Commons Chamber

Tuesday 30th June 2026

(began 1 month, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
None Portrait Topical questions: Justice
-

One Mr Speaker justice.
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:44
12:45
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to make a statement on steel tariffs in relation to Northern Ireland. >> Minister. >> Mr. speaker, I hope you would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, I hope you would agree that I've always done my level best to come to the House first with any new announcements. And as I told the House last And as I told the House last Thursday in a written and an oral statement, the government's new steel trade measure comes into force tomorrow, immediately succeeding the expiry of the steel safeguard and ensuring there is no gap in protection for our domestic steel industry. The European Union has also announced today the details of their trade measure, which comes into force tomorrow.

Since the announcement of their measure on the 7th of October last year, we have engaged extensively with the EU and agreed an approach that reflects the UK and EU's highly interconnected supply chains. This will provide stability for UK. EU steel trade from the 1st of July. While we continue to work together to strengthen UK EU steel trade longer term, as you would expect. Our engagement has also covered the matter of Northern Ireland in some detail. This ensures that specific arrangements are and will be in place to facilitate the continued smooth movement of steel to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, guaranteeing that movements of steel within the UK market will not pay EU tariffs.

These arrangements are aimed at comprehensively protecting the UK internal market. They include the retention of the seven tariff rate quotas. Categories seven. Eight. Nine. 13. 17. 25 A and 28. And in other categories, specific arrangements that will continue to mean that UK Origin Steel can move tariff free to Northern Ireland. These arrangements will operate from tomorrow, the 1st of July, and taken together they will serve to protect the operation of the UK internal market and good flows within it. HMRC is now taking steps to confirm these arrangements with industry, including business representative organisations in Northern Ireland.

The government will also continue to provide guidance and support to traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through the Trader Support Service, and we will work closely with the EU to ensure these arrangements operate effectively in practice. Mr. speaker, we are doing two things. First of all, protecting the UK internal market and secondly, giving UK steel production the protection it needs. So we have a strong UK steel production able to meet at least 50% of the UK steel needs.
12:48
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
Jim Allister report to the Minister for coming to the House. I Minister for coming to the House. I do have to say there is an inherent absurdity and indeed a constitutional offence in having to come to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom to ask the very question whether or not there will be any tariff arrangements when it comes to moving steel from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Indeed, one recalls of last Thursday, the Minister said that he couldn't tell us because he had to await what the EU decided.

Underscoring the absurdity that these matters are governed by a foreign jurisdiction, not by ourselves. But I have three specific questions for the Minister. Is there in regard to any class of steel, any quota? Any quota differential. And if so, in respect of which classes? Secondly, do the EU's new traceability rules, that which they call the melt and pour rules, will those be applied to steel being imported into Northern Ireland? Because if they are, they impose an extra layer, an extra layer of bureaucracy and form filling and obtaining certificates which are not required when you bring steel into Great Britain.

So could we have clarity on that? And thirdly, last Thursday he said that 74% of steel imports to Great Britain would not be covered by the UK trade measures. Can the same be said of Northern Ireland? Is it the same level of exemption, if you want to call it that, in respect of Northern Ireland, given the import of the EU governance? I ask those questions because in Northern Ireland we don't make steel. We rely exclusively on importing steel and therefore the many businesses across our Northern Ireland depend very much.

And yet here they are tomorrow, facing into a new regime and only Every.
12:50
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
In every way to try and prevent. That's why we've made it Letters from his seat. He won't be able to hear what I'm saying, and I might be able to enlighten him. So on the seven key categories, which are probably most which are most important to Northern Ireland steel, as he says. So category seven, which is steel plate, which is important for shipbuilding and defence, category eight stainless hot rolled sheets and strips, which is important for automotives.

And category nine sailors. Cold rolled steel sheets and strips, which is also important for automotive rebar. Category 13, which is important for construction. Category 17 steel beams again for construction category 25 A large tubes, which is vital for oil and gas. The oil and gas industry and category 28. The alloy wire that is important for fencing. In all of these categories, we've maintained the trqs. There is no difference. We are very keen to make sure and we. From the very initial conversations I had with the European Union back in December last year, we have made it absolutely clear that we want to make sure that the UK, that the Great Britain and Northern Ireland are not treated and we are.

There is a single market between us. There is no. Border down the Irish Sea. I would just say also that all of this shows the patent nonsense of having left the European Union because the honest. Which I know. Of course the people of Northern Ireland agreed with me on this and disagreed with the hon. Member. The truth of the matter is, we wouldn't have to negotiate with the European Union on these matters if we were still members of the European Union, and there wouldn't be any of these quota issues.

The additional truth is that the there is a problem about overcapacity of steel around the world. The UK is not the problem for the EU. The EU is not the problem for the UK and frankly, we should come to a very sensible arrangement which is. Which is what we have mostly managed to do so far, but we will continue to discuss with them. Yes, the 73% of of steel imports into the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland, is completely excluded from the measure and the tariffs only apply above the quota levels in many categories.

We've managed to create quota levels which are above existing trade flow levels, so I don't expect there to be problems in those. But in some areas we are deliberately trying to make sure that people use British Steel, because British Steel now only produces 4 million tonnes. And if we don't continue to create make steel in this country, we will have a significant problem accrue to us into the future.
12:53
12:53
12:54
Harriett Baldwin Portrait Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and can I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this urgent Member on securing this urgent question, because we on this side of the House have been clear for a number of weeks how concerned we are about the incoming steel tariffs that will take effect tomorrow. And we've heard from businesses not just in Northern Ireland, but across the country, that the 50% tariff on steel imports above the quota will do great damage to upstream British manufacturing to our defence and aerospace sectors and those who construct the nation's infrastructure.

Now, we do acknowledge that on Thursday, the government have brought forward some changes to the quotas. After reflecting on concerns raised by industry. But we've also now heard, Mr. Speaker, at the last minute that the EU has cut a significant chunk of the UK's export quota. Businesses have been warning us for months about the damages, the. The damage these proposals could cause, and they're now expected to adapt in a matter of hours, not days. Will the Minister now publish the full impact assessment and communicate properly with the affected sectors? He mentioned a few ways he's going to communicate, but I can't stress the urgency of getting clarity to every business across this country in the upstream steel industry.

Have any Northern Northern Ireland businesses specifically lodged applications with the Trade Remedies Authority? And I know the Minister for industry has kindly let us know that he can't attend orals on Thursday, as he will be visiting businesses in Northern Ireland. Is this to do with the serious concerns over steel tariffs? And finally, can we have an update on the negotiations the government is having in this area with the US and with India? Because it does seem that whenever the UK government negotiates on behalf of our steel industry, the UK steel industry seems to lose.

So this is all shaping up to be a disaster for Minister.
12:56
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
If I start with the question about the Industry Minister and his visit to Northern Ireland, he's visit to Northern Ireland, he's visiting shipbuilding and aerospace companies. It's not specifically in companies. It's not specifically in relation to steel at all, if I might just say, in relation to steel, generally, her party's record is absolutely shocking and and we will not be going down the route. The way they went down when they came to power in 2010, the UK was producing 12 million tons of steel.

And when they left power, we were producing 4 million tons. That is an existential crisis which happened entirely on their watch, and we need to address it and we're serious about doing it. And incidentally, countless contracts for major infrastructure projects in the UK which were awarded by their government and indeed through the MoD, regularly went to steel produced in other countries. So again, I think that I'm not going to follow the route that she has gone down. And in fact, the then Prime Minister even refused to meet with steelworkers.

That shows the level of concern that the the former conservative government had around steel. We are determined to make sure that we will have a proper steel production industry in the UK, and that does mean that we have to take some tough measures now just in relation to the European Union. And I think she was. She wasn't a lever, to be fair to her. She was in favour of us remaining in the European Union. But the. The UK has now secured a 1.5 million megatonnes of guaranteed access through country specific quotas and 1.09 megatonnes of access through competitive pools.

A total access of up to 12.14 megatonnes through the EU process. UK steel exports to the EU averaged 1.82 megatonnes between 2022 to 2024 when including products covered by the EU steel measure. So I'm hopeful we did end up with a good result. But the truth of the matter is, as I've said before, and as we have repeatedly said to many others, it would be much more sensible, frankly, if there was an exemption between the UK and the EU in relation to steel measures.

So neither of us were facing quotas or tariffs because, frankly, we're not the problem for each other. And there are specific instances like Marcegaglia, where they are part Italian, part British steel manufacturers, and the danger is that they might be facing tariffs going in both directions. So I just want to correct one other thing that she has repeatedly said on her on her Twitter account, her X account, which is that there will be a 50%. Tariff on all steel imports.

This is patently untrue, and I really hope she starts correcting the record.
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:13
13:14
James Murray Portrait Rt Hon James Murray MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
report by Donna Ockenden that had exposed devastating failings over more than a decade in Nottingham. As many honourable and right hon. Members rightly made clear following my statement, the shocking report into what had happened was far from the first. In 2015 we learnt of the failures at Morecambe Bay in 2022. We were appalled to hear about what had happened at Shrewsbury and Telford. That same year. The Kirkup inquiry exposed failings in East Kent. There were also other reviews and reports over the years on specific issues related to maternity care.

And of course, it is deeply upsetting to recognise that Donna Ockenden is currently planning to undertake further reviews into failings in Leeds and Sussex. Despite all the warnings, the NHS is still failing women, babies and their families on a scale that shames our society. Madam Deputy Speaker, bereaved and harmed families are hearing once again the unbearably painful and distressing consequences of the opportunities that have been missed to put things right. As I stand here today, I think of how they must be feeling.

I know from meeting some of the Nottingham families that their unwavering determination is accompanied by a sense of exhaustion, a sense that however many times they have told their stories, however hard they have campaigned for justice and accountability, however strongly they have fought to stop what happened to them from happening to others, hardly anything has changed. That feeling will be shared by mothers and families up and down the country, who have suffered so appallingly to. And that will, of course, be deep sadness and distress as they are forced to relive their trauma, the burden that they bear must sit with us all.

And that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford last year decided to announce a national investigation into maternity and neonatal services. That investigation has been carried out by the noble Baroness Amos, whose report is published today. I would like to put on record my thanks to her and her team for the comprehensive and compassionate way they have carried out their work, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Amos investigation gathered evidence from more than 10,500 people, with Baroness Amos and her team personally meeting more than 450 affected families.

They visited 12 NHS trusts and heard from over 9000 staff through surveys, site visits and 1 to 1 discussions. Whilst they found that many women experienced good and safe care, the report paints a bleak picture of failings at every stage for far too many, from pregnancy, labour and delivery to the first hours, days and weeks after birth. Madam Deputy Speaker, when I read about these systemic failures, I found them not only shocking and upsetting, but also devastatingly familiar because they are explicitly repeated in review after review, Baroness Amos found that a system is over, is fragmented, overly complex and far too slow to learn.

It needs to be radically overhauled. Madam Deputy Speaker, last week I spoke about the need to avoid recommendations from reviews being accepted, but then sitting on a shelf gathering dust. Other hon. Members agreed with the need to break this cycle. And so that is what we will do. As I told the House last week, the National Maternity and Neonatal Task Force, which I chair, will create a comprehensive action plan by the end of this year. Today's recommendations from Baroness Amos include a proposal for a modern service framework, in line with the ten year health plan to support system change and drive consistent quality care.

Those recommendations, along with those national level ones from Donna Ockenden, will feed into our plan, and our plan will make sure that women and babies receive safe, compassionate care no matter where they live. But I do not want people to have to wait for the plan to be completed for us to start making progress. And so I am also taking immediate measures in response to Baroness Amos investigation, which I will now set out for the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, in considering Baroness Amos recommendations, the words of a Nottingham mother I met ring loudly in my ears, she said.

Accountability drives action. And so today I can confirm that in response to Baroness Amos recommendations, the government will appoint the first ever maternity and neonatal commissioner. The holder of this new statutory role will have responsibility for driving change across all parts of the NHS, including those who provide, regulate and investigate care. They will co-chair the National Task Force along with me. They will hold the system to account and their role will be to champion the voices of women, babies and families to make sure those voices are heard within government.

When decisions are made and implemented. Madam Deputy Speaker, last week I announced that the government will roll out Martha's rule so that women and their families can demand a second opinion if they feel their concerns are being ignored. That meets a key and familiar concern that the Amos investigation pointed to of women not being listened to as a common factor in maternity failings. And because those concerns are too often batted away before women even arrive at hospital, I can today confirm that we will this week publish new national standards for maternity triage so that care is consistent across the NHS and women's concerns are recognised, valued and acted upon at every turn.

I expect every trust to prioritise the implementation of these standards, and I have asked NHS England to make sure this is the case and to report progress directly to me. Madam Deputy Speaker, some of the starkest examples of racism, discrimination and inequality happen in maternity and neonatal settings, and this is laid bare in the Amos report. The result is that the risks are notably higher for some women and babies. And as Baroness Amos points out, this is a critical safety issue.

Black babies are still more than twice as likely to be stillborn than white babies, and black women have almost three times more likely to die during pregnancy or shortly after birth than white women. Whilst tackling inequalities will be a core component of the National Action Plan, we will make a start straight away by rapidly expanding the roll out of the Perinatal equity and anti-discrimination programme to every trust. All teams will be mandated to receive hands on support, to hear first hand experience and to undertake face to face learning and development programmes.

Every trust would have completed the programme by the end of next year. Madam Deputy Speaker births that are safe for mothers and babies depend on health services. Having skilled, trained midwives, as Baroness Amos rightly identified, staff shortages can have a dangerous impact, with examples of some services forced to delay admissions when they get too busy. Since coming to office, we have recruited 2000 more midwives and last year our graduate guarantee gave 850 more newly qualified midwives an immediate route into the profession.

I can today tell the House that we have created a further 1000 temporary roles to help newly qualified midwives join the NHS. These new posts will be accompanied by investment too, as I can confirm that we are investing an extra £41 million on top of the 145 million already invested to upgrade outdated and run down maternity and neonatal facilities. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, alongside these practical measures comes a far more profound challenge that we must face. It is clear from my conversations with affected families, with Donna Ockenden and Baroness Amos, and from the findings of all the reports that culture is where so much of the responsibility lies, that culture is the most deep rooted cause of the failures we have seen, and the most fundamental thing we must change.

We know that when families have been in distress and looking for answers, they were too often ignored, sneered at, disbelieved, blamed and lied to. We know from review after review that wrongdoing is covered up. We know that bullying towards staff who try to sound the alarm is rife and so we will dismantle toxic dynamics, boost staff morale and support better teamwork between midwives, doctors and other clinicians. We need not only the right policies, procedures and processes to be in place, but also a fundamental reset in the culture of a service that too often puts the desire to protect itself above the duty to protect women and babies.

That culture change must come from the top. It is time that trust leaders, executives and senior clinicians pay attention to what is happening on their watch. Put professional tribalism aside, lose the bunker mentality when things go wrong, and make sure the safety of women and babies always comes first. Madam Deputy Speaker, this has to be a watershed moment. We must break the cycle of recommendations. Sitting on a shelf, gathering dust. We cannot go on having review after review.

And yet women and babies, as well as their fathers and other family members, continue to needlessly suffer injury, death and lasting trauma. We should all feel a responsibility to make sure this opportunity is not squandered. We owe nothing less to every family. The NHS has failed in the past and to every family who will rely on it in the future. I commend this statement to the House.
13:25
Stuart Andrew Portrait Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP (Daventry, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Secretary of State Stuart Andrew. Yes. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and to Baroness Amos and her team for their compassionate work. Again, as I said last week, I pay tribute to the women and families who gave evidence and to the babies at its heart, many revisited the most painful moments of their lives. After years of fighting to be heard, their courage places a responsibility on us all.

Last week, the House confronted Donna Ockenden's devastating findings in Nottingham. Today we face the wider national picture. Successive investigations expose the same failures. Women dismissed, deterioration, missed staff silenced, inequalities unchallenged and leaders failing to learn. The problem is no longer a lack of evidence. It is a failure to act. Donna Ockenden said this morning that, sadly, so much that is in this report is stuff we already knew. And she did raise concerns about waiting until December.

And I do welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has just announced some of the work. It also has to be said that no commissioner alone can fix a system needing action from every level, from the Secretary of State, right down to every ward. Donna Ockenden commands enormous respect, and we should all listen to her because she is right. So I do ask, when will the Leeds and Sussex reviews report, and how will Ministers act on concerns before they conclude, so that families in those areas can see the change that they need as soon as possible? Families should not have to keep proving the scale of harm.

Their testimony must now lead to action. The Birth Trauma Association says the report has overlooked serious injury to women and babies, brain injury to babies. So will the action plan address those harms, and how will families shape and scrutinise it? We welcome the work beginning immediately on triage, discrimination, staffing and urgent estate risks. This is so important that we must get on with that work, but families cannot wait until the end of the year for the wider plan.

Those expecting babies now need reassurance about what will change and when. So many must be anxious, and we all need to do what we can to reassure them. The new triage standards will be published this week by. When must every trust meet them, and will the Secretary of State commit to update the House by either oral or written statements on a trust by trust progress basis? Will the estate's funding include accommodation for parents close to neonatal units so families are not separated from their critically ill babies? Now, we do not oppose a statutory maternity and neonatal commissioner, but Ministers must be clear about the roles, purpose, powers and accountability because just one person cannot bring the change that is needed.

Local leaders have a responsibility too. When will the commissioner be appointed and what will they be able to compel trusts, regulators and national bodies to do? And how, as I say, will local leaders be held accountable when care remains unsafe? The additional midwifery posts are welcome, but temporary roles are not a sustainable workforce plan. Donna Ockenden has warned of rota gaps and staff leaving obstetrics and midwifery. The ten year workforce plan has been promised and delayed and pushed back repeatedly.

So when will it finally be published and will it provide the permanent workforce? These recommendations require? With women having babies later and pregnancies becoming more complex, how will those at higher risk receive early, early specialist care? And again, I agree with the Secretary of State that culture has to change. Listening to women is a clinical duty, not a courtesy. And as I said last week, it is at the core of our safety issues. When concerns are dismissed, warning signs are missed and mothers and babies are put at risk.

That duty must apply equally to every woman. A woman's safety must not depend on her ethnicity, first language, disability, income or ability to fight through the system. Again, as I said last week and here, I want both here and I said to him privately, I say to the Secretary of State that I want us to work together constructively where the government acts with urgency. This with this report and its demands, it will have our full support. We all have a duty and ours is to support these changes.

But women and families will not judge today by new structures, promises or another report. They will judge it by what happens when a woman says something is wrong. Is she heard our warning signs acted on? Is senior help available when needed? Are maternity units safely staffed? Can staff speak without fear, and do families receive honesty and compassion when harm occurs? Are fewer mothers and babies coming to harm? And when decisions are taken, will they fully be fully explained to them? Madam Deputy Speaker, the evidence has been gathered.

Families have told their stories. The system has been warned. Now it must change.
13:31
James Murray Portrait Rt Hon James Murray MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
Yes. raises, but also the tone and approach which he takes. I think we all agreed last week in the statement I gave about Donna Ockenden's report, that this is a responsibility shared by everyone in this House to make sure we deliver real change. So I appreciate his approach on that. He asked about the investigations in Leeds and Sussex, which Donna Ockenden will now be turning her attention to over the rest of this year. I think one point I would like to emphasise to him, I think it might be helpful for the House to understand as well is that in developing a comprehensive action plan through the National Task Force, a framework will be devised so that any recommendations from future reviews can be incorporated into the work of that plan and its implementation.

So we don't have a situation where the plan is developed, and subsequently future reviews come to conclusions and recommendations without a clear way for those conclusions and recommendations to be integrated with the action plan, I hope that gives them some reassurance over the process. He spoke about a recognition of families who have been harmed and babies, and who have grown up into being children and adults, living with the harm of failing to maternity care even when they survived. I feel very conscious of this, not least because of some of the people I've met who sometimes feel forgotten.

They feel their children are forgotten. When we have these conversations, they live with the impact of brain injuries or other issues that arise during during birth. They must not be forgotten, and I will make sure that they are included in the process going forward. He asked about the rollout of the new national triage standards, which will be published this week. NHS England chief executive is meeting with NHS system leaders today to begin the process of making sure those triage standards are rolled out, along with some of the other urgent measures that I've spoken about today.

So whilst it is right to take time to get the comprehensive action plan in place by the end of the year on those measures where we have decided we will progress more quickly. We don't want to waste time by getting on with that. So the NHS England leadership is progressing with that today. And he asked about the the funding I mentioned, which is for critical safety works in the maternity estate. That is important work for the for critical safety measures. Whilst of course, the action plan will set out a more comprehensive approach, not just to the physical infrastructure, but as we've spoken about many times, the culture as well, which is not something you can invest money in in the same way you can physical infrastructure.

But it is something we need to address, and I think we all agree on that. I sense I had agreement from the House when I raised the importance of addressing cultural problems in maternity services. He asked about the responsibility that might be put on the commissioner, being, as they will be just one person, and I would like to reassure him that my vision of this is for the commissioner to play a crucial role, but not on their own. They will co-chair with me the National Task Force.

They will help to make sure the National Action Plan is implemented. They will hold the system to account and crucially, they will be a voice for women within the system. So when decisions are being taken by government in response to the to what I've heard so many times about women being ignored in maternity services, one way of starting to address that is to make sure the commissioner is a voice for them. When decisions are taken and the temporary roles for newly qualified midwives that I mentioned are an immediate step this year to make sure that those newly qualified midwives have a way into the NHS to make a contribution to maternity services.

