debates/debates2025-01-16b conversation_19
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-16)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-16b conversation_19

Patricia Ferguson:What steps the Church is taking to tackle racial injustice. \p Marsha de Cordova: In 2020 the House of Bishops created the archbishops’ anti-racism taskforce, followed by the archbishops’ commission for racial justice, to continue the work of tackling racial injustice in the Church and society. Last February, the General Synod voted unanimously to continue efforts to address racial injustice across the Church. \p Patricia Ferguson: The Church’s work to recognise the importance of diversity and on proactive anti-racism is very welcome, but what steps is it taking to address its historical links to the slave trade? \p Marsha de Cordova: The Church’s role in slavery is truly shameful. It is only right that it takes action to recognise its links to the transatlantic enslavement of Africans. No amount of money would ever be enough to repair the horrors of the slave trade, but the Church Commissioners’ project will set aside £100 million over nine years for a programme of impact, investment, research and engagement. It is hoped that this fund will continue to grow over time and will reinvest returns. Investments in grant funding will be directed towards communities that have been impacted by the enslavement of Africans. \p Jesse Norman: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business? \p Lucy Powell: The business for the week commencing 20 January includes:

Monday 20 January—General debate on the impact of food and diet on obesity, followed by a general debate on financial education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 21 January—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024.

Wednesday 22 January—Motion to agree a money resolution relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 23 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day.

Friday 24 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 27 January will include:

Monday 27 January—General debate on the creative industries.

Tuesday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 29 January—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill.

Thursday 30 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.

For the convenience of the House, and in view of the three important statements that are taking place today, the motion on the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024 will not be moved today. \p Jesse Norman: I am sure that the Leader of the House and every Member will join me in welcoming the news overnight of a ceasefire in Gaza. Let us hope and pray that it is as effective, comprehensive and long-lasting as possible.

Back at home, all one can say is that it has been another extraordinary week for the Government, though possibly not in the way that they would have wanted. We have had the Government’s anti-corruption Minister herself being named for corruption by another country in the face of an international investigation into embezzlement of development and other funds. We have had the unusually unlovely sight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a desperate search for growth that has taken her to Beijing and back—though with precious little result, it seems. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said this week that stagflation—that toxic combination of recession and inflation—is now “a live risk”. Even the very, very modest GDP growth reported for November was below expectations.

At some point, the Government’s current spending splurge will doubtless start to nudge growth upwards over the coming year, but in the meantime we will have to look forward to the grim prospect of the national insurance changes in April and the horrors of the Employment Rights Bill, which even by the Government’s own estimates will cost employers an extra £5 billion a year. So dire has the Chancellor’s position become that she has been forced to ask Cabinet colleagues for ideas of growth. Given the galaxy of business talent around the Cabinet table, how can that possibly go wrong?

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has been forced not only to express “full confidence” in the Chancellor—always a death knell—but to insist that she will remain in post for the full period of this Government. Let us see how that works out. It has been extraordinary, in particular, to see her attacked by her own colleagues, who have said:

“we’re going back to austerity in all but name.”

Luckily, the Government were able to announce some good news in the form of the latest results of the national wealth fund, which has apparently generated more than 6,000 jobs and £1.6 billion in private investment over the last six months—except that the announcement is, I am afraid, entirely disingenuous. As Lord Livermore said in a debate in the other House in October, the national wealth fund is, in fact, the UK Infrastructure Bank with a new name and a bit more capital. I know something about the UK Infrastructure Bank, because I set it up in 2021 when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It has an absolutely world-class leadership team and I am not remotely surprised to see it doing so well. But the idea that its recent success is attributable to a Labour Government who have done little more than rebrand it is an embarrassing joke. Its success has been powered by good institutional design, a top team, tonnes of talented employees and more than four years of hard work.

One recalls the Government’s attempt to claim credit for £63 billion of international cash in the October investment summit. I know the Leader of the House is a strong believer in transparency and accountability, so will she have the Treasury update the House on what form that investment has taken, how much of it has been received and where it is being spent? Frankly, it is more than doubtful that three months of post-election chaos in the Government had any such effect in boosting investment, but we will see when the Government publish the numbers, as I am sure they will. If it turns out like the so-called national wealth fund, we will know that the Labour Government are more than happy to take credit for at least some of the work of the previous Government, provided that they can put their own name on it. \p Lucy Powell: I, too, am sure that the whole House will welcome the developments between Israel and Gaza over the past hours and days, with a long-overdue ceasefire and the release of hostages now looking like a real possibility, although that is still to be confirmed. This will hopefully now lead to much-needed aid getting in,usb the end of the killing, the hostages being released, and, I hope, what will be the beginning of a long-term political solution for the region. We will hear shortly from the Foreign Secretary with further details on that.

First, I will explain one of the pieces of business I have just announced, and set out why the Government will table a money resolution relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill next week. In order for a Bill Committee to consider any clauses that could have spending implications, the Government must first table a money resolution. That is not the Government agreeing to fund the measures in a Bill; it is purely to enable the Bill to be debated in Committee. In the case of this Bill, this relates to one small component that is yet to be debated and agreed. Without the motion being agreed to, that debate could not happen and that component could not remain in the Bill. The Government have taken the view that that would act against our commitment to remain neutral on the Bill. The House should debate and decide on these matters for itself. I hope that, as with Second Reading, colleagues will focus on the substance and not the processes of this sensitive private Member’s Bill.

It really has been quite incredible to watch the collective display of amnesia on the Conservative Benches over recent weeks—it is like the past 14 years did not happen. I see that the Leader of the Opposition is out today in what has been briefed as her finally telling the truth about the Conservatives’ record: they did not have a plan for growth, they were not honest with the British people, and they negotiated a bad Brexit deal. However, it sounds like the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) did not quite get that memo.

It sounds like the right hon. Gentleman did not get the memo about the Conservatives needing to be honest about their record on standards either. If he wants to compare the previous Government’s record on losing Ministers, I am quite happy to do so. Boris Johnson had 36 of his own Ministers resign in 24 hours—the highest number on modern record. Even the very nice right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) lost four of his senior Ministers in his first few months, including his party chairman and Deputy Prime Minister, for breaking the ministerial code. Even when there were investigations on Ministers, they were often ignored. This Government have strengthened the ministerial code and now have an adviser who is able to initiate investigations. We have brought in new rules for Members of Parliament on outside interests, and we will go further.

The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not get the memo on the Conservatives’ record on the economy, and is instead trying to attack our plans. The Leader of the Opposition, his party leader, is now telling the country that they did not have a plan for growth. That is the truth of the situation, isn’t it? The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about the fundamental weaknesses in our economy, and they did nothing. In fact, they made those weaknesses even worse: stagnant growth, low productivity, low wages, low skills, high mortgages, high debt, poor health, poor housing, woeful transport, deep-seated inequalities, and no ambition under the previous Government to gain the jobs of the future. We are beginning to tackle those deep-rooted weaknesses, and that is the truth that he and his party leader should be telling the country. \p Amanda Hack: Community organisations are the backbone of many events in towns and villages across North West   Leicestershire. For the past 10 years, the Rotary Club of Ashby de la Zouch Castle has organised our annual charity Santa fun run in Ashby, which I have had the pleasure of taking part in alongside hundreds of local people. Last week, the club presented cheques to LOROS hospice, Rainbows hospice for children and young people, and Staunton Harold Sailability Trust. It was great to hear that the fun run has now raised over £100,000 for local charities that support residents in need. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the volunteers for their commitment to support our communities, and could the House be granted an opportunity to discuss what further support could be provided to volunteers to ensure that they continue to thrive? \p Lucy Powell: I will certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking the volunteers in her constituency for what sound like fantastic local fundraising activities. I thought she was going to ask me to go on a fun run—to which the answer was going to be no—but otherwise I welcome her question. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we have been delighted by the recent groundswell of support from across the House for Liberal Democrat policies. In particular, I cite: the support for our Youth Mobility Scheme (EU Countries) Bill; the warm response for the sunshine Bill—the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill—from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which is coming tomorrow; and the House endorsing a fairer voting system. Will the Government answer this clear yearning by Members across the House for Liberal Democrat policies and provide parliamentary time to ensure those Bills become law? \p Lucy Powell: I notice that this week there was further public support for the Liberal Democrats: I understand that 90% of respondents to a review of their general election campaign thought their party leader’s eye-catching campaign style was very effective. I concur, so here’s to even more bungee jumping and paddle boarding, but perhaps less of the tight wetsuits—I’m not sure I really want to see those! I am pleased that we are able to support a number of the measures coming forward from the hon. Lady’s colleagues. I look forward to continuing to work constructively across the House with Liberal Democrats. \p Natalie Fleet: As the junction 28 parliamentary champion, I report that residents across Bolsover are really frustrated by congestion. Can we have a Government statement on what we are doing to tackle congestion across Bolsover? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of congestion in Bolsover, and I congratulate her on doing so today. She will know that this is one of a number of issues the Government are seeking to tackle through their transport and roads strategies. \p Andrew Rosindell: Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State for Transport to come urgently to the House and give a statement on the destruction of trees and vegetation along the Liberty line, which runs from Romford to Emerson Park in my constituency? There has been an  extreme lack of accountability and communication from Network Rail. It has not consulted local residents or elected representatives, despite promising to do so in 2022 when a similar incident occurred. This is devastating for the local environment and wildlife. Cutting down healthy trees is wrong and Network Rail needs to be held to account for its actions. \p Lucy Powell: I am sure that many colleagues across the House recognise that the felling of healthy trees causes a great deal of local interest from constituents, wherever it occurs, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise it. I am not aware of the particular case he raises, but I will ensure he gets a ministerial response. \p Lee Barron: Gary, a constituent of mine who lives in Thrapston, had his driving licence suspended for six months due to a medical condition. During that time, his employer supported him getting to and from work, but shortly before his licence was due to be renewed it was, once again due to his medical condition, suspended for a further six months. In the light of that and in order to continue to work, Gary applied for support from the Access to Work grant scheme. Following his application, Gary was advised that there was a 30-week wait before his application would be dealt with. Does the Minister agree that the Government have prioritised supporting people who wish to continue to work whenever they can, and that delays in granting applications like this are totally unacceptable and could lead to people losing their jobs? Can we get Gary’s case looked into as soon as possible? \p Lucy Powell: It is completely unacceptable for people to have to wait as long as that. This Government are committed to significantly reducing the waiting times for Access to Work and other programmes, and I will ensure that a Minister looks into Gary’s case and it is resolved as soon as possible. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Bob Blackman: I thank the Leader of the House for allowing protected time for this afternoon’s Backbench Business debate, and also for allowing time next week for the annual Holocaust Memorial Day debate. In addition to the business that she announced for Monday, there will be two Select Committee statements on behalf of the Treasury Committee and another on behalf of the Defence Committee. Those Committee statements are important, so I trust that the Government will try not to schedule too many Government statements that would squeeze the time available. We always like to satisfy colleagues, and on Thursday 30 January there will be a debate on proportional representation for general elections.

In Westminster Hall, next Tuesday there will be a debate on the provision of auditory verbal therapy, next Thursday there will be a debate on the United Nations International Day of Education followed by a debate on innovation in the field of rare retinal diseases, on Tuesday 28 January there will be a debate on road safety for young drivers, and on Thursday 30 January there will be a debate on medicinal cannabis.

In addition, may I point out that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has organised hate marches across London over many months since 7 October? The Metropolitan police have finally decided that it is unacceptable for the campaigners to form up at midday 100 yards from a synagogue where Jewish people were threatened when leaving or joining the Shabbat service, and have insisted that the route of the marches must not go near any synagogue. However, the campaigners have said that they will defy the police and form up outside the synagogue again. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary reinforcing the view that if that happens, those individuals should face the full force of the law and the cost of policing the demonstration to ensure that public order is protected? \p Lucy Powell: Let me first thank the hon. Gentleman for listing a number of future debates. I was pleased that, after he had raised the matter with me in during business questions last week, I was able to protect time for this afternoon’s debate, and that we were able to find Government time for a proper debate on Holocaust Memorial Day next week. As ever, I thank him for his continued work as a very diligent and good Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

As for the other issue, the hon. Gentleman will know that decisions about the policing of protests and demonstrations are a matter for the police—they are operational matters—but he is right to say that public safety should be at the fore, along with ensuring that no one is subject to antisemitism or any other kind of hate as a result of any demonstration. \p Simon Opher: May I pick up some comments that were made a little earlier? Many of my constituents have written to me expressing their concerns about campaign finance laws following media reports that a certain foreign billionaire will be providing very large donations. Will the Government introduce legislation to cap individual donations, close existing loopholes and enhance the powers of the Electoral Commission? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is right: foreign money and foreign donations have no place in UK politics and are prohibited under current law, but the existing legislation may need to be tightened. As he will know, we have a manifesto commitment to look at donations to political parties, and we will be introducing a Bill on elections, probably in the next Session. \p Wendy Chamberlain: Yesterday, along with many other Members, I attended an oversubscribed debate in Westminster Hall led by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on compensation for WASPI women. It is clear there was no consensus on the Government side in relation to the outcome of the Government’s decision. Given that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman sent the report to Parliament for Parliament to decide, when will the Government provide time for a debate and a vote? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for that question. As she said, a debate did take place yesterday, and there are many mechanisms for debates to be brought forward in the Chamber or Westminster Hall. I know it is of great disappointment to people that the Government have taken this decision, which was quite a specific one  about that report. Many women were communicated with over that time, and an apology was issued, but we did not feel that the compensation being proposed was proportionate or would be a fair use of public funds at this time. \p Michelle Welsh: We have a housing crisis across the UK, and I am pleased that the Government have announced a plan to build 1.5 million more homes. Does the Leader of the House agree that councils have an important part to play in fixing this crisis by updating their local plans and delivering the homes that are so desperately needed, including social housing and affordable homes? Without these plans, our green-belt spaces are at risk, such as Whyburn Farm in my constituency, which Ashfield Independents on the district council are failing to protect by having no plan. Does she agree that it is vital that councils use their local plans to meet the needs of communities, while also protecting our green-belt spaces? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this country faces a housing crisis. That is why this Government have an incredibly ambitious target to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, and we are changing the national planning policy framework to ensure that local councils have ambitious targets for their own local areas in order to meet that target. \p Stephen Flynn: In the 2024 new year’s honours list, Stuart Hogg was awarded an MBE. Since then he has been charged, convicted and sentenced for domestic abuse. Does the Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council agree that he should be stripped of that state honour? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for raising this important matter, which I know is of great concern to him and to many other Members across the House. Let us be clear that domestic abuse is abhorrent, we condemn it, and it should not be, or be seen to be, rewarded by any of us. It is completely understandable and appropriate that he and others raise questions about whether this honour should continue. He will know that I cannot comment on individual honours. However, recommendations to remove honours are considered by the Forfeiture Committee, which he might want to raise this with. \p Oliver Ryan: I am deeply concerned about a local decision by our hospital trust to cut the bus route between Burnley general teaching hospital urgent care centre and Royal Blackburn teaching hospital, which is a huge loss to staff and patients. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on transport operators, the county council, East Lancashire hospitals NHS trust, Blackburn with Darwen borough council and others to get round the table and find a solution to save our shuttle bus and keep this vital service running? \p Lucy Powell: Shuttle buses such as the one my hon. Friend describes in his constituency—especially those that go to hospitals and other local services—are vital. For too long, local areas and communities have not had a say in the bus routes they need in their area. That is why we have brought forward the Bus Services Bill,  which is making its way through the other House and will ensure that his constituents have more of a say over the bus routes in their area. \p Kit Malthouse: As I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, my constituency is the source of a number of globally significant chalk streams, not least and most famously the River Test. A number of Members were pressing the previous Government to bring forward a chalk stream recovery pack, to help get those rivers back to their best state of health, so you can imagine our disappointment when we learnt in the media before Christmas that this pack was being abandoned, as was subsequently confirmed in a ministerial statement. Could we have a statement urgently from the Secretary of State about what he will do to replace that pack and bring these rivers back to the state of health they should be in? \p Lindsay Hoyle: We have to help Sir Charles Walker’s fishing—come on, Leader of the House. \p Lucy Powell: I pride myself on knowing lots of things about what the Government are doing, but I have to admit that this is not something I am aware of or can offer the right hon. Gentleman any particular advice on right now. However, I assure him that I will raise it today with the Minister and ensure that he gets a full response. If that is not sufficient, I will ensure that the Minister comes to the House. \p Chris Webb: Back in September, I hand-delivered a letter to the Home Office regarding critical concerns about our asylum hotel and about so many vulnerable families being put in such a deprived area. I had a holding response in October, as did my council, but can the Leader of the House secure me a meeting with Home Office officials to discuss this vital issue? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend consistently raises the issue of asylum hotels in his constituency, and I am really sorry to hear that he has not yet had a response from the relevant Minister. I will ensure that he gets a response and the meeting he has asked for. \p Jim Shannon: My question is about a rather disturbing matter, and it regards the latest issue of The House magazine. On page 14, there is an article entitled, “State of the union”. There are depictions of the United Kingdom, and each country has its flag. The flag over Northern Ireland, contrary to what the rest of the world knows it to be, is the flag of the Republic of Ireland, as opposed to the Union flag or the Ulster banner. This is absolutely outrageous and must be corrected in a suitably clear manner.

The flag of our nation—my nation—is precious. When I look at the red of the St Patrick’s cross in the background of that flag, I think of the blood of those whose lives were given in the defence of Northern Ireland and this great nation. When I see the publication’s mistake, it grieves me to see how we are regarded by so many. I wish to make it clear that we do not live under the flag of the Republic of Ireland, despite the view of those who do not take their seats here. However, it seems that their influence is greater than that of those in this  Chamber. The flag of Northern Ireland is the Ulster banner or the Union flag, and it means something to many people.

We cannot allow this disgraceful incident to pass. I ask the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, to ensure that there is a correction. Perhaps the staff at The House also need to be educated about the basics of the state of the Union, including its geography; they need to understand the wee simple things, given that it purports to be a political magazine that is focused on the business of this House. Will the Leader of the House show her displeasure with the erroneous depiction? May I ask her to ensure that a correction is made immediately, and that geographic training for staff at The House magazine will take place? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s displeasure, and I thank him for raising this matter today. It is a very disturbing mistake for The House to have made. He will be aware that I am not responsible for the magazine, but I hope that the editors and the editorial board are watching this exchange and can offer the hon. Gentleman a full explanation and a full apology. They need to put this situation right with immediate effect. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Given that I have been brought into this matter, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that The House is not a publication of the House, but it does trade on the House’s name and use the House’s coat of arms. There are questions to be asked, and the hon. Gentleman has raised a very important question. The Leader of the House and I will look at what we can do and what should happen next. \p Alistair Strathern: Right across my constituency, there is plenty of support for this Government’s ambition to do far better when it comes to transitioning to clean, green renewable energy. However, there is also a lot of frustration when my constituents see new houses going up, because we are not making use of rooftops and making sure that homes have the highest energy efficiency standards. Can we have a statement from the Housing Minister about how we can make sure that we are far more ambitious than the last Government in the requirements on developers? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Solar panels on new homes will be a vital component in meeting our clean energy superpower ambitions. He will be aware that the previous Government actually pulled back from including solar panels in the new building regulations. Had they done so, we would already have a much higher level of solar energy coming into the grid. We are already putting that right. \p Claire Young: Post offices provide vital services in our rural communities, such as banking. In my Thornbury and Yate constituency, however, there are concerns about the future of the post office in Tytherington community shop, following the announcement that its partner post office in Cromhall will close at the end of February. Will the Leader of the House agree to give us a debate in Government time on how we can support community post offices in the future? \p Lucy Powell: The issue of community post offices regularly comes up in these sessions, and I know it is a matter of considerable importance to the House. It would make for a good Backbench Business debate, and I see that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is still in his place. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) is right to raise these issues. I know that colleagues are concerned about plans to close all the current Crown post offices, too. She should know that no decisions have been made on that, and I would encourage colleagues to raise the matter very strongly in the House, with Ministers and, indeed, with the Post Office itself. \p Navendu Mishra: Sadly, many places across England have been impacted by flooding in recent days. The ground floor of Meadow Mill in my constituency was flooded on new year’s eve, which meant that residents in 213 apartments were not only stranded but left without water, electricity or heating. I thank all the emergency service workers and Stockport council staff for supporting the residents. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of flooding on insurance premiums and service charge costs for apartment block residents? \p Lucy Powell: As a near constituency neighbour of my hon. Friend, I am well aware of Meadow Mill and all the trauma and difficulties suffered by residents during the recent flooding. Many other colleagues’ constituencies were affected, too.

This Government inherited really poor flood defence systems, which is why we have put in place a floods resilience taskforce. My hon. Friend is right to highlight insurance costs and other issues, and I will ensure that the House is kept constantly updated on flooding and its impacts. \p Caroline Dinenage: Could the Leader of the House use her great influence to improve the tone and quality of ministerial responses in this place? On Monday, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology responded to the question I asked on behalf of the creative industries, which are very worried about the Government’s consultation on artificial intelligence and copyright, by telling me that I do not

“understand the idea of a consultation.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 55.]

I hate to admit it, but I am long enough in the tooth to say that I genuinely do understand what a consultation is and how to recognise one that does not appear to be genuine and that has a foregone conclusion.

The point is that we need to be able to articulate questions on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of sectors that contribute so much to the UK economy, and receive a response that has dignity and respect at its heart. I am sure the Leader of the House agrees that this place should be no place for mansplaining. \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for all the brilliant work she does on behalf of our creative industries as Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I know that AI and copyright are to the fore among the issues about which the creative industries are concerned.

I am happy to apologise on behalf of any Minister who may have inadvertently not used the appropriate tone. I know that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology respects the hon. Lady greatly, and I am sure he did not mean to cause any offence. I am sure it was meant humorously, which is obviously not how it has been taken. I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s comments are passed back. \p Andy MacNae: Seemingly unending roadworks in Rossendale and Darwen are causing massive disruption to residents and businesses. Lane rental schemes, in which companies are charged for the time that their works occupy the road, can be a game changer, yet highways authorities such as Lancashire seem to be unwilling to use the powers available to them. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how we can get the action that we need to free up our roads? \p Lucy Powell: I think we can all identify with the plight of constituents who are experiencing unnecessary and badly co-ordinated roadworks, and all the congestion and disruption they cause. The Government want to see more local authorities introduce lane rental schemes, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister supports my hon. Friend’s call for such a scheme in his constituency. \p Tom Gordon: Last week, I met representatives of the Environment Agency at Knaresborough lido, which was granted bathing water status last year thanks to the hard work of local campaigners and the former MP, Andrew Jones. The Environment Agency has said that, unlike other rivers with sewage and pollution issues, which are usually due to adverse weather events and heavy rain, the issue on the River Nidd looks to be continuous, regardless of the weather. It is particularly bad during dry spells, which leads the Environment Agency to believe that it is down to housing developments that might be inadvertently, or deliberately in some cases, tapping into existing sewerage networks. Will the Leader of the House speak with her colleagues in the relevant Department to ensure that, when we look at the issue of water quality, we also consider how it is affected by housing development? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. Core to the conversations that are happening between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is that nature, including the issues of water supply, sewage and so on, is vital when we consider housing plans. None the less, I will ensure that he gets a reply on the case that he raises. \p Barry Gardiner: The good news is that 185 apartments around Wembley Stadium in my constituency are ready to be occupied. The bad news is that nobody can move into them, because the Building Safety Regulator has sat on its gateway 2 applications for six months and its gateway 3 applications for two months. We have a housing shortage. Can the Leader of the House ensure that we have a debate on the delays and dysfunctionality of the Building Safety Regulator? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend will be aware that, through the Building Safety Act 2022 brought in by the previous Government, we do now have a Building Safety Regulator. It is right, given the context in which that regulator came about following the Grenfell fire, that we ensure that buildings are signed off as safe, and are able to be signed off as safe, before they can be occupied and sold. I am happy to look into this particular case to see why it has taken so long for that to happen. \p Bradley Thomas: We face an emergent healthcare crisis in towns and communities across the country as demand for non-surgical aesthetic treatments, including botox and dermal fillers, rises. This is fuelled by social media and societal pressures on young people. Such treatments often take place in unregulated high street environments and place pressure on the NHS. When will the Government bring forward legislation to introduce a mandatory licensing regime, and will they allow for a debate in Government time on the Floor of this House? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Member raises an important topic, which I know affects many of our constituents. We have seen a number of very high profile cases lately where things have gone terribly wrong in a sector that is completely unregulated, as he says. I know that there have been plans in place for a while to bring forward the measures he describes. I will ensure that the House is updated when those measures are ready, and that, in the meantime, he gets a ministerial response. \p David Burton-Sampson: London Southend airport has taken time to bounce back from the pandemic, but I am delighted to see that, over recent months, a number of new routes have been established. EasyJet has announced its new base at the airport and, just in the past week, Eastern Airways has announced its new route to Newquay. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is positive news for the local economy and a sign of growing business confidence on the back of the Government’s mission to kick-start economic growth? Will she join me on a visit to the airport to hear more about its future plans? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in commending the great efforts of London Southend airport. I commend him and other local leaders for taking this airport from strength to strength in recent years, particularly over the past year. I know that easyJet is looking at opening a base there soon. It is clear that this airport is now going from strength to strength, which is something that his constituents will strongly support. \p Ellie Chowns: The Office for Environmental Protection published its annual report today on our progress in protecting the environment. Unfortunately, it is not good news: we are off-track on 20 out of 43 targets, and only five out of its 52 recommendations last year have been implemented. The report, which deals with the period under the previous Government, shows that progress was slowing on nature protection in that year. This Government have announced that they will review the environmental improvement plan. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that review will be  published? Can a Minister come to the House to make a statement on how the Government will turn this around to protect nature? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Lady is right: that report shows how little was done to protect nature under the previous Government, despite many announcements to the contrary. Nature protection is a core part of our clean energy mission, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is central to that mission. She will be aware that it will take a while to turn things around, but we are committed to doing so. I will ensure that she and the House are updated regularly on where things are up to, and on when the reports will be responded to. \p Andrew Pakes: We are a proud cathedral city. Everyone in Peterborough has a story to tell about our cathedral, whether it is attending a carol service, going to a graduation or community event, or even remembering the Foreign Secretary singing there as a chorister when he was a schoolboy. For over 900 years, our cathedral has been there for us. Now, in the words of the Very Rev. Chris Dalliston, our dean, we need to be there for the cathedral, because it has a funding crisis. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the cathedral well with its appeal, and ensure that we have time in this House to debate these wonderful places, which are not just of local importance but national heritage assets? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for his constituency. I strongly welcome his question, and fully support what he says about Peterborough cathedral, and all the cathedrals of this country. What a national asset they are. He will be aware that the Government have in place a range of support programmes for places of worship, such as the listed places of worship grant scheme and the Churches Conservation Trust. Next week, there will be a Westminster Hall debate on the listed places of worship grant scheme, in which he may want to participate. Finally, I join him in strongly supporting the campaign to raise the funds that Peterborough cathedral needs. \p Graham Stuart: It is nearly three years since the passing of the Down Syndrome Act 2022, yet the guidance that would bring it to life has not been implemented. People with Down’s syndrome really need support in areas such as healthcare, education and employment, so could we have a debate in Government time on support for people with Down’s syndrome, and ensure that this vital legislation is fully enacted? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which has not been raised with me before. The Down Syndrome Act was an important piece of legislation, recognising the amazing contribution that those with Down’s syndrome make to our society and our country, while recognising the challenges that they face, and the extra support that they need to flourish. I will find out for him where we are up to with the implementation of the Act, and ensure that he is updated. \p Melanie Onn: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Grimsby’s Green Futures on its very successful wassail last Saturday? When will we have time in the House to celebrate great English traditions such as Morris dancing, folk music and indeed wassailing? \p Lucy Powell: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was going to ask me to do some wassailing; I would need to look it up and get some training. I will absolutely support her in promoting these great English traditions, and all the great work that is happening in Grimsby to keep them alive. I am sure that it would make a very good topic for a debate. \p Alison Bennett: I, too, am delighted that wassailing has been mentioned, because there was a wassail in my village of Hurstpierpoint last Saturday.

