleagues today, and my area of Fife also knows it. These are lessons that the Scottish Government should learn.

We have heard so much about the disparity that exists with the rest of the UK. I simply point out again that many Scots say they will be forced to take their skills elsewhere—indeed, many of them already are. For example, 184 Scottish businesses have supported Hinkley Point C during its construction, and 10% of the 12,000 workers on that construction site are Scottish and being forced to travel elsewhere to do those jobs.

I need to wrap up, so let me simply say the following. Companies across Scotland have expressed great interest in supporting the development of our nuclear industry. We heard about the potential at Dounreay, and we know that there is further potential across Scotland, including at Torness. It is also worth noting that 57% of SNP voters support new nuclear energy in Scotland. Trade unions, such as the GMB, Prospect and Unite, tell us that they want to grasp these opportunities, and the SNP should back them.

Scotland stands at a critical juncture. The Scottish Government can stand by and watch jobs, opportunities and Scottish workers go elsewhere, or they can change course and work together with the UK Government, embrace civil nuclear power as part of our energy mix and ensure that Scotland remains an energy leader for generations to come.

17:43

[Susan Murray]

I am really pleased to have heard so many excellent contributions to the debate this afternoon, and I thank the Minister, the Opposition spokesperson—the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for their comments. It is clear that there is majority agreement in the room, it is clear that there is an opportunity for Scotland to be an energy source and powerhouse for the UK, and it is clear that the SNP is refusing to grasp this opportunity for families and companies, despite the good examples of success in other countries. I urge the Government to keep pressing the Scottish Government to reconsider their position.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of nuclear energy in Scotland.

17:44

Sitting adjourned.