It will then be funding for. That will then be baselined in future years, and it will be for trusts to decide on a trust by trust basis how the funding is distributed amongst different roles, because it will vary depending on their needs in local areas. He also spoke about the importance of identifying women who are at higher risk because of different circumstances or problems they may face giving birth. That is exactly what I hope the new triage standards will begin to address, because if the triage standards can identify issues earlier before they escalate and make sure that women have the right support quicker, that can give us an opportunity to avoid extra harm, which is avoidable coming to those women by the delay in getting them the right support that they need.

And then finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Shadow Secretary of State closed his remarks by talking again about culture, the need for the change in culture and for the support from the opposition, whilst of course robustly challenging us where appropriate, but supporting the aims of seeking to achieve. And I thank him again for that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I call the next member, I'm just gonna sit down. Three I'm just gonna sit down. Three things I wish to say. Firstly, that the Secretary of State for defence the Secretary of State for defence will commence his statement at 230, so time will be limited. Members may help each other if they are may help each other if they are short questions. Until then, the Macmillan Room in Portcullis House and Committee Room seven are available as reading rooms for the Defence Investment Plan, and the plan will be made available from the moment that the Secretary of State for defence stands up when he begins his statement at 230.
13:37
13:38
James Murray Portrait Rt Hon James Murray MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
Here. State. >> Here. State. >> Well, I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. And let me Friend for his comments. And let me again. Madam Deputy Speaker, put on record my thanks and tribute to him for having initiated the investigation of Baroness Amos published today. I know what a committed champion he's been of change when it comes to maternity services in this country, and I think he is absolutely right, and I couldn't agree with him more when he talks about the importance of accountability for culture change.

Without that accountability, we will not have culture change across maternity services. The culture of cover ups will continue. Senior clinicians will feel they can continue to get away with mistakes when they happen. Senior clinicians will feel they can avoid scrutiny when investigations take place, and they will fundamentally continue, in too many cases, to be more concerned with protecting themselves than protecting women and babies. And so I very much agree with him about the importance of that in terms of what we can do to change that culture.

Culture is deep rooted and requires us to take a number of different actions. But I think the duty of candour is the one single most powerful change we can make. Clearly, loudly, publicly, because the message it will send to senior clinicians thinking about what to do in the future, if they make a mistake, or if they are tempted to cover up things that go wrong in the future, is that one day they will be held to account. And there is no avoiding that because with a duty of candour in place, there will no longer be an opportunity for clinician, senior clinicians in particular, to refuse to engage in that process, to refuse to be held to account, be part of the justice process.

They will. People will face up to two years in prison if they refuse to cooperate. So it is a serious measure, and I very much agree with him on the importance of making sure the Hillsborough law gets on the statute books, so that this duty of candour can apply to future maternity investigations.
13:40
Helen Morgan Portrait Helen Morgan MP (North Shropshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Helen Morgan, thank you. >> Very much. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I also add my thanks to the Secretary of State and to Baroness Amos and her team and the families that have relived the pain of their that have relived the pain of their experience in order to bring about this report today. But the Amos report tells us little that we didn't already know. Indeed, it confirms our worst fears. Maternity services in England are fundamentally broken, with the cost of political neglect being paid in trauma, injury and lost lives.

Figures revealed by the Liberal Democrats in the last week show that the first quarter of 2026 saw the saw the worst rate ever recorded for maternity injuries. In fact, while the number of reviews into NHS maternity services has steadily ticked up, we've also seen rising maternal mortality rates. Now, four years ago, I spoke in this chamber in response to the findings of the Shrewsbury and Telford Review, which were devastating for my own community. And last week I stood here really distressed, actually, as we heard further traumatic reports from the Nottingham Review.

But anger isn't enough. The government must meet this moment now and implement Baroness Amos's recommendations in full and without delay, or the families simply won't forgive them. To do this, we need genuine accountability through the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, accompanied with the investment needed to make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby. Now we welcome the government's commitment to a National Maternity Commissioner, a long standing Liberal Democrat campaign, and also the other urgent and immediate actions that the Secretary of State has outlined in the last week.

They are all urgent and signs of taking this seriously. But we need to recognise that a commissioner alone cannot fix the broken system. So I urge the Secretary of State to work with us and look at our maternity rescue package for inspiration for his action plan. It has a great degree of overlap with Baroness Amos's recommendations. Our package would ensure 1 to 1 midwifery care for every woman in labour, additional senior midwives and obstetrician on every ward, and mandatory updated annual training.

So will the government commit here and now to implement implementing all of those recommendations and working with us to deliver the change we need?
13:42
13:43
13:45
13:46
13:47
James Murray Portrait Rt Hon James Murray MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
Yes. for his comments, and again, I agree with him and my right hon. Friend from Ilford North about the importance of accountability in terms of changing culture. I think when he made a contribution to the statement last week about Donna Ockenden's report, he made a comment around how this is about having accountability structures embedded throughout the system, because this is not something the top of the NHS, the NHS chief executive or the Secretary of State or ministerial team can control throughout the NHS.

The structure has to be embedded to ensure accountability happens at every level, which is something I very much took to heart and agree with in terms of what we need to do next. On his specific point about the the Hillsborough law and how that will address the issue that he refers to about legal departments advising effectively a cover up of what has happened. I'll look into that, because that does sound concerning, and I will look into that as part of our work to make sure this works properly.

And the expectation, with the duty of candour, which will come in under the Hillsborough law, is to make sure that we can never again have a situation, as happened in Nottingham, and I couldn't quite believe it, if I'm honest, when I heard it, about how many senior clinicians simply refused to take part. You know, it is outrageous. It is unacceptable that so many senior clinicians were able to and felt able to just say, no, that is not accountability if it's optional.

And that's what we need to change. And I'll look into the point he raised specifically.
13:49
13:50
13:51
13:52
James Murray Portrait Rt Hon James Murray MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
I thank the hon. Lady, and in describing the role of the Commissioner, I think she's she is right to emphasise that it cannot all be on one person. The commissioner, I think, is a is a vital role, and it being on a statutory basis, will give that position real weight within the system to hold the system to account and help the government to ensure the implementation of the comprehensive National Action Plan. But she is right to say that ultimately, this is something for which accountability has to include the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, because it is a duty that we we all hold as MPs, we hold as a government.

I hold as a Secretary of State and the Prime Minister ultimately will hold that responsibility too. So it's not a in any sense intended to be a passing of responsibility to a Commissioner. The Commissioner role is being established to support the effectiveness of the work we're seeking to do as a government to implement the the National Action Plan. But crucially, when accountable politicians are taking decisions, the commissioner will be a voice for women in the system. Because I have heard so many times about not just in relation to maternity services, also in terms of other parts of healthcare, women, women's voices not being heard, but particularly in terms of maternity services, particularly in terms of when things go wrong and women have concerns and maternity services, their voices are not heard.

And so this commissioner will be a way of making sure those voices are right at the very heart of decision making.
13:53
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
Florence Eshalomi Madam Deputy Speaker and I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for making this statement this making this statement this afternoon. I also want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness Amos for the work and care and dedication they've taken in this report, and to the many women who came forward with their with their testimonies. And I think back to just over nine years ago when I was giving birth to my second son and the concerns that I raised.

And to think that nine years on, women are still being dismissed, women are still not being listened to, women are still being silenced when they raise those valid concerns. But I also do want to pay tribute to the hard work and midwifery team at Saint Thomas's Hospital across the river, who who continue to care for many women and and and to highlight the maternity Commission led by Councillor Evelyn Akoto and the work of organisations like Five Times More. Many organisations that continue to expose some of the issues faced by black and minority ethnic women.

We also have to highlight the concerns of black minority ethnic staff, who are in some cases told that they do not want to be served and they do not want to be helped. Can the Secretary of State outline when this real action plan will come through, in terms of the accountability that many others have raised, in terms of making sure that the doctors and clinicians do actually listen to these women?
13:55
13:56
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
13:58
13:58
13:59
14:00
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:04
14:05
14:06
14:07
14:08
14:09
14:10
14:11
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:16
14:17
14:18
14:19
14:19
14:20
14:21
14:22
14:23
14:24
14:24
14:25
14:26
14:26
14:27
14:27
14:28
14:28
14:29
14:30
14:35
Dan Jarvis Portrait Rt Hon Dan Jarvis MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
year is now 20 billion, more than the last year of the previous government means. By the end of this decade, the proportion of GDP this decade, the proportion of GDP spent on defence will now be higher than at any time during the last 30 than at any time during the last 30 years. Now we have made some difficult but necessary decisions to fund this, but our fiscal rules to fund this, but our fiscal rules are being upheld and day to day spending on services has been spending on services has been protected.

All departments were asked to contribute 1% of their capital budgets from this year, while those with larger resources, the DfT roads, Budget and DESNZ were asked to make further contributions. Full day full details will be set out in a written ministerial statement today and to reinforce this additional investment, this Labour government is announcing a new 50 billion defence export facility to support British defence firms to go out and win contracts across the globe. More money matters. Of course it does, but so do the choices we make on how to spend it.

And so I have taken the decision to reprioritise a further billion within the plan to ensure that it better reflects the way that war is waged today. It will provide our service personnel with the capabilities they need to deter and fight now and in the years ahead. The war in Ukraine has seen battlefield technology advance faster than at any time in our history, and few have done more to ensure our armed forces kept pace than my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak.

I thank him for his service and for the work that he did as a Minister. He will know artificial intelligence, autonomy and uncrewed systems are no longer capabilities of the future, and through this dip, they will now receive the sustained investment that reflects their strategic importance. So today we commit the UK's largest ever investment in drone warfare, £5 billion for strike protector and surveillance drones across the Royal Navy, the Army and the RAF anti-submarine vessels, uncrewed ground vehicles and fighter jets.

A new uncrewed systems task force to rapidly develop and field new autonomous capabilities and funding for Europe's biggest drone testing site, the Uncrewed Systems Centre in Swindon, which I opened on my very first day in the job, a project which owes thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North. We will also invest nearly £2 billion to integrate our armed forces through a new digital targeting web, underpinned by the most advanced AI and software, cutting the time from decision to strike faster than ever before.

100 million for the defence AI Task Force, and another 115 million to raise our defences against the threats from AI. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be reckless to ignore the lessons from Ukraine, but it is important to remember that we are not Ukraine. We are a member of NATO and a nuclear power. And just in this year, our armed forces have been deployed to the High North and the Middle East. They are now readying themselves for the prospect of regenerating Ukraine's forces and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

All the while, they protect our island home and retain the ability to respond to crises in dangerous and distant lands. Britain needs a flexible, hybrid integrated, high, low force that can deter and fight across every domain. It's why we're committing 8.6 billion to the G cap programme, proudly in partnership with our allies Japan and Italy, this next generation stealth fighter jet, in addition, is in addition to the 1.1 billion typhoon upgrade and will ensure that our RAF retains control of the skies.

We will invest 26 billion to fund the most extensive naval base upgrades for nearly half a century, including at Faslane, Portsmouth and Devonport. 790 million to protect the UK homeland and our overseas bases from air, drone and missile threats. 11 billion for munitions and weapons to increase UK stockpiles, including long range strike capabilities, low cost cruise missiles and one way effectors. And by 2030 we will build at least six new energetics factories. Madam Deputy Speaker, today we commit £64 billion to fund Dreadnought and Aukus submarines, a new warhead and other crucial nuclear work.

Our independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantee of our security and in providing the funding to renew it, we extend that promise long into the future. We will also purchase F-35as and join NATO's nuclear mission because our security is now contested in every domain, we will invest over £3 billion in space capabilities, £2.5 billion in cyber and £400 million to protect our undersea cables and pipelines. But Madam Deputy Speaker, in the end, it is our people who win wars and preserve peace.

With three above inflation pay rises, extending childcare provision and putting fully into law the Armed Forces Covenant. This Labour government has demonstrated its commitment to what matters most, building on the work already done to fix 1200 of the worst homes, we today commit 9 billion over a decade to raise the condition of military family housing to a standard which matches the service and sacrifice of those living in them through a new defence housing service. We will implement the Defence Housing Strategy in full, fulfilling our moral obligation to personnel and to their families.

The Dip represents significant progress in implementing the vision set out in our Strategic Defence Review. We will invest more, target better, but there is much more work to be done and not for nothing. The UK made a promise to our allies as they did to us 3.5 by 35 and in a more dangerous world, our commitment to NATO is absolute. I gave my word to the Secretary General and to all our allies. That promise will be met, and a credible plan will be produced to ensure that it is.

We will reach 3% in the next Parliament, with funding set out at the next spending Review, in which defence will be the number one priority. Britain has always met our NATO spending commitments and under this government we always will. Britain has always stood with our allies and under this government we always will. This plan accelerates deep precision strike weapons and close support artillery. With Germany. It creates an amphibious combined fleet with the Netherlands. We will also invite Jeff Nations to join our Northern Navies initiative and build a hybrid force together.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I now have a responsibility to make this plan work, not least given what Cabinet colleagues have foregone from their budgets in order to support mine my commitment to them, and indeed the British public, is that with the requirement to spend more on defence comes a duty to spend more wisely on defence. So this plan includes a pledge to make substantial savings by the end of this Parliament, as well as a commitment to drive down fraud and error across defence.

I am grateful to our partners in industry for their counsel and for their support during this process. I know that recent months have not been easy, but with the dip now published, I am relying on the full spectrum of our industrial base to make it a success. Primes and SMEs, workers and trade unions, innovators and investors. Together, we will ensure the benefits of this plan will be felt right across the United Kingdom. We will develop sovereign and dual use technologies, increase exports, generate growth and reindustrialise our economy.

And today, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to confirm that with the publication of the dip comes the promise of greater security for families and new opportunities for our people. According to MoD analysis, this plan will support nearly 60,000 additional good and skilled jobs right across our union. This will be achieved alongside a culture shift in procurement. Madam Deputy Speaker, ultimately, the success of this Defence Investment Plan will be measured by whether it commands the support of those amazing men and women who serve in our armed forces.

They remain our most important asset, respected by those who stand with us, feared by those who stand against us. We know that they are equal to any task. And with this defence investment plan, we give them the means to match their courage. I commend this statement to the House.
14:45
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Secretary of State. It is good form to let the speaker's office. form to let the speaker's office. No one is going to speak over the allocated time. I will now have to give extra time to the other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give extra time to the other frontbenchers as well. Shadow Secretary of State James Cartlidge. Yeah, yeah yeah yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement? Madam Deputy Speaker, after months

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and months of delay, finally. We have the Defence Investment Plan, but it's quite simply a case Plan, but it's quite simply a case of too little, too late, too little, because there's virtually no more because there's virtually no more cash than the plan which led the previous Secretary of State to resign because he believed it would make the country, and, I quote, make the country, and, I quote, less safe, too late. Not just because the plan is months overdue, but also because much of the capability capability it contains won't be in service until the 2030s, when the threat we face is right now, for members opposite who don't agree that this plan is too little, they don't need to take my word for it.

The chief of the defence staff said he needed £28 billion to fund the armed forces over the next four years. This plan is barely half that requirement, and their own Secretary of State for defence, until a few weeks ago, said that the proposed spending, and I quote, falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time because he said, and I quote, it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030 2.68% of GDP.

Madam Deputy Speaker, can I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that the GDP figure for defence in 2030, under his revised plan, remains unchanged 2.68%? Which begs the obvious question if 2.68% by 2030 was a resigning matter for the previous defence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

secretary, why is it good enough for him? Yes. But this dip is not just too

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But this dip is not just too little. Financially. It's too late for members opposite who don't agree. They should remember that it agree. They should remember that it was promised for last autumn and is now ten months overdue. Most now ten months overdue. Most importantly, the drones Labour promised in today's headlines mainly enter service in the 2030s mainly enter service in the 2030s when the threat we face is today autonomous drones to fly with the Apache uncrewed surface and underwater vessels.

The prototype for the RAF's autonomous fighter jet, all entering service in the 2030s. Far too late in this fast changing world of tech driven warfare. On that subject, it was ironic that the Prime Minister announced the dip at Malloy Aeronautics in Maidenhead, where I also launched the MoD's first ever defence drone strategy back in February 2024. But back then we were world leaders in drone warfare, having supplied Ukraine with cutting edge drone capabilities that were not on a press release, but real kit used on a real front line against Europe's peer military threat, the Russian armed forces.

So what happened? Labour came to power and put all that progress on hold, paralysing procurement whilst we waited first for the Strategic Defence review and then for the dip. But the big question why all the dither and delay? In a word, money isn't the harsh truth that those drones could come into service far sooner, but the government are unwilling to commit the cash before the 2030s. Yes. Isn't this the inevitable result of a Prime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister unwilling to cut welfare, prioritising a bigger benefits bill over properly funding defence? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Which begs the next question, Madam Deputy Speaker, where's the right hon. Member for Makerfield in right hon. Member for Makerfield in all this? Where is it? Can the Secretary of State tell us if the putative Prime Minister has been putative Prime Minister has been consulted on the dip? And most importantly, has he given it his blessing? If not, is the dip even worth the paper it's written on? Madam Deputy Speaker, it is rumoured that the current Prime Minister may have ambitions to be the next Secretary general of NATO.

If this is true, might it have been advisable to include in the dip a funded plan to get to 3% on defence? So can the Secretary of State tell us in which financial year Labour will spend 3% on defence? And finally, for all the focus on drones, our people remain our most important capability, not just our regular personnel, our reserves and their families, but our cadets and our veterans. Now, I was proud to make the decision to buy back the defence estate from Annington a deal the previous leader, the previous Labour government, left untouched.

But given that, I thought we all wanted to deliver homes for heroes. Madam Deputy Speaker. Can he confirm it's a. It's a critical question. It's about the accommodation of those who serve our country. Can he confirm that the Defence Investment Plan includes cutting hundreds of millions of pounds from the Budget for forces housing, shifting it from this Parliament into the 2030s? Can you confirm that's the case? And can he confirm that he is also cutting cadet funding at the same time and over the same time period? Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker on Veterans, and I hope he's had a chance to think about this after my previous question.

Does he agree that a top priority for the new Prime Minister must be to back our former soldiers and scrap the Northern Ireland troubles? Yes, yes. To conclude, after months of dither and delay, it's taken the sudden end of his premiership for the Prime Minister to finally publish the dip in a desperate search for a legacy. But it's a legacy of failure, an underfunded defence investment plan, too little, too late. The men and women of our armed forces deserve much better.
14:50
Dan Jarvis Portrait Rt Hon Dan Jarvis MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, Defence Secretary talks about legacy. So let me remind him that under the previous government, the previous government cut back by almost 55000 our service personnel, the morale of our troops was the morale of our troops was through the floor. 46 of the biggest 52 projects were delayed or over Budget, and there was an equipment plan without the funding to back it up. I'm also, I have to say, quite perplexed, that he wants to raise concerns about the announcement that we've made with regard to drones.

We've just literally announced the largest ever investment in drones in our country's history. And when he gets the time, I know because he will want to to look carefully at the detail. He will see that over the past two weeks, we've reprioritised activity in order to bring forward spend so that we can deliver operational capability sooner than otherwise would be the case. He did mention housing, and I understand why he would want to raise that, because housing is hugely important for defence and for the armed forces community, and I know what it's like to live in armed forces accommodation.

And I said in my earlier remarks that we absolutely have a moral responsibility to those who serve to ensure that we are able to provide them with the best possible living accommodations. That is why we have recommitted today to £9 billion of investment over the next ten years. That will see investment in the housing estate growing each year in real terms over the next ten years. That is an absolute commitment that we've made today. He also mentioned, and I understand again, why he chose to do so, the importance of cadet forces, all of us in our constituencies will no doubt engage with cadet forces.

They are an absolute force for good in communities around the country, and that is why we've made a clear commitment to continue to invest and modernise in our cadet forces, to continue to improve outstanding opportunities for young people. He asked specifically about the percentage of GDP that we will be spending on defence. I would just gently point out to him that when we came into government two years ago, we inherited a figure of 2.3%. That was the figure that we inherited.

It's currently at 2.5% and will be at 2.7 by the end of this Parliament, with a clear commitment to spend 3% in the next parliament and an absolute critical commitment to spend 3.5% by 2035, that the member opposite will have heard the points that I made about the importance of defence spending and the commitment that this government has made to ensuring that defence spending is the number one priority at the next spending review.
14:53
14:54
14:55
James MacCleary Portrait James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson James McCleary. James McCleary. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for advance. Sight of his statement advance. Sight of his statement will be 14 months late, and one defence secretary later. The Liberal Democrats welcome investment in technologies reshaping warfare in Ukraine and beyond. Our armed forces must be more agile and better equipped to the threats we face. But let us be clear this defence investment plan is too little, too late. After years of conservative neglect, Britain needed a government willing to match the scale of the challenge.

Instead, we've had months of delay, and now a plan that still appears to have a significant gap between the ambition and the resources required is hugely concerning. To see how little in particular is allocated to air defence. Hundreds of millions short of what was recommended in the Strategic Defence Review, inadequate to protect our islands and indeed our allies. The Prime Minister himself has warned that Russia could pose a direct threat to NATO by 2030. Yet the architects of the Strategic Defence Review, General Sir Richard Barrons and former Labour defence secretary, NATO Secretary general Lord Robertson have both made clear that the current funding is not enough.