Constituents across Mid Sussex really enjoy and appreciate having access to our coastline and seas, and they rightly expect our oceans to be clean and healthy. The UN global ocean treaty is the world’s only road map for protecting at least a third of the world’s oceans by 2030. The UK has committed to ratifying the treaty, but the next step is for the Government to introduce a short Bill to pass it into UK law. Will the Leader of the House please update us on when the Government plan to introduce the legislation? \p Lucy Powell: I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member received many specially written Christmas cards urging us to consider introducing that legislation, so this is something I am very much aware of. She will know that we are committed to ratifying the agreement, and legislation will be brought forward in due course. I cannot give her a more specific timetable, but the legislation will be brought forward before we need to have ratified the treaty. \p Liz Twist: I invite the Leader of the House and all hon. Members to join me and the Samaritans on Monday for a brew. Blue Monday may have been invented by the travel industry to encourage us to book holidays in January, but the Samaritans has converted it to Brew Monday, when we can highlight the importance of talking to each other in an effort to prevent suicide. Can we have a debate in Government time on the national suicide prevention strategy and look at what else we can do to prevent suicide? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in the efforts to rebrand Blue Monday as Brew Monday. I am sure that is something we can all participate in and support. She is absolutely right to highlight the issues of suicide and mental health support. I know that they are a real personal priority of the Health Secretary, and I am sure that he will keep the House updated on any progress. \p John Lamont: Center Parcs is planning an exciting new development in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. It will be the first Center Parcs in Scotland, and it will bring £350 million of investment and create 1,200 extra jobs for the area. However, due to under-investment by the SNP Government in Edinburgh, there are concerns about the capacity of the road network, particularly the A7 through Selkirk, to deal with the extra visitors and  tourists. Would the Leader of the House allow time for a debate to consider how rural communities can attract greater investment when there are concerns about the adequacy of the transport system and road network? \p Lucy Powell: Again, I thought I was being invited to Center Parcs. I am very partial to a water slide, should colleagues ever want to invite me to a Center Parcs. The hon. Member raises the serious point that when much-needed investment and great new facilities or services come into a constituency, we need to ensure that we have the infrastructure and roads to support them. The SNP Government in Scotland have just got a record settlement in the Budget, so they have no excuse not to support the road he talks about. \p Joe Morris: Despite community efforts from Hexham rotary club and the Hexham Wombles litter pick, the old bus station site in Hexham remains an eyesore, and the developer is sadly slow-walking on redevelopment. Can we have a debate in Government time on the need to make best use of disused sites on market town high streets, and on how we can improve them and boost town centres, which are crucial to our economy? \p Lucy Powell: Breathing new life into our high streets and town centres is a real priority for this Government. After years of neglect and decline, that is much needed. We will bring forward an English devolution Bill later this Session, which will grant communities a new right to buy derelict buildings such as the one my hon. Friend mentions. I hope that will help him and his constituents to take back control. \p Pete Wishart: Scottish Labour Members like nothing more than getting to their feet to drone on about the Scottish Government, and asking the Minister questions about matters that have absolutely nothing to do with them. Can we have a debate about the spectacular fall in the polls of Scottish Labour, and we could perhaps determine whose fault that is? Is it the hapless Anas Sarwar, or is it because the Scottish people have seen a Labour Government in action? \p Lucy Powell: It is not Labour Members droning on—in fact, none of them has today raised a point of the kind he mentions—but we would all welcome a debate in this House on the performance of the Scottish Government and whether they are delivering for the Scottish people, because they now have the powers and the funds, so they have no excuses. \p Kirith Entwistle: I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House about welcoming a long-overdue ceasefire. My constituent Dr Ryann Sowden has been working tirelessly to support survivors of that crisis. I commend the Bolton Council of Mosques for its unwavering advocacy of peace. The House should reflect that determination. Will the Leader of the House work with colleagues across Government to get vital aid into Gaza before more lives are tragically lost? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which she has raised consistently in the House—it is a matter of deep concern and importance for her. We all very much welcome the developments in Israel and  Gaza over recent hours and days, and we all want a long-lasting ceasefire and for the hostages to be released. Crucially, as she says, it will be important to surge much-needed aid into Gaza, so that we get people back to living there safely, with water and food. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. It may be helpful to Members to know that I will run this session until 11.45 am. It would therefore be very helpful if we had short questions and answers, so that I can get in as many Members as possible. \p Luke Evans: Leicestershire was one of the areas hit by significant flooding. Fortunately, my constituency is relatively okay, bar pockets such as Shenton, Barwell, Sheepy Magna and Witherley. The problem is that they do not hit the Government’s threshold for funding because they are too small and often experience flooding only to roads and connectors, rather than houses. Will the Leader of the House write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ask him to reconsider the formula, and to provide for isolated communities that are cut off but do not get breaches into houses? That problem is fundamentally difficult to solve. \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The changes in global weather as a result of climate change mean that flooding incidents are more frequent and more acute, and are often hyper-localised, rather than widespread. He makes a compelling point about the impact of localised flooding not just on homes but on local infrastructure. I will certainly ensure that that is considered by the Secretary of State. \p Bayo Alaba: May I invite the Leader of the House to commend the hard work of the One Love Project in my constituency? It is a community-run non-referral service that supports those most in need, including the street homeless. Its provides food, warm showers, clothing, clothes-washing facilities, sleeping bags—the list goes on. It is, above all, the welcoming and non-judgmental approach of Sharon and her fabulous team that makes the work most inspiring. I invite the Leader of the House to visit the project and see its work at first hand, and to visit sunny Southend and Rochford to experience all that we have to offer, from our coastline to our cultural heritage landmarks, such as Rochford town square and the medieval St Nicholas church in Great Wakering. \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend paints a compelling picture of Southend and Rochford, and I would certainly be happy to visit one day. He also mentions the amazing work of the One Love Project on homelessness. This country relies greatly on such organisations. The Government are committed to tackling the root causes of homelessness and ensuring that funding is there to support people at the darkest time of their life. \p Joshua Reynolds: Families of British citizens who are murdered abroad do not have not the same rights as families of homicide victims in the UK. Often, families coping with the trauma of that news must arrange to pay for their own translators, so that they can speak to local police and read legal  documents—all while trying to negotiate the criminal justice system of a foreign jurisdiction. Those families deserve the same rights as those of homicide victims in the UK, but at the moment they are not even entitled to a police family liaison officer. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on that, so that we can build consensus across the House on a way forward? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue, and for giving me notice that he was going to do so. The Ministry of Justice is working with the Victims’ Commissioner and others in the sector to explore how families in the situation he has described can be better supported with the information and financial assistance they need. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is updated on that work. \p Gareth Snell: The Minton tiles in our Central Lobby, the plates in our Tea Room, and even the chandelier in the Pugin guest room are all wonderful examples of Staffordshire craftsmanship, yet at the moment in this place, we are seeing creeping numbers of foreign ceramic imports in place of British products. Can the Leader of the House, in her capacity as the Government’s representative on the House of Commons Commission and the restoration and renewal board, say what the Government’s policy is for ensuring that artisans and creators from all corners of our nation are showcased in this place? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is a very strong advocate for the craftsmanship and ceramics of Stoke, and of Staffordshire more widely—he has given us some good examples. Sometimes I do not want to have dinner alongside my hon. Friend, because he inspects all the ceramics and all the things we are using to eat our dinner, rightly so. I will absolutely raise the points he has highlighted with the House authorities and ensure we are doing more to support the great craftsmanship that we have in this country. \p Martin Vickers: Yesterday, along with Members from across the House, I attended the launch of the latest report from the charity Open Doors, which highlights Christian persecution in many countries. Many of the countries on that charity’s watchlist are countries that the UK has close relations with. Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on that Open Doors report and what greater influence the UK can bring to bear on those rogue nations? \p Lucy Powell: The report that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted is a really important one, and he has raised some very important topics. I will ensure that if he does not get a full ministerial reply about those topics, they are considered as important issues. He might want to raise them in an Adjournment debate or elsewhere as well. \p Maureen Burke: I was deeply saddened this week to see new data from the Office for National Statistics and Health Equals, which has ranked my constituency as having the lowest life expectancy anywhere in the UK. My constituency also has a higher than average poverty rate—there is undoubtedly  a link between those two stats. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate in Government time to explore the factors that contribute to a lowered life expectancy, including the impact of poverty, to help my constituents live longer, happier and more financially secure lives? \p Lucy Powell: The link between health inequality and poor health outcomes and poverty is absolutely clear. Eradicating those things is at the heart of our health mission, but also at the heart of what this Government are seeking to do more widely, because we recognise that only by sharing prosperity and growth around the country, tackling the roots of poverty, and seeing health as both a public health issue and an economic issue will we tackle some of these core challenges. \p Tessa Munt: Many of us will remember the devastation that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001 caused in rural England. I am pleased that the Government have restricted commercial imports of susceptible animals and personal imports of animal products. However, I was reminded yesterday by James, a farmer in my area, that last time, our high biosecurity standards saw the dipping of vehicles and footwear. Can we have a debate focusing on the movement of people and vehicles into the UK from affected areas—whether by road, rail, ferry or air—to prevent transmission of the virus, and particularly the installing of large notices at airports for incoming and transit passengers to declare such products? \p Lucy Powell: The Government will do whatever it takes to protect farmers from the risk posed by foot and mouth. We have already brought in restrictions on animal products from Germany, and we will not hesitate to add additional countries to that list. I reassure the hon. Lady that there are currently no cases here in the UK. We did have an urgent question on this matter yesterday, but I will ensure that the House is constantly updated on any further developments. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. May I encourage all Members to reduce the length of their questions by 50%, and then everyone will get in? \p Lee Pitcher: Last Friday, I had the privilege of meeting those at the Foyer and Doncaster Housing for Young People to discuss how we can best support 16 to 25-year-olds who are homeless or vulnerably housed. Having experienced homelessness as a child, I know how challenging that can be, so I really welcome the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating organisations such as Doncaster Housing for Young People on their vital work and in praising the measures in the Bill? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. The Renters’ Rights Bill—the Conservatives voted against it this week, shockingly—will see the end of section 21 no-fault evictions, which is an important measure, along with many others, towards ending homelessness in this country and tackling the root causes of it. I strongly support my hon. Friend’s support for the Bill. \p Richard Burgon: I think one thing we can agree on across this House is that life in our constituencies across the country is enriched by the work of volunteers. I am thinking of the volunteers in my own constituency of Nanu football club, Garforth Town football club, LS14 Trust in Seacroft, Chapel FM and CATCH—Community Action To Create Hope—in Harehills, to mention just a few. Every 5 December is International Volunteer Day, so will the Leader of the House consider guaranteeing an annual debate on international volunteers so that we can celebrate in this House the work that volunteers do in our constituencies? \p Lucy Powell: This gets raised with me very often because volunteers do enrich our communities and our society. Without them, we would not have the country and the communities we have. I will very much look at the suggestion of an annual debate to celebrate their contribution to our constituencies. \p Alice Macdonald: Currently, there is no statutory right for time off work for fertility treatment, which causes so much stress to so many people. Many employers do offer this voluntarily, which I welcome, but does the Leader of the House agree with me and campaigners such as Fertility Matters at Work that it is really important to support people seeking fertility treatment? Can she update us on the timetable for the Employment Rights Bill, so that we have a chance to discuss reproductive health in the workplace? \p Lucy Powell: As my hon. Friend will know, I am very sympathetic to the question she asked. It is one of the reasons why I ensured that Members of Parliament could get proxy votes for fertility treatments, which I know many Members will take advantage of. We have the Employment Rights Bill going through Committee at the moment. It will soon be coming back to the House on Report, and I think she should raise these matters during the passage of that Bill. \p Nesil Caliskan: My constituents in Barking were delighted to hear the news that the train operator c2c would be brought into public ownership later this year, a decision that will see a more reliable train service. It is currently refurbishing Barking station in my constituency, but the works have suffered delay after delay. Will the Leader of the House seek a statement from the Government about public transport infrastructure that may be affected by their decision to nationalise train operators to reassure my constituents that such refurbishment plans will get done and will be delivered soon? \p Lucy Powell: The Government’s plans to take back our railways into public ownership will improve reliability, investment and the passenger experience, so I assure my hon. Friend that those plans will be of great benefit to her constituents in the way she describes. \p Rachael Maskell: Next week, the commission for palliative care and end of life care will start taking oral and written evidence, and I really hope that Members will ask their specialists and their constituents to participate in that. Will the Leader of the House ensure that, when the commission reports, we have a debate on its findings so that we can optimise palliative and end of life care? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for all her campaigning on the important issue of palliative care, which so many in our country rely on at the very worst stage of their lives. I will ensure that the House is constantly updated on these matters, which I know are particularly important to the Secretary of State for Health. \p James Naish: Several homes in my constituency were badly flooded, with more than 500 homes flooded internally across the east midlands. I express my sympathy to all those impacted. It was especially concerning to hear about the verbal abuse directed towards flood wardens, who work exceptionally hard to protect their communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is unacceptable? Will she ensure that the House considers how best to protect these fantastic volunteers? \p Lucy Powell: It is completely unacceptable that volunteers acting as flood wardens in these difficult times are on the wrong end of abuse from anybody. I will ensure that these matters are raised in government and that we send a strong signal that it will not be tolerated and that action will be taken against the perpetrators. \p Melanie Ward: Thirty years on from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, there are still train stations in my constituency that are not fully accessible, including Burntisland and Cowdenbeath stations. This creates unacceptable daily barriers for disabled people, families with prams and buggies and those with heavy luggage. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need support from the Access for All fund and action from Network Rail, Transport Scotland and ScotRail so that stations are made accessible? Will she make time for a debate on railway accessibility? \p Lucy Powell: Accessibility on our railways is raised many times with me in these sessions and across the House. Let us be honest: the accessibility of many of our stations, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is deeply inadequate for those with buggies, in wheelchairs or whatever else. The Rail Minister is carefully considering the best approach to the Access for All programme, but I will ensure that the House is regularly updated. \p Anna Gelderd: Establishing joined-up health hubs in towns such as Saltash and Liskeard could bring routine services from across the Tamar closer to home, easing pressure on Derriford hospital. While recent debates have addressed broader rural healthcare issues, will the Leader of the House provide Government time to discuss how integrated, localised healthcare can better serve rural communities by relocating routine patient care from hospitals to community settings? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend knows that we inherited a national health service on its knees, as she describes. As part of our mission and our endeavours to turn that around, she will know that getting care back into communities, early intervention, prevention and primary services are critical, and I hope that will better serve her constituents in the future. \p Luke Myer: My constituent Angie has raised with me the serious issue of shortages of attention deficit hyperactivity  disorder medication. Her son is struggling in school, and he is not the only one, as the shortages have been affecting the country since 2023. Can the Leader of the House set out the Government’s position on this issue and how we can ensure that this medication is made available? \p Lucy Powell: The Department of Health and Social Care is working hard with industry and NHS England to help resolve the supply issues with ADHD medicines, which is a global problem. I will ensure that he and the House are updated on any progress. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: In March last year, Members discussed the need for improved personal protective equipment for women, an issue brought forward during the pandemic. Arco Professional Safety Services, which has a safety training centre in my constituency, recognised the need and told me during a recent visit that it is trialling women’s sizes as standard. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time to debate legislating for the mandatory provision of women-specific and inclusive PPE? \p Lucy Powell: Despite great progress in recent decades, we are all still well aware that too many products in the world are designed by men, for men, and we still need to address some of those issues. I am sure it would make a very good topic for a debate. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: The Conservative council that ran Barnet for 20 years left Hendon’s roads in a dreadful state with terrible potholes and pavements.    Since it was elected, the Labour council that took over has been investing record amounts in tackling the large backlog that the Conservatives left. I am pleased that the Government this week announced that they would invest £1.6 billion in fixing potholes this year. That is a huge increase over the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend grant a debate on how we can put our foot down and drive forward the Government’s plans as quickly as possible to help motorists in Hendon? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is right. We have a plan to fix the potholes of this country, with huge investment going in. We want councils, such as Hendon, to get on with using those funds to fix the problem of potholes. \p Catherine Atkinson: Unregulated and uninsured souped-up electric scooters have been a real source of antisocial behaviour in Derby. Our police and crime commissioner Nicolle Ndiweni-Roberts has been working with Derbyshire constabulary to clamp down on illegal e-scooters, seizing and disposing of more than 200 since November. Will the Leader of the House ensure that a Home Office Minister and a Transport Minister meet me and other Members who have been raising such concerns to ensure that we are pushing forward with regulation and enforcement in relation to e-scooters? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which I know blights many communities. We are taking action to deal with e-scooters, making it easier for those vehicles to be seized where necessary, and other measures are coming to tackle antisocial behaviour as well. \p David Lammy: With permission, I will update the House on the deal announced between Israel and Hamas. Last night, US President Biden and Qatari Prime Minister Al Thani confirmed that negotiators had reached an agreement. While we await political approval for the text, the agreement is expected to come into force shortly after midday Israel time on Sunday 19 January.

After months of despair, there is now hope; a glimmer of light in the darkness; a darkness that had seemed all-consuming since Hamas’s barbaric terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. I am sure that the whole House remembers the agony as we learned the full horror of what had unfolded and the grief as we mourned those who were lost. For the hostage families, the agony has gone on and on. Members across the House will have met many of them, including the relatives of British citizen Emily Damari, and Eli Sharabi, Oded Lifschitz and Avinatan Or. I know that we have families with us in the Public Gallery. I pay tribute once again to them for their bravery, humanity and commitment to bringing the hostages home.

I invite the House to join me in remembering those murdered in captivity, including Nadav Popplewell and Yossi Sharabi. May their memories be a blessing.

I say to all those now waiting anxiously to see what this deal means for them: we are with you in the days and weeks ahead. In Gaza today, civilians will be waiting anxiously to see what this deal means for them. I say to them, too: we are with you as you begin to rebuild your lives.

After 15 months of conflict, the level of suffering defies belief. Gazans have truly been trapped in hell on earth—over 46,000 killed, so many children’s lives extinguished, schools, hospitals and homes destroyed, and hunger and disease. Almost 2 million have been forced to flee their homes, with northern Gaza cut off from the rest of the strip. A generation have been scarred by the savagery of war.

Among the victims was Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl killed alongside members of her family and the paramedics who came to rescue her. Among the victims were many journalists dedicated to documenting the horrors around them. Among the victims were aid workers dedicated to serving others, including British citizens John Chapman, James Henderson and James Kirby. I invite the House to join me in remembering them all. We mourn every innocent victim of this appalling war.

Beyond Israel and Gaza, the conflict has brought yet more tensions and conflict into the wider region, with unprecedented Iranian attacks, a renewed conflict in Lebanon and Houthi strikes in the Red sea and into Israel. At times, our own communities—and indeed this House—have been divided by this war. This is a moment of hope for us all, to unite in support of this ceasefire.

The agreement as negotiated has three stages. In the first six-week phase we expect that both parties will stop fighting. Thirty-three of the hostages will be freed: children, women, those over 50 and the wounded. Israel will start to redeploy to the edge of the strip. Palestinians  will return to what is left of their homes. The Rafah crossing will reopen. Israel will allow 600 truckloads of aid into Gaza each day. On the 16th day, negotiations will begin on the detail of the second phase. In the second six-week phase, the male hostages under 50 will be released. Israel will complete its withdrawal from Gaza, and there will be a permanent ceasefire. Finally, a third phase will see the return of the bodies of any remaining hostages and the lifting of economic restrictions on Gaza.

As President Biden said, the elements of this deal were endorsed by the United Nations Security Council last May. It has taken tireless efforts to reach the agreement of both sides, with reports of final talks this week lasting an intense 96 hours. I congratulate all those who have contributed to getting to this stage: in particular, His Highness the Emir of Qatar and Prime Minister Al Thani; Egyptian President Sisi and Foreign Minister Abdelatty; and President Biden and Secretary Blinken, as well as President-elect Trump. The UK has been supporting them throughout.

From day one in office, the Government have pressed at every stage for an immediate ceasefire, to free the hostages, to get more aid into Gaza and to open up a path to lasting peace. I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories for the third time as Foreign Secretary just a few days ago, meeting Foreign Minister Sa’ar, President Abbas and hostage families, to press for an end to this war and a plan for the future.

We have also played a leading role in the humanitarian effort, restarting funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, funding field hospitals that have treated more than 300,000 Gazans, and providing more than £100 million in support to the Palestinians this financial year. I pay tribute to Foreign Office Ministers in the last Government for their work to deliver aid to Gaza. Now I am in this role, I know how hard they worked. That intense effort must continue in the days and weeks ahead.

Much remains to be done. It is critical that there is final approval of the agreement. As the Israeli Cabinet meet, I urge them to back this deal. Now is not the time for any backtracking. Both sides must implement each phase of the deal in full and on time. The history of this conflict is littered with missed opportunities. It would be a tragedy to let slip the chance before us—we must grab it with both hands. It is the chance not just for a ceasefire but for a lasting peace, and to break the cycle of violence that has inflicted so much suffering on innocent people on both sides.

The Government are committed to sustaining momentum, however fragile the process at first may be. Every hostage must be released, as set out in the agreement. Every ounce of aid promised to Gaza must reach those in need. I am sending my representative for humanitarian affairs to the region, to work closely with aid agencies, the Israeli Government and our partners to deliver on these promises.

Palestinians must also be free to return to their homes and, crucially, they will need to rebuild: rebuild their homes, rebuild their lives and rebuild their communities. They cannot possibly do that on their own. They need to feel safe and they need the international community to deliver the funds they will require. The UK had already begun to convene partners on the financing and co-ordination of recovery and reconstruction.  It is essential that the coming surge of assistance is properly co-ordinated, with the access and security to get to people all that they need.

The Palestinian Authority has a crucial role to play. We want donors to support its plans for recovery, and I discussed that with President Abbas on Monday. We are providing technical and financial assistance to the PA, including to support the urgent recovery of basic services. Working with the Palestinian Authority and civil society will help lay the groundwork for an inclusive Palestinian governance in Gaza. That is the best way to re-establish local order and security. It is therefore a crucial first step in achieving not only better lives for Palestinians but a future for Gaza no longer under the control of Hamas.

Ultimately, it will take time to rebuild Gaza and rebuild trust between the two sides. I must warn the House that there are risks at every turn. But we must try to use the agreement to establish a credible pathway to a two-state solution, with equal measures of security, dignity and justice for Israelis and Palestinians alike. The decades-long conflict between Israelis and Palestinians cannot be managed; it must now be resolved.

We are not yet there and there is much negotiating still to do. As we debate in this House, fighting continues. The agreement awaits full political approval. The hostage families wait for the hostages to come home. Gazans wait for the horrors to be lifted. However, we must still recognise the significance of this moment. It has been long-awaited—frankly, it has taken far too long—and I sincerely hope it is now the basis for progress: progress on bringing the hostages home, progress on bringing relief, reconstruction and hope to long-suffering civilians, and progress towards a two-state solution with Palestinians and Israelis living in peace and security; a better future for all. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: All Members recognise the fragile and sensitive nature of the current situation. There is a long road ahead at one of the most important moments for the middle east, which we all hope will usher in a sustainable end to the dreadful conflict in Gaza. It is a conflict that we should never forget was triggered by the horrific Hamas terror attacks of 7 October 2023—the worst terror attack in Israel’s history and the most murderous pogrom against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.

We have in our thoughts today the victims of that appalling massacre: those who lost their lives, including the hostages murdered in captivity, and those whose lives have been changed forever. Every single hostage must be returned safely home and reunited with family and friends after 15 months of the most unimaginable cruelty at the hands of Hamas. Even in the midst of that unimaginable pain and anxiety, the families of those held hostage have kept the torch burning for their loved ones, with publicity highlighting their plight with such resilience and tremendous bravery.

We are joined in the House today by the families of hostages who we know will not be eligible for immediate release. I recently met Emily Damari’s mother Mandy  and Dani Miran, whose son Omri is also in captivity. We all pay tribute to them all for their unceasing campaign to secure the release of their loved ones and all those in captivity. This will, of course, be a time of great emotions for them—mixed emotions—and in the coming weeks, we must continue to wrap our arms around those hostage families.

Like the Foreign Secretary, I acknowledge the important role of Qatar, Egypt and the United States in getting us to where we are today in these talks. We will all follow these developments closely in the days ahead, and we will expect the UK Government to be fully engaged and involved in the heavy lifting that is required at this crucial time to make this agreement work  and last.

To that end, can the Foreign Secretary to tell the House specifically what role the UK Government have played in these negotiations and about their contribution to reaching this agreement? Can he give assurances that the UK will help Israel in any way possible to support the safe return of the hostages, which will be so critical in ensuring that the agreement endures? Can he inform the House—it may yet be too early—whether any of the Palestinian prisoners being released were responsible for the death or injury of British nationals, and about the steps being put in place to manage the potential risk of dangerous individuals being set free? On the question of humanitarian aid to Gaza, what work has he undertaken to unpick the awful bottlenecks that we have seen over months and months, while we have seen innocent civilians suffer? Will civilians now receive the vital aid that we have been told will get through to bring essential relief to communities across Gaza?

On the future governance of Gaza, we have so far heard little about the “day after” plan, but this is extremely important; I know the Foreign Secretary will come back to this House in due course, but I would welcome his thoughts on the matter. Is it the Foreign Secretary’s position that Hamas must have no role in the future of Gaza? We want to see an end to the brutality with which they have conducted themselves. Does he agree that if the Palestinian Authority do indeed assume responsibility in Gaza, in order to have an enduring and lasting peace, they must undertake the most comprehensive reform in their history, with serious shifts not just in their behaviour but on education and welfare, and that they must bring the course of democracy through to the end that we would like to see? Has he this week delivered that unambiguous message to the Palestinian leadership?

The right people must be involved to ensure that solid foundations are put in place on which Gaza can rebuild and to ensure a lasting, better future so that every generation can live their lives in peace, with the opportunities that have been denied to them for too long. In the days ahead, our focus needs to be on securing the release of the hostages, getting the aid into Gaza and working for that lasting peace.

However, there are some related points that the Foreign Secretary will also need to consider. On Israel, for example, that includes whether the changes to the approach on the International Criminal Court arrest warrants will happen and what should happen from the Government’s position; it also includes the arrangements for the future reconstruction of Gaza. He has just touched on this,   but what contribution does he think the United Kingdom should make? His thoughts would be welcome. There are many complexities here. Will he also commit to inserting the UK’s enthusiastic approach to fresh discussions on the Abraham accords and the role that will play in the peace, stability and prosperity in the region?

Finally, we have seen for over a year the world’s only Jewish state being ruthlessly attacked from all sides, from the Hamas terrorists in Gaza to the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, from which Iranian-linked militias in Iraq have been directing their course of action, while Iran and its proxies have used innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields without any care for their welfare or wellbeing. We need to know that this Government will step up when it comes to addressing the root causes, which rest in Tehran. The Government, the international community and all of us will want a robust strategy towards Iran if we are to build a lasting and sustainable peace in the middle east. \p David Lammy: I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks and for her tone. Doing this role, one understands the effort that one’s predecessors have put in, so I want to put on the record once again that the right hon. Members for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and Lord Cameron, before me, made tremendous efforts on behalf of the UK Government to get us to this point. I know that they, like me, will sincerely wish that we could have reached this point sooner. This is indeed a day on which we can be grateful for the UK’s diplomacy in getting us to this point.

The right hon. Lady asks about the role that the UK has played. She will know that it was quite right that Qatar and Egypt, with their proximity to Hamas, should be central in bringing about the ceasefire; and that the United States, with its particular relationship with Israel, should also stand alongside them. But she will know, because of our complex foreign policy relationship with all those parties, the tremendous effort that UK diplomats have put in to get us to this path. Indeed, I was with them in Israel and in the occupied territories on Monday this week.

It was very important to be with British hostage families in particular, to assure them and counsel them that my judgment was that we would get to this point, as fragile as it is—I want to emphasise the fragility—at this time, but also to be in the occupied territories, the west bank and east Jerusalem, to spend time with President Abbas, to discuss with him what now needs to happen in Gaza in terms of its reconstruction and the reform that the right hon. Lady rightly emphasises is essential for the Palestinian Authority.

The right hon. Lady knows that we have Sir Michael Barber working with the Palestinian Authority to lift up that capacity in the reforms that will be necessary to play that role—alongside others, clearly—in Gaza. When I think of others, I think about the international community as well, but alongside them it is important that the UK plays its part. I will come back to the subject of reconstruction in a moment.

The right hon. Lady rightly talks about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have provided £112 million in this financial year, including £41 million specifically for UNRWA. We want to see the number of trucks increase  and the figure that has been set in the ceasefire agreement met. I will say this, though: the situation will require proper governance in Gaza if we are to achieve that. At the moment, we have gangs. There is a possibility, as the space opens up, that actually we will get an increase in gangs and less aid to the people who need it. This is the first phase of the deal. There will still be hostages left after the first phase and into the second phase, and potentially into the third phase. We know that able men are not part of the first phase. They need humanitarian aid at this time and hostage families press me to ensure that their loved ones are getting access to that humanitarian aid. So this is a fragile moment and the UK is pressing for a political process, because only a political process will get not just the ceasefire, but the long-term stability that means Gazans can truly rebuild their lives.

The right hon. Lady talks about a “day after” plan. The UK is ready to play a leading role in this process, with international and regional partners. It should be predicated on tangible progress, in our view, towards a Palestinian state, with Gaza and the west bank united under one Government. The Palestinian Authority’s role in Gaza must therefore be front and centre. Planning needs to advance security both for Gazans and for Israel, and Israel’s security will be fundamental if we are to bring this to an end. That will take intense negotiation and discussion. There clearly will be an important role for the international community in the coming days but, in this fragile moment of phase 1, if we are to complete phase 3 then we will need that intensity in terms of negotiation. My view is very clear: there cannot be a role for Hamas. The terrorism must come to an end. Trust has to be rebuilt. There cannot be a role for Hamas.

Only with that candle that we keep alight for a two-state solution can we actually reach the normalisation that is at the heart of any building on the Abraham accords and the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel that can bring a lot of prosperity for people in the middle east.

The right hon. Lady is right that Iran remains a malign force. This week, British diplomats were discussing with Iran its nuclear programme and what needs to happen if we are not to see the snapback of our sanctions as a consequence of the joint comprehensive plan of action later this year. We will do all that we can diplomatically. This is the moment when the Iranians need to step up and do the right thing, and I know that is acutely in the minds of the incoming US Administration. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the International Development Committee. \p Sarah Champion: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and support every word that he has said.

No one wants a ceasefire more than I do. I cannot describe the tears that I and others in the House have shed for all the innocent civilians who have been murdered and maimed. I cannot think what the families of the hostages are going through, and, to be honest, I do not want to think of what the hostages themselves have endured. But the ceasefire is far from certain, the peace following it is far from certain, and   the two-state solution is very far from certain. What is certain is that on 28 January the Knesset’s legislation that effectively bans UNRWA comes into force, and I am unable to see how the aid, the stability, the health systems and the schools can be implemented if that happens. My Committee will publish a report on this subject tomorrow, but can the Foreign Secretary speak now about what he is doing to urge Israel to ensure that that legislation does not come into force and that aid can flood in where it is needed? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all her endeavours on these issues on behalf her Committee, and on behalf of this country. She is right that colleagues in all parts of the House, in this Parliament and the last, have shed tears about this most heartbreaking of conflicts. In my 25 years in the House, I have not seen such emotion from UK parliamentarians in relation to this central challenge.

As for the position of the UK Government, in the midst of this conflict, when there are so many children out of school, so many children orphaned and so many hospitals lying in rubble, when there is disease and famine, we cannot see how there cannot be a role for the central UN agency at this time if this peace is to hold. On Monday, I made that point to the Israeli Government again. Along with my French and German colleagues, I wrote to the Israeli Foreign Minister, making that point and pressing him on the winterisation plan that we believe must be implemented. The clock is ticking down to that Knesset legislation. What we do not want is the undermining of the peace that begins on Sunday by that legislation just a few days into its passing. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

This ceasefire is welcomed by all who have watched with horror as the suffering that began on 7 October 2023 has worsened for so many, and I add my thanks to all those who have worked so hard to deliver it. I am thinking today of the Palestinians and Israelis I have met whose lives have been torn apart by this conflict, and to whom this news brings a moment of hope; of the British families of Israeli hostages who continue to live with uncertainty and fear about the fate of their loved ones; and of the Palestinians whose daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers have lost their lives and homes. The priority must now be ensuring that humanitarian assistance floods into Gaza, and that all possible efforts are made to secure the release of the remaining hostages. I urge the Foreign Secretary to do everything in his power—as he has just said—to persuade Israel not to implement the Knesset’s resolution on UNRWA, which would do so much harm and would undermine the progress that is being made.

I am grateful today for the fact that a deal has been reached, but I am also angry that it has taken so long. In the months of delay, there has been no relief for the hostage families. So many more lives have been lost, and so much more destruction has been visited on people in Gaza, including further deaths even since the ceasefire deal was announced. The blocks to progress have been  extremists on both sides, the terrorists in Hamas and the supporters of annexation in the Israeli Cabinet: people who do not want peace, but want to erase another population from the land. So I ask the Foreign Secretary these questions.

Will the UK Government isolate the extremists and empower the majority of Israelis and Palestinians who want peace? Will he commit the UK to working tirelessly for a lasting peace through a two-state solution with a recognised Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders? Will he redouble efforts in diplomacy and through financial measures against the backers and enablers of Hamas to cut off their funds? Will he now proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Will he spell out to the Governments of Israel and the United States that settler violence and illegal annexation in the west bank must stop, and will the UK Government now recognise the Palestinian state? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tone and for raising those issues. He is right about UNRWA. As I have said, this first phase is a critical period, and I believe that withdrawing UNRWA would destabilise it. I would ask Israel to think very carefully about how we can achieve a surge in humanitarian aid if that is the direction of travel.

There are extremists on both sides. The hon. Gentleman is right. This deal was substantially on the table last May, put down by President Biden. It has taken a Herculean effort. It is important that President-elect Trump was there to apply pressure to get the deal over the line, and I think that all of us in the House would applaud the bipartisan spirit of envoys from both the current and future Administrations of the United States in Qatar over the last few days to get it over the line. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Israeli Security Cabinet is meeting over the next few hours to decide whether to proceed with this deal. He knows, as a politician, that there are politicians currently in the Government of Israel who are threatening to resign and bring down that Government, so he knows how fragile this moment is—I urge our friends in the Israeli Government to do the right thing and get this deal over the line now—and he knows, too, that we applaud the work of Egypt and Qatar and their mediation with Hamas, but there have been problems between those outside Gaza associated with Hamas and those inside Gaza associated with Hamas, and that makes this first phase delicate as well.

Of course, we want to see a two-state solution. My party is committed to Palestinian recognition at the right point. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the challenges on the west bank. The unravelling of UNRWA would make the west bank even more fragile than it currently is. I was there on Monday, and security issues, expansion and settler violence all got worse in 2024—it is the worst year on record for violence and expansion. There is much to do. \p Debbie Abrahams: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I thank everybody who has been involved in getting us to where we are now. I appreciate how fragile it is, but it is still fantastic news. I particularly want to commend the dignity and grace of the Palestinian and Israeli families who have lost loved ones or are waiting for news about them. I wonder what lessons we can learn  from them, in terms of their commitment to peace, their recognition of our common humanity and their desire to live alongside each other in peace. \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend has been on this issue day after day; I cannot think of a colleague who has pressed me more on it. She is right to centre the families on both sides and their dignity and grace, and these historic peoples, all of whom want a home, all of whom want security and all of whom have been horribly affected by this most horrendous of wars. Our responsibility to them is to continue to press for the political process that gets us to the two-state solution that we all know is the only way to achieve lasting peace. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: I think the Foreign Secretary has spoken for the whole House today with his tone. I am sure he would agree that it is possible to be four-square behind the Israeli Government in their right to defend themselves and defeat Hamas and at the same time to care about the suffering of the Palestinian people. Will the Foreign Secretary use his charm or whatever influence he has on the incoming Trump Administration to persuade them to use their power to convince the Israeli Government that these illegal new settlements in the west bank must stop, and the pressure on the Palestinian people in the west bank must stop, because it is fuelling a sense of despair and future extremism? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing his tremendous experience in the House to bear. He is absolutely right. He will be pleased to know that when I discussed these issues with President Abbas on Monday, he was complimentary about the conversation he had had with President-elect Trump on these matters, and of course, he has an existing relationship with President-elect Trump. That left me very hopeful indeed.

The right hon. Gentleman is right: the expansion particularly undermines the 1967 settlement, and it makes it very difficult to achieve the two-state solution. Those who try to thwart the possibility of a two-state solution are saying that their belief is either in no state at all, which is entirely unacceptable, or it is in one state, in which case they had better get on and ensure equality for all. \p Jonathan Pearce: I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the incredible bravery of the hostage families. We are joined in the House by the families of Tal Shoham, Nimrod Cohen, Ohad Yahalomi, Omri Miran and Shay Levinson. I met with them this morning. Their suffering continues—the uncertainty, the sleepless nights—while they wait for a final deal and to know whether their loved ones will be coming home. What reassurances can the Foreign Secretary give to them and to the House that the UK will do everything in its power to make sure that their loved ones come home, that all UK-related hostages come home as a matter of priority and that all hostages come home as soon as possible, to end their suffering? \p David Lammy: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of hostages. I pay tribute to the 17 British nationals killed since the abhorrent attack on 7 October. Our  hope is that three of the UK and UK-linked hostages will be released in the first phase, as they fall into the criteria for that release, which we anticipate will be agreed later today. Of course, it is our sincere hope that as we get to the second and third phases, all hostages will be released.

We continue to work with all UK-linked hostage families. I was with many on Monday, and our representatives and diplomats have been in touch with them overnight and in the last few days. This is the most difficult of times, as they wait to see the fate of their loved ones. My hon. Friend will recognise that there was fighting yesterday, in which nine Israel Defence Forces soldiers lost their lives, there was fighting this morning, and it is likely that there will be fighting right up to the ceasefire on Sunday. This is the most challenging of moments, as those hostage families wait and, in the coming days and weeks, pray that their loved ones are returned. \p James Cleverly: I would like to put on record my gratitude to the Foreign Secretary for his kind words about the work that was done prior to his party forming a Government. I echo the praise that he has given to the US State Department and the Egyptian and Qatari Foreign Ministers for the work they have done to get this deal over the line, but as he said, it is not there yet, so I want to ask two things. To ensure that the hostages are released promptly, what can we do to make sure this deal gets over the line? Sadly, we have seen too much aid diverted away from the Palestinian people in Gaza and used to facilitate attacks against Israelis, so what will the Department do to ensure as best it can that the aid gets to the people who need it and is not used to murder Israelis? \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman centres the important work of the United Kingdom in relation to humanitarian aid in particular at this time. He will know that in order for the aid to get in, we have to have security. He will also know that there is a critical role for the United Nations, which can achieve about 250 trucks. It is my sincere hope that Israel is able to restart the use of commercial organisations to increase that number even further, but he will recognise that this presents a massive challenge, as has been set out by the head of UNRWA and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

The challenge is that this is taking place against a backdrop of huge displacement of Gazans over this time and of gangs roaming the streets, so there is a worry that they could get access to the aid as the space opens up. There is a lot to do, and how we achieve that security with the Israelis withdrawing and how Gulf states get the confidence to step in and begin reconstruction—they do not want to put money in if it will all be torn down a few weeks or months later—is critical. The UK has said that we are ready to play that role on the day after and in reconstruction. We want to work alongside the region and the United States to co-ordinate and build that. He will also know that while a lot of emphasis was placed on the ceasefire, when it comes to what happens next, there is much, much more to do and negotiate. \p Uma Kumaran: As the Foreign Secretary said, today there are the first embers of hope after what has felt like perpetual agony for the  people of Israel and Palestine. He mentioned that Gazans have been trapped in hell on earth, and it has been a living nightmare for the families of the hostages. I know that the Foreign Secretary and his team will not rest until we see all the hostages released and a ceasefire taking full effect. He spoke of the uncertainty around the path ahead. What more can the UK Government do to play our role in working towards the shared goal of a two-state solution, and when will be the right time for us to recognise a sovereign state of Palestine? \p David Lammy: We hold out that a two-state solution must be the way forward. We believe that normalising relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia is key, and that there must be Palestinian component. We will press to achieve that, and we will work alongside President-elect Trump and his team in the coming days to hopefully bring that about. \p Andrew Mitchell: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his kind remarks and applaud his expression of cautious optimism? It is cautious because the agony of the hostages continues and the urgent need for a quantum increase in humanitarian aid remains unrequited. The deal must be implemented in good faith, and I very much welcome his comment that Hamas can never again govern that space. I pay tribute to his diplomats and officials for their extraordinary hard work and effectiveness, and I underline that Britain has a very important role to play in what comes next. Will he bear in mind that abject devastation can lead to unforeseen breakthroughs? Following the Yom Kippur war, we saw Israel make peace with Egypt, and significant progress was made on the Oslo accords following the intifada. \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman brings to bear his tremendous experience of these issues, which has been built up over many years and many different roles in Government and beyond. He is right to focus on the fact that Hamas cannot play a role, but he probably agrees with me. I never believed, as some in the Israeli Government did, that they could eradiate Hamas solely by military force. What eradicates extremism is diplomacy, a political solution and a political horizon that pulls the rug from under the terrorists. That is why it is hugely important that the UK now plays its full role in reaching a political solution and a political horizon that brings about peace, not another generation of militant young men with terrorism and pain in their hearts. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I have dared to feel some hope that this ceasefire could be the beginning of the end of Israel’s 15 months of pain and suffering since the appalling Hamas attacks, and the end of 15 months in which the entire population of Gaza has wondered day in, day out whether they will survive another day of bombing.

The humanitarian situation is dire. Staff at the Al-Awda hospital, the only partially functioning hospital in the north of Gaza, report that they have been entirely cut off from aid supplies. The long-awaited and so far failed flood of aid is absolutely necessary, but the success of aid efforts must be measured not just by how many trucks get in, essential as that is, but by how many lives  are ultimately protected and saved. What urgent measures is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that that is the case? \p David Lammy: Half a million people in Gaza have received essential healthcare as a result of UK funding, and it was very important to support UK-Med when we came into office. Over 600,000 young people in Gaza have received food as a result of our efforts, but there is a tremendous amount to do, as my hon. Friend knows. The threat to UNRWA could thwart these efforts in the coming days. It is about how we get the number of truckloads up, how we deliver security for the Gazan people and how people can return to their homes, which is now the hope. But she will understand that many of them are returning to rubble. Actually, they are returning to camps in the surrounds of their homes, and they will need aid and support for many, many years, and probably for decades to come. \p Stephen Flynn: As we hope for this ceasefire deal and for the release of the hostages, we continue to mourn all of those who have been killed since the vicious terrorist attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023. In that respect, my mind is very much with the six little babies who did not see this proposal because they froze to death in Gaza just a few short weeks ago. The collective punishment of the Palestinian people will not be forgotten by history, just as all of those who sat silent, and who encouraged and armed extremists in the Israeli Government, will be judged by history. The ceasefire deal is not yet certain; it has been widely reported this morning that the Israeli Cabinet has not yet signed it off. Can the Secretary of State please elaborate on what the consequences would be if either Hamas or, indeed, the Israeli Government reneged on this deal? \p David Lammy: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Labour party has always stressed the seriousness of Israel’s security in the toughest of neighbourhoods, because Iran and its proxies have so much malign intent. But we have always insisted that what it does must be within international humanitarian law, and we have raised our concerns at every turn when we have felt that it is being breached. As the Israeli Cabinet meets to approve the deal at this most serious of moments, it is my sincere hope that they hear what President-elect Trump has said about his expectations of this deal, that they hear the expectations of this united House of Commons, and that they do the right thing. \p Andrew Slaughter: The Foreign Secretary rightly says that we must use this agreement to establish a pathway to a two-state solution. Steps along that pathway were set out in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that was handed down last July, and they would provide the reassurance and security to allow for reconstruction in Gaza. When will the Government publish their response to that opinion? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work over the last few months to focus on the plight of people in Gaza. I know that he has tremendous legal expertise in these matters, and I assure him that this issue is being studied in depth by the appropriate legal minds in Government. We hope to be able to say more when that process is complete. \p Oliver Dowden: Every Friday since 7 October, many people have gathered in Borehamwood, in the heart of my constituency, with a simple message: “Bring them home.” May I urge the Foreign Secretary to use all the diplomatic efforts of His Majesty’s Government to bring that vision to bear? The first thing to do is to secure agreement from the Israeli Cabinet. As he says, the deal could go wrong at each stage of the process. Can we keep a focus on bringing the hostages home? If we have an enduring ceasefire, as we all hope and pray, will he update the House on the role that our friends and allies in the Gulf states can play in rebuilding Gaza? That will be crucial in ensuring that peace endures. \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the experience of his constituency to bear. We have a family of constituencies in north London where a candle has been lit for the hostages every single Friday, including in the Stamford Hill area of my constituency, which he knows is one of the historical homes of the Jewish community, many having migrated to Borehamwood and Hertfordshire over the years.

The right hon. Gentleman is also right to mention the importance of the Gulf states. They can do so much for the reconstruction and rebuilding of Gaza. They can do so much to support a rehabilitated and reformed Palestinian Authority. They can do so much to support the monitoring and security arrangements that will need to be put in place if Israel is to be assured that it can withdraw and that Hamas will not attack again.

We should remember the rocket fire that Israel has experienced over many, many years, including, of course, the attack on 7 October. There is a key role for the Gulf states, but they will not take up that role unless there is renewed and continued negotiation beyond phase 1, which begins in 16 days’ time. They will need a political horizon, too. \p Yasmin Qureshi: I welcome the ceasefire, after 15 months of relentless bombing of hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and women and children. For the ceasefire to last, it is important that Israel is compelled to recognise that Palestinians have a right to freedom, justice and self-determination.

What steps are being taken to thicken the thin layer of ice on which this ceasefire agreement is skating? Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what steps are being taken to negotiate a two-state solution, which goes to the heart and root cause of this problem, and to ensure that East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine? \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p David Lammy: I am conscious of how many Members are on their feet. I will attempt to go a little quicker.

The Palestinian cause is a just cause. A two-state solution is where we have to be. A political process is necessary. I will play my full part, and I reassured President Abbas that we will do that over the coming days and weeks. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: We live in hope of a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. However, we cannot forget everything that has come before: the mass atrocities on 7 October were followed by 15 months of destruction waged against Gaza’s  civilians by the Israeli Government. The Foreign Secretary mentioned how we eradicate extremism. Extremism is also eradicated by justice. Only justice can redress crime. What steps is he taking to support the International Court of Justice and the ICC to hold all perpetrators of war crimes to account? Will he publish the full record of the UK’s political and military involvement in the conflict so far? \p David Lammy: We have always been clear about the importance of international humanitarian law, and we have always been clear about the importance of its being determined by international courts. Let me be crystal clear: many men and women from this country died in the second world war to achieve the settlement that gave us international humanitarian law and the architecture on which we all rely. It is for that reason that the Labour party will never renege on our responsibilities in relation to international humanitarian law. \p Tahir Ali: The Foreign Secretary rightly mentioned the Houthis and their attacks. We must not forget that peace in the region will come about only if the Yemenis receive the same privilege as the Palestinians. There has to be a peace solution for the Yemenis.

A two-state solution has also been mentioned. My constituents and I believe that these are only warm words. I do not believe that this Government will recognise Palestine as a state in this Parliament. Can the Foreign Secretary prove me wrong? \p David Lammy: The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is currently travelling to New York to meet the Yemeni Foreign Minister to discuss these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) is absolutely right about the Houthis. Their horrendous behaviour, sabotaging international trade and killing people in the Red sea, is entirely unacceptable.

This will be very interesting. Now that we have this ceasefire, will the Houthis hold to it in the Red sea? We will act where we need to, to deal with the problems we are seeing in the Red sea. This is a moment to have hope for those two states, and to keep that alive. With the incoming Trump Administration’s previous commitment to the Abraham accords, I ask my hon. Friend to be hopeful about achieving that full recognition and those two states. \p Bob Blackman: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s tone, content and, above all else, caution. There are clearly concerns that Hamas are trying to resile from the commitments they have made in this deal. In fact, overnight, their leader praised the events of 7 October, vowed to keep repeating them until Israel is eliminated and called upon all his followers to continue the fight.

Equally, the Foreign Secretary has not mentioned that part of this deal, as I understand it, will see the release of Palestinian prisoners who have been convicted of terrorist offences. The risk is that they will return and cause more problems. What can he do to ensure that Hamas are eliminated from government in Gaza, so that the Palestinian Authority can take control and  ensure that peace is restored to the region? We look forward to the release of the hostages and, indeed, the cessation of hostilities. \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right that, over this period, we could see up to 1,500 prisoners released. It will be weighing very heavily on the hearts of many Israelis that among those prisoners will be people who have committed murder, and it will weigh heavily on their hearts that those people are returning to Gaza.