Just weeks ago, the Defence Secretary resigned because he believed the funding settlement offer was not sufficient to keep Britain safe. The new settlement does not bridge that gap, and yet the new defence Secretary claims it is enough. Yeah, so were both the experts and the former Defence secretary wrong about this, or does the Defence Secretary truly believe this is enough funding to keep Britain safe? Liberal Democrats have welcomed plans to sort out the sorry state of forces housing. So it is really concerning to hear reports that funding is being found by raiding existing defence budgets, including for military housing.

If that is true, what message does the Secretary of State have for serving personnel and their families still living in mouldy homes? Is this genuinely new investment or simply moving money from one overstretched Budget to another? Madam Deputy Speaker, the last thing our armed forces and defence industry need is more uncertainty between delays to the dip, a change of defence Ministers and now a new Prime Minister incoming. They have already dealt with a lot. It is reported that the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who looks certain to become the Prime Minister in the coming weeks, is sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat plan for defence bonds, despite the Prime Minister appearing to rule it out in his speech today.

Can the Secretary of State confirm whether defence bonds are at least under consideration to provide the injection of funding our armed forces so desperately.
14:58
Dan Jarvis Portrait Rt Hon Dan Jarvis MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Need. >> Secretary of State? >> I would just gently say to the hon. Member opposite that when his party was in coalition government with the Conservative Party, defence was cut by 22%. So we're defence was cut by 22%. So we're all judged by our record and by the actions that we take. And today's defence investment plan represents a real terms increase in defence spending by. He can shake his head, but it is a statement of truth that this plan, which represents 298 billion of investment over the next four years, represents an increase in real terms by 27% by 2019 2030.

He spoke about housing. I hope that he heard the words that I spoke earlier about the absolute commitment to our armed forces to make sure that they've got a standard of accommodation that is absolutely fitting for the nature of the service that they undertake. That's why we've made a commitment of £9 billion over ten years. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remember living in armed forces accommodation that hadn't Been properly maintained. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been properly maintained. We have a duty and a responsibility to do so. And that's why we're investing a very significant amount of money. He spoke about defence bonds. Of course, we will look at all suggestions that people have about how we can do things differently. But in the end, all of this money has to be accounted for this money has to be accounted for and we have to be responsible in terms of bringing forward a defence investment plan that is properly costed.

That is what we have done. We have brought forward very significant amounts of resource. But he said that I claimed it was enough. I think that's slightly unfair of him to characterise my earlier remarks in that regard. I am crystal clear about the fact that today represents a massive investment in our armed forces and in our technology that they will be deploying and employing. But that is not to say that we don't need to do more. We do need to do more. And that's precisely why I made the point that we need defence spending to be the number one priority at the next spending review.
15:00
15:00
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:05
Dan Jarvis Portrait Rt Hon Dan Jarvis MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> Mr. Speaker. I'm grateful to the chair of the Select Committee for the scrutiny that I know that he will apply to this important piece will apply to this important piece of work. He reeled off a number of different capabilities, and I'm very happy to discuss those with him in more detail. The essence of him in more detail. The essence of his question was seeking an assurance that I will commit to fight for the funding that defence needs. Of course I will give him that commitment.

It is my job now to make sure that we've got the resources that we need, to feel the kind of capabilities required to keep our country safe at a point of great challenge. That does involve working very closely with our NATO allies. That does involve providing them with the certainty of our long term commitment towards defence funding, and it will require us to show a trajectory to the 3.5% commitment that we have made. He's also right to raise the point about backing Britain.

The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, another ministerial colleagues have been absolutely clear that whilst, of course, we need to provide additional resource in order to provide the capabilities we need, but we also need to do that in a way which ensures that we are best able to grow our economy and create and sustain good, well-paid defence jobs right around the United Kingdom. That is an absolute priority for me, and I give him an assurance that we will work closely with him on it.
15:06
15:07
Dan Jarvis Portrait Rt Hon Dan Jarvis MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Well. >> Well. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman knows that I always listen very carefully to what he has to say, not least because he has to say, not least because he talks a lot of good sense on these matters. And I remember over many years him being sat on this side of years him being sat on this side of the house. Me sat on that side of the house listening to the case that he has made over a very long period of time for investment in defence, including defence, investment in nuclear.

And I know, therefore, that he will welcome the 63 billion over the next four years to strengthen the UK's nuclear deterrent. He has spoken with great consistency on these matters over many, many years. He is right to say that there is still work to do in order to point the trajectory to to 3.5%. I think today is a very significant step forward in terms of providing additional resource and additional capability. The 298 billion is a very significant commitment by this government.

When we came into office two years ago, the percentage of GDP was at 2.3%. We have increased that. We're on a trajectory to increase it over the next few years, and we need to make sure that through the next spending review process, we've got the resource that I think most honourable and right hon. Members agree that we now need to chart that course to 3.5%. That is an absolute commitment that we will honour, and we will work closely with our NATO allies in order to do so.
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
Dan Jarvis Portrait Rt Hon Dan Jarvis MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State. >> Secretary of State. >> I'm grateful to him, not least for the work that he does on the Intelligence and Security Committee Intelligence and Security Committee and his previous service in the department. So I take very seriously the points that he's made, and he's right to highlight the and he's right to highlight the nature of the threats that we face as a country. That's why, in addition to the work that we're doing with defence, it's incredibly important that we ensure that activity is joined up across government to ensure that wider resilience and that wider societal response.

And that is work under way with the Cabinet Office. He did make a point about uncertainty with regard to industry. The truth of the matter is that the publication of this plan today will ensure that there is greater certainty for our industry partners, who we now want to work closely with. We rely on them to be able to manufacture the capabilities that we require to keep our country safe. This is a big shot in the arm for UK industries, and I look forward to working very closely with the defence industries in the months and years to come, in order to make sure that we are buying British, that we are taking their capabilities and deploying them to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meet the nature of the threat that we face. Sir Desmond Swayne what. Year will we reach?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

3%? Secretary of State in the next
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:15
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Portrait Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Clapham and Brixton Hill, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the Prescription of Palestine action last year, I've received hundreds of emails from constituents concerned by this constituents concerned by this decision. The arrest for actions as minor as holding a sign, and the wider chilling effect on protest rights. I'm on record as opposing rights. I'm on record as opposing the prescription. I was a Tellers for the noes, so my position is well documented, with the Court of Appeal upholding it this month.

Much more correspondence has followed, and I'm genuinely unsure whether I can even explain why I held this view at the time without breaking the law. A written question I tabled gave little clarity, simply citing the Terrorism Act 2000, which makes it an offence to express support for a proscribed organisation. If I write to them and they post my letter online. Did I break the law? Did they break the law? Did we both break the law? Madam Deputy Speaker, there is something deeply wrong here.

I can stand in this chamber or write a letter. Words that might see a constituent arrested for putting on a placard. If an MP cannot say without confidence what is lawful? What hope does a member of the public have? Can you advise how MPs can get a clear guidance on what we can and cannot say about Palestine action, especially since the Secretary of State can't seem to. Particularly where, as in my case, I would simply be citing a matter of record.
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
None Portrait Ten Minute Rule Motion: Child savings accounts (mental capacity and disability)
-

Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to make provision about
16:19
John Milne Portrait John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
access to matured child savings accounts in the name of a young person who lacks capacity, and to person who lacks capacity, and to require that the Secretary of State review savings provisions for children and young people with children and young people with disabilities, including those who lack capacity and for connected purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to tell you about a family when Mikey Turner was born. His when Mikey Turner was born. His parents did what so many parents do they save for him not much.

A little here, a little there because they love their son and they wanted to give him the best chance in life. They put money into a child trust fund. The government savings account that existed for children born between 2002 and 2011, topped up with £500 of public money as a foundation for every child's future. But what they didn't know at the time was that Mikey would grow up to have profound disabilities. He lacks the mental capacity to manage money independently, and so when his Child Trust Fund matured on his 18th birthday, something absurd happened the money his family had saved for him because of him, out of love for him, became, in effect, locked away.

His parents, who have cared for Mikey every single day of his life, who were recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions as his appointees who manage his benefits, who make decisions on his behalf. Those parents were told they could not practically access their own child's savings account. Instead, they were pointed towards the Court of Protection. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Court of Protection exists for good reason. But for a family seeking access to a few thousand pounds saved in their own child's account, it is a process that can take over a year, cost hundreds of pounds in fees, require lengthy medical assessments and demand a level of legal navigation and sophistication that would daunt even the most confident of us.

For a family already stretched by the daily demands of caring for a severely disabled child, it is frankly an injustice. Mikey's father, Andrew Turner, is my constituent. It's six years since Mikey's 18th birthday, and for all that time, Andrew has campaigned on this issue both for himself and for all the other affected families. In that time, he has had to make his case ten different times to ten different justice Ministers, seven conservative and three Labour. Perhaps another coming soon, I hope not.

Such is the churn in ministerial positions. One family and contact have supported him throughout, and I want to thank Oonagh Summerson and Maria Scully at contact for everything they have contributed together. Andrew, the industry and campaigners have brought this bill before the House and the strength of support across Parliament speaks for itself. Andrew is far from being the only case. There are an estimated 80,000 disabled young children who are young people who are already facing, or who will face this same barrier, and that number can only grow because junior ISAs, the successor to child trust funds, will begin maturing before the end of this decade.

Junior ISAs have the same fatal flaw. Some of those children will also, sadly grow up to be able, unable to manage their affairs. Taking no action means we will be watching this injustice repeat itself. But at even greater scale. And there's an extra twist to this, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of these families have been told that while the money itself remains accessible to them, its existence can disqualify their child from any entitlement to benefits. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

This is a scandal that must not be allowed to continue. These are not families trying to access large estates or complex financial portfolios. They are parents who have saved a few hundred or a few thousand pounds because they believed in their child's future. And I also stress this is not a demand for government compensation. This is their own money. What makes this so frustrating is that a solution already exists. A number of financial institutions one family nationwide, Santander and Forresters Financial, already operate their own processes using evidence of DWP appointees and appropriate safeguards to release these funds to families.

They have helped thousands of families across. Access millions of pounds, but they need a proper legal framework without which not every financial institution is willing to take part. I do want to acknowledge that Ministers and officials are engaging seriously with this issue. A meeting has been convened for the 8th of July, bringing together government, the finance industry, charities and campaigners to work towards a solution. And that is very welcome, and I want to particularly recognise the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green, who, during her time on this brief was a real champion for Andrew and for families like his.

I'm also very glad that the noble Lady Minister, who now holds the brief, has continued that work and understands that this issue is not going to go away. But engagement is not legislation. Warm words, however sincerely meant, will not unlock a savings account. So this bill asks for something straightforward. It asks government to establish a clear, proportionate and statutory route so that a parent in Horsham gets the same answer from their bank as a parent in Harrogate. It asks that protection should not become prevention.

And it asks for a review of wider savings provision for disabled children, because the principle at stake that disabled young people should be able to save on equal terms, as the rest of us matters beyond this one scheme. Madam Deputy Speaker. Andrew Turner has fought for six years for his son Mikey, and he's far from the only one. Claire Stockton waited more than a year and navigated a complex court process, all for the sake of a modest £1,000 saving belonging to her disabled child.

And another parent, Michelle Creed, was able to access the savings but has been obliged to take on the responsibility and bureaucracy of ongoing financial deputyship. This is crazy. The Child Trust Fund is a daughter's only asset. Only the most skilful and determined families will ever find their way through this legal quagmire. Madam Deputy Speaker, I respect the high level of protection afforded to trust funds. I understand that senior lawyers are reluctant to make an exception, even in a case like this, and that this reluctance has frustrated ten Ministers in succession so far.

But this is not, and I repeat, it's not the government's money. It's their money. When Andrew first approached a lawyer for help, he was told that all he could do was to wait for Mikey to die, and then he could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

access the fund. Absolutely unacceptable. Absolutely outrageous. These are families who have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These are families who have already been caring for their disabled child at great personal sacrifice for 18 years. By the time sacrifice for 18 years. By the time they realised they can't access the fund. The mere suggestion that the parents might then abuse their parents might then abuse their position and spend the money on themselves is appalling. Yet that is the implied position of the law. Thousands of families are waiting. The solutions are before us. The industry is ready.

The cross-party support is here. What is needed now is for the government to act, not to review further, not to consult again. If it does need legislation, legislation, let this bill be it. I know the chances of a ten minute rule bill making it into legislation are vanishingly slim, but the government can make it happen if it wishes. The families have waited long enough. I commend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill to the House. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Ed Davey and myself, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ed Davey and myself, Madam Deputy Speaker. Child Child saving Accounts, Mental. Capacity and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disability Bill. Second Reading. What day? Friday 29th of January.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 29th of January. Friday the 29th of January 2027.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 29th of January 2027. We now come to the motion on the estimate for the Department for culture, Media and Sport. I call culture, Media and Sport. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is, as on formally. The question is, as on the Order Paper, the debate will be opened by the chair of the culture, Media and Sport Committee, Dame Caroline Dinenage. Before I call Dame Caroline. There will be an immediate three minute time limit on backbench contributions.

Dame Caroline Dinenage.
16:29
16:30
Caroline Dinenage Portrait Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (Gosport, Conservative)
-
-
theme that has gripped this government from day one plenty of words, but no action to back it up. Madam Deputy Speaker or, as some might say, all mouth and no trousers. Nowhere is that clearer trousers. Nowhere is that clearer than on funding. We recommend increasing the share of government expenditure on sport and recreation expenditure on sport and recreation over time, in recognition of the very clear evidence that investment in activity delivers long term in activity delivers long term savings, reduces illness, supports people into work, prevents chronic conditions and strengthens local economies.

Following the publication of the committee's report, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government announced over £1 billion for school sport. It looked like a statement of the kind of ambition that we would like to see across the sector, and we nearly patted ourselves on the back for influencing this remarkable investment. However, given a closer look, this glossy announcement is no gift at all. It's a cynical cut, designed and disguised as new funding. School week published an article yesterday which found that 65% of schools in the North East are expecting to make cuts to their coaching staff as a result.

Part of the reason for this cut is the reduction in the contribution from the Department of Health and Social Care and the replacement of the PE and sport premium, with money that must now go to secondary schools as well as primary schools. Now, I have a feeling that the Minister will attempt to say that schools are receiving more money for PE and sport when she responds to this in a minute, but is simply not the case. It is smoke and mirrors.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we were pleased with the £400 million for grassroots funding, which was called for in our report, but there needs to be a really concerted effort to ensure the funding achieves what it sets out to do. So we also called for an audit of sport and physical activity facilities to make sure that we weren't losing them. And this danger is real, especially as the government still not ruled out removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. So is the government tracking the number of sports pitches and facilities, or does it have any plans to.

The second pillar of our recommendations was clarity. Clarity of leadership, of accountability, of deliverability. And because without a coherent national plan, even significant investment risks being fragmented and unrealised. And that's why we called for a cross-government strategy backed by clear objectives, defined responsibilities, and mechanisms to measure progress. The government tells us that a national plan for physical activity is in development, but there's no firm deadline. There's no detailed governance model, no clear indication of how departments will be held accountable or words no action.

Madam Deputy Speaker on issue after another, the government agreed in principle to a number of our recommendations but declined to act decisively, like with the recommendation of a statutory duty on local authorities to provide sporting and leisure facilities and action to remove unnecessary no ball games signs. It's warm words but zero grip. And in schools where the case for action is perhaps clearest of all, we see that the provision the provision is follows the same pattern. The government accepts that provision is inconsistent.

It acknowledges the importance of high quality PE and regular activity. But when presented with the opportunity to set out clear national expectations, it steps back. There is no requirement for children to achieve 60 minutes of activity every day, only encouragement. There is no firm mandate guaranteeing two hours of PE each week, only an expectation that schools might protect time and physical education itself will remain outside the core curriculum subjects. Despite its central importance to children's development. A truly transformative approach would embed movement throughout the school, throughout the curriculum, throughout the environment and throughout our culture, ensuring that all children, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to live active lives.

Because active children Madam Deputy Speaker become active adults outside of school, the Secretary of State has made her National Youth Strategy the poster child of her tenure. She came to Parliament to tell us that she was giving young people something to do, somewhere to go, and someone who cares. A strategy backed by £500 million Madam Deputy Speaker, which again sounds like a hugely significant investment to me. But look again at the detail. And this isn't the investment you think it is.

It's the amalgamation of the scrapped Youth Investment Fund and the scrap National Citizen Service. Less money is going into the system, although the National Citizen Service no doubt had its flaws, it was the most successful youth programme of the past few decades. Over a million young people took part funding streams that used to be clear. Now it's a convoluted pick and mix of over nine different programmes. It's more difficult for civil society to navigate the fragmented selection of funding pots. Meanwhile, the speed of the closure of the National Citizen Service meant that some of the incredibly skilled and dedicated youth workers on who we rely and who the government will rely when they finally decide what they're going to do.

For young people have left the workforce, how many have left the sector due to delays and uncertainty around the delivery of the National Youth Strategy? Does the Minister know? Perhaps she can tell me. And volunteering, Madam Deputy Speaker, is an essential foundation of community sport. The government recognises its importance, but stops once again by setting out a comprehensive national policy to support, incentivise and sustain the workforce. There's nothing there. The valued volunteer workforce is needed more than ever before, but it's under incredible pressure.

People are dropping out because of the time priorities, coping with the cost of living demands. And there is one further example that speaks volumes about the government's approach the questions of women's football broadcasting. The committee recommended an intervention to explore whether the 3 p.m. Saturday blackout could be adapted to support the women's game. This would give a consistent time for showcasing the women's game, and would inspire girls to get active. The government's response points to the technical complexities of the UEFA article 48, and argues that any change would risk opening up the slot more widely and thereby undermining its current purpose.

It's all too difficult, Madam Deputy Speaker. We just can't be bothered. Where is the ambition to work proactively with UEFA and the FA to pursue a targeted exemption for women's football? Why? Why are the 3 p.m. blackout continues? Women's football is shackled and with it, the opportunity for more women and girls to see themselves participating in sport. Madam Deputy Speaker, an active population is a healthier, more productive and more connected population, increasing participation in sport and physical activity is one of the most powerful and cost effective levers of government.

It delivers returns across multiple policy areas, simultaneously, easing pressure on public services and improving quality of life. The question is not whether the government recognises these investments. It plainly does. The question is whether it's prepared to act with any type of urgency, ambition that this evidence demands. Without any ambition, we will continue to fall short of what's possible. Madam Deputy Speaker, the culture, Media and Sport Committee has set out a roadmap. It's quite easy for the Secretary, for the Secretary of State, for the Minister and for the Department to follow.

What we now need is the government not simply to endorse this sense of direction, but to actually match their words with decisive action. Speaker.
16:37
Vicky Foxcroft Portrait Vicky Foxcroft MP (Lewisham North, Labour)
-
-
Young people are our future. >> Writers. >> Sports people. Physiotherapists or whatever. >> They want. >> To be. >> The laws. Policies and funding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The laws. Policies and funding that we put forward must help in building their future. We must building their future. We must invest in them, inspire them, and give them the tools and skills for their future. So they have the confidence and resilience to deal with whatever life throws at them. Decent access to youth services and sporting activities is an integral part of this. Almost 1 million of our young people are not in education and employment. Your youth unemployment is also strongly linked to social and economic inequality.

I spoke many times about the reasons why I set up the Youth Violence Commission soon after I was first elected in 2015, five of my young constituents were murdered in quick succession, the commission gathered evidence from academics, youth workers, educators and most importantly, young people themselves. It shows how so many different factors influence a young person's life. Some were more immediately obvious, such as their schooling, health, housing situation and relationship with their family. But our work also really brought home the power of sport, youth services and the arts to inspire and motivate our young people, as well as offer them a safe place to go.

And I'm not just talking about the activities themselves, but also the interventions that happen alongside them. To give one brief example, there was a boxing club in my constituency called Double Jab. While young people might initially go to learn how to train and box, they are also offered mentorship and guidance on how to navigate life's challenges. Strong mentors trusted adults can deliver a change in attitude and someone on the path to do a better future. Access to sport and youth activities along with culture improves our whole variety of outcomes, but government must go further with its ambitions.

Culture, media and sport. Sport are not just a nice to have a tag on to other stuff. They must be at the heart of everything. We need a public health approach for all of government to work together on. A cross-departmental strategy, led from DCMS and focussed on the right outcomes for our young people. And if we can get this right, if we can meet our ambitions for every single young person, I'm sure that the colleagues in the Treasury will also be delighted to know it has potential to result in significant

**** Possible New Speaker ****

savings down the line. Shockat Adam thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. I recently read Viktor Frankl's Man's Search. For meaning. Which is a real powerful account of life in in a concentration camp. There's a real poignant piece in that book where poignant piece in that book where victims and concentration camp prisoners were talking to each other at the end of the day, when other at the end of the day, when they could barely keep their eyes open, but would go and witness a sunset because of the beauty of
16:40
Shockat Adam Portrait Shockat Adam MP (Leicester South, Independent)
-
-
that sunset, would bring out something in them to keep them going for the very next day. And the reason I talk about this is the the reason I talk about this is the importance of art in its shape, in any shape or form, which can really help our young people and those who help our young people and those who are looking for improvement from their ill health. It is something that creative arts for young people that creative arts for young people is routinely treated as discretionary spending.

Nice if there's money left over but expendable the moment there is in. expendable the moment there is in. And I want to pay homage to the hon. Member of Stroud, who has done a lot of work on this and recently had a round table where he showed that ill health currently cost the UK economy £212 billion a year, with 2.8 million people out of work due to long term sickness. However, arts and health interventions are estimated to return up to £8.56 in social value for every £1 spent.

And we also know that poor mental health costs the economy an estimated £300 billion annually. Conversely, cultural engagement for 18 to 30 year olds show an average wellbeing benefit of £854 per person. The social prescribing evidence tells the same story in cash terms, where they found that reductions in GP attendances, hospital admissions and A&E attendances could represent around a £4 saving for every £1 spent on link workers salary in 2023. Creative Health Review found that the problem is in lack of evidence.

The problem is fragmented funding and because of that, I would like to just quickly pay homage to some organisations in my city who are really utilising arts to improve the mental health of young people and improve recovery for those that are that are unwell. For example, the Shine programme, launched by the Curve Theatre in partnership with the Randall Foundation since October last year, has brought drama based sessions into five of Leicester city centre schools, reaching 250 teenagers. In some of our most disadvantaged communities.

The early findings from Doctor Lindsay Bakewell at DMU are striking. Every student involved has reported doing something that had never done before, and teachers have reported an increase in student resilience across the board. One participating pupil described feeling feeling comfortable, speaking in front of others, something that had always found difficult. This is what early intervention actually looks like. And there's also talent. 25 De Montfort University's extraordinary 25 year long, 25 year longitudinal study led by Professor Bertha and funded by the Arts Council.

Following 440 children from across Leicester from birth into adulthood. Adulthood. Tracking the effects of regular access to arts and creativity on a child's development. Early findings show that a very positive amongst the children now starting school researchers report no unauthorised absences. Parents describing real, lasting changes in their own lives to reduce isolation,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more confidence and. Order, order Andy MacNae CICA. As we have this debate around

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we have this debate around around budgets, around numbers being spent on sport, there's one key question that keeps leaping out key question that keeps leaping out that, as has been said by colleagues, we know that sport and physical activity is one of the things that can best prevent good health and maintain and prevent ill health and prevent good health. Yet
16:43
Andy MacNae Portrait Andy MacNae MP (Rossendale and Darwen, Labour)
-
-
when we look at the numbers in this debate, hundreds of millions on sport and tens and hundreds of billions on the costs of ill health and welfare, we realise we're still stuck in a cycle of spending billions on ill health and worthlessness, and hardly anything to prevent it. The points made in the game on report and by the Treasury Select Committee are well made, and so I'll pass the questions around the actual quantum of spend and ask and ask briefly about the barriers that prevent us going, doing what we know we should be doing.

First of all, the question for the Treasury. We seem to be stuck around our approach and attitude towards prevention spending. Is it time to ask some fundamental questions about how we address this and the mechanisms that OBR use to measure spend, how they score these initiatives, and about how we think about prevention within the fiscal rules. There's fragmentation that's been mentioned. We spend 3.8 billion across government on the sport and physical activity, yet it's DCMs, Department of Health, Department of Education, local government and so on.

Surely we need to bring this together and coordinate this through one simple, accountable body. The NHS is unable currently to pay for social prescribing to pay for physical activity courses in the same way that it pays for pills. Surely we need to have parity between pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Schools have been mentioned a crucial role that physical education plays in schools. The White Paper is very clear about this. And yet within the Ofsted measures, do we actually properly judge schools on the quality and quantity of their physical education? We do.

We do not. It's a huge opportunity we're missing out on. So. So sport and physical activity clearly can play a massive role in the prevention of ill health. We know this can save a lot of money, not just from a health Budget, but from welfare as a whole. We know this is an imperative and yet we're not grasping the opportunity. We need to recognise there are systematic structural barriers that too often put prevention into the too hard to do pile. As has been said, we cannot continue to accept this.

We must recognise the absolute imperative of reducing demand on health and welfare budgets through effective prevention. And the only way we can do this is by committing to the investment to deliver support for activity and other prevention measures at true scale, whilst also ensuring that we break down the barriers that stop us from delivering this across government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Damian Hinds. Thank you, Madam Chair. The hon. Gentleman just said sports participation underpins so sports participation underpins so much for young people, building character and resilience, acting in favour of good mental health, favour of good mental health, tackling obesity and into old age. Staying active has huge benefits. As I was discussing just the As I was discussing just the weekend with the brilliant, dementia friendly Petersfield Walking Football Group, in many ways, sports provision is probably
16:46
Damian Hinds Portrait Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
ways, sports provision is probably better than ever. It's been a national governing. Bodies have done a very good job. I was particularly grateful in our Select Committee when the bowling national governing body introduced us to the National Open Weekend for bowling. And I discovered actually what great fun that can. That can be. Of course, at primary school, children are introduced now to a great variety of sports, and that is a good thing. That has been underpinned in many ways by the school, school, sports and PE premium, the requirement of which is to go over and above the requirement set out in the national curriculum.

And crucially, it has been a Budget that has been controlled by schools themselves. Now this is an estimates day. It is about spending, and I think we could query a lot of priorities of DCMS. I was particularly gobsmacked by the decision to cut the Business events growth programme in, in overall government terms, a tiny sum of money, but which drives such success and billions of pounds worth of contribution to the economy at the same time as looking at bringing in overnight visitor levy, which is going to make this country less competitive again compared to competitive, competitive nations in this part of the DCMS world.

Acts in the National Citizen Service, closing the Youth Investment Fund at the same time as the Department for Education, closing the opening school Facilities Fund, the Treasury's changes to business rates and in fact, that has. In this sector and of course, Mhclg. And the question about Sport England as a statutory consultee the Department of Health cutting by 66% their contribution to health related activity in schools with. The biggest thing is about the cuts to the school, sports and PE premium.

As my right hon. Friend set out, it is both a total Budget cut and it is money which now has to be stretched across far more, far more schools, having already let the real value of the £320 million, the real value of that erode over the first two years, and control of it is going to be taken away from schools, I think is a very aggressive move. I commend to the House the the committee's report game on community and school sport. There's a great deal in it, as my right hon.

Friend set out in terms of improving funding applications, local authority duties, doing things in initial teacher training. But most of all, and this has come up from colleagues on both sides of the House. What we need to see, and what this report calls for, is a cross-government approach for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

movement for health. Jen Craft thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and many colleagues Deputy Speaker, and many colleagues today have spoken about the importance of sport and activity and physical health, and how that's and physical health, and how that's not just a nice to have or an add on, but it's something that is absolutely vital if we are to absolutely vital if we are to deliver our goals, particularly on creating a healthier ageing and a healthier population in general.
16:49
Jen Craft Portrait Jen Craft MP (Thurrock, Labour)
-
-
healthier population in general. However, I would like to touch on something that is quite often overlooked and that is the importance of disability sport, particularly for young people and children. The ability to take part in local sporting events or join a football team, or join a rugby team or join a dance class. It's completely and utterly impeded by not having accessible venues, not having coaches, not having support, support workers who know how to meet need. And it really does at another level of exclusion from public life and community that often people who are disabled already face.

And I myself know that in my constituency, absolutely fantastic groups that look to address this shortfall, such as JT D Arts and the absolute excellent Ace Network. But I would just like to talk about the importance of disability sport for young people, and how I believe that we really should be trying to address this on a national level, and what it means for me and my family and my daughter's friends. So A way that everyone would like to do, which is on a rugby field in Coventry.

A a a a a tag fest which is the biggest accessible rugby tournament in Europe. And it's fantastic. And what it means is that my daughter and people like her are able to be welcomed in an environment where everyone gets it and we all pitch in all the parents, we pitch in. So if your kid decides they're going to start legging it towards the massive ring road that goes around the side of the rugby field, well then we're all running after them. You know, no one is kind of left out.

You're not having to arrange 5 billion different support workers to make sure that your kid can take part. And it's a real sense of community and belonging. But these events are so they're few and far between. This one was sponsored by The Wooden Spoon, the rugby charity who allowed us to take part, who allowed my daughter's teammates to take part. But they it just it doesn't happen often enough. And it's a space where people just can feel welcomed and one small bit for me, I'm not a big sport addict, I always.

My husband is a massive. He'll watch anything that's got a ball involved, but I'm not. And the idea of standing on a freezing cold rugby pitch watching like your daughter on a Saturday afternoon. It was not always my idea of fun, but my daughter's rugby club, Southend, they were offered the opportunity to be mascots for their first team and when they walked through the busy bar, everyone, you know, getting ready for the afternoon, every single person in that bar was silent and you could have heard a pin drop because they knew that our children needed that space to breathe.

And that is the power of sport, and that is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

power of belonging. And this is what we should be supporting. Adam Thompson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a joy today to speak in the estimates debate on sport and youth services, particularly after I spent my weekend during the Furniture Makers Company for their annual tug of war in West Park in Long Eaton. Erewash is a very long Long Eaton. Erewash is a very long history of furniture making, and our enduring local businesses get together every year to celebrate their industry with their families
16:52
Adam Thompson Portrait Adam Thompson MP (Erewash, Labour)
-
-
their industry with their families over a very spectacular tug of war. They even let me have a go. Very proud to say that my side lost and I didn't do very well at staying on the rodeo rugby ball either. The reason I raised this, though, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the event took place on West Park. It's our local hub for grassroots sport with West Park Leisure Centre, Longton Rugby Club, Long Eaton Cricket club, our skate park, various football clubs, our splash pad and a very popular park run all calling it home, I was struck as I walked around the park by some of the investment put into the park by our fantastic Erewash Borough councillors, new lighting, a new event space and currently under construction, a brand new flagship bridge and waterfront space currently being built as part of the Town Deal Fund.

This is a strong example, I think, of real cross-party commitment to local redevelopment. The project is going to help reboot the town as a local economic and leisure hub, linking the town centre to the park with a stunning contribution to improving active transport in the area. All this sits. Madam Deputy Speaker, in front of further ongoing investment in grassroots sport across the country, such as nearly a thousand community projects across the UK. And this is. This Labour government has announced those.

This recent January funding is focused on our most deprived communities, with participation from women and girls are prioritised in sports. I'm very pleased that the government is focusing so heavily on improving low cost access to sport in our communities. Erewash was lucky enough to benefit from one of these recent projects, with Long Eaton United Football Club receiving a Football Foundation grant of nearly two nearly £20,000, contributing towards a £50,000 project to upgrade floodlights on Grange Park, increasing the community's access to sport on those dark winter evenings.

This grant forms just a small part of the great expansion to grassroots sports funding that the government is building into its spending review, with £400 million committed to delivering new pitches, changing changing pavilions, floodlighting and facilities to support physical education, health initiatives and community outreach. As we know, Madam Deputy Speaker, for every pound spent on community sport and physical activity, over £4 is generated for the economy and for society. This investment in grassroots sport and is real investment, supports our local economies and saves the public in NHS spending in the long run by promoting a healthy, active lifestyle.

Anyway. Madam Deputy Speaker, lots and lots happening in grassroots sport at the moment and it's great to see the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

providing the funding that the country needs to make it all happen. Long may that continue. Ian burn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ian burn. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The need for greater sustained investment in youth services and sport and leisure facilities in sport and leisure facilities in communities like mine and Liverpool West Derby is something I care deeply about, and I welcome today's deeply about, and I welcome today's debate. But I want to focus on one simple change that will cost not a penny and could happen almost
16:55
Ian Byrne Portrait Ian Byrne MP (Liverpool West Derby, Labour)
-
-
overnight. I'm talking about the removal of the no ball games signs that still cover our streets and housing estates across our country. At a time of mobile, phones and social media dominate young people's lives, we should be doing everything we can to encourage children to play outside. Yet between 2012 and 2022, more than 400 playgrounds in England closed, according to the Raising the Nation Play Commission. The commission also found that outdoor play had fallen by almost as much as 50% in a generation, because families have lost safe public spaces on their doorstep.

Austerity has hollowed out our communities. Councils like Liverpool have been forced to close parks, pitches, youth facilities through lack of funding and many places children now need to spend more than £50 to hire a private football pitch because the free alternatives have disappeared. The evidence is clear the children young people in built Environment inquiry recommended that the government require housing providers to remove unnecessary no ball games signs. Early this year, the DCMs committee reinforced that recommendation in its excellent Game on report, with support from the MH CLG Committee.

That's really welcome, but it isn't enough. The government continues to leave this to local authorities. Councils are often understandably risk averse and face pressure from housing providers without national leadership. Progress will be patchy. When I was a councillor in Everton, I refused to put them up. I'd go around if there was an issue with residents, speak to the kids, have a discussion and try and not get them signs up. And it was 100% successful because I remembered when I was a kid playing football every summer the chalk came out.

Local park becomes Centre Court one day, next day Lords. These memories were about sport, about friendship, imagination, community and one of my very best friends ended up playing for England women's football team, Karen Burke. And that's where so much talent was nurtured on the streets. There's many good examples. In 2015, Aberdeen City Council removed these signs, and I've seen overwhelmingly positive results since. The benefits are absolutely obvious. Access to those benefits, though, should not depend on where the child lives.

We cannot accept a postcode lottery with a child in Aberdeen can walk outside and play while the child in Liverpool stays indoors because there's nowhere left to go. So we urge the government to act, accept the recommendations of the Raising the Nation to Play Commission, the DCMs committee and organisations like playing out and introduce a national directive to remove unnecessary no ball game signs. An easy win. Let us let our young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people play again. Amanda Martin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we were serious about tackling the growing challenges facing all our young people, then we must recognise that youth services are recognise that youth services are not a luxury. They are an essential part of the solution. For too long, youth provision has been viewed as an optional extra. But youth clubs, an optional extra. But youth clubs, sports teams, arts programmes and enrichment activities give young people confidence, skills and perhaps most importantly, somewhere
16:58
Amanda Martin Portrait Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)
-
-
perhaps most importantly, somewhere they feel they belong. Many of us in this chamber look back fondly on our childhoods. Remember the school discos riding our bikes from sun up until streetlights came on, youth clubs on a Friday night, community centres full of activity and summers packed with sports and activities. Those memories were not special because of the buildings. They were special because of the places that we made, our friendships where the confidence grew and trusted adults gave up their time to invest in us.

Every child deserves this opportunity today, regardless of where they live, what they or their family circumstances are. And that is why this debate is personal to me. My own son, Archie, played football, but there were times when he struggled to find where he belonged. Like so many young people, he was searching for something that was his. Then he discovered wrestling with Rishi and Raj, or better known as the Prince of Mumbai and Tiger Garage at the fantastic Quality Wrestling Club. What they gave him was far more than sport.

They gave him confidence, discipline. They gave him laughter and friendship. And most importantly, they gave him a place where he felt he belonged. Today is thriving. He walks a lot taller. He believes a lot more in himself. And who knows? Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps one day he will make a career out of being the chosen one. That experience reminded me that one caring coach, one youth worker, or one volunteer can change the direction of a young person's life. So today, I want to thank every one of those people who quietly turn up week after week in all weathers and are rarely given recognition, but they change lives every single day.

And that is why I welcome the government's National Youth Strategy, backed by the £500 million of investment and their commitment to rebuild and refurbish 250 youth facilities. It recognises a simple truth investing in young people not only gives them the opportunity to experience that shape their childhood, but prevents far greater challenges in the future. I also welcome the introduction of 50 future youth hubs, but I am deeply disappointed and frustrated that Portsmouth is not currently due to receive one of those, so I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Minister to discuss how young people can access these vital services in my city.

I want to also take this opportunity to thank and to say something about the importance of positive role models, role models. As the co-chair of the Labour Men and Boys group, I'm increasingly concerned about how many boys are growing up without a consistent, positive male influence in their lives. For many, that role is not played by a famous person is the football coach who gives up their Saturday morning. The youth worker who notices when something is not quite right, the music tutor who encourages a child to keep going.

Those ordinary people who do extraordinary things, they teach respect, resilience and responsibility. They show boys what positive masculinity looks like not through words, but examples. And they give boys, lads and indeed men a place to belong. If we want to reduce the number of young people who are not in education, improve their well-being, then we must do more of this because every young person deserves someone who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

themselves. Which brings us to the front bench contributions. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Munira Wilson. Democrat spokesperson Munira Wilson. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I congratulate the chair of the culture, Media and Sport Select Committee for securing Sport Select Committee for securing this important debate on sport and youth services. The debate is timely, not just coinciding with timely, not just coinciding with the World Cup and Wimbledon. And yes, like other honourable and right hon. Members, I will be hiding behind a sofa somewhere on
17:01
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
hiding behind a sofa somewhere on the estate from 5 p.m. tomorrow for the England match, but it also coincides with the recent publication of the Milburn Report and, of course, the Children's Commissioner findings this week, which show a 10% rise in children and young people's referrals to mental health services over the past decade. For too long, sport and youth services have been an afterthought for government and as many hon. Members have already said, young people need space and the opportunity to express themselves.

They need trusted role models and structure in their lives. Both sports and youth services give them the chance to discover their talents and build their confidence, as well as help them improve both their mental and physical health. Yet the Milburn report showed that failing to invest in prevention carries through into poorer education and employment outcomes. If we want happy, healthy and hopeful and productive adults, we must first invest in happy, healthy and hopeful children and young people. So I strongly support the select Committee's recommendation to hardwired two hours of physical education into the school week.

Now, of course, is funded largely by the Department for Education, with some support from the Department for Health and Social Care. Although we know there's recently been a tussle between the two over funding. The resulting recent announcement saw annual funding for PE slashed by a staggering 22%. Under the government's new PE and Sport Schools Partnership Network. With primary schools hit the hardest. These cuts are being rushed through mid-year, leaving teachers, parents and sports co-ordinators scrambling. Madam Deputy Speaker, this comes at the worst possible moment in England.

2.1 million young people do less than 30 minutes physical activity a day, and only 57% of teachers say their schools deliver the recommended two hours of PE each week. Sky's game changing report estimates a participation gap between girls and boys in secondary school of a staggering 280,000,000 hours per of sport per year. If we want to see many more years of Lionesses and Red roses lifting trophies, we need to be investing in the next generation now, both through sport, in school and in our communities.

Cutting budgets at a time when children need it most, as they're spending more time in front of their screens. As we've just heard, it's incomprehensible. So I'll give way to my friend. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. So teachers and parents in South Devon are also very worried about the future of PE following the cuts in funding. But many areas already have very successful school sports partnerships, with schools pulling their their premium and working with organizations like Active Partnerships.

So does my hon. Friend agree that the government needs to clarify whether schools will be allowed to build on the relationships that already exist, with these existing partnerships continuing to operate under the new system, or will they all be forced to start from scratch?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Partnerships, of course, are valuable, and I don't course, are valuable, and I don't oppose the approach the government is taking forward. It's the fact that the overall funding envelope is declining and being spread now is declining and being spread now across both primary and secondary schools, which is a real terms cut in sports, which we're hearing from in sports, which we're hearing from all sides of the House, is so, so important to our children's important to our children's wellbeing and health.

And just moving on to to grassroots sports more broadly, with Sport England losing its function as a statutory planning council. T it's hard to see how the government's aim of promoting healthy communities can be met when facility provision, we know is declining due to closures, ageing infrastructure and uneven availability. Local authorities, Madam Deputy Speaker, are trying their best but they need help. Park playing fields in my own constituency in the area of Teddington, has been lying dormant for over a decade, out of reach from the local community, who are crying out for additional pitch space while it's being land banked by developers.

And this isn't just limited to my constituency. As London Sport told the Select Committee, they have had to look at running sports activities in car parks, empty shops and libraries because of massive disinvestment in parks, leisure and community centres and youth services. As this debate does also cover youth services, I wanted to briefly touch on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a fair, long term funding settlement to support youth work, resources and infrastructure, so we very much welcome the government's national Youth Strategy, particularly the government's promise to introduce multiyear funding settlements.

However, we do need government to deliver on that promise. Earlier this year, the YMCA reported that spending on youth services by local authority in England and Wales fell by 10% in a single year, the largest annual reduction since 20 1617. We know that as well as improving educational outcomes, young youth services provide the infrastructure that prevents disengagement from becoming entrenched and protects our vulnerable young people and creates a sense of belonging. I've seen myself what that investment can achieve at the West Youth Zone in London, where there are over 30 activities every evening serving a very disadvantaged community.

I was told if the young people didn't have that space, they'd be on their bedrooms, in their bedrooms, on their phones all the time. So coming to a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, as youth investment in youth services has fallen, spending on youth justice has risen. We need to focus on prevention, whether that's in youth services, whether that's through sport. We hope that the government's rhetoric will be matched by investment and commitment in terms of delivery.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Shadow Minister Nigel Huddleston. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and I thank my hon. Friend the chair of the Select Committee for her work, for her impressive speech her work, for her impressive speech and for securing the debate today. And I pay tribute to her and all the members of the Select Committee the members of the Select Committee from all parties for conducting the review on community and school sport. That forms the basis of today's debate, and thank everybody
17:07
17:27
Layla Moran Portrait Layla Moran MP (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
life year in plain speak. It's the amount of money we'd spend on a medicine to increase your life, medicine to increase your life, your good life expectancy, by one year. That's basically what it means. Now, the NHS historically means. Now, the NHS historically has had a very good deal on medicines, and that's in part because of where the quality is set. In fact, there are some pieces of research that have been done to suggest we could have put it even lower.

It is not a Budget. It doesn't have to increase with inflation, as some have made the case for. And I'll come back to this in a moment. That's part one. Part two is changes to the rebate mechanism. So there's a voluntary agreement between the British pharmaceutical industry companies and basically the NHS caps the amount of spending it does on branded medicine. If the NHS spends more, then those companies claw back. The NHS claws back some of the money from those companies. Now, under the deal, the UK government is limiting this to 15%, which is down from 22.9%.