Our view is that we need a political process if we are to undermine seasoned terrorists who, by necessity, are swapped to get these hostages out. This is a delicate process. There is a process within Israel in which some of the affected families can object, but the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the balance that has been struck to achieve the hostage deal and the necessary ceasefire over the coming days. \p Melanie Ward: As a former aid worker, I was in Gaza last April and witnessed the enormity of the horror and destruction for Palestinians there. The scale of the human trauma of the last 15 months is a gaping wound on the conscience of the world—Israeli babies held hostage, some 20,000 Palestinian children killed.

The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he agrees that it is desperately important that this ceasefire agreement holds and goes ahead, and that the deal is implemented in full, including the reconstruction of Gaza. He is absolutely right. Does he agree that the Palestinians of Gaza, including my friends and former colleagues Mahmoud, Mohammed, Moe, Fikr, Wasim and so many others displaced within and outside Gaza, must have free movement to return to their homes—or what is left of them—and that this must include the reopening of the Rafah crossing? \p David Lammy: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, I know, has lost friends and colleagues over the course of the past 15 months. I also pay tribute to her for her work before coming to this place and for her work now. The Rafah crossing with Egypt must open. That is part of this deal, and it will allow 2.3 million displaced civilians to return home on foot via a coastal road. My hon. Friend, I know, recognises the tremendous medical support that is still necessary across the country; there are many, many children without parents. May I say personally that, as a parent of an adopted child, I am particularly concerned about the many orphans and about how we provide for them in the coming days and months. \p Ayoub Khan: Let me place on record my appreciation and gratitude to all the nations—especially Qatar—that have participated in securing this deal. Last year, I, along with Members from both Houses, was in Qatar during the Doha forum. We all know that there have been many deals and ceasefires that Israel has withdrawn from, and that, as the Minister quite rightly says, this is a fragile deal. Other than urging Israel, what tangible steps will the Government take to ensure that it sticks to the deal, instead of going back to the mass killings of innocent Palestinians? \p David Lammy: I was with the Qatari Foreign Minister on Sunday, and we were in touch overnight. I of course thanked him for his tremendous work to get this deal over the line. I think that, while working together over the past few months, we have become friends. There is much that the UK Government can and will continue to do. As I said on the radio last week, diplomacy is failing until it achieves success. The hon. Member will know from his experience and wisdom that success has many fathers and mothers. \p Helen Hayes: I welcome the announcement of this long overdue ceasefire today. My thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones on and since 7 October, the families of hostages anxiously awaiting news, and the tens of thousands of families in Gaza who have suffered bereavement, displacement and destitution. My thoughts are also with all those for whom the announcement is bittersweet; I think particularly of Rachel Goldberg—the mother of Hersh Goldberg-Polin—whom I met in East Jerusalem in February. She has campaigned with such dignity for the release of her son, who was tragically killed in August. I think, too, of the families in Gaza who are losing their loved ones even now as this ceasefire is being announced. But while the war has raged in Gaza, the settlers have dramatically increased their activity in the west bank, taking land that does not belong to them in a systematic attempt to undermine the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.

As our thoughts now turn to the peace process ahead and the aim of a two-state solution, what action is the Foreign Secretary taking to address illegal settlement? Without a more robust approach, a two-state solution simply cannot be achieved. \p David Lammy: May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? We have worked together over many years. Her constituency, in so many ways, is not dissimilar from mine, and I know how heart-rending this has been for her constituents. I also know the grace, the manner and the fortitude with which she has represented their interests very strongly within the Labour movement.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to centre the west bank, the expansion and the violence that undermines the two-state solution. It was very important for me to be able to discuss these issues with President Abbas. One hugely important role that the UK Government play is in relation to reform and supporting the Palestinian Authority. That work must continue. We stand by the 1967 borders that we think can achieve the two-state solution that is required. We worry about the security situation in the west bank. We worry, too, about the arms and the supplies that are coming in from malign forces, particularly from Iran and some neighbouring states. But we are also in an intense dialogue with the Israeli Government about what we think are breaches of international law in relation to how the area is properly secured and policed. We certainly do not want to see the language, the rhetoric or the behaviour that undermine the possibility of the two-state solution. \p Kit Malthouse: The return of hostages and the end of daily massacres of civilians is profoundly to be welcomed. While the Foreign Secretary has attributed much of the work to diplomats, it is obvious that, whatever we think about him, the critical intervention, by all reports, has been that of  President-elect Trump. Although he has issued public threats to Hamas, he has quite obviously—again by all reports—outlined a series of consequences and accountabilities to the Israeli Government. Therefore, as we look towards the worsening situation in the west bank, can we find a lesson here for British foreign policy. Talking, as many of us in this House have urged over the past 14 months, does not work. Unless it is followed up with sure and certain consequence and accountability—whether that is bilateral or indeed through international institutions—there will be no movement. \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman follows  these issues very closely, and has sometimes been a lone voice on his own side. He will know that the Labour Government have had to take very difficult bilateral decisions because of our concerns about breaches of international humanitarian law. My own reflections are that, in some ways, this has been the most challenging of political environments for this conflict, partly because there was an election campaign in the United States for much of 2024. Had we been able to achieve a more bipartisan approach sooner, we might have seen the pressure that was necessary to bring both parties to the deal that we have finally reached. None the less, I am very pleased that the President-elect’s envoy was able to work with Joe Biden’s envoy and bring this deal over the line, but it is fragile and I await the decision that will necessarily come from the Israeli Security Cabinet at this time. \p Paul Waugh: May I thank the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Development and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend, the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), for all the hard work that they have done both in public and in private to secure today’s attempt at a ceasefire, to bring the hostages home, and to get as much humanitarian aid in as possible? Tom Fletcher, the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, has said today that the deal could have been done a year ago, and that the ferocity of the killing by Israel and Hamas has been “a 21st-century atrocity”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be lasting peace in the middle east only if the Israeli Government and the international community treat all lives—a Palestinian child’s life and an Israeli child’s life—as equal? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on these issues both before coming to this place and within the context of his new constituency. I thank him very much for bringing to mind the role of my dear colleagues, the Minister for Development and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). Let me thank also previous colleagues and shadow colleagues with those portfolios. Many of us have played a part to ensure that we get to this end. My hon. Friend is right, too, that there will be time for a lot of reflection on how we got here and why we got here, but the critical thing at this moment is that the ceasefire holds, that we get beyond the first phase to the second phase, and  that we get to the third phase. The third phase, it seems to me, can hold only if we have a political process.  That is where attention must be paid to bring about a  lasting peace. \p Christine Jardine: I echo those who have thanked the Foreign Secretary for the tone that he has taken, and the way in which he has reflected the relief of the whole House that there is at last some hope for the families of the hostages, members of which are here today, and for the population of Gaza. He spoke of the need for a political process to ensure that the deal succeeds, and of the hope that needs to be part of eradicating extremism in the middle east. Does he agree that this is perhaps the appropriate time that he has talked about for holding out hope of a two-state solution, and that now might be the perfect time for the Government to recognise a state of Palestine? \p David Lammy: The hon. Lady is right that a two-state solution is the only way to a stable peace. She knows, too, that recognition in itself does not achieve that. It has always been my view, and that of important international partners such as France, that this is an important issue. If we are serious, and achieve that political process, recognition might properly be part of it, to cement the two states that are necessary. This Government, and I suspect previous Governments, fully understand the importance of the UK’s role in applying that at the appropriate moment, precisely because we have the distinguished responsibility of having a seat on the United Nations Security Council. \p Stella Creasy: I know that for the next couple of days everybody in this House will hold in their hearts my constituent Sharone, whose father Oded is the oldest hostage we are awaiting news on; we hope to hear some this weekend. Oded is 85. I hold out hope for him, because we do not know what has happened to him. Oded spent his life as a peace activist, campaigning for a two-state solution and driving Gazans to hospital. In the spirit of Oded, and the work that he has done, will the Foreign Secretary work with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to offer young Palestinians who urgently need medical help the support that they need here in the UK? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that she does, and for our friendship over many years. Oded is a retired Israeli journalist who was taken from his home. His wife, Yocheved, was also taken, but she was released in October 2023. Oded’s daughter Sharone is a British national who resides in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and she has tirelessly campaigned for his release. That is what we want to see over the next period. There is a role for our own medical services where appropriate, and I will continue to work with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary on these issues. My hon. Friend should be reassured that he raised the very same issues with me this week on how we can do more in relation to that matter. \p Paul Holmes: The Foreign Secretary is right that both Israel and Hamas must ensure that the deal is successful and stick to the terms that have been outlined, but as the Foreign Secretary came to this House the Israeli Prime Minister said that he wants to delay a vote in Cabinet because there have been last-minute changes to what Hamas are requiring. Has the Foreign Secretary been briefed on what those perceived changes or accusations are, and could he outline some of them to the House, bearing in mind national security implications? Can he tell the House  how he will make it clear to both sides that it is this deal or no deal, and that if they do not get the deal through we will enter a further period of grave instability in the region, and more lives will be lost? \p David Lammy: Let me be crystal clear: the UK Government’s position is that the deal is now final and needs to be implemented. I urge colleagues in the Israeli Government to do the right thing in the hours available before Sunday, and get on and sign off the deal. \p Apsana Begum: Israel denied that it was holding Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, the director of Kamal Adwan hospital, only to confirm that it had in fact detained him. There are reports that he is currently being tortured in prison. The Foreign Secretary mentioned that the history of this conflict is littered with missed opportunities. Can he take this opportunity clearly to condemn Israel’s indefinite incommunicado detention of Palestinians, en masse and without charge or trial? What action are the Government taking, in the light of the ceasefire offer on the table, regarding their close ally’s pattern of deadly attacks on healthcare, which is clearly part of an intention to destroy and degrade Palestinians as a group? \p David Lammy: We have raised those issues with the Israeli Government, and did so through the Christmas period. We recognise that there is pain, and that there are concerns about international humanitarian law, but all of us in this House have a responsibility to do all that we can to bridge the divides if we are to ensure that the deal holds and the people of Gaza get the respite for which I know the hon. Lady has been campaigning for many months. \p Ellie Chowns: I warmly welcome this ceasefire agreement, and like colleagues across the House, I fervently hope that the Israeli Cabinet will approve it, but I think we all recognise that, while the ceasefire may bring an end to the current extremes of violence, it will not end the conflict. A number of conditions need to be met for lasting peace, so will the Foreign Secretary set out a timetable for UK recognition of the state of Palestine, and the concrete steps that he will take to end the occupation and ensure that all those who have committed war crimes are held fully accountable? \p David Lammy: I cannot set out a timetable because the UK Government alone cannot be responsible for a timetable that will necessarily involve the Israeli Government, the Palestinian Authority, our friends in the United States, and Arab partners particularly. It will not be possible for me to set out a timetable on these issues, but I ask the hon. Lady to have faith. I sat down with President Abbas this week to discuss these very issues. On the question that she rightly raises of accountability, that must be a necessary matter for our international courts. I have set out from this Dispatch Box why we in this party hold dear the importance of international humanitarian law. \p Nick Smith: I applaud the Foreign Secretary for today’s very welcome statement. While bricks and mortar are crucial to rebuilding  Gaza, what more can he say about investing in the democratic, judicial and security institutions to underpin the movement towards a possible two-state solution? \p David Lammy: The United Kingdom has unique capability and experience in governance issues particularly. We have unique partnerships with not just Israel but the Palestinian Authority and Arab partners, and of course the special relationship with the United States, so we are uniquely positioned for the next phase. I look forward to discussing these issues with the incoming Secretary of State Senator Rubio in the coming months to see what more the United Kingdom can do. \p Graham Stuart: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and express hope that the ceasefire is agreed and implemented and that the humanitarian aid we want to see follows on from it? In that light, does he share my concern about the evidence that UNRWA has been penetrated by Hamas and that the curriculum in schools run by UNRWA has propagated hate? Does he agree that the job of reform of UNRWA has not yet been finished and needs to be looked at so that UNRWA does not act as a place where terrorists can hide and hate can be promoted? \p David Lammy: I was horrified by the allegations against UNRWA, and it was entirely proper and appropriate that the United Nations got someone of eminence and importance to look at those issues. I know Madame Colonna, and I spoke to her following her review. In re-establishing funding to UNRWA, we gave £1 million to the UN to assist the implementation of her plan. The hon. Member is right that the process is not yet complete, but we heard again this morning from United Nations representatives that they are reassured that the process is under way and that UNRWA cannot and can never be a hiding place for those who commit terrorism. \p John Martin McDonnell: May I bring the Foreign Secretary back to the issue of the recognition of the state of Palestine, because I agree we have to maintain momentum of hope for all concerned? Although he cannot give us a timeline today, could he set out the criteria that the Government will use to judge that the time is right for the recognition of the state of Palestine? \p David Lammy: My right hon. Friend will know that, in some ways, this is a moment of peril for that political process. On the one hand, we have the potential for Saudi normalisation and two states, for the Palestinian people. On the other hand, some in Israel will never be committed to two states and talk instead of annexation. Those two are opposites, and that is why the next few months are so important. It would be folly for me to stand at this Dispatch Box and give timetables. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Obviously, we hope that the Israeli Cabinet makes a rapid decision to support this ceasefire agreement, but that is only a ceasefire agreement, and one hopes it will be rapidly followed by the release of all the hostages and prisoners, as agreed. However, there have been some major developments over the past two years, particularly on the legal front, where the International Court of Justice has recognised that acts of a genocidal nature have  taken place and has called for Israeli withdrawal from the west bank and an end to the settlement policy. Will the Foreign Secretary commit the British Government to demanding that all the ICJ recommendations are carried out and that Israel has a programme of withdrawal from the west bank and an end to the settlement policy? There cannot be any peace for the Palestinian people while they remain under occupation. They have suffered so much, lost so much and lost so many, and the mental scars of the people of Gaza will now be intergenerational. They will need a lot of support to get through this and, above all, international recognition of the state of Palestine. \p David Lammy: Let me begin by recognising the unique way in which the right hon. Gentleman has raised these issues in the House over a lifetime of work and his commitment to justice and accountability in this era. It is right and proper that international humanitarian law is followed and that the international courts do their work. Let me also be clear that this Government do not believe in illegal occupation and are committed to two states. I repeat again: we cannot tolerate the violence; we cannot tolerate the expansion. We recommit ourselves to continuing to work with civil society on the ground in the west bank and the occupied territories that is documenting these things. Both this Government and the previous Government have continued to support such organisations over many years. Clearly, when we get to that settlement, it will essentially come down to swaps and very serious negotiation over that land, on both sides. We recognise that, and that is why expansion is so thoroughly unacceptable. \p Gordon McKee: The ceasefire is good news. It has been welcomed around the world, and it will be welcomed by my constituents. It is a time of relief, but also one of great grief for the many tens of thousands of lives that have been lost. In November, I visited the west bank and met the director of UNRWA, who said he had no idea how aid would get into Gaza if and when the Israeli ban on UNRWA passes. What more can the Government do to ensure that the ban is lifted and aid gets into Gaza? \p David Lammy: I, too, met the director of UNRWA in the occupied territories this week. He repeated that to me, and I recognise his assessment. I spoke to the Israeli Government about this issue, and they said—of course, this was prior to the ceasefire being reached—they believed that other UN agencies, non-governmental organisations on the ground and international parties could step into the breach. I reminded them about their legal responsibilities, as an occupying power, about our long-standing concerns anyway about humanitarian aid, and about the prospect of undermining an agreement that I had hoped would be reached when I was with them on Monday. For all those reasons, I do hope that they will reflect and step back from implementing this Knesset legislation. \p Brendan O'Hara: The celebrations in Gaza that welcomed the ceasefire were matched only by the relief of the hostages’ families that their loved ones were finally coming home. In the hours that followed, however, scores of Palestinian civilians were killed, and the Israeli Government declared that they will not meet today to ratify this deal in what  is an unspeakably cruel blow to those seeking peace and the return of the hostages. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) have both asked this question, but in the absence of a reply, I will ask it again: if Israel does not agree this deal and continues to prosecute this conflict as it has to date, what will the consequences be for Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Government? \p David Lammy: This is a moment—I say this having met those hostage families, having prayed for the life of Emily Damari in particular, and having met Palestinians with family in Gaza—where I insist from this Dispatch Box that I will hold out for hope and for that deal being implemented on Sunday. I have been really clear about the responsibilities that I believe the Israeli Government need to meet. We are meeting here in this House on a Thursday, so there are days before Sunday. I believe a settlement will be reached. We will continue to work with the current Administration in America and, indeed, the President-elect’s Administration. He has made his views clear. I will not give in to the cynicism that we will not get to that deal on Sunday and that this process will not begin. \p Mohammad Yasin: I trust the Government will do all they can to ensure that the ceasefire leads to a lasting peace—a peace based on a two-state solution that addresses the root causes of the violence and creates a future in which the rights and security of people in the region are respected. Will the Foreign Secretary redouble his efforts in urging his counterparts in Israel to grant full access to humanitarian organisations, such as the UN, that are urgently seeking to deliver aid in Gaza, as well as to ensure that journalists have unfettered access to report on the situation? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; journalists now need to be able to get in and report on what is happening on the ground. I thank him for giving me a moment to call to mind the many aid workers who have died in this conflict—more than in any other conflict in history—and to thank them for their humanitarian efforts. I repeat again that part of the settlement that came out of the second world war was that there was deconfliction for aid workers working in the most severe of circumstances. That is the expectation of the international community, and we deplore the fact that it has not been met so egregiously in this most horrendous of wars. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and I also pay tribute to all those who have helped to bring about this agreement to stop the killing. I pray that Israel accepts and honours the agreement and subsequent stages.

The Foreign Secretary spoke about darkness, and 7 October was indeed a dark day for innocent Israelis and Palestinians, and for humanity. However, it would be unjust not to acknowledge that the Palestinians have been suffering dark days every day for over 75 years, with the UK and the international community turning a blind eye—and many aiding and abetting. We all welcome the announcement of this ceasefire to suspend hostilities in Gaza. Although we hope and pray that the  temporary pause will free all hostages on both sides, save Palestinian and Israeli lives, and alleviate some of the unspeakable suffering that the Israeli military has inflicted on Gaza, it marks the beginning, not the end, of efforts to restore health, dignity, justice and freedom to the Palestinian people, who have suffered beyond words.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will oppose any attempt by Israel to annex or settle parts of Gaza or further parts of the west bank? Will he confirm the UK’s commitment to ending the long-standing root causes of violence and humanitarian need in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Israel’s illegal occupation, blockade and widespread violations of international law? \p David Lammy: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might sometimes disagree on matters of politics, but I have always respected him in the short time that he has been in this House. I felt again today the humility and faith that he brings to the strength of his questions. Let me be absolutely clear: we stand opposed to expansion, to the violence that we see, and to any talk of annexation, which would breach international UN resolutions that successive UK Governments have supported. He is right that it was the case for some years—particularly in the period after the Abraham accords—that this House had stopped talking about a two-state solution, but I think Members across the House recognise that that is the only way out of this crisis. \p Damien Egan: I, too, thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, particularly his words about how we break out of the cycles of violence, which many of us worry will be replicated in future, and move towards a peaceful future. This is a bitter-sweet deal, in many ways, because the reality is that overnight we have seen Hamas putting their uniforms back on, waving their rifles and celebrating. They are still there. One of their leaders said just this morning that they would do 7 October all over again; the international community must unite to ensure that they cannot, and to free the people of Gaza from Hamas. What steps can the Government take to change the reality for Hamas by stopping weapons from Iran and funding from states such as Qatar, and to promote genuine soul-searching and reflection among international agencies on the ground, to ensure that they are doing everything they can not to repeat mistakes or turn a blind eye to collaboration with Hamas? \p David Lammy: It is important to continue to remember the tremendous trauma in Israel as a result of 7 October—the worst atrocity for the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It is important to remember, in the wake of this deal, which we want to see over the line, that, yes, Hamas fighters have been on the streets firing their rifles and saying that they would do it again, and that does not lead to a context in which the Israeli people feel safe in their own land. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Iran continues to destabilise the region through its political, financial and military support for Hamas and other partners in the region. Very sadly, if we do not do all we can to come together here in the United Kingdom, play our role internationally and get to that political process, it is my judgment that in 25 years’ time, another  generation of politicians, including some younger politicians in this House, will be here again debating the same issue—more violence, more pain, more loss of life, and still no two states. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his sombre tone and for his soft but strong words—we all appreciate them. I very much welcome the fact that a ceasefire is imminent and that the hostages will soon be returned home. Will the Foreign Secretary outline what discussions have taken place with our American allies to ensure that aid gets to where it is needed in a safe and concerted effort, and what does he imagine our role to be in ongoing negotiations to support Israel and find a peaceful way forward? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is always on top of these issues, particularly terrorism, conflict and peace. I have worked very closely with the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, and I pay tribute to him—I suspect for the last time—for all his work. I sent him a message last night saying what a pleasure it was to see him standing behind Joe Biden. More than many, I know—as do my predecessors—how much work he put into getting this agreement over the line. I also know how important it was that President-elect Trump and his team stepped up in the last few days. There is a critical role for the UK for the reasons that I have set out, and we will play that role. \p Paula Barker: It has been a long and painful road to get to this point, but today’s welcome news of a ceasefire deal is finally a sliver of hope. It has always been clear that the release of hostages and a ceasefire were necessary steps to pull the middle east from this abyss, which has cruelly taken so many lives. I will touch on the point that the Foreign Secretary just made about another generation of politicians, including younger politicians in this House, debating the two-state solution in 25 years’ time. I have said to him many times that the recognition of a Palestinian state is not a by-product but the route to a resolution. Will he be brave, will he be bold, and will he, so that we are not here in 25 years’ time debating the two state-solution, recognise the state of Palestine much quicker than that? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way she has championed these issues, pressing them again and again, on behalf of her constituents. There is a real dilemma on Palestinian recognition. There are some who want recognition essentially because they believe that two states is years away and will never be achieved, and they want the UK Government to say, “We will do it now”—to put a marker in the sand, despite the fact that it is years away and will never be achieved. There are others who recognise the importance of the UK’s role in relation to our responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and therefore understand that we will do that, but we will do it when we know that it will happen and it is in sight. This is one of those critical moments, and believe me, I will play my part. \p Shockat Adam: Yesterday on the streets of Gaza, mothers came out to celebrate the news of the impending peace deal. Today, many of those mothers were crouching over loved ones, as news came in of a further 73 Palestinians having been killed.  That is 73 added on to the thousands and thousands who have already been killed, but when it comes to the number of Palestinians dead, that is all it seems to be—a number. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that no justice and no meaningful peace can be achieved if we continue to allow the cries of the oppressed to go unheard? I ask this not as a political rival, but as a fellow human being. The Palestinian people and, indeed, the families of the hostages have no more time for rhetoric, platitudes and words. What are we going to do to ensure that this peace deal goes ahead and justice is given beyond words, so that no more innocent blood is shed? \p David Lammy: The Palestinian cause is a just cause, which is why we recommit to two states. You can hold in your heart the pain of the Israeli people and the plight of those hostages and their families, and at the same time, you can hold in your heart the awful damage, pain and suffering that this has wrought on Gaza, with well over 45,000 Palestinian people having lost their lives. You can hold those two things at the same time, which of course is what the UK Government attempt to do as they try to bring about conciliation and uphold international humanitarian law. Ultimately, we want to get to a process that brings about genuine peace, where these two countries can live side by side with security and peace. \p Johanna Baxter: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. The news of a possible deal is very welcome indeed, and I associate myself with the hopes of colleagues across this House that the hostages will be released and returned, and that humanitarian aid will flood into Gaza as soon as possible. We know that the only way to ensure a lasting peace is that two-state solution, so can my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Government will take to support the creation of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace? \p David Lammy: We absolutely support that, and we will continue to work towards it. \p Adnan Hussain: I join in with the sentiments of relief and hope for peace after a horrific 15-month-long ordeal. However, a ceasefire cannot take away from the fact that Israel is on trial for genocide and its leaders have arrest warrants in their names for their crimes committed against the people of Gaza. A ceasefire does not change that fact; justice and accountability must be realised in the face of some of the most horrific war crimes of our times. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will stand by their commitment to treaties under international law and uphold the requirements of the arrest warrants already issued? \p David Lammy: We are signatories to the treaty of Rome, and we will comply with our legal obligations—not just because we should, but because we believe in them. \p Barry Gardiner: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government will not lift the limited ban on arms sales to Israel until he or another Minister has come back to this House and explained why the danger of those arms being abused has receded? \p David Lammy: As my hon. Friend knows, that is a quasi-legal process that is gone through with all sobriety, examining the facts on the ground. The ban is in place at this time; arms are not currently being sent to Israel under export licences, for reasons that have been discussed at the Dispatch Box for many months. I suspect that until we get to a secure and stable Gaza, it is unlikely. The fighting has got to stop. \p Sonia Kumar: I welcome the news of a ceasefire deal after 15 months of devastation, destruction and loss of life. The release of hostages is vital, ensuring their safety and swift return to their families. There has been unimaginable suffering, and the ceasefire must be a turning point. It is imperative that the UK leverages our diplomatic influence to ensure stability while urgently stepping up humanitarian aid in Gaza; food, medicine and fuel must reach those who desperately need them without delay. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what diplomatic contributions the UK will make to ensure the ceasefire’s stability when we move towards the latter and more fragile stages of a multi-stage agreement? \p David Lammy: I pray in aid some of my statements earlier in this session. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I urge Members to make their questions short, or we will simply not get everybody in. \p Richard Burgon: We all hope that the ceasefire happens and that it holds, and we all resolve that if it does, never again—never again by anyone. For the most part, that means accountability, which is where the ICC and ICJ come in. Journalists, forensic experts and rescue teams must be guaranteed unrestricted access to investigate mass graves, locate the missing and document the atrocity crimes committed by Israel, so will the Foreign Secretary commit to supporting this? Otherwise impunity, not accountability, will reign, which will prevent us from making sure that what we have seen does not happen again. \p David Lammy: We continue to support non-governmental organisations and to call for journalists to be allowed in. Of course, it is important that the appropriate authorities properly document what has happened and that, where necessary, people can be held accountable. \p Yuan Yang: The ceasefire deal gives families in Israel and Palestine, as well as their relatives in my constituency, hope for longer-lasting peace and security. However, there can be no security without accountability, and there is no accountability without scrutiny—scrutiny, for example, to ensure that the funding the Government have pledged for UNRWA reaches its intended destination. This war has been the deadliest on record for journalists, so what can the Government do to ensure that all journalists in Palestine, including my former colleagues, can do their job without fear for their lives? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend has represented the interests of those journalists very well in her question. I repeat again that I deplore the number of journalists who have lost their lives. It is important that any democracy engaged in conflict of this kind allows journalists to  cover what has truly happened. As we head now to this ceasefire and the stability that is required, the time has come, I hope, for journalists from all corners of the globe to be let in. \p Zarah Sultana: Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes, including targeting civilians and using starvation as a weapon of war. The British public deserve clarity, so I will ask again: will the Foreign Secretary confirm that should Benjamin Netanyahu step on British soil, he would be immediately arrested—yes or no? \p David Lammy: I say to the hon. Lady, as I think has been said before, that we have a legal process in this country were that to come to pass, and that process is important. Ultimately, it will be a decision for our courts, so it is important that, from this Dispatch Box, I leave that matter for them. However, I have said in terms that we are a signatory to the statute of Rome, not just because we are but because we believe in it. Therefore, as the hon. Lady would expect, this Government will comply with the law if that were to come to pass. \p Oliver Ryan: I know that I speak for everyone in my constituency when I say that after so much death and unthinkable horror, this ceasefire—this peace—offers hope for a long-term political solution, security for the people of Gaza and of Israel, a two-state solution and a sustainable peace. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that what we now need is a flood of aid to stop civilians suffering now in Gaza? Also, I know it is very early days, but what hope does he have for a new normalisation deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia going forward? \p David Lammy: I am grateful for the question. Having spoken to the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister at length on Sunday and to the Israeli Foreign Minister at length on Sunday as well, it is my sincere hope that we do get that normalisation deal. There are many steps before we get there, but I think this is a critical moment, and I really hope we can achieve it. \p Rachael Maskell: After such unimaginable suffering, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. However, I recognise the fragility of this moment—not only the fragility of making a decision around this deal, but the fragility of lives in Gaza, where the suffering continues at this moment. Will he ensure that we provide the very best medical support, given that many specialties no longer exist in Gaza, and that we use the expertise in our country to send teams into the region and indeed into Gaza to ensure that people with diseases and infections and those who need urgent surgery have the very best services? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on medical support. We will continue to support UK-Med, and we made a decision to give it more funds when we were just a few days into office. Half a million people have received essential healthcare as a result of  that funding, and UK-Med has supported over 300,000 people across Gaza. It is hugely important work, and I suspect we will have more to say in the coming days about what more we can do. \p James Naish: I thank my right hon. Friend for his very measured statement. I have met dozens of constituents in Rushcliffe who I know will wholeheartedly welcome yesterday’s news. However, I have received a lot of emails specifically about the decimation of medical facilities in the northern part of Gaza. Can I ask the Foreign Secretary what steps are likely to be taken to ensure immediate improvements to healthcare access as a result of this week’s announcement? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For the reasons I have set out, security will be essential if the aid is to get in and if international partners are to be reassured, so that the reconstruction of hospitals can properly begin. \p Polly Billington: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, and indeed to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who has played such an important role in working tirelessly for justice. Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) about recognition of the state of Palestine, what role will the British Government play in creating the conditions that mean a two-state solution is finally in reach and we could declare that we recognise the state of Palestine? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. The role that we must play is the critical juncture between phase 2 and then phase 3. We will only really get to phase 3 if there is a proper political solution. I think the United Kingdom has a particular role to play because of our relationship with all the parties, and our unique role on the United Nations Security Council alongside France. She is absolutely right that there must be a process, that we must engage in that process and that recognition is a key part of the process. Ultimately, however, that must lead to a two-state solution.