So those two together, we've got the NHS paying more for medicines and it's going to be receiving less back through rebates. Next, there is an agreement in this that says the UK will increase support for the life sciences and spending on new medicines, from 0.3% of GDP now to 0.6% of GDP by 2036. And that's an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

increase of spending on medicines, particularly from 10 to 12% of the NHS Budget. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. I will. I think, the hon. Member for giving way, and she's making an giving way, and she's making an excellent speech trying to draw out the details of this deal. And I'm glad one of her constituents has drawn our attention to it. But I was loving by Karl Claxton at the University of York, who described University of York, who described this deal as an existential threat to the NHS because of the potential costs. And interestingly, the Department have not yet published their impact assessment on it.

So I ask the hon. Member, would you agree with me that it's high time the Department published that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impact assessment and let us know what the true cost of this deal actually is? Well, I believe by the end of my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I believe by the end of my speech we will be in violent agreement if we aren't already. There is one more aspect to this, incidentally, which is the supply chains deal, which I understand is being crafted. We don't have time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being crafted. We don't have time to go into that on supply chains. Yes. First of all, can I commend the hon. Lady? But it's really important that the disadvantages important that the disadvantages and disadvantages in Northern Ireland, access to everyday medicines or for rural communities and strengthening across Northern Ireland will be inhibited. So does everybody agree that the Northern Ireland Assembly, in particular, will receive the necessary corresponding resources to deliver vital front line service improvements? At this moment it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

isn't. That's a really good point. I'm going to come back to generics, which make up nine out of ten of which make up nine out of ten of the medicines that the NHS uses. There is an issue here, by the way, of devolution also, which I'm sure of devolution also, which I'm sure other people will cover, because at the moment it is very complex and not at all clear how the deal will not at all clear how the deal will apply in particularly Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Now we cannot divorce this deal from the geopolitics. This is happening in part. Well, it's only happening because Trump decided he wanted to slap tariffs on a number of different, well, all countries across the world and on a number of different sectors. And the reason why the US came after the NHS is because historically we get an incredibly good deal. But we have to admit, and this is why this debate is so important, by using the NHS and Nice in this way in geopolitical negotiations to appease the current.

And he won't be the Prime Minister, he won't be the president of the United States. Well, who knows, he probably wants to be much longer than he will, but he his term will come to an end. But this deal has much longer lasting effects than just the amount of time he might be in office. And the amounts of money are eye watering. These are. This is a time when you know, I wish we had more information. The estimates. But everyone knows the pressure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The NHS is under 37. I will of course. Lady, for. Giving way. Does she agree with me that the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she agree with me that the. Government's failure. To publish the impact assessment means that NHS authorities across means that NHS authorities across the country don't know how much this deal will cost them, and my constituents in Somerset can't get constituents in Somerset can't get a GP appointment, can't see an NHS dentist. That's far more important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dentist. That's far more important to them than this obscure deal. I thank the hon. Gentleman. He's absolutely right. And this lack of transparency is actually the main nub of my speech today, because there are some positives potentially in this deal, right. The British Farmer Association in the 10th of February session to the Business and Trade Committee, said zero tariffs and commitments to pharmaceutical market in the UK are welcome and had been sought for some time. And when the government put out its press release, it points out that, you know, patients will get access to innovative new medicines.

Who doesn't want that? Of course we all want that, especially if we've got incurable cancers and so on. But there is a trade off because the important thing here is if we are going to and we want to bolster innovation in the UK, I have an interest. I'm the MP for Oxford West and Abingdon. We are the other side of the Oxford to Cambridge growth arc Biomedical Sciences is going to drive my local economy. I absolutely want this to happen, but there are some really important criticisms of this deal too.

So first of all, medicines UK, who represent a large number of pharmaceutical companies based here in the UK, have real concerns. First of all, the life sciences sector plan has itself stalled. And they point out that even though they supply nine out of ten medicines in the NHS, they are basically not the recipients of what is good in this deal. Marks Samuels of Medicine UK. He's. The CEO also pointed out that while there may be new investment in this country, particularly for R&D, if we want to create jobs and strengthen the economy, we must also address the inadequate support for the production of goods in the UK.

That is where long term value is created and where the UK misses out compared to other countries. And I would point colleagues to, for example, Denmark, who have had extraordinary success in their economy, because not only do they invest in R&D, but they ensure a proportion of the manufacturing happens in their country, and that is what drives economic growth. And so this is the key bit. Everyone, the money. We don't know how much this is actually going to cost. There are two sets of suggested amounts here.

The IFS puts the cost at 9 billion. But the library briefing on this points out that 0.6% of GDP put on the OBR forecast actually amounts to £14 billion. And as has been mentioned, that is an eye watering amount of money. Dentists, GPS, capital investment, attendance at A and E prevention, the shift to community, the ten year plan. This is the same period and at a time we should be seeing money delivered at the front line. Instead, what we are seeing is money diverted to a small number of very large American based pharmaceutical companies with no transparency, very little debate, and absolutely no vote in this House.

It is the lack of scrutiny. Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have an issue with, and there are indeed economists who point out that we could have an extra 330,000 deaths, excess deaths by 2036. And the minister's looking quizzically at me. Well, she has the information that I don't. It could be that they are being alarmist, but maybe they're not. And we simply don't know why. Because the government refuse to publish the impact assessment because of commercial sensitivities. So normally at this stage I'd have a series of questions, not just in the interest of time.

I only have one. Where is the impact assessment? And if they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hiding? Yes. Three a three minute speaking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

limit. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank the chair Deputy Speaker, and thank the chair of the Health Select Committee for her comments. Life sciences are one of the country's great strengths. of the country's great strengths. We have world leading universities, brilliant researchers, innovative companies, NHS expert and public companies, NHS expert and public investment life sciences support high skilled jobs, drive growth and most importantly, transform transform patients lives. And the UK invented the Covid vaccine, pioneered in vitro fertilization, sequenced DNA.

But we are slower than many other nations at diffusing innovation. The NHS spends £27 billion a year buying stuff that should be helping to
17:36
Chi Onwurah Portrait Dame Chi Onwurah MP (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, Labour)
-
-
give British patients access to innovative treatments, guaranteeing high tech start ups and scale ups. Their first contract enabling clinical trials and exciting new drugs. But in evidence, my committee heard about bureaucratic processes and a culture of inertia, processes and a culture of inertia, which meant that adoption is far quicker. In the US. For example, my quicker. In the US. For example, my committee was told that the NHS has more pilots than British Airways, but innovation still isn't getting through.

Sometimes it can seem easier to be locked into tech giants like Palantir. My committee has warned against that, but we do want the UK to be a great place to grow life sciences businesses. And last year, following a series of cancelled investments, we held an emergency inquiry into this. Witnesses were clear that Vwf-ag was a was a big issue, but it was also part of deeper questions on whether the UK is spending enough on medicines, whether patients are getting timely access to innovation and whether companies have confidence to invest for the long term.

The. I very much welcome that the UK has secured the zero tariffs on pharmaceuticals and exemption from the US most favored nation pricing policy, but the arrangement is not treaty based and therefore not subject to scrutiny. And the final cost is not clear. Depending on which medicines Nice approves and what the actual NHS uptake is. So we all agree that the NHS must get value for money every pound spent on one part of healthcare is precious and cannot be spent elsewhere, but innovative treatments can reduce healthcare demands and companies need to know they have a market if they are to invest in research, development, clinical trials and manufacturing in the UK.

So the. There needs to explain how these figures. For example, the 0.6% were arrived at what international analysis the Minister has commissioned to justify them, and in particular, where does the UK sit internationally? We heard from President Trump that the UK does not pay enough, but the US system is one of the most bloated and overpriced in the world, accounting for 18% of GDP with worse outcomes than the NHS, which accounts for 10%. Iqbal Mohamed.
17:38
Iqbal Mohamed Portrait Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. An estimated 229,000 excess deaths by 2036. That is the eye watering by 2036. That is the eye watering figure the BMJ analysis identifies as the upshot of diverting NHS funding to pay more for pharmaceuticals in response to Trump's threats. Estimate day exists to scrutinise how public money will be spent before that spending has happened, not least when the decisions can have such damaging consequences for the health of our nation.

This Estimate Day debate does not include the full budgetary consequences of the UK. US pharmaceutical deal agreed on December the 1st. When we look at the cost, the government's figures simply do not stack up. Instead, what we see is a structural weakening of NHS safeguards on drug pricing, higher thresholds, weaker rebate mechanisms and a commitment to dramatically increase spending, which will prove devastating for patient health. Ministers suggest the arrangement will cost around £1 billion over the current spending review. But the independent analysis tells a different story using the OBR's projections, the House of Commons library suggests increasing medicine spending in line with the government's commitments would require around £1.7 billion extra by 2028, and potentially as much as £14 billion a year by 2036.

The government has been clear on one point and one point only that these increased costs will come from existing NHS budgets. No new funding has been guaranteed. Every extra billion pound spent on higher priced medicines is a billion not spent elsewhere, in a system already under immense strain. That is money not spent on tackling waiting lists, not spent on primary care and not spent on saving lives. The. We've heard already that the Nuffield Trust made this point very starkly, estimating that the NHS will be able to save 340 000 fewer years of quality adjusted life in 2025.

If this spending promised goes ahead. And yet, despite the magnitude of these changes, the government has refused to publish the full impact assessment of the deal that it holds. Why this worrying development can be seen in the way the UK US pharma deal was forced through without any vote and with scant parliamentary oversight. Indeed, this is my not without any oversight. I wrote for Politics Home back in March and summarise that this deal will increase the cost effectiveness threshold set by Nice, curtail the overall cost cap on patented medicine, double the amount spent on patented medicines, and increase the share of NHS budgets allocated to medicines.

That should worry every member of this House, because once those safeguards are eroded, they are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very difficult to restore. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And of course, I must declare an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And of course, I must declare an interest as a registered pharmacist for nearly two decades and an expert in pharmacy procurement. So expert in pharmacy procurement. So first of all, I want to say that I welcome the UK, US pharmaceutical trade agreement and something quite controversial. President Donald Trump is right. We do underpay for drugs and not just our expensive life saving, rare cancer drugs, but also our everyday drugs that we purchase. We're. I'll be happy to.
17:42
Sadik Al-Hassan Portrait Sadik Al-Hassan MP (North Somerset, Labour)
-
-
Would he comment on the fact >> Would he comment on the fact that the NHS pays ten times the manufacturing costs for generic. manufacturing costs for generic. For the licensed medication for over 80% of the medicines we buy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So how are we oh oh, how is it overpaying? And actually. I'm not quite sure where your figures come from, because when you look at the drug tariff reimbursement, which is the system that we we use to pay and compare that to other countries, we significantly underpay. Perhaps you're referencing something that I'm unaware of. I'm happy to chat I'm unaware of. I'm happy to chat with you outside. So with it, we are addicted in this country to low cost drugs for our health service.

cost drugs for our health service. And what does that addiction mean? It means that we have the lowest cost and we always go after the cheapest drugs, and that favours foreign manufacturers. It destroys UK supply chains, as we've seen over the last 25 years, and it endangers our resilience as a country. We're already seeing the side effects of this with drugs being out of stock. So what happens is we have a system for payment called the drug tariff.

It says how much that pharmacies will buy drugs for OK. And how much they'll get reimbursed for. And at the moment there are 250 for price concessions. Price concessions happen when a drug is out of stock, and we must emergency increase the price in the drug tariff to try and bring it back into the country. Now, there are 3500 drugs in that section of the drug tariff. So 254 doesn't sound a lot, but it is the highest level that I remember in my entire professional career, the highest level last month of 230 has just been exceeded.

Now, cheap drugs often mean that we overvalue the benefit of medicines in our system and use a drug first approach in the NHS, and that has continued over decades. So when we increase the price we pay for drugs, it actually allows us to start considering the benefits of other types of treatments, such as social prescribing. Social prescribing becomes a lot cheaper in comparison to a system where drugs are valued at the correct amount. And I can tell you right, my APPG, the APPG for pharmacy published a report in June 2025 that laid out some of the problems with drug pricing and availability.

So I absolutely support the idea of paying more for drugs because at the moment we are building a system which is creaking and breaking by trying to pursue every penny of saving. We have destroyed UK manufacturing offshore our problems, and the only way to bring that back is to rebuild the drug tariff, with the idea of paying to procure more in the UK paying to. Of course I'd be happy to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speech, because I think what he's showing is how important this debate is, and a lot of this has not been flushed out. Medicines UK disagree with him who are responsible for a lot of the generics he talks about, but that's generics he talks about, but that's a conversation another time. My question specific. Does he agree, though, that the transparency or the lack of it behind this deal, the lack of it behind this deal, and also the lack of the impact assessment, is a material issue that we should be asking the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government to release? Thank you for that intervention. First of all, medicines UK don't disagree with me. They disagree that the value from this UK US trade deal will go to people other than them. They actually do think that they are not paid enough for drugs in this in the country. So unfortunately you might need to go and have a chat with them about that, because I think you might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have misunderstood that. Please wrap up as soon as you in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in. So In conclusion, I actually welcome this deal. I hope we find a way to pay for drugs correctly in way to pay for drugs correctly in this country, so that we value them properly, so that we can value the rest of the system. Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. Which is a heads up, we're not going to have a huge amount of time, so please edit your speeches

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so please edit your speeches accordingly. And, John McDonnell. Thank you. I think the debate we've had so far completely highlights the issue that we this is an immense change to the way in
17:46
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
which we will determine the delivery of drugs to the NHS. And one of the fears that I've got is one of the fears that I've got is actually. It begins to weaken the existing controls. In addition, I think it politicizes as well, think it politicizes as well, because what happens now is that actually Ministers will be able to determine the thresholds. And in addition to that, my concern is addition to that, my concern is also that decision making, the negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies has actually been transferred from the actually been transferred from the NHS England into the department itself.

And I think there'll be real concerns. All of a sudden, this issue where we look for objective advice from Nice and the system that we have will now be politicised. And I'm afraid, I say to my friend on the front bench, it does behove the government actually to ensure that we do have a proper debate like this. I welcome the comments that were just made because I find them interesting, as I have run right the way across the house, but we've not been allowed.

The figures with regard to the costs have been set out today. There's a there's a there's a vast range of figures. It could be simply resolved if the government just published that impact study that we've all been asking for. And can I just say, when the emphasis that has been made by others about when. When the numbers. Hen said very clearly that any additional costs would have to come from the NHS. One of the debates we wanted to have was say, well, where from? What areas of service will be in somehow reduced or not? I'll give way to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker Screening and evaluation for newborn babies from spinal muscular atrophy. SMA causes spine causing spinal cord deterioration. It's a devastating deterioration. It's a devastating genetic condition. And and so the evaluation will start in October in England, not Northern Ireland England, not Northern Ireland anywhere else. So would my hon. Friend agree with me that the will must be found to ensure comprehensive cover for all nations? No more delays. Action now to save

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the lives of children and the trauma for families. Hear, hear. Incredibly relevant point in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Incredibly relevant point in this debate. Many of us have examples of that, and that's why we need such a wider debate about the need such a wider debate about the supply of drugs, the effectiveness, how they're evaluated, etc. and I actually thought we did have a actually thought we did have a relatively objective system. This throws that objectivity into, into, into debate. Can I say the figures into debate. Can I say the figures that have been bandied about, about the scale of deaths as well? I do want the government's view, their proper analysis on that, because it has to be engaged with the report that's come from, as others have mentioned, Claxton and and Andrew Hill, etc.

The other issue as well, the justification for the Trump deal, was that this would increase our export UK exports into US, and that also increase investment into this country on drugs. Overall, I've yet to see any evidence published of that. In fact, the government hasn't brought any evidence forward. And can I also say to my hon. Friend, and this is political. I remember the commitment that was given by the Prime Minister and by the former health Minister, that the NHS would not be on the table in any Trump deals.

This does put it on the table. It doesn't, because it has consequences, not just about the supply of drugs. It actually does have consequences. Therefore, for the investment in the NHS and decision making around for our constituents what they have access to, what level of drugs, of course. But as a result, if there are reductions and other expenditure, well, they'll get access to the GP or A&E or whether they'll get the care services that we've been advocating for quite a while.

I, I want to thank the people who've been providing us with briefings on this. I've worked with them over the years and the Global Justice Now and just treatment. They want to engage in the debate with the government. They want to bring their expertise around the table. So I'd welcome the minister's commitment that actually those organisations are brought in before we move any forward in terms of the implementation of this. But this is my worry. These are people I've worked. I want to quote Cameraman Abbas.

He's the editor of the British Medical Journal on the deal. He said the the deal will end up harming vulnerable people to boost the profits of already obscenely profitable drug companies. I don't want to support a deal that does that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rachael Maskell Deputy Speaker This debate should have taken place long before a deal was signed. The fact that we're having to do this fact that we're having to do this months after speaks that there's still no transparency. Last December, the the farmer and healthtech deal was signed. But what it did make clear was that the what it did make clear was that the money is going to have to be taken out of the Department of Health while it was trying to solve a while it was trying to solve a problem.

And that was, as we've heard, the the trade deal with the US at the time and the wider relationship there. The big question, which hasn't been answered, is if you are going to take money out to fund this. And we've heard from 0.3 to 0.6% of GDP, then going to be spent on pharma, where are the cuts going to fall? And of course, the research is showing that that will be in excess deaths. Now, we know that at the same time as paying more, we'll get
17:51
Rachael Maskell Portrait Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )
-
-
a lower rebate. So it's going to be more expensive through the scheme more expensive through the scheme from 25 to 14.5%. So as a result, that means paying more on our drugs that means paying more on our drugs and getting less back. But also in developing countries, those that benefit from the health system and benefit from the health system and the way that it works, the toll will be even more significant. And will be even more significant. And as nice changes its relationship, its function, and of course, not having the independence it was set up to have, that means that ultimately it will have more flexibility for Ministers to make determinations over drugs in the future.

And of course, what we will see is not only the cumulative cost, by the end of 2028 of 2.6 billion, but at the end of 2036, it's estimated that this will then go to 44.7 billion. So this is why we need the impact assessment for government to prove to us that that isn't the case. And of course, for every billion pound cut from budgets, there's 118 million also cut from social care coming to excess deaths. And it will depend where those cuts fall.

So obviously, we want governments to be transparent with us because it is our constituents, it is their lives. The data is saying by 2033, 229,000 excess deaths. That's almost double that of the number of deaths in Covid. But put everything together. It could be as high as 291,000 deaths. So exactly which of our constituents are going to pay the price for this deal? And of course, Nice itself predicts that the benefit will only bring between 2 and 5 additional drug approvals annually.

So for very little gain, we could be paying an exceedingly high price. And of course, one of the biggest fears that I have got is that with that ratchet that the US has their focus on the NHS, as it always has, is that this will draw the drug companies even closer. And if other parties get control of our NHS, it could well be in their hands. We need that impact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assessment, we need transparency calling. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And can I also thank the chair of the Select Committee for securing this debate? I, too, wish we'd had a bit more time to talk about it. And also, can I thank my hon. Friend from North Somerset who I think made some difficult but really important points in this debate. It's a timely debate. Pharmaceuticals are core to supporting a healthier population
17:54
Sam Carling Portrait Sam Carling MP (North West Cambridgeshire, Labour)
-
-
and to delivering economic growth. The main estimates memorandum outlines an expectation of just under £2 billion of R&D expenditure over the coming year from DHS, roughly equal to the figure in the previous estimate. I welcome that, of course, private investment also plays a significant role in drug development. That is why I am so pleased to see increasing confidence from the private sector in the UK as an environment to do impactful research. Last month we saw AstraZeneca commit £300 million in investment across the UK.

After this government's work to agree a pharmaceutical deal with the US enabled that investment. But there is much more to do to create a regulatory environment that encourages investment into clinical research in the UK, and I want to encourage DHSc and Dcit to consider simplifying and consolidating the regulatory landscape that we have. I'm not here to criticise our regulators, who I believe do a very good job in their respective roles. I have regular engagement with research scientists, universities and professional bodies through my work as chair of the all party group known as the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, the oldest FG established in 1939 to better connect scientists and parliamentarians in the interests of better policy.

And the overwhelming message is that regulators get it and want to enable research and growth in pharmaceuticals, not hinder it. But the overall landscape is just so complex that approvals are taking far longer than they need to be in a contribution. In the King's Speech debate last month, I listed a range of them the MHRA, nice, HSA, Human Tissue Authority, Health Research Authority, Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Embryology Authority, Animals in Science Regulation Unit and so on. This is just too many regulators and that's not even all of them.

I very much hope the government will use the upcoming regulating for growth bill to look at how to reduce, overlap and streamline this environment. Having to get so many decisions slows down research and innovation enormously, particularly when researchers have to apply for clearance from them sequentially in most cases, rather than in tandem stretching the overall timeline. I want to propose another solution to this. Why don't we create a single front door for study approvals, a unified application process which collects all the information that different regulators might need so researchers can fill in one form and then have a team of recruited staff whose job it is to liaise with all the regulators, establish who needs to approve the individual study in question, and pass along information they need, ideally doing so in tandem, rather than each approval being sequential and relying on the last.