Let me say, finally, that in my discussions at the weekend in Saudi Arabia, it was very clear to me that we are no longer in a place where Gulf colleagues would satisfy themselves with some promise that feels years and years away, or generations away. We are really talking about the immediate lifetime of many parliamentarians in this House at this time, and this is therefore a very critical issue. \p David Williams: Now really is the moment when we all do need some hope, as the task of helping people to rebuild their homes and communities is truly daunting. To allow for reconstruction of hospitals, schools and homes to take place, the supply of construction materials into Gaza will need to happen on a huge scale. Can I please ask the Foreign Secretary what discussions are taking place right now to help facilitate that access for important materials? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend asks a very good question. The World Bank has been doing a lot of thinking about that, with a rapid needs assessment of the materials that are now necessary. \p Alice Macdonald: As the Foreign Secretary has said, this is a glimmer of light for the hostages, their families and civilians in Gaza—many of them children living in hell—and all our thoughts are with them. We have spoken a lot about the importance of access for humanitarian aid, but can I ask the Foreign Secretary about volumes? Can he update us on the funding for the UN humanitarian appeals, whether we are considering an uplift in our aid, and what pressure we are putting on other UN member states to make sure they play their role in not only providing that aid, but pushing for access? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put on record the issue of volume. At the moment, the agreement is for 600 or so trucks. That is ambitious, and the situation on the ground will need to change quite a lot if that is to be achieved. The need is absolutely there. The UN must play its part, but I think some of the decisions that may come on UNRWA would fundamentally undermine that. I think commercial trucks have to come back in, and the security has to be there. Clearly, what we want to see—and it is here in the deal—is Israel being able to draw back, which raises further issues about security. That is why I say that this deal is fragile and that negotiation continues and there is much still to do. She is absolutely right that we have to see the volumes, or I think the people of Gaza will say that there have been lots of fine words, but things have not actually changed very much on the ground. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: Now that there is hope of a ceasefire, will the Secretary of State redouble his efforts to seek justice for the family of my constituent John Chapman, whom he mentioned in his statement, who was murdered by the IDF last April when working for the World Central Kitchen? Will he meet me to discuss what the UK Government can do to hold the Israeli Government to account for their actions? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I raised this issue with the Israeli Foreign Minister at the weekend. We do want to see accountability, and we do want to see a process from the Military Advocate General in Israel. The loss of life breaks our hearts. I have spent time with the families that have suffered so much as a result of the atrocity against World Central Kitchen, when there was a tremendous loss of life. There must be justice, there must be accountability and there must be a process. It is now for the Military Advocate General in Israel to do that, and we will continue to press this issue. Of course, I or the Minister for the middle east will meet him and his constituents. \p Harpreet Uppal: We all welcome the announcement of the possible ceasefire and hope that the Israeli Cabinet ratifies the agreement. The toll on civilians has been horrific: over 46,000 Palestinian civilians, including children, have been killed, and 1,200 Israelis were killed on 7 October and many hostage families are hoping that their family members are returned.  I, too, pay tribute to British citizens John Chapman, James Henderson and James Kirby, who were killed delivering aid in Gaza. The EU has announced €120 million in new aid for Gaza, so will the UK announce a further package of aid soon? I agree with the Foreign Secretary that Palestinians must be able to return home safely. What role will the UK play in that? \p David Lammy: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will be making a further assessment of the humanitarian need and what more we can do in the coming weeks, given the changed circumstances. Let us get this deal over the line, and let us assess where the UK can play a particular role alongside other partners. It is important that we co-ordinate, and it was important for me to be in Saudi Arabia with Kaja Kallas, the new High Representative of the EU, because we were able to travel together and to discuss these very same issues. \p John Slinger: In addition to the appalling suffering of civilians due to this conflict, for far too long there has been a sense of hopelessness in the region, which is mirrored by a sense of hopelessness here about what we can all do practically to help secure peace and rebuild Gaza. Does my right hon. Friend agree that British companies, particularly those in construction, and NGOs should be at the vanguard of the Herculean task of rebuilding Gaza? As we get—we hope—towards phase 3 on the future, does he agree that making more information available about the support we can provide in this area will help the peace process, because reconstruction is vital? \p David Lammy: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. \p Deirdre Costigan: On behalf of so many of my constituents in Ealing Southall, may I wholeheartedly welcome this news about a potential ceasefire in Gaza and the return of the hostages? I thank the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team for all their hard work to get us to this moment of hope, but this is only a beginning. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me how he will use our hard-won experience of brokering a lasting peace in Northern Ireland through the Good Friday agreement to help achieve a two-state solution and long-term peace, security and prosperity for the people of both Palestine and Israel? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Northern Ireland and the essential role that was played in particular by the last Labour Government. She will no doubt have noticed that the new National Security Adviser is Jonathan Powell, who played such an important role in that. Our National Security Adviser always does a lot behind the scenes on these issues, and I look forward to working with him on this issue. \p Peter Swallow: The Foreign Secretary is right when he recognises that this ceasefire, although fragile, offers a real glimmer of hope. He is also right to emphasise the need to go further to ensure a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable sovereign Palestinian state. Will he set out what he sees as the next steps in getting us to the ultimate goal of a lasting peace in the region? \p David Lammy: As has been said, there are two possibilities here. One is a situation in which Israel does not withdraw from Gaza and there is still a lot of fighting. Displaced people would vaguely be able to return to their homes, but we would not see the reconstruction or the international community able to come back in, because there would be no guarantee that the efforts they put in will not be destroyed in another 10 or 20 years’ time. The other possibility is that we get to phase 3 and we see not just a ceasefire, but a political process that brings about stability and ultimately peace, and alongside that we see Saudi normalisation with Israel and the prospect of two states. \p Rachel Hopkins: We all welcome the news of the ceasefire deal after 15 months of devastating conflict and suffering in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary knows how important the recognition of Palestine and the two-state solution is to my constituents in Luton South and South Bedfordshire. Does he agree that in our Government’s commitment to a two-state solution, Gaza must form part of a future Palestinian state, with no reduction in the size of its territory, no ongoing occupation of Gaza and no forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza? \p David Lammy: I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend has done in her constituency and the manner in which she lobbied hard on these issues when I was shadow Foreign Secretary, which she continues to do now. I can confirm that Gaza must be part of the two states and a home for the Palestinian people. \p Matthew Patrick: It is with hope and fear that we await news of this ceasefire deal, and that will be felt particularly strongly by the families of the hostages. We have heard of the British hostages—of Emily Damari, Avinatan Or, Oded Lifschitz and Eli Sharabi—and the work of their families. For them, until they are holding their loved ones, this deal will not be real or done. Can the Foreign Secretary please assure them that at each and every stage of this deal, he will be pressing for the hostages’ release, so that we can deliver that for their families, bring this war to an end, and bring the hostages and their families together? \p David Lammy: Emily Damari is a British national. She spent her 28th birthday in captivity. She was taken from her home in the Kfar Aza kibbutz. Emily enjoys watching football and is a Tottenham Hotspur fan. I keep her in my heart every single day. I have a plastic flower from her mother in my office reminding me of her plight. I pray and hope that I see her emerge in the coming days. Oded Lifschitz is a retired Israeli journalist and we hold out a torch for him. Eli Sharabi is a family man, and his wife Lianne, a British citizen, and his daughters Noiya and Yahel were murdered on 7 October. Yossi Sharabi was killed in captivity last year, and we pray for his family at this time. Avinatan Or is a 31-year-old man, and therefore will not be in the first phase of this activity, but we want to see him freed as we get to the second and third phases. \p Allison Gardner: Human rights organisations such as Gisha, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have been working hard to get more aid  into Gaza since the beginning of the conflict. What steps is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office taking to support human rights groups to help rebuild Gaza and the lives of the Palestinian people? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right to raise human rights and human rights defenders, particularly those on the ground. She should be assured that the UK under this Government continues to fund those important organisations. They are part of the exercise of allowing very vulnerable people to have their rights advocated for and their dignity upheld in the most horrendous of circumstances. Those organisations are also part of the accountability mechanisms we have signed up to and believe in. \p Andrew Pakes: My right hon. Friend is right that this is not a day for celebration; it is a day for prayer—prayer that this deal is seen through and prayer that hostages and ordinary Palestinians get a chance to rebuild their lives after the atrocities and horrors of the past 15 months.

My right hon. Friend is right to say that this peace deal is fragile, but it is also right to say that many in the world, including in my community, think that the world community’s grasp on humanitarian values has been fragile these past 15 months. We have failed the hostages, failed the Palestinians and failed in the quest for peace by taking so long to do that. He will know that this issue is important to the community I represent. Nearly two years ago, the Foreign Secretary had lunch with me and some of my constituents, and we talked about previous crises where we have solved the crisis but given up on the peace. What reassurance can he give us that this time it will be different and the British Government will lead the way, once we get this deal in place, to ensure that there is a two-state solution and that dignity and respect are given to Israel and Palestine? \p David Lammy: Eighty years on from the second world war, my hon. Friend is right. He is a dear friend, and I know his constituency well, having spent seven years of my life living in the great city of Peterborough. There is no doubting that when we look back on those 80 years, there are key moments that shook the foundations of the rule of law that men and women in this country fought for. I suspect that people will look back on this war as one of those hugely challenging moments. People who believe in democracy recognise that we are here as parliamentarians in one of the great homes of democracy to fight to keep hope alive. The Palestinian cause is a just cause. The plight of the Jewish people is also a just cause, and a homeland for them I think is right. We have got to achieve that peace. Just as I have for many years campaigned for peace in countries such as Northern Ireland and South Africa, we can get peace in the middle east if we redouble our efforts and the whole of the international community stands true to international humanitarian law.

More than two hours after I started this statement, I am grateful for the opportunity this afternoon. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Foreign Secretary for a long, two-hour statement. \p Caroline Nokes: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Act 2025

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Act 2025

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Act 2025. \p Pat McFadden: I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to module 1 of the covid inquiry. In July last year, Baroness Hallett published her report from the first module of the inquiry. It concluded that the UK was not as prepared as it should have been for the pandemic and that more could and should have been done. In my statement to the House immediately following the publication of her report, I committed to responding in full within six months.

Before I turn to the Government’s response, I want to place on record once again my thanks to Baroness Hallett and her team for the work they have done so far in the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the families and friends who lost loved ones during the pandemic, some of whom are with us in the Gallery. Earlier this week I visited the national covid memorial wall just across the river from here. I am grateful to the friends of the wall who have so lovingly cared for it and maintained it over the past few years.

As I said in my statement in July, the Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. That is why since we were elected, we have taken steps to strengthen the UK’s resilience. I announced a review of national resilience. Work on that review is proceeding, and I will update the House on its conclusion in the spring.

The Prime Minister has established a single Cabinet Committee for resilience, which I chair, which meets to ensure clear and rigorous ministerial oversight. We have adopted the 2023 biological security strategy to protect the UK and our interests from significant biological risks.

In April, the new UK Resilience Academy will be launched. It will train over 4,000 people in resilience and emergency roles every year and help them plan for and manage a range of crises, including pandemics. I should also acknowledge, as I did in my first statement back in July, that in some areas these improvements build on work carried out by the previous Administration.

The improvements that we have made to our resilience have been put to the test over the last six months. Those include the Prime Minister chairing a number of emergency Cobra meetings to address the violent disorder that occurred over the summer and working across our four nations to anticipate and contain clade 1 mpox cases in the UK.

Since July, we have also sent two emergency alerts to provide advice to the public in life-threatening situations. During Storm Darragh, because of a very rare red—danger to life—warning, an alert was sent to over three million people in affected regions. More recently, we issued a very localised warning over flooding danger. The Government will carry out a full national test of the emergency alert system later this year. That will ensure that the system is functioning correctly, should it need to be deployed in an emergency.

The covid module 1 inquiry found that years of under-investment meant that pandemic planning was not a sufficient priority, that our health services were already suffering and beyond capacity, and that there were high levels of illness and health inequalities. All of that meant that the state was ill-prepared to manage a crisis on this scale. Therefore, apart from the specific  recommendations, delivering on the Government’s missions—particularly in this context, building a national health service fit for the future—will contribute in important ways to the UK’s resilience.

Pandemic planning and resilience are about not just specific resilience measures but ensuring the underlying fundamentals of our country are strong. I thank the devolved Governments for their co-operation in preparing our response today. We will continue to work together for the safety of the communities we serve.

I turn to specifics. There are three new commitments that I wish to highlight. First, the inquiry recommended that the UK Government and devolved Governments should together hold a regular UK-wide pandemic response exercise. We agree and will be undertaking a full national pandemic response exercise later this year. It will be the first of its kind in nearly a decade. It will test the UK’s capabilities, plans, protocols and procedures in the event of another major pandemic. It will be led by senior Ministers, involve thousands of participants and run across all regions and nations of the UK. Alongside the Health Secretary, I have written to all Cabinet Ministers to ask for their commitment to full participation. The exercise will take place in the autumn over a number of days. The Government will communicate the findings and lessons of the exercise as recommended by the covid-19 inquiry.

Secondly, the inquiry found that the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and continues to affect many people in those communities. A new national vulnerability map created by the Cabinet Office with the Office for National Statistics will geographically map population numbers of those who may be vulnerable in a crisis. It will do that by sharing data including age, disability, ethnicity, and whether someone is receiving care. The map will improve the Government’s understanding of the scale and location of disproportionately impacted populations ahead of and during crises and enable targeted local support when required.

Thirdly, as the inquiry reminds us, the risks we face are changing more quickly than ever before, and we live in an increasingly volatile world. It therefore recommended a better approach to risk assessment across the board, which we accept. Today, I am publishing an updated national risk register: the public-facing version of the national security risk assessment, which provides businesses and the voluntary and community sectors with the latest information about the risks they face to support their planning, preparation and response. We will ensure that it continues to be updated regularly. A significant proportion of the risks will be subject to reassessment over the next few months, and we will publish a further updated risk register as needed once the process is complete.

I want to mention two further recommendations where the Government accept the underlying objectives and propose to take them forward in specific ways. First, the inquiry recommended Cabinet Office leadership for whole-system civil emergencies in the UK. We agree with that, as for whole-system emergencies such as a pandemic, the centre of Government needs to play a lead role. But for lower-scale emergencies, we believe that the lead Department model still has value. It  remains important for Departments with the day-to-day  responsibility for an issue to lead the work to identify serious risks and ensure that the right planning, response and recovery arrangements are in place. Therefore, in some circumstances we will retain the lead Government Department model, because, in those cases, responsibility and oversight should sit with the body with the best understanding, relationships and mechanisms for delivery to identify and address risks. There will be an enhanced role for the Cabinet Office to improve preparedness and resilience for larger-scale catastrophic risks.

Secondly, on the question of independent input into whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience, we agree with the need for independent strategic advice and challenge, including the use of so-called red teams. We are establishing eight expert advisory groups to combat group-think in our understanding of risks. Alongside that, through the crisis management excellence programme we will increase training in red teaming. We want to work with the local resilience forums that exist around the country who provide critical knowledge and expertise.

The Government are also committed to introducing a duty of candour on public authorities as a catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector to improve transparency and accountability. We also welcome and will draw on the expertise of multidisciplinary pandemic science institutes that provide world-leading academic and scientific expertise such as the excellent Pandemic Institute in Liverpool, which I was pleased to visit yesterday. In the end, the Government must remain responsible and accountable for the policy and resource allocation decisions they take, but we believe that the external input of those bodies can add value to that decision making.

The impact of the covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented in modern memory. It caused the loss of far too many lives. My thoughts, and the thoughts of the whole Government, continue to be with all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic. Many of them feel not just grief but anger that, as Baroness Hallett’s report sadly confirmed, the country was not as prepared as it should have been.

My Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the covid-19 inquiry. In all this, we must remember that the next crisis may not be the same as the last. There is a need for flexibility in our planning and learning, and we will build that into what we do. The Government also remain committed to engaging fully with the inquiry, and await Baroness Hallett’s findings and recommendations in subsequent module reports as she continues her important work. I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Richard Holden: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join his tribute to Baroness Hallett for her report.

We all know how challenging the pandemic was. Sadly, far too many lives were lost—I pay tribute to all the victims from across our country and the world. That is why the Conservative Government put in place the inquiry, and former Ministers have been co-operating with its work—I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for acknowledging that. It is clear from the  inquiry’s investigations and findings so far that response times and processes were too slow and disjointed—we recognise that—but it is also clear that there was an incredibly challenging process and no easy answers.

Module 1 examined our country’s pandemic resilience and preparedness, so I will focus on that. The Government’s response has identified a number of overarching implementations from the module recommendations. We are broadly supportive of the Government’s direction. As the inquiry report notes, it is important to strengthen cross-governmental communication and data sharing, and communication and co-ordination between devolved Administrations. I appreciate that the Government recognise that and are taking forward the recommendation to ensure that the Cabinet Office has a clearer and stronger role in crisis and resilience co-ordination.

The Government have clearly signalled their intention to build on the work started under the last Government, who put together the resilience directorate within the Cabinet Office with the goal of ensuring clear accountability and leadership for long-term resilience and crisis planning. I hope that the steps that the Government have set out will successfully build on that. I am also thankful that they are building on the last Government’s work to lay the foundations of the resilience academy, and I look forward to tracking that progress.

It is important to note that the Government intend to strengthen the articulation of requirements for resilience and emergency training qualifications. I am thankful that they are building on the work that we implemented to establish a new national exercising programme, and are planning a full pandemic exercise for this year. Importantly, we need to recognise that the risks that we will face will be dynamic, because we do not know what the future will hold. I hope that the pandemic exercise will involve cross-cutting segments of microbial resistance and technology infrastructure, which will be key challenges that continue to grow in importance.

The Government have also emphasised the holistic work that can be conducted across all types of organisations as a result of the highly transparent risk register that we first published in 2023. I appreciate that they are setting out their intention to build on that, and offer a wider range of scenarios and frameworks to the register in future. However, they do not seem to fully recognise that there is far too much complication in the system, which risks masking fundamental matters of cross-governmental co-ordination with political measures. I recognise in the Government’s response the desire to ensure independent input into the whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience and, in doing so, establish a number of expert advisory groups, but I caution them that that must be backed up by real accountability and progress tracking, to ensure that the work conducted by those teams is enacted transparently and for clear reasons. They must not be just talking shops.

The Government have announced a significant number of reviews, consultations and taskforces, but without real accountability and framework clarity, they risk being only a temporary solution to long-term issues. That is a particular concern when it comes to national resilience. Although we support the Government’s direction, I want to raise a couple of questions. On recommendation 3, the Minister mentioned mapping, which is very welcome, but will he expand a little on the combined impacts of different vulnerabilities for certain groups and how they can be overlaid in that mapping process?

On recommendations 4 and 5 on the whole system emergency strategy and, crucially, that data element, is there data to support the strategy? What confidence does he have in that at the moment? Will he use the UK Biobank for that? There are critical issues around academic freedom as we look into very complex issues, and overlapping issues within communities across the country.

On recommendation 6, what response has the Minister had so far from the devolved Governments? He said that they have been very positive, but could he go a little further? In response to recommendation 9, the red groups sounded good, but I was a little worried when he said, “We are establishing eight advisory groups to combat group-think.” That sounds a little like a tautology. I want to ensure that those groups will be properly independent and that the Government are challenged on their plans. On recommendation 7, there was an important point around reporting back the findings of the nationwide investigations. On the publishing and timeliness, the report asked for three-month publications—will the Minister speak to that? The Cabinet Office said that it is scoping and testing solutions to resolve multi-agency reports. Will he speak to that?

Finally—thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—we must not lose sight of the fact that there are shifting landscapes, and our response will be a long-term thing. I appreciate the Government’s response today, but they have not yet responded to last year’s House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report on reforming the process by which public inquiries are conducted. That is slightly overdue, so if the right hon. Gentleman could update us on progress on that, I would be most grateful. We must ensure that the tracker is in place so that on issues such as this, the Horizon scandal or the infected blood scandal, we are always in the right place. \p Pat McFadden: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s response and for his broad support for our response, including on the resilience directorate academy and the full pandemic exercise. Let me turn to his questions.

On mapping, the data is getting better. The Government’s ability to gather and use data has improved over time, and it is important that we do that as well as we can. Data has been described as the new oil, and it is important that the Government, which have access to good data around the country, use that to map vulnerabilities and to make sure that the next crisis does not expose cracks in our society, as was the case the last time around.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about work with the devolved Governments. Around those tables, people are not always of the same political party or outlook, but in my experience in the last six months, the spirit has been good and one of co-operation. It has been underpinned by the common understanding that, on an issue such as public protection, the public do not really care about political differences. They expect all of us, whatever our political stripe, to work together for their safety and the common good. That is what we should do.

Red teaming and challenge are important, but they have to be put into context. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned accountability; I said in my statement that accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions ultimately has to rest with the Government. We are all for challenge and all for independent input into that,  but at the end of the day, that is where the accountability lies and that is who has to take the resource allocation decisions. We will publish the findings of the pandemic exercise. I want to see inquiries come to conclusions more quickly so that victims of injustices can get justice more quickly.

The final thing I say in response to the right hon. Gentleman is that he is right to say that the future may not be the same as the past; that is why flexibility has to be built into all this. \p Bill Esterson: While listening to my right hon. Friend’s statement and the shadow Minister’s response, I have been reflecting on those friends who sadly died during the pandemic. I am sure everybody in the House will have their own experiences.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the need for a new national pandemic planning exercise. After the last one, one of the press reports suggested that a recommendation was for senior Ministers to act quickly if a pandemic hit us. Can he confirm that one of the ways in which improvements will be made in our preparation on his watch will be that senior Ministers will be ready and will make decisions in a timely fashion? \p Pat McFadden: That will all be tested in the exercise we have planned. Past planning exercises have sometimes planned for the wrong thing—that is the danger. That is why I say all the time that we have to make sure that we learn from what happened throughout the pandemic of a few years ago, but not make the assumption that the next pandemic or the next crisis will be exactly the same. That is what we have to do. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Alison Bennett: The findings of the inquiry are a harsh confirmation of what we already knew. They are that the UK was woefully unprepared for the pandemic: the focus was wrong, the leadership was lacking and the lessons from past crises were not learned. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that our hearts remain with those who lost loved ones during that tragic time, and I thank the family members who are in the Public Gallery today.