I hope the Minister will take some of those ideas on board. I think there are many reasons to be optimistic. The UK has been, and in many areas still is, a world leader in drug development. Let's keep building on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Helen Maguire, thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson, Helen Maguire, thank you for agreeing to do a very short speech. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today we are being asked to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Today we are being asked to agree on a motion that is asking Parliament to approve the main estimates for 2627, but pharmaceutical spending is not pharmaceutical spending is not separately identified in the estimate or its accompanying memorandum. We're being asked to approve spending without clear
17:57
Helen Maguire Portrait Helen Maguire MP (Epsom and Ewell, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
approve spending without clear visibility of exactly how much has been budgeted on medicines. This is against the principles of Estimates Day, which is to scrutinise spending before it's authorised. This is yet another example of the lack of transparency around the murky UK US pharmacy deal. It was drawn up in secret, and the government is refusing to publish the impact assessment. Government must be clear on how much has been budgeted for medicines, how much they expect the deal to cost and the risks to the front line associated with diverting money.

Elsewhere in the NHS. The UK US pharmaceutical deal should never have been allowed to go ahead. The deal will see the NHS paying out at least 1.5 billion more in high medicine costs by 28, rising to over 9 billion by 2036. The government has made it clear there will be no additional money to fund this over the next spending period. This means that frontline NHS services will be plundered at the behest of a foreign government, while patients suffer in crammed hospital corridors and can't get a GP appointment.

Now we have to support the British life sciences sector and we can find ways to achieve this. But it's got to be a domestic matter for the UK government to solve holistically through negotiations with the sector. It shouldn't be dictated from Washington. The government refused to publish an assessment of the impact of this deal. What are they trying to hide? The bottom line is medicine procurement should be based on sovereign health needs. This is not a matter of being pro or anti the pharmaceutical industry.

We need to find a solution that works for patients for the NHS and the life sciences sector, rather than defund vital NHS services. In an Egypt real deal, the Liberal Democrats would take real action to strengthen our life sciences sector by developing a long term plan with the sector to ensure certainty on issues like VAT and rapid licensing, by ensuring that the needs of our society are reflected in the approach of Nice and other regulatory bodies through permitting investment into upscaling UK life sciences manufacturing by encouraging investment in vaccine medicine and antibiotic medicine manufacturing plants, and by reviewing the relationship between R&D, tax credits and manufacturing, and also by establishing a fellowship programme for scientists working on health conditions such as cancers, so they can continue the research that Trump has defunded in the US.

We'd also cut the cost of visas for researchers, as well as boost R&D funding to 3.5% through a decade long programme of public investment. Rather than spending billions to pay off a bully in the White House, the Liberal Democrats would oppose the deal. Develop a plan for our life sciences that reflects our national interest, and invest money in vital frontline services that are in dire need of funding. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that the deal could cost as much as £9 billion.

By 2036. 9 billion would be transformative for so much of the NHS. It would encourage all care by thousands more staff, by countless radiotherapy machines, or deliver high quality care and help for the elderly and disabled people. Any choices over money spent in our NHS must be made by the British people, not by Trump. It is unacceptable that Trump thinks he can meddle in our NHS and worse still, that Starmer let him, the Prime Minister, let him. That's why we wrote to the Prime Minister in December, demanding that the deal was put before Parliament for a vote.

If he cares as much about the NHS as he claims, I encourage him to set the record straight and share his true feelings on this deal and at the very least, bring the deal before the House for approval. This House and the voters who elected us decide matters of national importance, not the White House. That's why the Liberal Democrats have tabled a new clause 76 of the health bill that would bring the deal before the House for a vote. Any deal that diverts billions of pounds from the NHS.

Frontline services must be subject to democratic process and parliamentary scrutiny. Doctor Luke Evans.
18:00
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I dispense with the formalities to jump straight into where we need to jump straight into where we need to be, and the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has posed the question does the government have a clear, does the government have a clear, funded and transparent plan? Well, simply, the government appears to have made commitments it can't properly explain, can't fully cost and can't tell Parliament how it intends to pay for it. We, of course, talking about the UK, US pharmaceutical arrangement, which, as we've heard, will see 0.3% of GDP in 2026 to at least 0.6% by 2036, or an overall medicine spending from 10% to 12% of the UK NHS Budget by 2036.

Now that may bring benefits. It may bring investment. It may actually avoid tariffs, too. It may help some patients get treatment faster. But those benefits do not remove the three key basic questions what will this cost? How will it be funded and what will the NHS have to forego as a consequence? And those questions remain unanswered. And it's a running theme from this government. Since Labour took office in July 2024, the pharmaceutical sector has issued a serious set of stark warnings.

January 2025 AstraZeneca cancelled its £450 million expansion near Liverpool, citing the timing and reduction of the final offer compared to the previous government's proposal was a factor in the decision, but that wasn't isolated. March 2025 leaders, some of the UK's biggest pharmaceutical companies, warned the country risked becoming uninvestable. That turned into decisions, with MSD cancelling its plans for £1 billion research centre in London. Eli Lilly, pausing its work on the Gateway Labs hub and Sanofi, said it would not make substantial UK R&D investment until it saw appropriate recognition of the value of innovation.

I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, given there are so many unanswered questions and so little information. Wouldn't the better name for this debate, rather than estimates day be a complete stab in the dark day debate? Estimates, for want of a better pun as well. And this is part of the problem. If the government is so confident, why doesn't it produce the impact report to be able to say and justify all this? Because at the end of the day, we have seen that these aren't isolated decisions, different companies, different decisions, but all the same concern.

It's a pattern. Tax rises, more regulation, more red tape, more toxic concoction. Now, the government will say this deal is part of the answers, but Ministers can't point to potential benefits while avoiding certain costs. The House of Commons library is clear. The department's main estimate for 2627 does not include Budget cover to meet the expected increase in pharmaceutical spending associated with the UK US arrangement. That is the central problem, the government says the total cost on the current spending review period is expected to be around 1 billion.

But the former Minister also said, I quote, total costs over the spending review period are expected to be approximately 1 billion. However, the final cost will depend on which medicines Nice decides to approve and the actual uptake. Now that's an important admission because the final cost depends on the future. Nice decisions and future uptake and other estimates are higher. The library brief cites analysis suggesting spending could be around 1.7 billion by the end of 2028, and around 14 billion by 2036, depending on your assumptions.

So I asked the government, is the £1 billion, the central estimate? What's the lower end? What's the higher end, and why won't the government publish the modelling to tell us so we can see. And the next question is even sharper. Where's the money coming from? We know from leaked whatsapps that Labour MPs have been asking who can we tax to pay for benefits? So where is this money coming from? Both the House and the public are right to ask. You see, the government has said additional costs will be funded from existing NHS budgets, with future funding settled at the next spending review.

But if the money's coming from existing NHS budgets, it comes from somewhere within the NHS. It might be the workforce, it might be the services, it might be the capital, it might be future growth. But it's not cost free. As Jonathan Benger, the chief executive, is nice put it, if they choose to spend money on defence, they've got to pay for that somehow, either by raising taxes or removing money from somewhere else if they choose to spend more money on medicines.

Similarly, that has to be paid for. And that's the reality, the former Secretary of State told the House. Of course, we will not cut NHS budgets to fund pharma deal. But the former Minister later turned around and said the deal will be funded by allocations made in the spending review. When record funding to the NHS was secured. Future funding will be settled at the next spending review. Those statements need reconciling. If it's funded from NHS allocations, that is NHS money. So can the Minister rule out any cuts from the front line? Finally, I'll turn to transparency just to point out, the UK US pharmaceutical arrangement is not a treaty based free trade agreement.

It hasn't been through Crag. We haven't seen what is going on. The government needs to publish its impact assessment and yet it cites commercial sensitivity. Of course, there's a way round that she could redact and give that to the committee. So we and this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can see what is going on. I'll cut my speech short further there just to simply post. Very quickly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very quickly. 10s what's the policy's true cost? How will it be paid for? And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cost? How will it be paid for? And what will displaced in the NHS to be able to make this happen? Minister Preet Gill. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Preet Gill. Mr. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and in the short time I have, I'm going to try and answer all of going to try and answer all of those questions put to me. Well, firstly, can I say I'm grateful for the contributions by hon. Members,
18:06
Preet Kaur Gill Portrait Preet Kaur Gill MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Birmingham Edgbaston, Labour )
-
-
and I really want to say thank you to the chair of the Health and Social Care Committee on securing this debate. The UK US pharmaceuticals arrangement is an important step forward for patient access to innovation and the future of our life sciences sector. This of our life sciences sector. This arrangement is fundamentally about patients. It's ensuring that they can get benefit from life changing medicines as they are developed, rather than the UK being left behind. And we have already seen behind.

And we have already seen the benefit from these changes, with nice approving, life changing treatments such as Vorasidenib, a brain cancer drug for patients as young as 12. The UK's life sciences sector is one of our greatest national strengths. It saves lives, it supports jobs and it underpins innovation across our economy. I am proud that thanks to this arrangement, the United Kingdom will be the only country in the world to have secured a commitment to tariff free access for pharmaceutical exports into the United States.

Now, the chair of the committee raised. The chair of the committee, raised nice. She raised vlpag changes and rebates, and my hon. Friend from Hayes and Harlington also raised a number of issues, as did my hon. Friend for York Central. So let me actually address all of these on the Joint Government and Industry Task Force. There has been a joint task force which has been discussing the options for continuing to evolve our system to ensure that we do maximize benefits to patients and the economy.

They will make recommendations on pilot programmes as per the UK US agreement arrangement commitment, and I look forward to providing an update to the committee on this in due course. On Nice independence. I know that there has been concern that these changes undermine the independence of Nice, but that is not the case. And let me just be clear about that. Nice will continue to make its recommendations based on evidence, clinical effectiveness and value for money, free from political interference. The change will allow Ministers to set the overall threshold within which Nice operates, not to determine individual decision, and this preserves nice core role as an independent evaluator, while ensuring that the framework that it uses reflects how we value innovation and patient benefit.

And on I don't accept. Also, I know there was a concern raised about the UK commitments are larger than the US. Well, I don't agree that they are. The UK has made policy and policy changes to improve access for patients, while the US has committed to tariff protection for UK exports, which is significant given the scale of that market and these commitments do deliver improved patient access in the UK and protection for UK exports. I'm trying to get through all of these questions as quickly.

I will I will shortly on the feedback changes and rebates alongside changes to Nice recommendations. The arrangement affects how pricing and repayment mechanisms mechanisms operate through the Voluntary scheme scheme for branded medicines, pricing, access and growth to ensure predictability for the industry going forwards. Given the unexpectedly high payment percentage for newer medicines for 2025, the government has committed to ensuring future Peg rates do not exceed 15%. This will support life sciences, investment and patient access to medicines, while it will ensure the scheme can continue to work for both industry and the NHS, keeping the medicines Budget sustainable.

So I do look forward to engaging with the sector on the future of the voluntary scheme, with negotiations due to begin next year informed by the outcomes or interim findings from pilot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

programs that were launched as early as this September. I will give way. I'm going to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to. Save a lot of time simply by publishing the impact assessment, which will answer every single one of those questions she's trying to find in the folder. So will she yes or no?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or no? I'm going to, with respect, answer the questions that have been put to me by many hon. Members, and I'm coming to the point of the impact assessment. We have been clear that the estimated short term impact is around 1 billion in England. Over the spending review period. Costs will increase over time as Nisa proves more medicines. But. But precise long term costs cannot be modelled as a single figure. They depend on future medicines, nice approvals, uptake and of course wider commercial developments.

I know that hon. Members did raise with me a number of figures. Can I just say that I don't recognise the the 9 billion and the 14 billion cost figure spending on innovative medicines increases year on year as new treatments become available, and so underlying growth would be expected to continue regardless of this arrangement. And the figures cited publicly often actually do not take this into account. We have committed to increasing spending on medicines as a proportion of NHS spend, ending the recent decline in the proportion of health spend dedicated to medicines, and increasing spending on innovative medicines to 0.6% of GDP.

I want to come to the point that the hon. Member, my friend, the chair of the committee and the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, mentioned and I think it's a really important point. Life Sciences is one of our most productive sectors. It underpins research and development, clinical trials and high value manufacturing, and it supports jobs across the country. And over 1 billion in industry investments have already been secured since the announcement of this arrangement in December last year, including AstraZeneca recent announcement of a 300 million investment into Cambridge and Macclesfield R&D sites.

This demonstrates the confidence this key sector has in the UK. Maintaining a strong commercial environment helps ensure continued investment and the development of new treatments. This is not separate for patient benefit. It is what enables the pipeline of new medicines that NHS patients ultimately rely on. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Frustrated everything she's saying is in the press release. Can she please answer the question? she please answer the question? Will the government release the impact assessment? And if they won't, will they at least allow a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Select Committee to see it confidentially running. Out of time? So as brief as you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Out of time? So as brief as you can, can I just say I do recognise the committee's request for the impact assessment. But that analysis is scenario based. It analysis is scenario based. It contains commercially sensitive assumptions and remains linked to live policy development. Officials should be able to produce confidential advice for Ministers to inform trade and other negotiations, and we will not apologize for maintaining such confidentiality with doing so is in the national interest. Thank you, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will leave the house. I call Layla Moran to wind up briefly in under a minute. I'm happy to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to. Marvelous. Order. Order. The question necessary to dispose of question necessary to dispose of the motion stands over until 7:00. Under standing order number 54. The front bench should very quickly shuffle over. We are very short of shuffle over. We are very short of time. We now come to the motion on the estimate for the Department for Work and Pensions. I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, the debate will be opened by Paper, the debate will be opened by the chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, Debbie Abrahams. I am incredibly grateful that your speech will also be incredibly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speech will also be incredibly short. Debbie Abrahams. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I also thank the backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate? The Department for Work and Pensions supports nearly Work and Pensions supports nearly 23 million people and spends around £300 billion each year, around £1
18:13
Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
-
-
in every £5 of government spending. Some 164 billion is on pensions and Some 164 billion is on pensions and pensions. Age benefit a third more than more than frequently criticised on spending, on working criticised on spending, on working age benefits and on children. And this has come under increased growing pressure from an ageing growing pressure from an ageing population. Debate about that spending has at times been framed in stark terms, but understanding people's lives makes clear just how essential this support is.

My committee has consistently argued that, alongside efficiency, the system must treat claimants with dignity and respect, with too many reporting the opposite. Improvements will only come if the department is open, honest and willing to learn. The estimate seeks nearly 14 billion of additional resource. Much of this reflects demand led need. The central question is not just cost, but whether the system is fair, timely and trusted. Reducing support is not at an individual level is not cost free. Past cuts to disabled people's support in 2017, increased poverty and poor mental health without improving employment outcomes.

And there are, of course, wider costs. The NHS and public services investment matters evidence suggesting that reducing inactivity among young and disabled people by 5% could yield 20 billion, with strong returns from employment support programmes such as Connect to to work, preventive investment is key. So what should the House test? The Secretary of State has spoken of shifting from administering benefits to transforming lives, and we welcome that ambition. But delivery depends on cross-government action and effective local implementation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's not just about the DWP very, very briefly. Otherwise I'll. Yeah. I've got I've got a lot of time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've got I've got a lot of time. I just want to say, talking about local implementation, I really pay tribute to what they're doing in Harlow and particularly Harlow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Harlow and particularly Harlow College, who are doing programmes to support people that are. And it's really paying dividends. Thank you. And I'm very grateful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I'm very grateful for that intervention. And long may they continue doing their work. Around 1 in 8 young people are not Around 1 in 8 young people are not in work, education or training over a million. The first time since 2013 have we had that level. Health, especially in mental health, is a major driver. While programmes such as Connect to Work are well welcome, with funding of around 820 million, it pays modest. Relative to the scale of the challenge the government plans.

Plans may support up to 90,000 young people into work, but there still is only a fraction of what is needed. The key test is outcomes. How many people move into sustained work. The government's accounts, the Dwp's accounts, remain qualified due to fraud and error, amounting to nearly 10 billion in overpayments. Service quality issues persist, communication failures, discrimination findings and serious backlogs. The Carer's Allowance overpayment scandal caused profound distress and access to work. Delays, again, are unacceptable. These are not marginal issues.

They affect whether support reaches people fairly and on time. For DWP, value for money must include timeliness, accuracy and trust. The most egregious failings relate to safeguarding. Last year alone, the department undertook 90 internal reviews, including following deaths and serious harms to claimants. Since 2010, there have been ten prevention of future death reports, warning that the system from coroners that the systems must change. Our committee has described the safeguarding approach as deficient. While some progress has been made, it remains too slow.

Incremental change is just not good enough. Machinery of government changes and local delivery models risk blurring accountability. So while local flexibility is important and place based approaches are essential, outcomes must be consistent. Parliament must be able to see clearly who's responsible for delivering the overarching issues, the lack of clear link between spending plans and outcomes. While improvements have been made, scrutiny is weakened when Parliament cannot see how success will be measured. A clearer strategic plan linking spending to measurable outcomes is essential.

This debate is not about whether Social Security spending is necessary. It clearly is. It is about whether a department spending 300 billion is using resources effectively, fairly and transparently. In her response, I'd be very grateful if the Minister will answer three questions what outcomes this spending will deliver, how progress will be measured and who is accountable if delivery fails. The challenge is to show that this estimate is aligned with the scale of the problem, operationally credible and capable of delivering services with dignity and respect.

Finally, I'd like to say thank you to my clerk and to all of his team for his excellent support to the committee. Thank you.
18:18
Douglas Lumsden Portrait Douglas Lumsden MP (Aberdeen South, Conservative)
-
-
Pleasure to invite the new MP >> Pleasure to invite the new MP for Aberdeen South for his maiden

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speech. Douglas Lumsden. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to make my and it's a pleasure to make my maiden speech today, and I want to thank all hon. Members from across the chamber for their best wishes for today. And I also want to give my best wishes to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry for her upcoming maiden speech. Madam Deputy Speaker, the people of Aberdeen South have once again chosen a Conservative and Unionist to represent them here.

Westminster and it's an honour to be here and a responsibility that I take very seriously, and I'm grateful and humbled by the trust the people of Aberdeen have placed in me. This by election victory was the result of hundreds of hard work and volunteers, without whom I would not be standing here. And unlike another recent by election, the campaign in Aberdeen South was not focused on one man's job, but the thousands of jobs in our oil and gas. Madam Deputy Speaker, with almost 50% of the votes, the people of Aberdeen have made their voices heard loud and clear, clear enough to echo around the Palace of Westminster and Holyrood.

The. Like. The people of Aberdeen, have had enough of the willful destruction of the oil and gas industry, destruction of their jobs and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

destruction of the local economy. Yes. This win is a clear mandate from the people of Aberdeen to the Labour Government here in Westminster and the SNP Government in Holyrood, to act now to save our in Holyrood, to act now to save our North Sea oil and gas industry. Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to remiss of me not to pay tribute to my predecessors of Aberdeen South as an Aberdeen loon. I was for many years represented by the trailblazing Dame Anne Begg.

In her maiden speech, she remarked on the transience of the members for Aberdeen South, a seat held almost equally by Labour and Scottish Conservative members throughout the 20th century. And that transience is captured by another of my predecessors, Priscilla Buchan. Lady Tweedsmuir, who, like me, came to the House through a by election. She was elected in 1946. A pioneer of women in political office, she was the youngest MP in the House of Commons at that time, and she was a formidable force, having initially lost in Aberdeen North and then winning in South the following year.

In her maiden speech, speaking and debate on this economic situation, she warned of the growing feeling of nationalism due to the government's policy of centralised control. It says such a speaker that almost a century later, the people of Aberdeen South are grappling with the very same issues. The divisive force of nationalism still seeks to set us apart, but we, on this side of the House, know the enduring value of our United Kingdom. And most recently, I succeeded the Right Honourable Stephen Flynn, who I am, of course delighted, has chosen to take up a seat in Holyrood without his decision and dedication to his career.

I would not be standing here today and we were actually councillors together at Aberdeen City Council and we both now sat in Westminster and Holyrood and I sincerely wish him well. Stephen understands the value of oil and gas to Aberdeen, and I'm sure that now in government he will press the First Minister to get off the fence and finally defend our oil and gas industry. Now, I have known Stephen for a number of years. He now has the tough job as Scottish Transport Secretary, and I look forward to firing off the letters asking for updates on transport projects affecting my constituents in Aberdeen South.

And it was while I was at Aberdeen City Council that I learned the cut and thrust of politics. I remember my time fondly being the co-leader alongside Jenny Ling, the daughter of former member for Oldham East, Jim Lamond. And I am grateful to her and all those I worked with on the council, and it serves as a reminder of the importance of building bridges and consensus to deliver for our constituents. Madam Deputy Speaker, Aberdeen has a rich history of reinvention, from fishing to textiles to oil and gas.

The Silver City with the golden sands has been a cornerstone of Scotland's success for centuries, and it has changed and evolved more than most. Today, energy plays the critical role in the city's prosperity, with thousands of my constituents among the most highly skilled workers in the industry, and I am immensely proud to represent them. So too, is it a privilege to represent so many distinctive parts of the city, from the Great South Harbour at Torry to Hazlehead Park, where the Piper Alpha Memorial stands, that memorial is a testament to the dangerous, demanding work our oil and gas workers carry out week in, week out for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom, because energy security is national security, and it's too easy to forget the sacrifices, large and small, made by this sector so that the rest of us can enjoy the benefits of modern life.