To do right by them, crucially, we must ensure that this is a turning point. It is essential that the new Government take swift and decisive action to prepare for next time. I therefore welcome the Minister’s announcement of a pandemic response exercise this autumn; however, will that be a one-off or are further exercises planned and, if they are, how frequently?

As well as the different, more proactive approach to disease outbreak preparedness that Baroness Hallett cites in her report, we must invest in public health, rather than simply throwing money at crises when they materialise. One of the key findings is that health inequalities and a less healthy population has left the nation less resilient. Does the Minister agree that public health should be a priority and that the public health grant, with a proportion set aside for those experiencing the worst health inequalities to co-produce plans for their communities, would be a step in the right direction?

We need to help more people live more years of their life in good health. When I think back to those covid years, I think of the appalling loneliness and isolation of those in hospital or in care homes. Do the Government agree that patients and care home residents should be given a new legal right to maintain family contact in all health and care settings?

Finally, on resilience forums, will the Minister confirm what funding plans there are in future for resilience forums? I was aware before Christmas that there was some lack of certainty about that—certainly, that is what I was hearing from my own Sussex resilience forum. We cannot risk our country not being ready for the future, and those are important questions. \p Pat McFadden: The most fundamental thing, apart from specific recommendations or specific changes, is the underlying strength of the country and its services. That is true nowhere more than in the national health service. That is why the Budget, which has been attacked a lot, put in the resources to begin to turn the health service around. We can have the forums, the structures and the processes, but the underlying strength of the country is the most important thing.

The hon. Lady asked about the exercise this autumn. I very much hope it will not be the last; the inquiry recommended that they happen on a regular basis. It will be the first for many years and we want to make sure we learn as much from it as possible. In terms of funding for local resilience forums, they play an important role and we were able to put some increased resources into local government in the next financial year. That area, like others, will have to be considered in the round in the spending review that will be published later this year. \p Graham Stringer: I am less sanguine about the report than my right hon. Friend. The report, or what is part of a report—it is difficult to assess when we do not know what the rest will say—has been too expensive and has taken too long to produce. From reading it, it does not seem to me to include some of the fundamental questions that I and my constituents would like answered. What was the cost-benefit analysis of the decisions taken during lockdown, for instance? What about lockdown itself? Was that a benefit or a disbenefit? What was the cost of effectively closing down the NHS, apart from for covid patients? Where did the virus come from? Did it come from China, which most of the evidence seems to indicate? Those questions are not being answered. Furthermore, I do not believe that setting up a new quango in conjunction with the Cabinet Office, which has no experience of service delivery, will be the answer to any future epidemic. The report does not answer the questions I would like answered. \p Pat McFadden: I hope my hon. Friend does not think I am sanguine; I am not sanguine at all. Anyone who reads the national risk register should not be sanguine because, as I said in my statement, we live in a world of risk and vulnerability. As for the inquiry’s work, the inquiry is independent and is not instructed by the Government on the specific areas it goes into. It has 10 modules, as decided by the inquiry because it is independent. \p Bernard Jenkin: May I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) by expressing concerns about the inquiry? The Minister has been clear that he wishes it was not taking quite so long. It is taking far too long.

What can we learn from other countries about how they have conducted their lessons-learned exercise, in order to make sure that the people watching the proceedings, who lost their loved ones, feel that something has been done, and done in good time? This is by no means the first public inquiry that has taken too long. The right hon. Gentleman is in the great position of not being responsible for setting up the inquiry. Will he set out what he thinks we should learn from failed and lengthy inquiries to make sure we do these urgent lessons-learned exercises much more quickly? The next emergency could strike tomorrow. We do not have time to hang around and have these long, blame-fest inquiries with criminal lawyers asking “gotcha” questions to get headlines. \p Pat McFadden: The shadow Minister, in his response, also asked about the general question of inquiries. I believe there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether there can be a quicker way for the state to admit when it is wrong and get justice for the victims. However, it is important that in the processes we set up we do not lose the valuable question of independence and the valuable capacity these inquiries have for the victims to have a voice, which has sometimes been denied in other areas. We have to have a system where the state can admit when it gets things wrong and which gets justice for those who have felt the consequences of that. \p Ben Coleman: I was a cabinet member during covid, responsible for public health. As I listened to my right hon. Friend’s statement, I felt so relieved that we are about to replace the chaos experienced by me and so many people across the country at that time with a forward-looking, orderly and strategic approach. Among the many things that have been mentioned, I was particularly pleased by the idea of creating a national vulnerability map. That is hugely needed. On hearing that the Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the inquiry, will my right hon. Friend come to the House regularly to update on that implementation? \p Pat McFadden: This is just module 1; there are other modules to be published, and I will update the House in some form when the Government respond to those. Of course, on top of that there are regular opportunities to question me and the Ministers in the Cabinet Office either at oral questions or in front of Select Committees. \p Danny Kruger: I associate myself with the observations of the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). The fact is that we have an absolutely urgent imperative to address the dysfunctions of the British state that were exposed by the covid inquiry. I agree with everything that has been said about how bad things were in early 2020. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the importance of a stronger centre and a more accountable Cabinet Office—   I think that is the right direction to be going in. However, does he also recognise that the parts of our society  that did not fail in 2020 were the parts very far from Whitehall—local government, the private sector and our communities themselves? Does he agree that while the focus needs to be on improving Whitehall’s response, we also need to think about the resilience of local communities and ensuring that they can play their part in the next crisis? \p Pat McFadden: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. My experience in Wolverhampton, which I represent, was that the local authority did a great job of looking out for vulnerable people. An inquiry, perhaps by definition, places the emphasis on things that went wrong, but there was a great deal of experience during the pandemic that showed the best of society, with people looking out for one another and helping those who were vulnerable. We should draw on the things that went well, as well as those that went wrong. \p Lizzi Collinge: In my previous role in health scrutiny in Lancashire, I got a bit fed up of hearing from Conservative politicians that no one could have seen covid coming, as if a global viral pandemic had not been top of the NHS risk register for years, and as if epidemiologists had not warned authorities that it was a matter of when, not if. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a disgraceful abdication of responsibility for the former Government to plead ignorance to the well-known risk of a global viral pandemic? \p Pat McFadden: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There is always a risk of planning for the wrong thing, which is a risk I am very aware of as we try to do this forward-looking exercise. I was encouraged by what I saw yesterday in Liverpool at the Pandemic Institute, where the scientific expertise that we have in this country is trying to take the learning from that in the past and ensure that we do not assume that the next situation will be the same as the one we went through several years ago. It might be something similar, but it might also be something very different, which is transmitted differently and creates a whole different series of questions and requirements for the Government of the day. \p John Cooper: I am delighted to hear that relations with the devolved Administrations are now on a collegiate basis. I have to say that my experience as a lowly special adviser with the Scotland Office at the tail end of the pandemic was nothing like that at all; it was very, very difficult. We faced constant battles with the Scottish Government, who wanted to put their oar into areas that really were nothing to do with them and constantly wanted change for the sake of change. I am therefore relieved to hear that the Cabinet Office seems to be taking a lead in this. Heaven forfend we face another situation like the covid pandemic, but we probably will. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that we will have a chain of command that makes it clear who is in charge, which must be this sovereign Parliament? \p Pat McFadden: I said that co-operation was good on this issue. Of course, we live in a world where that might not always be the case on everything. However, I do think that, when it comes to public protection, people  should leave their politics at the door and ask themselves just one question: how do we protect the public and get the country through this? \p Johanna Baxter: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vulnerable groups to pandemics. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. One of the most striking conclusions of the covid inquiry was that it was the most vulnerable people in our society who were hardest hit, whether that was because they had pre-existing health conditions or because they were on some of the lowest wages in this country. Will he tell the House what steps are being taken to ensure that, in the event of another incident of this nature, support reaches the most vulnerable people in our communities much more quickly than during the covid pandemic? \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is right. Cracks in our society were exposed; this did not affect all parts of society equally. We have to learn from that and respond to it. The very concept of having a society should mean that in an emergency we pull together and try to overcome it together. The map we are producing will help us somewhat in identifying where those risks are. However, as I said in my statement, the most important thing is the underlying strength of the country and its institutions, and, in this context, specifically that of the national health service itself. \p Max Wilkinson: In Cheltenham, in Sandford Park, we have an avenue of trees that were planted in honour of the covid heroes and the many victims that our town lost during the pandemic. Not far from there, there is a playground, and that playground was shut. There is nothing more dystopian for children than seeing the playground that they cherish shut. Children do not often have a voice in these kinds of discussions. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the next time there is a pandemic, we will take a much more reasonable approach to risk, as raised in the module, and that children will have a bigger voice, so that they will not suffer the mental health problems that we know so many have suffered as a result of the pandemic? \p Pat McFadden: This is something the inquiry intends to look at in the future, but let us state the obvious: parents of young children in a flat with no outside space had a very different experience of the covid pandemic compared with someone with a nice big garden. That is true. I totally understand the public health decisions that were taken, but they did not affect everybody equally. That is something to ponder for the future. \p Debbie Abrahams: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. To be honest, as a former public health consultant, I looked on in amazement at what happened during the pandemic. I therefore welcome the fact that the report acknowledges and recognises that Exercises Alice and Cygnus were ignored, that that contributed to our lack of preparedness, and that we had a declining national health and exacerbating health inequalities.

Another point that was raised in the report, and in the film “The Unequal Pandemic”, was the fact that there was such low awareness around the functions of  public health, which were being reinvented at the centre. None of the legislation and regulations on public health protection were known. I have heard that reported back from directors of public health, who went into Cobra meetings where there was a total absence of understanding of basic legislation in this regard. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me on the relationship between the centre and local public health teams, which were decimated because there was such a lack of understanding of public health as a whole, but particularly about their health protection role, and that this issue of reinventing the wheel will not happen again? \p Pat McFadden: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I specifically mentioned local resilience forums in my opening statement for good reason. As I said a moment ago, I think it is really important that we recognise that, in an emergency, the centre, local government and the devolved Governments have to work together in the best interests of the public. I endorse what she said, as I have said a few times today, about the importance of the underlying strength of our health system in such an emergency. \p Kieran Mullan: I want to begin by saying that although the loss of every single life is of course tragic—and I saw that at first hand when volunteering—it is important to note that, despite repeated political attacks at the time suggesting that we had the worst death rate in Europe, now when we look at the figures properly we see that we actually had a lower death rate than Spain and Italy, and that we were broadly in line with Europe. I caution against diminishing the results of a national effort, which was actually broadly in line with other countries, in a desire to make political attacks on the Conservative party.

As exhaustive as the inquiry’s proposals for things to look at is, to my mind I see a big gap which relates to the decision making of MPs. The inquiry does not seem to cover that. Those of us on the Government Benches—equally, it could be said of those on the Opposition Benches—were often faced with very difficult votes that were expected to go down to the wire and were asked to make very difficult decisions. MPs’ access to independent advice and scientific briefings was nowhere near like it should have been. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not part of the current inquiry, can he at least accept that it is a task for the Cabinet Office to think how we can better equip MPs with the information they need to make decisions on important votes of that nature? \p Pat McFadden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service to the public during the pandemic, and anybody who worked or volunteered in the NHS or in other ways for what they did. Of course, MPs and the Government must have access to the best information they can, but I remind him of something else I said in my opening statement. In the end, the accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions lies with the Government of the day. I do not say that in a partisan way. It is important to establish it as an understanding of how we deal with these things in future. \p Scott Arthur: I pass the national covid memorial wall every day on my way to this place. It and the inquiry are a reminder of what  happens when Governments get things wrong. I absolutely welcome the announcement of a national pandemic response exercise later this year, but the inquiry found that a similar exercise took place in Scotland under the control of the Scottish Government before the pandemic, and that they failed to implement its conclusions. First, can the Minister reassure us that any outcomes from such an exercise will be reported to this House and that we will have oversight of the implementation of any recommendations? Secondly, I know it is outside the remit of the Minister’s statement, but can he give us an update on the recovery of any money lost through dodgy contracts to the mates of the previous Government? \p Pat McFadden: Let me repeat the praise I gave to the volunteers who maintain the national covid memorial wall. Hon. Members may not be aware of it when they look at the red hearts, but over time they fade—they fade to pink. The reason they are kept red is that there is a group of volunteers down there overpainting the hearts to make sure that the wall does not fade away and that the memory of the names recorded does not fade away. The conclusions of the national pandemic exercise will be reported. Predictions are a dangerous game, but let me make one: there will be things that go wrong. Shortfalls will be exposed and not everything will go right, but that is part of the purpose of doing an exercise like this. I am happy to assure him in terms of learning from it and the conclusions. \p Seamus Logan: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also completely agree with him that in these matters the public do not care about party political differences. I note his commitment to an independent, whole-systems civil preparedness and resilience process going forward. I am just looking for some reassurance that the devolved Governments will be consulted and fully involved. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I want to press the Minister on recovery from some of the very wasteful PPE contracts that were awarded during the pandemic. \p Pat McFadden: The hon. Member will know that we have appointed a covid fraud commissioner to try to recover as much as possible of the money that went wrong. I have sought not to be partisan today, but I do believe that the systems in place were wrong, and that there were some abuses and a significant loss of money. When we are in a situation where we want value for money for the public, we want to recover as much of that as possible. I repeat that relations with the devolved Governments on this kind of issue have been good so far. I hope it is the case that that is maintained through the national pandemic exercise that we are planning. \p Andrew Lewin: We all lived through the pandemic, and we all came to see the immense value of our key workers: the bus drivers who had to continue to make essential journeys; the carers who had no choice but to continue to provide close-quarters care; and the posties, some of whom I met recently in Welwyn Garden City at their delivery depot on Bessemer Road. They told me that when they had socially distanced conversations on the doorstep with lonely residents, it was often the only human interaction they had all day. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister reaffirm how  important the Government believe the role of key workers is, and that, critically, for the next pandemic we have measures in place to make sure they are protected and supported? \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Let me echo his praise for all the key workers he mentioned. When the chips were down, we found out who was keeping the country going. Let me, from this Dispatch Box, thank each and every one of them for what they did to keep the country going during those very difficult times. \p Christopher Chope: The Minister, quite rightly, expresses sympathy for the victims of covid-19, which is something we all share, but he has not mentioned anything about the victims of covid-19 vaccines, of whom there are thousands. We know that those people did the right thing and took the vaccines, but they were not warned of the risks. The Minister has been talking about risk assessments. There was a lack of risk engagement, and now we find that the compensation scheme, the vaccine damage payment scheme, is in place but not operating effectively or fairly. The Health Minister keeps talking about possibly amending it, but every time he mentions that it causes immense harm to all those who are still suffering as a consequence of having done the right thing and taken the covid-19 vaccines, when many of them now wish they had not. \p Pat McFadden: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe the production and distribution of the vaccines was one of the things that went well and which this country contributed to, and that the availability of vaccines helped us to overcome the pandemic. In those cases where there were adverse reactions, there is a scheme in place, as he said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has met people affected. Of course, we want to help people affected through the kind of scheme that exists. \p Allison Gardner: First, I thank the Minister for commenting on the importance of multidisciplinary research. From my own previous research, I know that that is very important, particularly in the development of AI algorithmic risk prediction models. I also had the pleasure yesterday of speaking to Professor Tom Solomon, the director of the Liverpool Pandemic Institute, which the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee had the pleasure of visiting recently. He impressed on me the value of physician researchers in conducting groundbreaking research. Does the Minister agree that it is vital we provide the time and funds to researchers such as Professor Solomon to help build our national resilience to future pandemics? \p Pat McFadden: Let me echo my hon. Friend’s praise for Professor Solomon and the work that he and the Pandemic Institute are doing. He is right to underline the value of research, as is my hon. Friend. As has been pointed out throughout these exchanges, the next crisis that the country faces may be very different from the last, so it is important that we use one of this country’s great assets, its tremendous research institutes and research capability, to scan the horizon as well as we can and to be as well prepared as we possibly can. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: Having served on the frontline during covid, I am acutely aware of the sacrifices made by clinicians, patients and staff. However, when it comes to preparing for any future pandemics, part of the solution is ensuring that we have robust epidemiological research. Could the Minister tell us, in rather more granular detail, what assessment he has made of the current projects commissioned by the Government? \p Pat McFadden: The hon. Gentleman is right about the need for robust research. I do not analyse the research projects one by one, but I thank him for his service, and underline what I have said a few times today: the best insurance that we can have in responding to another crisis like the one that we went through some years ago is the underlying strength of the country and the NHS. That is why we have made the decisions to put resources into the NHS to help to turn it around and make it stronger in the future than it is today. \p Antonia Bance: I spent the pandemic as a trade unionist at the TUC, supporting Frances, now Baroness, O’Grady in her fight for the rights to safety of working people. The covid inquiry heard time and again about the impact of the pandemic on those with low wages and insecure work—people who had to go into work even when it was not safe because otherwise they could not feed their families, and who were disproportionately from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Will the Minister ensure that the new national vulnerability map treats insecure workers as vulnerable for the purpose of crisis planning and resilience, and will he ensure that the unions are key stakeholders in building that resilience in the UK? \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is right to underline the need to thank the key workers, many of whom were low paid and many of whom did come from ethnic minority backgrounds. They kept the country going, and sometimes had to put themselves at risk to help and protect the rest of us. I thank my hon. Friend and those who represent working people for the work that they did during the pandemic. \p Steffan Aquarone: May I ask about the specifics of the Government’s response to module 1? I was interested to hear about the national vulnerability map, which could help with a range of matters including digital exclusion as well as public health, but let me ask the Minister two questions. First, has he taken into consideration the findings of Chris Whitty’s 2021 report on coastal communities and their specific vulnerabilities? Secondly, while this is obviously a hugely valuable undertaking, I do not want us to create a one-trick pony, so could the Minister try to seize the big opportunity to build a better system for storing and using citizen data that could benefit everyone and give all sorts of people the support that they need when they need it? \p Pat McFadden: As I said a while ago, data has been described as the new oil, and there are good reasons for using it. The Government and the state have a duty  to try to use data to secure the best outcomes for  the public, and one example is using it to map our vulnerabilities. I have been praising people for what they did during the pandemic, so let me now praise  Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, for what he did then and what he continues to do today. The country is very lucky to have him, and I thank him for everything that he does. \p Helena Dollimore: It is a source of national shame that our country was so underprepared for the covid pandemic, and the Conservatives need to take their fair share of the responsibility for that. We all worry about where the next pandemic will come from, and I am particularly concerned about the risk posed by dengue fever. For those who are not aware of it, let me explain that it is a disease spread by mosquitoes. It has been travelling closer and closer to the UK in recent years owing to rising temperatures and climate change, and has most recently been found in Paris. As one who represents a constituency on the south coast, I am especially worried about the warning that it could be within the UK within years. There is currently no cure, but there is a vaccine going through trials thanks to international collaboration, of which our country is a part. May I ask what steps the Government are taking to improve our preparedness for the next pandemic, wherever it may come from and however it may be transmitted? \p Pat McFadden: One of the risks that we face is posed by mosquito-borne diseases—viruses of various kinds. The UK Health Security Agency monitors such diseases so that we have the most up-to-date information possible. This is a good example of scanning the horizon and understanding that the next crisis we face may not be the same as the last. \p Richard Tice: I agree with other Members who have said that this inquiry is taking too long, costing too much and, in many cases, not asking the right questions. The results of the previous pandemic response exercise some nine years ago, Operation Cygnus, were so shocking that they were kept from this House and the British people. Will the Minister commit that the results of the pandemic exercise later this year will be transmitted totally openly, with full transparency, to this House and the British people? \p Pat McFadden: I thank the hon. Member for his two questions. I have said what I said on the speed of the state’s admission when things go wrong. We do need to think about that and look at it. As for the results, the findings of the exercise will be made public, and let me repeat my prediction: they will probably show things that have gone wrong and areas where we need to improve. Anyone who carries out such an exercise and does not expect that will face a nasty surprise. \p Anna Dixon: One of the positives we saw during the covid pandemic was an outpouring of neighbourliness. Churches and faith communities played a key role in mobilising support for those most in need, delivering meals, shopping and prescription medications to those who were advised to stay at home. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all those volunteers and assure the House that faith communities and other community organisations will be involved in the local resilience forums, so that they are integral to both the resilience planning and incident response? \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: many of these efforts showed the best of us and how much people were prepared to look out for one another. I was really touched by the efforts of the Sikh gurdwaras in Wolverhampton in distributing food to people of all faiths and none, and of other faith groups and community groups who did similar things to help the most vulnerable people during the pandemic. \p Jo White: I want to pay my respect to all those we have lost, and I give my heart to those who have lost loved ones and have to live their lives without them. In Bassetlaw, I have met many families who have needlessly lost loved ones. My good friend Pete Armitage died on 6 April 2020 in hospital, unable to breathe, without his wife by his side, and with only six of us at his funeral.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the volunteers who stepped up and went out, without any fear for their own health or their lives, to deliver food, to stand on vaccination lines and to help at local food banks. I want to ensure that we in Parliament never forget those names. I pay tribute to them, and I ask the Minister to do the same. \p Pat McFadden: In my final answer of the afternoon, let me warmly endorse what my hon. Friend said on both counts. Let us remember all those who lost their lives and give thanks to the many relatives and friends who are keeping those names alive and trying to make sure that we learn the lessons from what happened in the past. Let us praise all the volunteers who helped people in any way. It was a very tough time in this country and others, but those efforts—that reaching out—showed the best of us, and we should not forget it. \p Judith Cummins: I remind Members to take care to avoid saying anything that could prejudice any cases relating to vulnerable children that are currently before the courts or might come before the courts at a later date. \p Yvette Cooper: Last Monday, I set out the actions this Government are taking to tackle the terrible crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including mandatory reporting, a new victims and survivors panel, an overhaul of data and police performance requirements, tougher sentences for perpetrators, and support for local inquiries, including in Oldham.

The Safeguarding Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), met this morning with survivors from Oldham. Earlier this week, she and I met Professor Alexis Jay, who chaired both the seven-year national independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and the first local independent inquiry into grooming gangs in Rotherham. Professor Jay’s strongest message to us was that the survivors, who bravely testified to the terrible crimes committed against them, must not be left to feel that their efforts were in vain because, despite all the inquiries, no one listened and nothing was done. Following those discussions, I want to update the House on our next steps to take forward the inquiry’s recommendations, and to go further in tackling sexual exploitation and grooming on the streets and online, in order to keep children safe.

The independent national inquiry into child sexual abuse completed its final report in 2022. It took seven years, heard 7,000 personal testimonies and considered 2 million pages of evidence. There were devastating accounts of brutal rapes, sexual violence, humiliation, trauma and the betrayal of vulnerable children by those charged with protecting them, and accounts of people in positions of power who shamefully put the reputation of institutions before the protection of children. The inquiry included separate detailed reports on organised child abuse in residential homes and schools, and on abuse and cover-ups in the Catholic and Anglican Churches.

A two-year inquiry into child sexual exploitation by organised networks and grooming gangs, published in February 2022, examined over 400 recommendations made by previous inquiries and serious case reviews, as well as taking further evidence of its own. There have been further reports since then, including on Telford and on police performance. However, despite all the national inquiries, reports and hundreds of recommendations, far too little action has been taken and, shamefully, little progress has been made. That has to change.

Before Easter, the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations of the final IICSA report. Four of those are specifically for the Home Office. I can confirm that we have accepted them in full, including on disclosure and barring, and work is already under way. A cross-Government ministerial group is considering and working through the remaining recommendations, and that group will be supported by our new victims and survivors panel. In addition, I can confirm today that the Government will implement all  the remaining recommendations in the child abuse inquiry’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022, including updating key Department for Education guidance.

Let me turn to the areas where we need to go further. As I said last week, the most important task should be to increase police investigations into these horrific crimes and get abusers behind bars. We will introduce stronger sentences for child grooming by making organising abuse and exploitation an aggravating factor, and today I can announce new action to help victims get more investigations and prosecutions under way. I am extending the remit of the independent child sexual abuse review panel to cover not just historical cases before 2013 but all cases since, so that any victim of abuse will have the right to seek an independent review without having to go back to the local institutions that decided not to proceed with their case.

Today, I am writing to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ask all chief constables to look again at historical gang exploitation cases where no further action was taken, and to work with the child sexual exploitation police taskforce to pursue new lines of inquiry and reopen investigations where appropriate. These new measures will be backed by £2 million of additional funding for the taskforce and the panel, and all police forces will be expected to implement the 2023 recommendations from His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, including producing “problem profiles” on the nature of grooming gangs in their area. I have asked the inspectorate to review progress this year.

As well as reviewing past cases, we need much stronger action to uncover the full scale and nature of these awful crimes. The child sexual exploitation police taskforce, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, has estimated that of the 115,000 child sexual abuse offences recorded by the police in 2023, around 4,000 involved more than one perpetrator. Of those, around 1,100 involved abuse within the family and over 300 involved abuse in institutions, and the taskforce identified 717 reported cases of group or gang-related child sexual exploitation. However, we know that the vast majority of abuse goes unreported, so we expect all those figures to be significant underestimates.

The taskforce reports that 127 major police investigations across 29 police forces are currently under way into child sexual exploitation and gang grooming. Many major investigations have involved Pakistani-heritage gangs. The police taskforce evidence also shows exploitation and abuse taking place across many different communities and ethnicities, but the data on the ethnicity of both perpetrators and victims is still inadequate.

As I said last week, we will overhaul the data that we expect local areas to collect as part of a new performance management framework. I have also asked the child sexual exploitation taskforce to immediately expand the ethnicity data it collects and publishes, so that data is gathered from the end of an investigation when a fuller picture is available, not just from the beginning when suspects may not yet have been identified.