Deputy. Madam Speaker, I am sure that my time here will be judged not just on the basis of how I can help constituents with their issues, or the quality of the legislation that we pass. My time here will be judged how loudly and firmly I can make the case for our oil and gas workers. Yes, it is my privilege of my life to represent my city, a city that thousands of oil and gas workers call home and I will spend every day repaying the trust to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people of Aberdeen that have placed me here. Thank you. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. It gives me now a huge pleasure to invite the new MP for Arbroath

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Broughty Ferry for her maiden speech. Laura Bird. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South on his Member for Aberdeen South on his maiden speech. Madam Deputy Speaker, I may be new to this chamber, but I stand here as a young woman whose adult life has been shaped by the politics of this place. I marched against Brexit. I protested in Dundee against the Conservative's cruel policies, and in 2014, as an outspoken 16 year old, my whole world focused around advocating for Scottish independence.
18:25
Lara Bird Portrait Lara Bird MP (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Yeah. became a young, a voice for the youngest generation who are able to vote in that referendum. It was that campaigning in Dundee that taught me to have confidence in myself, conviction in my beliefs, and to stand up for the future that I want to see. And 12 years on, the Yes City is still very much alive and kicking. Where the old, the young, the loud and the quiet all continue to champion our cause for independence here.

In fact, it was in Dundee in Douglas, where I recently met a young SNP activist who reminds me a lot of my former self. Erin Nicholson is 16 and when I met her, she was so excited to vote for the first time in the Scottish parliamentary elections. Motivated by independence, angry about Brexit and deeply invested in our nation's politics, Erin is exactly who I am standing here for today. For the young people who have grown up in the shadow of Tory austerity, Labour's broken promises, and who have a vision of hope for Scotland, for the young women who deserve to take up space in our nation's conversation here, for the new generation in Scotland, who now deserve to have their say, Erin and her peers.

Despite voting in the last Scottish parliamentary elections, were only four at the time of the independence referendum. So if the Secretary of State for Scotland is listening, that sounds

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like a generation to me. Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, my constituency might be called constituency might be called Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, but our community is so much more than that. It's Douglas Whitfield, that. It's Douglas Whitfield, Fintry, Monikie, Letham, Carnoustie and Monifieth and everywhere in between. And it's not just Dundee between. And it's not just Dundee that made me who I am today. I am proud to have grown up in Angus with a Scottish father and an English mother, and I think it's a little more than ironic how much consternation that fact seems to have generated from some so-called unionists this week.

And growing up in Angus, none of my friends ever cared about my accent. We were only concerned about what flavor of ice cream we would get from the famous Bouzoukis in the ferry, about whether we chose to go swimming in East Haven or Lunan Bay. And as we got older, the decision centered around whether we preferred the ship or the Fisherman's Tavern, which is a hard choice as the ferry has an arguably the best pubs in Scotland. I loved growing up in Angus, not least because Angus is famous for its centrality to Scotland's proud history.

It was here that the immortal words of the Declaration of Arbroath were written as long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we, on any condition be subjected to the lordship of the English. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself. And the declaration is one of the subjects that I remember being most excited to study in primary school.

So perhaps I was inclined to a politics of independence and freedom from a young age. Madam Deputy Speaker, I couldn't speak about Angus without mentioning our world renowned farmers and fishers, not just famed for Arbroath Smokies, but for being the very capital of these islands. And with apologies to my Aberdeenshire colleagues, Angus beef is the best quality in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scotland, which obviously means the best in the whole of the UK. There you go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. To me, Angus is defined by the generosity and the hard work of the people who live here, traits that you see as soon as you step foot in Arbroath, a community which has faced economic adversity but which economic adversity but which remains optimistic. Arbroath is a place where businesses like the Bell Rock and Lord Rubens are Bell Rock and Lord Rubens are daring to do something different and willing to bet on Arbroath, where the community is resilient and the people are open.

Before I finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must pay tribute to my predecessor, Stephen Gethin's. Anyone who had the privilege of working with Stephen will know that while there were many causes that he championed, there was one matter that he spoke about more than most. A quick search of Hansard tells me that Stephen Gethin said the word Brexit more times in this chamber than almost anyone else, as I once heard someone describe him in the ferry. He's that lovely smiley lad who really cares about Ukraine.

Stephen was a phenomenal representative for our community, committed to public service. He came to each debate with grace, grit and a fierce determination to see Scotland back in the European Union as a proud believer of Scotland's place in the EU and as a member of the international community in its own right. This is a part of his legacy. I intend to carry on here. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am here to show young people in my community not to be afraid of the backlash or resistance that you might be met with, but if you believe in a better future for Scotland, for our home, whatever that belief might be, there is a place for you that regardless of what you look like, how you sound, no matter what your background or your accent, that your voice is valid and your voice is important.

It can be daunting, but you should never be afraid to be who you are. That your hair, your tattoos, your clothes, or your boots do not define you. That there will always be those who look for an easy opportunity to tear you down. So you must have courage in yourself and you must stand your ground. Find others who lift you up and be proud of your differences. Be proud to speak your mind, and do not be afraid to do things your own way.

So to all the folk in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, to the young women in particular, and to Erin, you have my word that I will always stand up for you. I will lift you up. You are an inspiration to me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I hope to do you all proud. Thank you. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. Backbenchers are now on a time limit of 2.5 minutes, and I call

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Catherine Butch. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And of course, I want to start by paying a huge tribute to our two new members of Parliament with their maiden speeches this
18:31
Catherine Fookes Portrait Catherine Fookes MP (Monmouthshire, Labour)
-
-
afternoon. But I want to talk today about something that makes up a relatively small part of the Dwp's operations and its spending, but has an enormous significance and impact on children's lives. One of the core four core aims for the department, set out by the Secretary of State, clearly stated in the main estimates, is to tackle child poverty and hardship, ensuring financial security for all. The Child Maintenance Service exists to ensure separated parents have enough money for their children, but all too often it doesn't manage it.

Being a child of divorced parents myself, I know how upsetting and difficult the issue of maintenance can be and how it can be scarring for children, making the separation of parents even harder. And that's why I back the government's plans to make progress on improving the service so that it does a better job of delivering on bringing children out of poverty. This government has promised to move everyone from direct pay to collect and pay, and cut the fees on collect and pay, allowing more families to transition to a system where a third party makes sure that the parent who looks after the child does actually get the money.

Stronger enforcement on non-payment and better systems to accurately assess income, including when the paying parent is self-employed. These are things that would actually save the government money. The changes the government wants to make require minimal funding, but would lift 20,000 children out of poverty. This would help us make meaningful progress on two of the government's core commitments to tackle violence against women and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

girls, and to end child poverty. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Right now, it's hard to get through Right now, it's hard to get through a day without someone somewhere saying that welfare spending is ballooning out of control. For example, in the Conservatives example, in the Conservatives alternative King's speech, we're told for the first time ever, the total welfare bill is now higher total welfare bill is now higher than total receipts from income tax. Western civilization is at an end, it seems, until we realize that it seems, until we realize that it's not the first time at all.

It's been that way for 13 years, most of them under the Conservatives. Then we discovered that the ratio is about to go into reverse for the next few years. Welfare is forecast to be lower
18:33
John Milne Portrait John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
than income tax. Panic over. Then, remarkably, as a percentage of GDP, the amount we spend on welfare the amount we spend on welfare today is roughly the same as it was under Maggie Thatcher 40 years ago. under Maggie Thatcher 40 years ago. Today's welfare bill is simply not the cause of our economic problems, and neither can it be the sole and neither can it be the sole solution. But while moral panic seems like an overreaction, we should not relax. Cost control is should not relax.

Cost control is always crucial, so long as we understand that today's Budget pressure is less to do with welfare and more because of NHS demand and a general weakness in the economy. New benefit claimants are suffering from mild anxiety. We're told the need isn't real. Why don't they just man up? The neat thing is about this angle that we can be mean to people in need, but still feel good about ourselves. But this is a misreading of the data. Most claimants have more than one condition.

If a claimant can't walk but also has mild anxiety, they're only counted in the mild anxiety column. It's a false characterization of a scrounger culture, and that itself is part of the reason we never fix things. Most attempts to cut benefits the benefits bill fail. They hardly ever save as much money as they were supposed to, and they can even end up costing more than they can save. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I fully recognise the need to control costs, and I recognise that a healthy economy is the root of a healthy benefit system.

But basing national policy around the minority of claimants who don't want to help themselves is the surest way never

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to fix our benefit system. No. Duncan Jordan. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, our social security system acts as a bedrock of our welfare state. But for years, the safety state. But for years, the safety net it was meant to provide has developed more and more holes developed more and more holes through which some of our most vulnerable citizens have fallen. For our older generation, the State For our older generation, the State Pension is absolutely the foundation on which a decent retirement can be built. The interim report of the new Pensions Commission explains that 50% of working age adults are under saving.

Pensioner poverty is persistent and the State Pension represents three quarters of income in retirement for the lowest income groups and is set to grow. The fact is that if you're low paid when you are at work, you will have an inadequate pension in retirement and that is why we need to acknowledge the importance of the triple lock. This has been key to raising the incomes of some of our poorest pensioners, and why we need to see that continue.

And I cannot talk about pensions without calling again for those women born in the 1950s who were unaware of the changes to their State Pension age to receive some form of compensation. Now much has also been said, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the need to get young people into work. But the pathways to work green paper proposed removing eligibility for work related disability benefits, known as the Universal Credit Health element, from disabled people under 22. Now, we know that 94% of households with a young person claiming UC health would be in poverty if this support were cut.

Abandoning this cut would make it clear that this government is here to help people get on, not punish them for the barriers they may face. Madam Deputy Speaker, the protection offered by our Social security system should be there to ensure that no one in need falls through the gaps. That is the mark

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of a compassionate society, and one we should be proud to advance. Hear, hear. Jo Robertson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jo Robertson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate both hon. Members who've given their maiden Members who've given their maiden speech a few moments ago. Now we know the outgoing Prime Minister know the outgoing Prime Minister wanted to cut welfare spending, or at least he did a year ago when he brought forward some pretty rough brought forward some pretty rough and ready proposals to cut it by £5
18:37
Joe Robertson Portrait Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)
-
-
billion. But of course, his plans withered on the chill winds of the Labour backbenches, and the Labour backbenches, and the Minister literally tore up the proposals at the despatch box proposals at the despatch box during that debate. Now the Messiah from Makerfield may be here in just from Makerfield may be here in just a few weeks time, but he faces the same backbenchers in this place and that same environment within the that same environment within the Labour Party exists. Even if the new Prime Minister actually wants to do something about the welfare bill, because the situation we find ourselves in today is that youth unemployment, those aged 16 to 24, unemployment, those aged 16 to 24, is over 16%.

That is 729,000 people. Those not in employment, education or training stands at nearly 1 million. That is not good for them. It is not good for the economy. And crucially, it leads to the welfare bill that we have today and the government's response to their failure to get through their legislation, through their own back benches a year ago, was to put the questions to the Tims review. But of course, the Tims review is there to look at, broadly speaking, in the words of the Prime Minister and the government, fair fit for the future funding for PIP.

It does not have a remit to look at future savings and reductions in spending on PIP. So the aspiration is gone and the Milburn Review to look at youth unemployment makes it clear. We're not talking about getting young people back into work. Six out of ten are not in work and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

never had a job. I will give way. I'm very grateful to the hon. Member. He's talking with great Member. He's talking with great clarity about the amount of young people who are no longer accessing the world of work, and we know that the world of work, and we know that that can define people for their endurance of their working career. Does he lament, as I do, the Does he lament, as I do, the catastrophic changes that the Chancellor has made to the hospitality sector, taxing them out of business and taxing young people of business and taxing young people out of a job? And does he agree that it will have a very long tail for an awful lot of people in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world of work? I do agree with him. Indeed, it is in the tourism sector that a lot is in the tourism sector that a lot of young people in my constituency, and I'm sure here's an up and down the country find their first job. the country find their first job. It's the flexibility within the tourism sector and the fact that there is work when young people there is work when young people have time and want to do that work, that is such an enabler.

And the changes to national insurance, the changes to not only the rate but the the part time working that it now applies to is one of the major disincentives to work as well as the cliff edge incentives for young people and frankly, people of any age to remain on welfare. And of course, the government came into office without a plan to deal with those cliff edges, which inevitably develop over time. Any government will bring in welfare reform. They should plan for it in opposition.

But over time, loopholes and cliff edges emerge that were unintended. And when a new government comes in, you expect to see it implement its plans for welfare reform. Well, of course, this government had none, and it tried to develop them on the hoof. It failed to do it. And it's not just young people either. Over 2 million people over the age of 50, but of working age are now not working either. And most of those people would like to work.

They're looking for the opportunities and the government support to help get them back into work.
18:41
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
That is the end of backbench contributions. So I will now come contributions. So I will now come to the front Benchers and to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, if he's ready. Steve darling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he's ready. Steve darling. Thank you. And thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When one reflects Deputy Speaker. When one reflects that there are 96,000 people, civil servants who work for the DWP, it is very much a leviathan. And most of those people, when I've come across them, are incredibly committed individuals who are professional and want to do the best for their community. What a sad thing it is that it feels that they are lions led by donkeys. It feels as if the.

When the DWP Select Committee have engaged with senior civil servants and the Secretary of State that it feels as if they are trying to wrestle a greased pig that they are. There's a lack of grip and engagement with some of the challenges and there are many moving parts on the DWP. But when you come to wrestling this pig and you discover that the Chancellor has set you up to fail by the National Insurance hike that has sabotaged the opportunities for many young people who end up NEETs.

It is disturbing. It's also disturbing when there's been a failure to properly reform business rates and properly manage utility bills that are continue to be disturbing, particularly for our hospitality sector. There's much that I had hoped to cover in this speech, but I just really wanted to flick over a couple of areas. Access to work is a scheme that can result in real opportunities for people with disabilities or long term illnesses, and the Public Accounts Committee published their report recently, the 12th of June, that highlighted that the target date is five weeks for dealing with a new access work claim.

It is now 37 weeks in the evidence that it takes. This puts people with disabilities and their employers in an invidious situation. And again, what is needed is better tech to be able to process simpler systems. And the PAC committee came back to them on a firmer grip on that situation. WASPI women at the other end of the spectrum are women who the Labour Party campaigned with before the general election, made promises and then promptly dropped like a hot potato. They said all the right things as far as the report.

When it came out, they even apologised, but they failed to deliver the compensation. Now WASPI women have taken again to judicial review, but there needs to be safeguards around the cost challenge that they face and the government are failing to give those assurances. So I'm wondering, whilst it isn't interfering with that judicial review, if the Minister will give some assurances about that cost limitation for those campaigners, because WASPI women deserve their day in court. In conclusion, I would welcome the Secretary of State commenting on the what appears to be 130 job cuts at Cotswold House in Torquay.

There have. That was announced last week from the DWP elsewhere in the country. There are alternative locations for those people to be moved to in Torquay. There aren't any. Which is disturbing. The DWP only took new young people into their entry level jobs in March of this year, and yet a few short weeks later, they're putting them effectively on notice that either they have to move to Exeter or Plymouth to work, or they'll be out of a job.

I look forward to the minister's comments. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
18:45
Mark Garnier Portrait Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)
-
-
I'm the shadow Minister, Mark Garnier. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee for securing this debate and also offer my congratulations to the offer my congratulations to the members for Aberdeen South on a great conservative gain, and Arbroath and Brockley Ferry on a SNP hold. But congratulations on their maiden speeches. I welcome the opportunity to challenge the Minister on their department's spending policies and performance. We cannot pretend that welfare reform is not difficult to achieve and as my hon.

Friend the Shadow Secretary of State said recently, when I speak to former welfare secretaries, I hear the same thing again and again. Welfare reform is hard. You will be hated. That is why we offer our support to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Lady for Leicester West, when she attempted to bring down the benefits Bill because it was the right thing to do. Everyone is paying more in tax to pay benefits to others and it's not fair and it needs to change.

But when it comes to our welfare system, we need to be clear what we want from it. It should be there to help people when they fall into difficulty. At the same time, the welfare system should be helping the most vulnerable people in our society, and there are many people who simply can't work and they must be protected. But however, we got to a state where too many people are reliant on the benefit system. Let's take a look at where we've got to today.

When we left office, inflation was at 2%, unemployment was at 4.1%, youth unemployment was at 14%. 6.8 million people were claiming Universal Credit, and 3.5 million people were claiming PIP. 20 months later, after Labour came to power, inflation has risen to 2.8%, unemployment has risen to 4.9%, youth unemployment has risen to 16.2%. 7.9 million people are claiming Universal Credit. That is, it is 1.1 million more people claiming Universal Credit and 400,000 more people are claiming PIP at 3.9 million people.

This is unsustainable. But how have we got to this position? Part of it is down to the government's policies, of course, around employment. Firstly, the increase of employer national Insurance contributions to 15% has added more costs to businesses. This means many businesses have had to make redundancies and are hiring fewer people than before. And this is especially affecting young people, hence why we have now the higher youth unemployment than the European average. This is not a good thing. After 20 months in power and at the same time, the government also introduced the Employment Rights Act, adding even more costs and complexities to businesses.

These costs are estimated to cost £5 billion to businesses. So when the Minister closes the debate, I'm sure she will talk about the increased funding in apprenticeships. And this is, of course, welcome. But I would make the point that it is all well and good. Increasing funding for employment, apprentices and employment. But it is ultimately pointless if there are no jobs available. This is what this government seems to fail to understand. This is a crisis of their own making, and they're putting their heads in the sand and pretending it's all fine.

And as the leader of opposition has said, if it was all fine, why is the Prime Minister resigning? But when it comes to welfare specifically, we are now at a point where more than half of all households are net benefit net beneficiaries of benefits. Again, this is unsustainable. The government had the chance to reduce that benefit. Bill and the Leader of the Opposition pledged his party, our party's support in doing that. But the current government could not face down their own back benchers. So now we're left waiting for the Tims review of PIP to report in the autumn, which may not even suggest making the necessary savings we should all make on PIP.

But this year alone, PIP will cost the department an extra £3.5 billion in Universal Credit will cost nearly £9 billion extra if we stay on this trajectory. The Health and Disability Related Benefits Bill could reach nearly 100 billion by the end of this Parliament. We should be acting now, but we're instead left with dither and delay. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, we need to talk about fraud. Fraud is becoming ever more pervasive. The National Audit Office found that it cost the public sector between 55 and £81 billion in 2023 four, and if that continues to increase year on year.

So there is a real need to tackle and ensure public money is allocated correctly. On that point, I'm not going to actually I've got very, very limited time. My apologies, but when it comes specifically to fraud and error in DWP, the department's own statistics estimate that around £9.9 billion each year is overpaid in benefits. Of that, two thirds of those overpayments were on Universal Credit claims. So I hope the Minister will explain why it is particularly high in Universal Credit claims and what steps are being taken.

But in 2017, there were 7840 convictions for benefit fraud. Last year there were 461 convictions. That's a 94% decline in convictions. And in fact, since the general election, fewer than 600 individuals have been convicted in total. So I would agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodgreen that we should be making an example of benefit cheats in the courts to disincentivise others. You'll be delighted to hear. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm coming to the end of my speech.

Hard working taxpayers are being asked to pay more under this government. Many people would hope this would be going towards increasing, for example, the defence Budget as this estimates. Today's debate has highlighted, it is going to. Going to the DWP Budget instead. The government knows this isn't right. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was right when she said the government must not duck the big challenges facing this country. However, when it came down to making the tough decisions, they bottled it every time.

Maybe the next government, led by the hon. Member for Makerfield, will do better. In his speech yesterday, he said he would control the welfare bill and told us not to sorry and told us to imagine on these benches.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We hope his promises don't turn out to be imaginary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. You, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I first of all, start. By congratulating my honourable. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend. The chair of the Select Committee for securing this debate today and for all the work that she today and for all the work that she and her committee members do. Now, it has been a pleasure to hear not
18:51
Diana Johnson Portrait Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham, Labour)
-
-
one, but two maiden speeches this afternoon. May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Aberdeen South on his excellent maiden speech as a spokesperson for his party. Across several briefs during his time at Holyrood and as a former co-leader of Aberdeen City Council, he brings extensive local knowledge to this place and I wish him well in his career at Westminster. And the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, who has already made a splash at Westminster and today made a powerful speech including telling us about her choices of ice cream and pubs in her constituency and, of course, reference, referencing the famous Arbroath Smokies and Angus beef.

Now, despite the limited time that I have available, I will try and address as many of the points that members made as possible. But I do apologise in advance if I don't get to them all and I, of course will respond in writing if needs be. This debate, I think, has underlined that the DWP is a really important department, supporting millions of people and is the bedrock of our welfare state, which is the cornerstone of a civilised society. But of course, the welfare system must constantly change and adapt to the changes and circumstances that we find in this day and age, and that is why we are recasting the welfare system to put work skills and opportunity at its heart.

I'd like to start, first of all, by addressing some of the recent changes to the Department. As hon. Members know, the DWP has taken on responsibility for adult skills from the Department for Education, and this change strongly links skills and employment support to create genuine pathways into rewarding careers supporting economic growth and we have already seen the benefits of this with the Youth Guarantee and the Growth and Skills levy demonstrating DWP priority. Priority to tackle youth unemployment and investing in young people's futures.

Secondly, the DWP now hosts the Child Poverty Unit, which has moved from the Cabinet Office in March. This reflects the department's role as the centre of expertise on poverty policy and analysis. But I want to reassure the House that we have ensured continuity of the cross-government ministerial oversight of this important policy via the inter-ministerial Group on child poverty, which I am proud to co-chair and which will oversee delivery of the child poverty strategy. And of course, that strategy is all about maximising opportunity for young people, giving them the best start in life.