To go much further, I have asked Baroness Louise Casey to oversee a rapid audit of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation across the country,  and to make recommendations on the further work that is needed. The specific 2022 IICSA report on gang exploitation concluded:

“An accurate picture of the prevalence of child sexual exploitation could not be gleaned”

from the data and evidence it had available. This audit will seek to fill that gap.

The audit will look at further evidence that was not previously available, including evidence collected by the police taskforce and the new problem profiles compiled by police forces. It will also include an equivalent audit of child protection referrals; it will properly examine ethnicity data and the demographics of the gangs and their victims; it will look at the cultural and societal drivers for this type of offending, including among different ethnic groups; and it will make recommendations about further analyses, investigations and actions that are needed to address current and historical failures. Baroness Louise Casey was the author of the no-holds-barred 2015 report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, and I have therefore asked her to oversee this rapid three-month audit ahead of the launch of the independent commission into adult social care.

In many areas across the country, the focus must now be on further police investigations and implementing recommendations to improve services, but we will also provide stronger national backing for local inquiries where they are needed, to get truth and justice for victims and survivors. Last week, the Prime Minister and I met survivors from Telford, who had enormous praise for the way that local inquiry was conducted after there had been failings over many years. That inquiry led to tangible change, including piloting the introduction of CCTV in taxis and appointing child sexual exploitation experts in local secondary schools. As we have seen, effective local inquiries can delve into far more local detail and deliver more locally relevant answers and change than a lengthy nationwide inquiry can provide.

Tom Crowther KC, the chair of the Telford inquiry, has agreed to work with the Government to develop a new framework for victim-centred, locally led inquiries where they are needed. As a first step, he will work with Oldham council and up to four other pilot areas. This will include support for local authorities that want to explore other ways to support victims, including local panels or drawing on the experience of the independent inquiry’s truth project. The Government are already drawing up a duty of candour as part of the long-awaited Hillsborough law.

We will also work with mayors and local councils to bolster the accountability mechanisms that can support and follow up local inquiries, to ensure that those who are complicit in cover-ups, or who try to resist scrutiny, are always robustly held to account so that truth and justice are never denied. This new package of national support for local inquiries will be backed by £5 million of additional funding to get further local work off the ground because, at every level, getting justice for victims and protecting children is a responsibility we all share.

Finally, we cannot ignore the way in which child exploitation is changing as offenders exploit new technology to target and groom children. We should all be deeply worried about the pace and growth of exploitation that begins online. We are therefore bolstering the work of  the Home Office-funded undercover online network of police officers to target online offenders, and developing cutting-edge AI tools and other new capabilities to infiltrate livestreams and chatrooms where children are being groomed. Further measures will be announced in the crime and policing Bill to tackle those organising online child sex abuse.

Nothing matters more than the safety of our children, yet for too long, this horrific abuse was allowed to continue. Victims were ignored, perpetrators were left unpunished, and too many people looked the other way. Even when these shocking crimes were brought to light and national inquiries were commissioned to get to the truth, the resulting reports were too often left on the shelf as their recommendations gathered dust. Under this Government, that has changed. We are taking action not just on those recommendations, but on the additional work that we need to do to protect victims, put perpetrators behind bars and uncover the truth wherever things have gone wrong. This is about the protection of children, the protection of young girls, and the radical and ambitious mission that we have set for this Government to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I hope all Members will support that mission and support the measures that we have outlined today to help achieve that aim. I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: Let us start by remembering the victims of this scandal. Thousands of young girls, often in their early teens, were systematically raped by gangs of men, predominantly of Pakistani heritage. Those in positions of authority—the police, local councils and the Crown Prosecution Service—ignored them and, in some cases, even covered up these horrendous crimes because of absurd concerns about so-called cultural sensitivity.

Ten days ago, the Prime Minister compounded this by saying that it was a “far-right bandwagon” to raise these issues and call for a proper inquiry. Let me say this: it is not far right to stand up for rape victims, and smearing those who raised this issue is exactly what led to the victims—[Interruption.] \p Judith Cummins: Order. The shadow Home Secretary will be heard. \p Chris Philp: Smearing those who raised this issue is exactly what led to the victims being ignored and the crimes covered up in the first place. Therefore, will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for his language last week?

It is not true to say that the previous Government did nothing following the IICSA report. They set up the grooming gangs taskforce following the IICSA report, which led to 550 arrests of perpetrators in the first year alone, and I am glad that the new Government are continuing that work.

In April 2023, the data collection on the ethnicity of perpetrators was initiated, but the initial publication of that—I think last November—showed that the collection  is incomplete. Will the Home Secretary ensure both that the police follow through on the work initiated in April 2023 and that the data is collected more comprehensively?

The mandatory reporting recommendation was introduced as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the early general election. I am glad that the Government say that they will now pick that up and take it forward.

Previous reports and reviews did not go far enough. The IICSA report itself was mainly not about these rape gangs. In fact, it barely touched on the issue and looked at only six towns. We now believe that as many as 50 towns could have been affected, so the IICSA barely scratched the surface.

The Home Secretary just announced Government support for only five local inquiries. That is wholly inadequate when we know that up to 50 towns are affected. I have some serious questions for the Home Secretary. First, how are the other 40-plus towns supposed to get answers to the questions that they have, and how will these initial five towns be chosen?

Secondly, the Home Secretary said nothing in her statement about the powers that these local inquiries will have. It seems that they will not be statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. That means that these local inquiries will not have the power to compel witnesses to attend, to take evidence under oath or to requisition written evidence. If that is the case, how can they possibly get to the truth when faced with cover-ups? It was precisely that problem—the lack of powers—that reportedly led the chairs of the Manchester local inquiry to resign last year. They were not given the information that they needed by public authorities, and did not have the powers required to force its release, so they resigned.

Legal powers are needed, because these crimes were deliberately covered up in some cases. We heard just a week or two ago from the former Labour MP for Rochdale Simon Danczuk, who said that the then chair of the parliamentary Labour party told him not to raise these issues for fear of losing Muslim votes—truly appalling. Not a single person has been convicted for covering up or ignoring these crimes. In my view, the criminal offence of misconduct in public office might apply. Moreover, those vile perpetrators who can be deported should be deported, every single one of them—changing the law if that is needed to do it, and using visa sanctions on countries such as Pakistan to ensure that they accept eligible perpetrators.

What the Home Secretary has announced today is totally inadequate. It will cover only a fraction of the towns affected, and it appears that the inquiries will not have the legal powers they need. That is why we need a proper, full national public inquiry, covering the whole country and with the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 that are needed to obtain the evidence required. It is not just me who thinks that; in the last week or two, the Labour Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) have called for a full national inquiry, as has Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester. I commend those Members and Andy Burnham for their courage in speaking out.

Recent polling shows that the vast majority of the public want a full national public inquiry, including 73% of Labour voters. Most importantly, so do victims.  Jane was groomed and abused at the age of just 12. She was gang raped repeatedly. She told the police and she told her social worker. At one point, the police even found her being abused by an illegal immigrant, but instead of arresting him, they arrested her. Jane still does not know if any of her abusers have been jailed, or if any of the public officials who let her down so badly have been held to account. Jane now wants a proper national public inquiry—Home Secretary, why don’t you? \p Yvette Cooper: These are the most vile crimes, against teenagers, children and young girls. Very often they involve sadistic abuse, rape and the most appalling trauma that can last for many years. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse ran for seven years and took evidence from 7,000 victims and survivors across the country. Too many of those voices, and the bravery that those victims showed, have just being ignored. The right hon. Gentleman says that he took action, but I am afraid the Conservative party had 10 years to introduce a duty to report child abuse, make it a responsibility of professionals to report it, and make it an offence to cover up child abuse. I was calling for that 10 years ago. The Prime Minister was calling for it 12 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman failed to do it, and we have lost a decade as a result.

The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse also ran a two-year investigation of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. One of the shocking things that it found was that less is now known and understood about the prevalence of this appalling crime than prior to 2015. In the period 2015 to 2022, even after we knew about what had happened in Rotherham, and Baroness Louise Casey had identified its impact and the failure to address issues of race and ethnicity, the previous Government went backwards on gathering data and information, and the need for proper evidence. That is why this Government have commissioned Baroness Louise Casey to instigate a rapid review to uncover the prevalence of this appalling crime across the country, with no holds barred, in the way that we know she will conduct this inquiry, to fill the gaps in the evidence, rather than rerun the same questions without the evidence and data that we badly need.

I also point out to the shadow Minister that his party weakened the disclosure and barring rules in 2012, again making changes that I and the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), opposed at the time, and that the independent inquiry rightly recommended reversing in order to keep children safe. Again, his party failed to act.

I hope the action we have announced will be supported right across the country. It includes the duty to report child abuse; proper penalties for covering it up; stronger sentences for grooming gangs; new rights for victims to get an independent review on reopening their case; new action to reopen historical police investigations; new standards for the police to meet; a new victims and survivors panel; a new audit of the scale and nature of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, led by someone who uncovered a lot of the problems in Rotherham, including the failure to confront Pakistani-heritage gangs; the gathering and publishing of new  ethnicity data, which the shadow Minister failed to do; new national support for local inquiries, including the Telford model; victims panels; new work on accountability linked to the Hillsborough law to hold failures to account, because we will strengthen the law to do so; and a proper timetable for taking forward the independent inquiry, because this has to be about action and protecting children and keeping them safe. \p Sarah Champion: I think I heard the Home Secretary adopting my five-point plan, so I thank her for that and thank everybody across the House who has been campaigning on the issue. If I could ask for some clarity: did the Home Secretary say she will adopt all 20 of the IICSA recommendations or just those in the grooming gang strand? Do local authorities as well as police forces have to do a review into their cases of CSE? She cites Telford, which was victim-focused—that was why it was so important, because we must have those victims’ and survivors’ voices—but what Telford and Greater Manchester said they lacked was the ability to compel witnesses. A big strand of what we need to do is ensure that there have been no cover-ups, and we can only do that if requirements are on a statutory footing.

With respect, Telford cost £8 million and the Home Secretary said she was providing £5 million for the whole inquiry across the country. Why do we need another inquiry in Telford when we know this is happening nationally? Can she assure us that there will be transparency of the findings of all the inquiries, reviews and audits? Is it possible that the inquiry could be UK-wide, because I do not believe this is only happening in England and Wales? It needs to be across the whole of the UK. \p Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for her questions. To go through them in turn, we will set out before Easter the timetable for taking forward the work around all the recommendations from the main independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. She will know that some of the recommendations raise complex issues, and considerable work will need to be done on some of them. We recognise that and have discussed that with Professor Alexis Jay. There are other recommendations we can take forward swiftly, and those covered and led by the Home Office are being taken forward swiftly. The work is already under way, including on disclosure and barring and on the duty to report, which will be included as part of the legislation.

On the local inquiries, we are not redoing the Telford inquiry. My hon. Friend is right that in Telford the extensive inquiry that was conducted involved, crucially, victims and survivors throughout. They were involved from the very beginning, designing the inquiry in the first place. The inquiry has led to substantial change, and there continues to be further follow-up work on it. That is the effective model. We need local councils, police and crime commissioners, Mayors and the Government to work together on them, so we are providing the additional £5 million. Tom Crowther will work specifically with the first five local authorities that want to do such work, drawing up an effective model that can be used in other areas.

On the ability to gather evidence and ensure that there is proper accountability, there has to be clear accountability. This process cannot be a way in which areas or institutions can avoid scrutiny. Obviously, the  work in Telford and the original work in Rotherham by Baroness Casey managed to uncover truths in different areas, but there also needs to be other new arrangements on accountability. We are working with the Cabinet Office, Mayors and councils to draw up new accountability arrangements. That will ensure either proper follow-up or, as part of those initial inquiries, that a proper accountability framework is in place. We will link that to the duty of candour part of the Hillsborough law. Unlike the previous Government, who frankly never took seriously issues of candour, responsibility and accountability in the 14 years that they were in power, and refused to bring in a Hillsborough law, we will bring in such a law because we are clear that there must be proper accountability for the failure to tackle this abuse. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Josh Babarinde: Survivors are tough, as I know from my own experiences of abuse as a child, about which I have spoken in the Chamber. Survivors have been subject to intense impacts and blistering climates, but like a blade in the blacksmith’s forge, each strike has strengthened many survivors’ character, mettle and spirit, even though those are experiences that should never be undergone in the first place. Each shock has emboldened our resolve to be the very sword carried by Lady Justice herself, or at least to see it wielded with strength—to see action taken and justice done.

However, too many survivors’ stories have been characterised by being ignored, hidden or gaslit. Recently, too many survivors’ stories have been shamefully used as a political football in some corners of this House and beyond. Survivors’ experiences are littered with gut-wrenching instances of power-holders missing glaring opportunities to take action against child sexual abuse and exploitation. History must stop repeating itself. We cannot afford for Professor Jay’s findings, or those of the inquiries announced today, to gather dust atop power-holders’ bookshelves, to get lost at the bottom of in-trays, or to be banished to the depths of filing cabinets. In line with the courage that it has taken so many survivors to speak out on this issue, we Liberal Democrats—and many others, I know—implore those in positions of power at all levels to step up, too. That means that those weaponising this issue for party political gain must stop now; it means that Professor Jay’s 20 recommendations must be implemented from now; and it means that the work to get the local inquiries set up must start now.

Survivors need assurance that—beyond the areas that have been announced today—they will be able to get justice in their cases as well. Will the Home Secretary share the plan for the areas beyond those she has announced today? What legal powers will the inquiries have to ensure that they have teeth and justice can be delivered? We must all dignify survivors’ experiences with action. We must honour all survivors’ stories with reform. Lady Justice demands it, and so does the tempered sword that she wields. \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome the hon. Member’s points on this extremely serious issue. He is right that many victims and survivors need a proper police investigation to go after the perpetrators, prosecute and hold them to   account, and get justice and put them behind bars. That will help to protect other young people as well. One of the most important changes is that we are making it easier to get investigations reopened where they have been closed down for the wrong reasons and justice still needs to be done. We will give victims a stronger right to review. They will be able to go to an independent panel with their case and have it independently reviewed so that it can be reopened. We are also asking police forces across the country to review the closed cases and pursue new lines of inquiry, with the taskforce’s support to ensure that they can do so.

Tom Crowther, who did the Telford inquiry, will work with five areas on the kinds of inquiry that they may want to take forward, involving victims and survivors—it is crucial to involve victims and survivors in the design. One Telford survivor gave evidence to both the national inquiry and the local inquiry, and she found that the local inquiry was far more effective at getting changes  in that area, and it was easier for her to give evidence  to it. That is why we need areas to be able to learn from what Telford did effectively, but also to be backed up by a stronger arrangement for accountability—stronger mechanisms for holding local organisations to account if they are not complying. However, we also expect local organisations to comply and to be part of finding truth and justice for survivors. \p Debbie Abrahams: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the measures she has included in it, and I thank her for her promptness in doing that. I also thank her team, especially the Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), for listening to and providing support to constituents who have gone through such horrific abuse. How will my right hon. Friend ensure not only that the individuals responsible for this awful abuse will be caught and convicted, but that those who failed to protect and support these vulnerable young people—it is not just young women who have been affected in Oldham, but also young men—will be held to account? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to raise those important points, and I know that she has worked on this issue for many years. One of the things we need to do is strengthen the law in this area. We need to have a much stronger legal framework to ensure that there is proper accountability; not just holding to account and properly punishing the perpetrators of appalling abuse, but holding to account institutions and individuals who fail to take the action needed to protect our children. That means the duty to report, making it an offence to cover up child abuse; a duty of candour, to comply and provide the information and transparency in these cases; and looking at the other local mechanisms that need to be in place in areas such as my hon. Friend’s and across the country, enabling us to ensure that there is proper accountability when things go really badly wrong. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. \p Karen Bradley: I welcome the statement, which my Committee will look at carefully. Professor Alexis Jay will be in front of us next Tuesday and I am sure that we will come back  with further points, but I have two points today. The first is about the duty to report. In many cases, reports were made but the victims were simply not listened to and not believed, so what can the Home Secretary do to ensure that changes? Secondly, since I am not clear from her answers so far, will the local inquiries have statutory powers to compel witnesses—yes or no? \p Yvette Cooper: On the right hon. Lady’s first point, she is right that reports were often not listened to and not followed up. In some areas, what that means is that although recommendations were made, there was never any follow-up—there was never the proper implementation of standards to be able to do so. For example, in policing we have never had a proper performance management framework to ensure that standards are being met and that there is proper follow-up. We need that stronger performance management framework in place.

Those who conducted the Telford inquiry were able to make progress and get to the truth using an existing local inquiry framework. That was able to be extremely effective. In other areas, we have needed to have other action—including, for example, action by inspectorates to follow up—so there are different approaches that  we can take. We believe that the current system is not strong enough; that is why we have set out work that is under way, involving the Cabinet Office and local mayors and local councils, to make sure we can strengthen the accountability arrangements to be able both to follow up and support local inquiries where they are relevant, and to use existing powers that are in place. \p Yasmin Qureshi: As a barrister and a former Crown prosecutor for 14 years who dealt with sexual abuse and rape cases, I can tell this House that sexual abuse and assault occur throughout the United Kingdom and are not specific to any gender, race or religion—we just have to look at the Pelicot case in France. However, there is one group of victims who are often not spoken about, which is young boys and young men. The level of sexual abuse that relates to them is completely under-reported. I think it is a cultural thing: the idea that boys must man up and must not show their feelings. Can I therefore ask the Home Secretary that, when she is looking at these things, she ensures that those undertaking such inquiries look into facts about the abuse of young boys? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to raise this point. In fact, it was one of the issues raised as part of the independent inquiry’s two-year review of child exploitation. The review identified that teenage or young boys are being exploited and that there are often patterns of that starting with online exploitation. What started as online abuse and grooming then led to contact abuse and rape, and the most appalling violations. She is right to highlight this issue, and it is extremely important that this is taken into account and is part of the way in which local councils and police forces need to respond. \p Robbie Moore: The House will be well aware that I have been consistently campaigning for a rape gangs inquiry into child sexual expectation across Keighley and the wider Bradford district for far  too long. So I welcome some of the points that the Home Secretary has made, particularly on the implementation of the 20 recommendations from the IICSA report. Unfortunately, I do not feel that she is going far enough, and I would like to make a few points.

In particular, I have serious concerns about the ability of inquiries at a local level to compel witnesses to give evidence and about the amount of funding that will be made available. Will the local inquiries that the Home Secretary is advocating be truly independent, not just local authorities marking their own homework, and will they lead to convictions? Local authority leaders in Bradford district have consistently refused to back my calls for a public inquiry, as has the Mayor of West Yorkshire and the deputy Mayor for policing, Alison Lowe. How on earth are we meant to get across this barrier of local leaders refusing to have an inquiry on this issue without the Government stepping in and giving the statutory authority that we on this side of the House are demanding? \p Yvette Cooper: It is obviously really important to ensure that there is independent scrutiny. The hon. Member will be aware that the inquiry in Rotherham led by Baroness Louise Casey used inspectorate powers, but it was clearly independent and it managed to uncover serious problems that had gone wrong in Rotherham at that time, so there are different ways of doing this. The Telford inquiry was funded locally, but it managed to involve victims and survivors, and it also managed to shape the inquiry in the way that victims and survivors wanted, which is also important. For all areas right across the country, the most important thing is still to get police investigations going after the perpetrators, getting them before the courts and getting them behind bars. Whatever else happens, getting stronger police investigations in order to pursue perpetrators must remain at the heart of what happens. \p Paul Waugh: Child sexual expectation and abuse are the most sickening, appalling crimes perpetrated against some of the most vulnerable youngsters in our communities. So I strongly welcome this comprehensive new national plan of action to put victims first, and I welcome the appointment of Baroness Casey to conduct a rapid review of the scale and nature of these grooming gangs. Can I also urge a cross-party consensus on this issue, rather than the game playing and misinformation we have seen over the past week? The Home Secretary, the Safeguarding Minister and I have all been consistent in saying that we should put the victims at the heart of everything we do. My constituents in Rochdale know that this issue is too important for political point scoring, and we should put victims at the heart of everything we do. That is not just for the victims of the past, but for the victims of the present. \p Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know this is an area on which he does a lot of work. He is right that the purpose of a national audit by Baroness Casey is to identify the scale and look properly at the characteristics of these appalling crimes right across the country, and then to make further recommendations about further work and further investigations that may be needed. Anyone who has worked with Baroness Casey will know how independent and determined she will always be. My hon. Friend is also right that this must   still be about victims and survivors and, crucially, protecting them for the future, because we still do not have strong enough standards and strong enough protection in place. Unless those changes are made, we will continue to let children and young people down. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for the steps the Government are taking to address this serious issue. I appreciate that the timetable for the implementation of the IICSA recommendations cannot be immediately shared, but waiting until Easter means there is a big period when we need to take some action. Will she explain what immediate steps the Government are taking to ensure that all alleged victims who come forward are treated, taken seriously and listened to, and that immediate action is taken to address their allegations, so as to serve justice and protect these children? \p Yvette Cooper: I can assure the hon. Member that we are already taking forward some of the recommendations. Some will be in legislation and will take time to pass through Parliament, because legislation also needs to change. We are also taking immediate action to change the victims’ right to review so that if victims have been to the police or to a local authority—this includes parents who have been worried about their children—and they feel that nothing is being done, they will have a right to review. That will be an independent right to review—not just to go back to the same police force or the same Crown Prosecution Service, but to go to an independent panel on child sexual abuse to get that independent look, so that we can get more cases reopened and get urgent action taken, which is what we need to keep children safe. \p Natalie Fleet: I welcome this action from a Government who see violence against women and girls as the national emergency that it is, with a Prime Minister, Home Secretary and a Safeguarding Minister with records of taking action to deliver for victims like me and many in my constituency. Giving birth as a result of grooming is a story that far too many of us share. There are so many reasons why children and the women that they grow into do not speak out. I want to share one particular story today. It is about the victim who told me that the perpetrator has threatened that if she speaks out, he will have access to her child, which is something he has not done so far. That means she has to work so hard to hide his crime in order to protect herself and her baby. Will the Home Secretary meet me and other victims to discuss changing the law in order to protect children born of rape? \p Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important point, and also for the shocking and disturbing story she has told of victims continuing to be silenced, having already been through the most traumatic experiences. They are then continuing to be silenced to protect the children, even though what actually needs to happen is for perpetrators to be held to account and to face the full force of the law. She is right that we need to ensure that family courts cannot be used by abusers and rapists to persecute victims. I will happily meet my hon. Friend, and I know that the Safeguarding Minister will too. This issue is also being taken forward by the Ministry  of Justice. \p Bernard Jenkin: The House should be generous towards the Home Secretary, as she has travelled a long way since last week by recognising that there is a requirement for far more inquiries into the towns affected, and we should thank her for that. However, one crucial thing still lacking from her statement today is whether these new inquiries will have the power to summon witnesses and require the production of papers.

Only the Home Secretary—or a Secretary of State or Minister—can set up a statutory inquiry. In fact, the Minister specifying an inquiry could set the terms of reference, decide whether it should concentrate on certain towns, set the timeframe and set the budget. She could appoint as many people as she wants to the panel so that different parts of the inquiry could run in different parts of the country concurrently. Is she really ruling out that any of these inquiries should be statutory inquiries? Victims have the real freedom to speak out only in this Parliament, as we have just movingly heard, or in a statutory inquiry, where they are legally immune from consequences for anything they say. Why cannot she provide the victims with those protections? \p Yvette Cooper: The strongest protection for victims continues to be through police investigations, and of course the police have full powers to pursue investigations wheresoever they may be found. A series of local inquiries have been held in different ways. The inspector investigation into Rotherham, where Baroness Casey was the lead inspector, did have powers to get to the truth, whereas the Telford inquiry did not have those powers but still managed to uncover serious problems and make serious recommendations.

There are different ways in which to do this. We have made it clear that we want to strengthen accountability powers and the ability to ensure that answers are given to local areas, and that is alongside the work we already have under way as part of the Hillsborough law on the duty of candour that we need to implement across the board. \p Toby Perkins: I thank the Home Secretary for the really important steps that she has announced today. Nothing must come in the way of victims getting justice or being listened to, or of us learning all that we can about how we protect future victims. If lessons come out of the individual local inquiries repeated across the country that would enable us to better protect victims in the future, how will we co-ordinate that? Turning to the previous question, will she explain why she believes that the statutory footing is not the right way to go and that the localised way will ensure that we get to the truth? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that we  need to ensure proper follow-up where there are recommendations. There have been over 500 different recommendations, predominantly around child sexual exploitation, with many more around child sexual abuse much more widely. There is currently not a proper process to be able to follow them up. That is one of the reasons why the independent inquiry talked about strengthening child protection arrangements through, for example, a child protection authority and having stronger arrangements in that way. It is also one of  the reasons why we have said that we need a new performance framework for policing to be able to have proper follow-up.

Obviously, we have already had a statutory seven-year inquiry into child sexual abuse and a statutory two-year investigation into child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. Those reports came out with really important recommendations, but one of the things that they identified was that there simply was not enough evidence or data on the gangs in particular to be able to do further work and further investigations. That is why the next step must be to have the rapid national audit that we have asked Baroness Casey to undertake to get a much more extensive assessment of the prevalence and nature of child sexual exploitation across the country. \p Roger Gale: The right hon. Lady will know that I would not for one moment question her integrity, and certainly not her intent. However, I am perplexed by the methodology. Baroness Casey has one or two other things on her plate at the moment, but if she is able to deliver this audit in three months, that can only be a good thing. In her statement, she said that Tom Crowther has agreed to work with the Government to develop a new framework for victim-centred locally led inquiries where they are needed—five pilot schemes. That in itself will take time, and it is kicking the can down the road.