And that's why we've already removed the two child limit in Universal Credit as the centrepiece of our child poverty strategy, which will lift more than half a million children out of poverty now. Thirdly, we have also seen the introduction of our new Crisis and Resilience Fund, which is about getting people help before a crisis hits, not just afterwards. We retain the policy responsibility in the department and have worked hard with all our key partners, including councils, the LGA and community and voluntary sector organisations.

But as has already been said, the funding has been transferred into MH, MHCLGS Local Government Finance settlement and we think this is the right approach to make the funding process simpler and easier for local authorities, who are ultimately entrusted with deciding how best to provide this financial support to their communities. Can I now just say something about supporting young people, which is the department's top priority? There are more than a million young people who are not in work, education or training, and the Milburn Review estimates that for every £1 the DWP spent on employment support for young people in 2425, around £25 was spent on benefits for young people.

And that's a bad deal for young people and for the taxpayer. So by 2031, that number is already expected to reduce from £25 to £10. That's what more investment in opportunity actually looks like. We are creating a total of half a million opportunities for young people, backed with £2.5 billion of additional investment, including our Youth Guarantee, to ensure that every young person gets the chance to earn or learn. I also just want to say a few words about employment support more generally.

We're investing £3.5 billion in employment support for disabled people and those with long term health conditions through our Pathways to Work offer, and this includes work well and connect to work. And I was very pleased that the Select Committee produced a report on Connect to Work recently, and I was pleased to be in the chamber for the chair of the Select Committee's statement last week on Connect to Work. We're also, in addition, partnering with employers through the Keep Britain Working Review to build healthier and more inclusive workplaces.

We are building a new jobs and careers service, and I know that the chair of the Select Committee in particular is following that development very closely, and I noted her comments around safeguarding and vulnerable customers. And alongside all of this, we are rewiring the welfare system itself by changing the law. So claimants on sickness and disability benefits have the right to try work without the fear of automatically triggering a benefit reassessment. And of course, we have the Timms review as well just on welfare spending.

I just want to put this into context. Since the last this time last year, there are 400,000 more people in employment, welfare spending as a percentage of GDP continues to be broadly stable, as it has been for many years. And we've slowed the increase in the number of people coming into health and disability benefits. But that is actually where the spending is increasing the most. So as the Secretary of State has said, we are not circling the wagons around the status quo.

We are reforming the system. We are putting work skills and opportunity at the heart of the system. We are building not just a welfare state, but a working state and one that is active, efficient and fit for the times in which we live and that rejects wasting talent and potential and writing people off. And that always asks how we can help people to move into good jobs and fulfil their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

potential. Leader of the House. I call Debbie Abrahams to wind up briefly. Thank you. Thank you. First of all, congratulations to the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry and for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry and for South Aberdeen for their maiden speeches. And thank you to all the backbenchers who have contributed backbenchers who have contributed to today's debate. I wholeheartedly support what my right hon. Friend has said about transforming people's lives and the way that we can do it, and that is not by necessarily cutting individual support of vulnerable people.

It is about making sure that employment
18:59
Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
-
-
support provides the the impetus for for people, for young people, but also for disabled people. but also for disabled people. There's still a 30% disability gap to give them the opportunities. We can reduce the Social Security spending by 20 billion by the end spending by 20 billion by the end of this Parliament. If we have some innovation and are able to do this at pace. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker and I just think this has been a wonderful debate.

Thank you so much. And thank you to the backbenchers. What I would like to say is in 2017, the changes that were introduced that actually caused harm. And we don't want to introduce harm that is going to that is going to make it worse for people. We want to make it better and make it much more supportive. And on that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, do I need to keep going?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you so much. I wonder. If you want to touch on the point made by my hon. Friend about the Child Maintenance Service, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Child Maintenance Service, and Maintenance. Order, order, order the necessary. The question necessary to dispose of the motion stands to dispose of the motion stands over under standing order number 54. Marvellous. Now, did the front Marvellous. Now, did the front benches. Mr. shuffle over? If they're desperate to leave the chamber, as I can continue with chamber, as I can continue with business. Thank you. I am now required to put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the estimates.

The question is the motion on the Order Paper relating to expenditure by the Cabinet Office, which has already been moved as many. That opinion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say I. I can't, you know. I know I didn't have much time. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-brown Sir

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-brown Sir Geoffrey, we're in the middle of business. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. The question is the ayes have it. The question is the motion on the Order Paper relating to expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office, which has already Ireland Office, which has already been moved, as many of that opinion say, I. I Of the contrary, no. The say, I. I Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is the motion on the Order Paper relating to expenditure by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, which has already been moved, as many that say I.

I contrary no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is the motion on the Order Paper relating to expenditure by the Department for culture, Media and Sport, which has already been moved as many of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is the motion on the Order Paper relating to expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Care, which has already been moved as many. That opinion say aye. Of the contrary.

No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is the motion on the Order Paper relating to expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions, which has already been moved, as many. That opinion say I. I the country. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it estimates motion on the main

**** Possible New Speaker ****

estimates 2026 2027. Minister to move formally. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper as made that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No. The ayes aye. Of the contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Bill ordered to be brought in upon the motions in the name of Dan Tomlinson, relating to the estimates 2026 to 27, who will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

estimates 2026 to 27, who will prepare and bring in the Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lucy Rigby, Rachael Blake, Torsten Bell and myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very straight, very good. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Supply and appropriation. Main estimates. Bill. Second Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What day? Tomorrow? Tomorrow. Marvellous. I will now come on to s eyes. And with the leave of the house. I'll bring them in collectively. Motion number four in collectively. Motion number four on local government. Motion number five on education. Motion number six on Environmental Protection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, to move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper has made that opinion say. I, I. Contrary no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number seven on the Church of England. General Synod measures King's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

General Synod measures King's consent. Mark Thomas, second Church estimates. Commission to move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the. The question is as on the Order Paper

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is as on the Order Paper as made that opinion, say. I, I. As contrary. No. I think the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I have a point of order. Robert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jenrick. Mr. speaker, I seek your advice. Over the course of the day
19:04
19:04
Robert Jenrick Portrait Points of Order Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (Newark, Reform UK)
-
-
upon which tens of millions of pounds have already been spent. The development consent order has had already been granted, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's permission was given for that. No stakeholders, including myself, were informed. In Newark, the mayor of the East Midlands didn't know of the East Midlands didn't know the faintest thing about this before it was given to the trade press, which strikes me as a total press, which strikes me as a total slap in the face to local people in Nottinghamshire.

This is a scheme which would have a profoundly welcome effect on business, on jobs, on quality of life for my constituents, for everyone in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. And now it seems the scheme has been cast aside instead of what should have been spent money on which was cutting waste within government in order to fund important schemes like this. How? Madam Deputy Speaker, we get the Transport Secretary to the House of Commons to account for this terrible decision for my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituents and for all the people of the East Midlands. I thank the right hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, which, as is known, is not a matter for the chair. He may wish matter for the chair. He may wish to consult the table office on means of pursuing his concerns further.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn, and I come to Apsana Begum on domestic abuse and public life. Apsana Begum.
19:05
19:06
Apsana Begum Portrait Apsana Begum MP (Poplar and Limehouse, Labour)
-
-
again, the voices of survivors need to be heard and understood in the place where our country's laws are place where our country's laws are being made. The Minister herself is a survivor. As a survivor of domestic abuse and violence, is a domestic abuse and violence, is a testament to the fact that the voices of lived experience are desperately needed in this place. desperately needed in this place. Yet the barriers to that can feel enormous. The cost of entering and enormous. The cost of entering and staying in politics can mean that survivors are locked out or pushed out of political participation.

When we know that the stigma, the structural and systemic bias against us, the endless complaints and investigation processes, the use of the courts and the law to threaten and silence us, what a survivor has to endure feels insurmountable. The Westminster Forum for democracy have said. Democratic institutions that tolerate the exclusion of women cannot credibly claim to represent them. Indeed, I know survivors who are already in public life, who have chosen not to come forward or to report the abuse they have faced because of the position of power that their perpetrator is in.

This is important, Madam Deputy Speaker, because politics is about power. Politics and abuse can so often be closely correlated, not least as we have seen through the revelations on the horrific crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his connections to British political figures and institutions. The abuse does not end when a survivor leaves. Often it intensifies, as I know too well. The threats, intimidation, monitoring and manipulation can continue in social settings, in places like sports clubs, online and offline, and yes, in workplaces, political party settings, and generally all across public life.

In my experience and the experience of survivors I've spoken to, Post-separation harassment is shockingly pervasive. I want to illustrate this firstly through a story of a councillor who informed me that she has endured post-separation harassment from an ex-partner, their family and his associates during the local elections. On truly staggering levels. Hundreds of abusive messages shared during the campaign on public forums, including personal and private information, putting her at risk. While I will not be able to relate the full extent of the police failings in her case, it is shocking that no protections have yet been put in place to safely allow her to conduct her public duties.

Despite the introduction of Operation Ford, how is she supposed to attend full council meetings when her ex-partner may turn up there? What about her prospects of being able to safely stand and participate in future elections? Tragically, she said, I'm just at the point now where I don't think I want to stand again. This situation is all too familiar to me, but why should we be the ones to leave? As I have explained to the House previously, when I first put myself forward to be Labour's parliamentary candidate for Poplar and Limehouse, the harassment I faced intensified.

My ex-husband told people he was angry that I hadn't asked his permission to stand. He threatened to expose me to the community, knowing that he had intimate details about my medical history and pictures of me without my hijab on. Threats were made to my campaign team members about telling the press stories about me, and they were told that people should make me stand down or else. And at the time, my ex-husband was a sitting Labour councillor. He was then, as I understand even now, well connected in local political groupings and to a small clique within my local Labour Party.

Now, two years after my election in 2019, I was made to endure a vexatious eight day trial of criminal charges as a result of a complaint made by my ex-husband's brother in law that I was completely cleared of, but that which I feel continues to haunt me and perhaps will for the rest of my life. Why? Because even after he was expelled from the Labour Party for his treatment of me, he stood against me in the general election in 2024, with the stated aim of wishing to set the record straight.

Indeed, I found out through a press outlet less than 20 minutes before the legal nominations deadline closed, that he was standing just 20 minutes to decide whether I should continue to embark on my re-election campaign. With the prospect of continuing to be in public life. Knowing that the harassment had rolled on from party and court processes now into an electoral one. I just want to highlight to the House just what this means in practice. I was unable to attend some hustings and had to seek advice as to whether refusing to stand next to him at the election count would violate his legal rights.

As a candidate, I'd have to leave polling stations immediately where he would be tipped off about where I was. I had to stop campaigning early on the day because the threat just couldn't be managed. And there does appear to be little or no framework on how to manage the situation overall, because he was already confirmed as a parliamentary candidate, or even to protect my democratic rights and indeed provide me with safety as a candidate, I feel a tremendous duty to survivors, and I feel compelled to keep speaking out about these experiences and accordingly, to do something about this, because what happened to me must never happen to anyone again.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have long been campaigning for better protections in the workplace for survivors of domestic abuse, and I've also been campaigning on a cross-party basis for new duties to be placed on all political parties to better support candidates and representatives who are survivors of domestic abuse, so that they are not exposed to further harassment in their roles because abuse is not always direct. Madam Deputy Speaker, survivors can experience threats made against third parties who can be intimidated or manipulated into engaging in behaviors desired by the perpetrator.

These are in. These are forms of indirect abuse, as I've come to understand through the ongoing support of my independent domestic violence advocate, I know from my experiences of my ex-husband's associates, including that small clique who are still active within my local party, that the abuse can persist even when a perpetrator themselves is not present with reports being made that the party my party is about to commence on a new reselection process, I still have not been told if or how the party will prevent those people from overseeing another process.

In the years since the tragic and senseless murder of Jo Cox ten years ago this month, Madam Deputy Speaker, numerous initiatives have been launched to tackle abuse and violence against representatives, campaigners and candidates. We know that women and black and minority, minority ethnic women most of all face staggering levels of abuse online and offline, from threats of sexual violence to physical assaults. It is still a terrifying time to run for election. As a woman, 69% of women polled cite abuse or harassment as a key reason for not pursuing a career in politics.

And for a survivor. Of course, it is even more difficult to consider the Representation of the People Bill. Returning to the House gives us the opportunity to tackle the barriers, locking survivors out of our political system. I am glad to see clause 32 increasing the timescale for anonymous voter registration, crucial for ensuring that survivors are able to participate in elections as voters. But what about participating as candidates? It is for that reason that I've tabled two amendments to this bill to address the gaps in protections under electoral law regarding domestic abuse.

The schedule nine offences for which disqualification orders must include behaviors amounting to domestic abuse and when charging, and conviction rates for domestic abuse related offences remain so low compared to the full scale of domestic abuse itself, I feel it is also necessary for courts to issue disqualification orders when granting protection orders. These amendments are supported by elect her and the Jo Cox Foundation, and I hope that the government will consider them fully as to encourage more survivors to participate in our politics and in our elections.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no question about the need to make sure that survivors can feel secure and confident in standing for election. There are urgent measures that political parties, that government and that the police must take to make this possible. I'm sure that to the fullest possible extent, the Minister will be looking to deliver on the promises of the government's vawg strategy. The measure of that strategy success will be whether it tackles the horrific, horrifying statistic that only 1 in 5 victims and survivors report their abuse, and how we enable victims and survivors to come forward is by tackling the systems which can be used to manipulate and silence them and prevent their voices from being heard.

Political parties, including our own, must truly assess how well they do themselves. They do this themselves. Internally, we have a duty to make inclusive, democratic and safe environments possible for everyone to participate in, and it saddens me deeply to be in a position where I'm prevented from being able to participate fully in public life. I still have to risk assess every event and every meeting, and I cannot participate if the risks cannot be mitigated. And while I have spoken from my own experience today, I know that my experience is actually far from unique.

I have been contacted by women and survivors from all across the country, for whom I am determined to work for a society where survivors feel confident that they will be believed, listened to and treated supportively. This country must become one where survivors are not thwarted by ongoing harassment and abuse, including if they choose to enter public life as surely should be their right to.
19:17
Natalie Fleet Portrait Natalie Fleet MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Bolsover, Labour)
-
-
I now come to the Minister, Natalie Fleet, Minister. Minister. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to my hon. Friend, the Member for Poplar and Limehouse for raising this vital issue, as for raising this vital issue, as well as her continued advocacy for victims and survivors of domestic abuse everywhere. There are parts of this job that I find really difficult, and I know that she shares that. And then there are parts of being here in this chamber, on these benches, that are the most incredible privilege.

And as I sit here as a Minister, to be able to hear your testimony as a survivor. Sorry, sorry, the hon. Members.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. OK. When I'm on my feet, I know she's new to the Dispatch Box, but know you and yours because it's not know you and yours because it's not my story. And to help, she must look into the microphone and speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look into the microphone and speak through the chair. Minister, please. Thank you for your patience,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the most incredible privilege to be most incredible privilege to be here in this chamber to hear how the member triumphed against the most horrendous abuse, seeing her surrounded, seeing the member surrounded by her colleagues in the most supportive way possible. That feels like a real privilege, and I am very grateful to have been here for this moment. I know the member championed the importance of a whole system approach to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls more broadly.

I also know how hard it is to come forward and share experiences of abuse, and am proud to use my platform to shine a light on the challenges many victims and survivors face. And I know that so many will have been listening to my hon. Friends account this evening and will take strength from it. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that tackling Vawg is a top priority for this government, and we've made it a mission to halve those crimes in a decade.

Domestic abuse and violence against women and girls are, as we all know, the source of untold harm. The abuse can remain hidden regardless of a person's lifestyle, their social circles, their profession, including absolutely people in public life. It's something that affects every single part of society and too often is still hidden and accepted as part of everyday life. That is why this debate is so important, and I'm so grateful for the member's testimony and her campaigning on this issue, her bravery and honesty and that of other survivors is crucial.

Only by listening to those who have firsthand experience can we continue to champion and advocate for victims of these crimes. The government has been absolutely clear that things must change. Our violence against women and girls strategy is driving that change by strengthening early intervention, pursuing perpetrators at every turn and giving victims the best possible support. It is not just about responding to harms after they happen, it's about focusing on stopping them in the first place. We're taking clear steps to challenge attitudes, norms and behaviours that allow abuse to continue.

Through the updated relationship and sexual health education curriculum, we're giving our children the tools to spot and challenge unhealthy relationship dynamics. We are delivering our Behaviour Change campaign enough to help young men and boys reflect on and question harmful behaviors that absolutely have become normalised by raising awareness across our society, spotting these early signs and teaching everyone to challenge these behaviours, I hope that we continue to reduce the shame and stigma that stops people from seeking help early by taking a victim centred approach to tackling violence against women and girls.

We've invested £550 million to pay for counselling, court guidance and children's services to support victims in the Home Office. And proud that this month we've launched a £24 million completion for helpline, competition for helpline and advocacy services. These specialist helplines are for minority groups and will help victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence, honour based abuse, intimate image abuse and stalking. We've worked hard to secure multiyear funding that will give our services more certainty and reassurance, but if we are going to make real change in tackling vawg, we need to transform how we work across public sector and services.

We need a whole of government approach and whole of society approach so that victims can access health, housing, justice and the support they need. We've established the National Centre for Vogue and Public Protection so that victims receive a consistent response across our forces. We have a strategy that focuses on pursuing perpetrators, holding them accountable for their crimes, and managing them wherever they are to prevent further harm. An example of this is our Domestic Abuse Protection Orders, which bring together the strongest elements of protection orders in a single, flexible order and means that we can impose behaviour change programmes on perpetrators.

The pilots seen more victims protected and perpetrators held to account, with prison sentences able to be handed down. Where breaches occur. We are rolling out depots across England and Wales as soon as we can so that more victims can benefit from the impact it's having in pilot areas, though we are taking active steps to combat all forms of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse. There is so much more to do. So the member raised Post-separation abuse and I found out today the interventions that have been made to mean that this can happen at all.

It's blown my mind that this wasn't always a thing. It wasn't too often. Abuse continues after a relationship has ended. That's why in the Domestic Abuse Act, we extended the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour to former intimate partners. We have also removed the requirement for the victim and perpetrator to live together to reflect. It can happen once the ex-partner has left the property. I also know that as technology advances, it amplifies the scale, severity and reach of abuse.

That's why the Vogue strategy includes ambitious commitments to tackle online and technology facilitated harm, and we're already taking decisive action to protect all of us online. The Crime and Policing Act introduced measures to ban notification apps and require platforms to remove non-consensual, intimate image abuse within 48 hours. On the 8th of June, the Prime Minister announced that Britain will be the first country to prevent children from taking, sharing and viewing nude images on sharing and viewing nude images on their devices.

So. The member mentioned how difficult it is for people like her to be to hold public office because of the challenges that the member has faced. Our democracy is richer with members like her in this House. And democracies across the world need to have women and survivors within them. In fact, public office should be open to everyone, regardless of background. All our democracies are better for it. And again, I thank her for her campaigning in this area.

She mentioned more than once our sister Jo Cox, and her legacy and absolutely the work in this space to make sure that we support each other to be here is absolutely vital. The government recognises that there absolutely is abuse and intimidation of MPs, and we also recognise that this has a disproportionate impact on minority groups in politics, including women and those from minority ethnic backgrounds, through the Defending Democracy Task Force, we're working with policing and other electoral partners to ensure that candidates and elected officials are safe while campaigning, and absolutely, when in office, the task force is driving a whole government approach to tackle abuse targeted at elected officials, and has taken steps to make it safer to stand for and be elected to public office.

We continue to review and develop our approach, working with partners across law enforcement, Parliament and the third sector to identify and address any gaps in our response in terms of vexatious civil court proceedings. The government is absolutely committed to preventing courts being used as tools of abuse by perpetrators, and we recognise the damage that vexatious litigation has on individuals in England and Wales. The courts have several mechanisms to protect individuals from being subjected to repeated meritless or abusive litigation.

Most commonly, a party can seek a civil restraint order, which restricts a person from making further applications or issuing claims without the court's permission. Where those applications have been found totally without merit, cross can range from limited orders, applying only to current proceedings to extended or general orders to prevent wider use of the court system without prior approval. In more extreme cases of persistent abuse, the High Court may declare an individual of a litigant under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act, 1981.

If this happens, they must obtain permission before bringing forward any new proceedings. Along with these measures, courts must also strike out baseless claims and impose cost sanctions and in certain circumstances, where litigation forms part of a pattern of harassment, injunctive relief may be available. Together, these remedies help to ensure individuals are protected from repeated unfounded claims while preserving the integrity of the justice system. So again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I haven't I've refrained from commenting on any individual case, but I will say that listening to personal accounts in this debate has been an incredibly moving experience.

I am grateful the hon. Member for the powerful and thought provoking contributions we have heard, not just in this debate, in the contribution she continues to make across the House. I have heard her, and I hope has been clear from my response the government's commitment to tackle domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is total. We've taken important steps forward, especially with our vawg strategy to improve criminal justice outcomes, restore trust in policing and ensure that tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is everyone's problem.

But we all know there's more to do. And across government, parliament, policing and beyond, we all must now step up our efforts to prevent abuse and protect the vulnerable as we work towards halving vogue. In a decade. I've been able to set out tonight the measures that the government is taking and where there is more that we can do. But I cannot overestimate the power for survivors everywhere to see a survivor raising this issue and surrounded by a group of peers that support her, without question.

And I thank you for your contribution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tonight. The question is, in this House do now adjourn and many of that do now adjourn and many of that opinion say I. I the ayes have it.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page