We all know that the Select Committees of this House can take evidence, generate a report and publish it in short order. It does not have to take seven years—it can take less than seven months. Having heard everything that the right hon. Lady has said, I cannot for the life of me understand why she is so resistant, first, to a broad-based national inquiry rather than a narrow five-town inquiry and, secondly, to statutory measures that will allow that inquiry to compel witnesses and evidence. \p Yvette Cooper: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the importance of any independent inquiry is the independence of the decisions made by the chair about how it should be pursued. The inquiry led by Baroness Jay into child sexual abuse took seven years—that was a decision made independently by Baroness Jay and the panel. They took evidence from 7,000 victims right across the country. They pursued detailed investigations in different areas, including into churches, religious organisations, residential homes and schools. The inquiry into child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs on our streets took two years.

First, we want a rapid audit that fills the gaps that were left by the independent inquiry, such as on the scale and characteristics of child sexual exploitation across the country. That work will rightly be done by Baroness Casey. Secondly, we want more police investigations under way, including the victims’ right to review. Thirdly, we want Tom Crowther to be able to work with other areas where there are local failings and problems, to pursue successful local inquiries such as Telford, to get to the heart of local failures and make sure that there is accountability. \p Jo White: I remain shocked that only two MPs stepped up and attended and participated in the Alexis Jay five-year inquiry into child sex abuse—my  hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and Lord Mann, when he was the Bassetlaw MP. As its new MP, it is my duty and responsibility to carry on that fight for justice.

Where grooming gangs have been operating, whether they are white, Pakistani-origin or church gangs, or taking place behind the closed doors of private homes, the bright light of an inquiry will expose who they are, where the cover-ups are and who is responsible. Every single perpetrator should be hunted down and jailed. I have no time for the grandstanders or the people who turn a blind eye. This is the biggest challenge of our Parliament. I find it stunning that the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), is not in his place for this critical statement.

Inquiries in areas where the gangs operate will give sick and evil perpetrators no place to hide. National oversight for Government is essential, ensuring swift legal action and the mapping of gangs, their links and their co-ordination—when and where they are ferrying girls across county lines. Does the Home Secretary agree that we need to end this tyranny of child abuse and put words into action? \p Yvette Cooper: I agree. These terrible crimes have been ignored for too long. There are currently 127 major police operations under way on child sexual exploitation and gang grooming, across 29 different police forces. The independent inquiry identified that child sexual exploitation happens across all police force areas and all communities. All areas should ensure that they have the proper systems in place to follow up on what is happening to missing children, such as the vulnerable kids who stay out overnight, or those who go missing from residential care homes. Too often, that is still not happening and too often, we still get reports, even though those are basic things that all police forces and local authorities should be doing.

That is why we have strengthened the powers for victims to get a review, and that is why we are requiring police forces to look back at historical cases, because we know that cases are not being reported and not being investigated. That is where the fastest action needs to be, to go after the perpetrators who are still on our streets and still getting away with it. They will continue to do so unless police forces and local councils work together to put perpetrators behind bars. \p Tessa Munt: I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and particularly to the fact that I am a director of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation. I am the last remaining MP of the seven Members of the House of Commons who originally called on Theresa May to hold an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. My experiences are also on the record. I therefore particularly welcome the acceptance of Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations and Baroness Louise Casey’s rapid review into child sexual exploitation.

May I, however, draw the Home Secretary’s attention to my concern about police investigations? She has referred to the matter of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and to reopening cases, but I am concerned about people marking their own homework and we know that there is an institutional resistance to being found lacking and to deep scrutiny.

One of the primary whistleblowers with whom I was involved has waited years for the truth to out, and senior police officers have threatened to sue her. It would appear that complaints can only be made about junior officers who are called and investigated, and that there is no ability to complain about senior officers. I ask the Home Secretary to look at the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office for Police Conduct reports, whether they have been published or not—particularly where they have not been published—and where there have been threats, as I understand it, from the police to sue members of those organisations about their findings. It is incredibly serious that we have organisations such as the IPCC and the IOPC— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call the Home Secretary. \p Yvette Cooper: I am happy to follow up with the hon. Lady about the very serious issues she raised. She is right that this cannot be about institutions just marking their own homework. That is one of the reasons why we have made the right to review an independent one. For child sexual abuse cases, where victims feel that they have been let down by a police force or the Crown Prosecution Service, they should be able to take that right to review not back to the same police force, but to an independent child sexual abuse panel to get a right to review in order to see whether they can get their cases reopened and properly investigated and see perpetrators pursued.

The hon. Lady will also know that there are other routes to hold police forces to account, including the police inspectorate. Although it can currently make recommendations—for example, it has just found serious failings in Cleveland police’s response to child sexual exploitation—too often, those recommendations are not followed up because there are no powers to do so. That is why we will also be changing the police performance management framework to strengthen the ability of the inspectorate and the Home Office to ensure that action is taken to improve performance and implement recommendations for improvement where serious problems are found. I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady about the wider policing reform needed to make sure there is accountability. \p Harpreet Uppal: I welcome the statement from the Home Secretary. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who is not in her place, for sharing her story—I know it is very difficult to do—and for her continued work to support victims. It is really important that we finally act for victims and survivors, and I welcome that the Home Secretary will be acting on the inquiry’s recommendations. I urge her to make public the monitoring of the progress of those actions and to return to the House to provide regular updates on those actions. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We will need a process to keep the House up to date on the next steps and actions that are taken forward. We will do that through the victims and survivors panel that will be established by the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips),  and through regular updates on the work of the cross-departmental group of Ministers to pursue and take forward the recommendations. \p Rebecca Smith: I welcome today’s announcement; it is great to see some progress. I will not cover what has been said about the legal powers, but I am interested in the funding. When I led a commission in Plymouth, the money to pay for it came from the local authority’s in-year budget. I appreciate the £7 million in total that has been announced. However, the Home Secretary has talked a lot about the police. What additional funding will they receive to do this work on a local level? What additional funding will there be for the practicalities of holding these inquiries, outside the five initial local authorities? What funding will come forward for the interventions that might be recommended following the inquiries? We know that local authorities are incredibly cash-strapped, and this could potentially disincentivise them to follow through on these local inquiries. Finally, is that £7 million new money going into the violence against women and girls budget, or is it money that would have been spent elsewhere? \p Yvette Cooper: On the funding to support the various measures we are taking forward, we have identified up to £10 million for additional investment to support further action. However, I cannot stress enough that this has to be part of the mainstream work that agencies, police forces and local councils do, because tackling child sexual exploitation and abuse cannot just be an add-on. It cannot be something that is done only if there is a particular announcement from the Government—it has to be done as part of the core responsibilities of police forces and local councils and included in their funding. That is why we want our mission to halve violence against women and girls to be the central mission right across agencies and right across the Government, as well. \p Nusrat Ghani: I appreciate that this is a very sensitive subject, but if the questions are long and the answers are just as long, we will get very few people in. Chris Murray, show us how it is done. \p Chris Murray: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In her report, Alexis Jay notes that one in 20 boys and one in six girls in the United Kingdom is estimated to be a victim of sexual abuse. We have had scandal after scandal of grooming in care homes, councils, schools and churches for decades. I welcome the appointment of Baroness Casey on the rapid review into grooming, and welcome that it will be rapid, because these victims deserve justice.

It is unbelievable to my mind that grooming is not an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offenders. Will the Home Secretary restate her commitment to making it an aggravating factor, and commit to that being done quickly and by force, so that child sexual offenders are properly punished by the law? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The inquiry identified that half a million children are victims of sexual abuse every year. The majority of cases are, sadly, within the family—a betrayal by those from whom  children should be able to expect protection. However, as he said, there have also been huge betrayals in residential homes and other institutions, including faith institutions—the Church of England and the Catholic Church—as well as wider grooming online and on the streets as part of these terrible crimes. So yes, we will change the law, strengthen sentencing and make grooming an aggravating factor, because the punishment should fit this terrible crime. \p Richard Tice: There is much to welcome in the Home Secretary’s statement, but she has resisted six invitations from hon. Members to confirm that the Government-supported local inquiries will have statutory powers. Instead, she is relying on the duty of candour, responsibility and accountability, so let me try it a different way. Is the Home Secretary 100% certain that the duty of candour, responsibility and accountability is equivalent to statutory powers? \p Yvette Cooper: What we need to do is to ensure that the crimes are investigated and that there is proper follow-up in those areas where things have gone badly wrong—and we know that there are some areas where things have gone badly wrong. The first stage has to be for the police to have full powers to pursue these crimes and to follow wherever the evidence takes them in order to put perpetrators behind bars. Frankly, that is where they should be to protect children and keep them safe.

We also need to ensure that where things have gone wrong, there are sufficient powers to be able to get to the truth and sufficient ability for local organisations to do that, so that no one can hide from accountability, run away or obfuscate, or use bureaucracy to get away with providing the answers, the justice and the accountability that victims need. That is why we have set up a new programme of work to look at how we can strengthen the powers available and the accountability available. Part of that has to be the duty of candour. It also has to include the duty to report, because there have to be stronger responsibilities on people to report child abuse in the first place and we have to make it a criminal offence to cover it up. If the law is not strong enough, we will not get the accountability or the action. \p Anna Dixon: I encourage Opposition Members to heed the appeal from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) to stop scoring party political points on such an important and sensitive subject. I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement, in particular the Government’s commitment to take action to protect victims and secure justice by accelerating investigations and prosecutions. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the support is there so that police forces such as West Yorkshire have the resources they need to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of these horrible crimes? \p Yvette Cooper: We have increased the resources for police forces across the country by up to £1 billion next year. It is really important that all police forces see these kinds of crimes, against some of the most vulnerable people in society, as part of the core work that they must do on public protection and keeping people safe. \p John Lamont: I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his persistent campaign to get an inquiry into Keighley and Bradford.

Scotland is not immune from grooming gangs. Indeed, a survivor expert fears that grooming gangs are operating in every town and city in Scotland. What discussions has the Home Secretary had with the Scottish Government to ensure there is a unified and co-ordinated approach across the United Kingdom? Lastly, just to add my voice to those of others in the Chamber, why on earth can the inquiry not be backed by statute? The Inquiries Act 2005 gives all the accountability and assurances that victims and communities need to ensure process is followed properly. \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the child sexual exploitation and abuse that takes place in every corner of the United Kingdom. Obviously, on the issues that involve police forces, the Home Office has responsibility for the police forces in England and Wales. Therefore, some of the changes we are making around the review panel, and around performance management and proper data in these areas, will apply to England and Wales police forces. However, we are also working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which as he will know works very closely with Police Scotland to ensure there is a national approach. I would also say that we had the nationwide inquiry into both child sexual abuse more widely and child sexual exploitation. It is really important that we fill the gaps in the evidence and that we take forward those recommendations, alongside supporting those areas where there have been particular problems to get to the truth. \p Chris Webb: I welcome today’s news that Baroness Casey will conduct a rapid review of the scale and nature of grooming gang offences. Having served as deputy police and crime commissioner on the frontline in Lancashire, I know that much exploitation and abuse goes unreported and unidentified in towns such as Blackpool, and that the figures are a significant underestimate. What will the Government do to ensure that systems are in place that enable these crimes to be reported and command the confidence of victims and survivors? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to say that it should be easier to report crimes, but I also think there should be a proactive duty on police forces, local authorities and child protection authorities to pursue the evidence of where these crimes are taking place even when they are not being reported. If kids are going missing from home, and particularly from residential care homes, they may not be reporting crimes partly because they are being groomed and exploited. As well as making it easier for victims to come forward and disclose the terrible things that have happened to them, we should ensure that those authorities have a responsibility to pursue crimes wherever they are found. \p Luke Evans: I am usually measured when I come here, but it worries me that the Labour Government seem to be playing us for fools today. The Home Secretary has picked five out of 50 towns and provided no statutory powers. She has  announced a review by the incredibly able Baroness Casey, but Baroness Casey is already conducting a review of social care, and this review is not a review; it is an audit. Is not the truth that the good Members on the other side of the House went back to their constituencies—and there are many across the country—and recognised the strength of feeling among the public about the need for a national inquiry? Members on this side of the Chamber get it, and most of the Back Benchers on the Home Secretary’s side get it. Why does she not swallow her pride and launch a national inquiry? \p Yvette Cooper: Let me just say that I was one of those who called for the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse very many years ago, and that I also supported the two-year investigation by that independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation, as well as some of its other investigations. However, we also have a responsibility to act. When more than 500 recommendations from inquiries are just sitting there with dust gathering on them, we have to ensure that we get action, including the audit that we need from Baroness Casey, who will be proceeding with that for three months before the commission on social care gets going. It is also important for us to have stronger police investigations—because if the police investigations do not happen, no one will get the protection they need—and for Tom Crowther to work with the first local areas that want to take forward local inquiries in order to develop a model and a programme that can be used in other areas, wherever it is needed. \p Jonathan Brash: Child sexual exploitation is without a shadow of a doubt the most disgusting, degrading crime imaginable, and we must at all times have the victims at the forefront of our minds. When Conservative Members table amendments to important legislation that they know will not result in an inquiry but will block child protection measures, and then spend the subsequent days spreading misinformation, they are letting victims down.

I welcome the national audit of grooming gangs, and I welcome the reopening of the police investigations to ensure that criminals are brought to justice, but may I check one point with the Home Secretary? She said a number of times that the five local areas she had identified were initial, pilot areas. Is it the ambition that wherever these crimes are taking place, local inquiries can take place? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Wherever there are serious problems or failings and it is believed that local inquiries are needed, we want those areas to be able to conduct the kind of effective local inquiry that Telford was able to conduct, rather than having to start from scratch. Tom Crowther will work with five areas so that he can draw up conclusions about how we can most effectively learn the lessons of what happened in Telford, where victims and survivors felt supported and also felt that they delivered change—that things had actually happened as a result—rather than having inquiries whose recommendations just sit on a shelf, letting everyone down. \p Rupert Lowe: As well as withheld court transcripts, I have been pushing the Ministry of Justice for data on the following: how many Pakistani or other foreign rapists have been deported,  are still in prison, did not serve a custodial sentence, are back in the same community as their victims, had previous convictions or have reoffended, with a full nationality breakdown of those involved in the gangs. The response was that the requested information

“is not centrally identified in the data systems relevant to these questions.”

If this were a state inquiry into the private sector, it would be accused of negligence. My view is that we need a full national inquiry. This is a rotting stain on our country, and it needs to be exorcised in full. It cannot continue to be kicked into the long grass. The British public want transparency, and they want to know why this has taken so long to be dealt with. \p Yvette Cooper: We do believe that better, more comprehensive data needs to be collected. That is why I have said that the overall data on child sexual abuse needs to be overhauled, with immediate changes to the gathering of data on ethnicity of both perpetrators and victims, because the system we inherited from the previous Government simply is not strong enough. We will need further changes as well.

On the issue of foreign national offenders, where foreign citizens have committed sexual offences in this country, they have no right to stay in this country, and we have to increase returns. That is why, rightly, this Government have increased returns of foreign national offenders by over 20% since the election. \p Pam Cox: I welcome the announcements the Home Secretary has made today. Disclosing abuse is a very difficult thing to do. Many victims speak out, but too often their words are not heard, they are not taken seriously or they fall between multiple agencies. Will the Secretary of State investigate how we can assist victims to disclose in the first place and ensure that agencies act on those disclosures? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to make that important point. By establishing a victims and survivors panel to work with the safeguarding Minister and other Ministers on taking forward recommendations around sexual abuse, we want to make sure we are recognising those experiences and exactly how difficult it can be to come forward. People need to have the confidence that if they do come forward to do something incredibly difficult, they will be listened to, they will be taken seriously and investigations will follow. \p Adnan Hussain: I thank the Secretary of State for her in-depth explanation of what the Government are and will be doing to ensure the safety of our children in the face of the most heinous crimes. Since the vote on the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill last week and the subsequent attention that it attracted in the media, many of my constituents have written to me upset, angry and in fear over the grooming scandal. All the correspondence I have received demands a public inquiry into this scandal, to determine the failures—both historical and present—of the institutions involved that allowed these heinous crimes against vulnerable children to go on for so long and so widely, without being stopped and without the victims being safeguarded and protected sufficiently.

I finish by asking the Home Secretary to confirm whether, in northern towns like my Blackburn constituency, crimes of this specific nature and grooming gangs continue to haunt our streets and vulnerable children. Can she confirm that further public inquiries and reports are needed to find out why this has gone on for such a long time? We need to provide my constituents and everybody across the country with solace. \p Yvette Cooper: The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and the two-year inquiry into child sexual exploitation concluded that child sexual exploitation is happening right across the country and that action is needed across the country. The taskforce reports that there are currently 127 major police operations under way on child sexual exploitation and gang grooming across 29 police forces. That is why it is so important that recommendations from those inquiries are implemented and that we get action to protect children and young people who too often are let down when inquiry recommendations are ignored. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I need Members to work with me so that we can get in the final 10 questions; otherwise, there will be a lot of disappointment. If Members have not been here and bobbing throughout, there is no point in them trying to catch my eye now. \p David Burton-Sampson: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which was full of action. I am pleased that last week I supported the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill so that we can start implementing much-needed safeguarding measures—unlike some Conservative Members, who attempted to wreck the Bill and spread misinformation, which led to online abuse towards many Members. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about the most rapidly evolving forms of child sexual abuse taking place online, including through artificial intelligence-facilitated child sexual abuse material? Can she outline what plans the Government have to strengthen the law in this area? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is exactly right. In addition to the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, including on the proper identification of children to strengthen child protection, which is crucial, we need much stronger measures to tackle online abuse and exploitation. I am really worried about the pace at which this problem is escalating, about the fact that it involves online grooming, abuse and indecent images, and about the impact of drawing young people into contact abuse. We will bring forward new laws in this area. \p John Slinger: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the new victims and survivors panel will have representation from regions across the country to ensure that victims’ voices are heard loud and clear? Does she agree that we need to dial down the political opportunism that we have sadly seen from some Members on the Opposition Benches? \p Yvette Cooper: Yes, the victims and survivors panel will include people from right across the country. The  inquiry into child sexual abuse had cross-party support, and I really hope that there will be cross-party support for implementing the action that we need, which I have set out today. \p Gill German: As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) pointed out, the victims and survivors panel really needs countrywide representation. Given that I am a Welsh MP, can the Secretary of State confirm that Welsh voices will be heard loud and clear? \p Yvette Cooper: We will ensure that Welsh voices are heard loud and clear. \p Ben Coleman: Many of my constituents have contacted me to share their concerns about child abuse and child exploitation. They will be relieved that, unlike the previous Government, this Government are no longer allowing this matter to be kicked into the long grass and are taking action, not least through Baroness Casey’s rapid review. I think my constituents will be concerned that the official figures woefully underestimate the scale and nature of grooming activities. How can the Home Secretary reassure the House, me and my constituents that in future the reporting systems will be such that they can guarantee the confidence of victims and survivors? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Some of this is about giving victims and survivors the confidence to come forward and report abuse, some of it is about getting agencies and organisations to take seriously the risk factors so that they identify potential crimes and pursue them, and some of it is about making sure that we have much stronger data requirements on police forces and local authorities so that we collect information and data. That was the first recommendation of the independent inquiry, and we are taking it forward. It has not been taken forward for far too long. \p Sean Woodcock: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. There are victims and survivors in many communities, including in my constituency, and I welcome the steps that she has announced. I commend the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde).

Does the Home Secretary agree that the voices that matter when we discuss how we tackle these issues are not those of billionaires, politicians or talk show hosts seeking to weaponise the pain and suffering of victims and survivors? Above all, we should be listening to victims and survivors themselves. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We need to make sure that victims and survivors are at the heart of this issue. Seven thousand victims and survivors gave evidence to the independent inquiry, which is a really hard thing to do. We owe it to them to make sure there is action as a result of their testimony, rather than just leaving the inquiry to sit on a shelf. \p Peter Swallow: A number of constituents have contacted me on this serious issue, and I have made it clear that I would welcome any further inquiry that is able to command the support of experts and victims and to build on the recommendations  of the Jay report, rather than choosing to ignore them or delay action. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is exactly what she set before the House this afternoon? Does she believe, as I do, that on this basis these measures should command support from across the House? \p Yvette Cooper: I hope these measures command cross-party support because, ultimately, we need stronger action from the police and local authorities, from across Government and from across communities to do the things that, for more than 10 years, we have been told need to change, and yet for too long simply have not changed. That is why we urgently need this action to keep children safe. \p Luke Myer: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement on the action she will take to implement Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations. Professor Jay made another set of recommendations on which my constituent has been campaigning—those on safeguarding in the Church of England. Professor Jay called for an independent process for the oversight and operation of safeguarding in the Church. The Synod is discussing this next month, but does the Home Secretary agree that measures must be brought forward to be approved by the House without delay? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to point out that there were many further inquiries as part of the overarching national inquiry into child abuse, including on Church and faith organisations. Some of the recommendations were for those organisations to take forward. They need to ensure that they do, that they are responding and that they have strong enough child protection arrangements in place. We will be monitoring and looking at the recommendations of all those reports. \p Sam Rushworth: I thank the Home Secretary for her answers, which have clarified  a number of the questions I would have wanted to raise with her. I am also grateful for her victim-centred approach. One of the challenges is that, when a child is being groomed for sexual exploitation, they do not always know that they are a victim until they are an adult, living haunted by the past. What more can be done to help children recognise what is happening in their lives? \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome my hon. Friend’s important point. Part of our wider work on tackling violence against women and girls is to ensure that children and young people have the confidence to be able to recognise abuse and exploitation. I know the Education Secretary takes this immensely seriously and is looking at how to take it forward. \p Ayoub Khan: Child sexual exploitation is a vile crime that violates the trust, safety and dignity of children. Perpetrators of such despicable crimes—individuals or groups, no matter their race, religion or creed—must face the full force of the law. I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and the steps it sets out, especially on victims’ right to review. So many victims feel that the authorities have neglected their position. Can the Home Secretary please give a timetable, even an estimate, for the duty of candour? I am sure she knows that justice delayed is justice denied. \p Yvette Cooper: Work is under way on drawing up the Hillsborough law, which was part of the King’s Speech to be taken forward as a priority in this Session. That work is being done across the Cabinet Office, with Ministry of Justice support, and it is part of the wider work on making sure there can be proper accountability where things fail and where people are let down, alongside both the duty of candour and the duty to report. \p Nusrat Ghani: Well done to everyone who kept their question short. We got everybody in. I thank the Home Secretary. \p Esther McVey: I beg to move,

That this House notes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) continues to need substantial reform, as recognised by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review (IMMDS), with patient safety concerns persisting and exacerbating since the review’s publication in 2020; believes that the MHRA’s 2017 expert working group report on Primodos was deeply flawed, with IMMDS later concluding the drug had caused avoidable harm; further notes that the yellow card system for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions is failing, with no process for following up on serious or fatal reactions and conflicts of interest, with 75% of the MHRA’s funding being derived from industry fees, a concern raised in the Fourth Report of Session 2004-05 of the Health Committee, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, HC 42-I, published on 5 April 2005; also notes the MHRA’s delayed response to reports of myocarditis, pericarditis and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia following covid-19 vaccination, despite action from regulators in other countries; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations in the IMMDS review and to acknowledge the harm done to patients and the financial burden on the healthcare system as a result of the MHRA’s widespread regulatory failures.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and the many colleagues from across the House who supported my application for it, especially the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), and also the hon. Members for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe).

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is the body responsible for ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines used in the UK. Its job is to oversee medical products, medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion. The responsibility it has is extremely important, as it comes with the potential not only to change people’s lives for the better, but to cause serious harm—even death—if poor decisions are made or safety signals are missed.

The MHRA is required to scrutinise applications from the pharmaceutical companies for new products and devices and to remain ever vigilant over existing drugs should safety problems arise post-authorisation. It has to weigh up the arguments for and against these products and devices. After all, the companies trying to get these products on to the market—and to keep them there—are driven, as all industries are, by commercial success. It is up to the MHRA to balance that with the health and safety of the UK and the public.

Alarm bells rang for many of us when, in March 2022, Dame June Raine, the chief executive of the MHRA, boasted of the agency’s transition from watchdog to enabler. Twenty years ago, the Health Committee report, “The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry”, found that the MHRA was unusual in being one of the few European agencies

“funded entirely by fees derived from services to industry”.

Not much has changed since, with the MHRA continuing to get 75% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry. In this context, the agency’s transition from watchdog to enabler does little to quell suspicions of conflicts and the implications that has for patient safety.

One of the most worrying issues is the MHRA’s mismanagement of the yellow card system. Established in 1964, the system is a way for patients, relatives and healthcare professionals to report suspected adverse reactions to drugs or medical devices. The reporting scheme should be a valuable source of information about possible harms, and act as an early warning system, but there is gross under-reporting to it. As the IMMDS’s 2020 review put it, the system is

“too complex and too diffuse to allow early signal detection.”

Under-reporting is a big problem because it makes it difficult to spot safety signals and assign causation. That then translates into unnecessary harm or death, with devastating side effects from treatment going unnoticed for years, months or even decades. That was recognised by the IMMDS review led by Baroness Cumberlege in the case of Primodos, sodium valproate and surgical mess—I meant to say mesh, though perhaps the word should have been “mess.”

According to research from Bangor University in 2019, potentially avoidable adverse drug reactions cost the NHS £2.2 billion a year in hospital admissions. In 2018, the MHRA estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2% and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. More recently, it has claimed that reporting rates for covid vaccines are better due to higher public awareness, but it has not been able to point to published evidence to back up that claim. The yellow card is currently a voluntary scheme that doctors and members of the public can report to, but I echo calls from the Sling the Mesh campaign and others for the UK to follow the example of Denmark and Sweden by making it mandatory for all healthcare professionals to report suspected adverse reactions.

Let me turn to the MHRA’s failure to act promptly on evidence of adverse reactions. We have seen that historically. For example, sodium valproate was known to cause harm to unborn babies in the 1980s, yet the MHRA did not establish a valproate pregnancy prevention plan until 2018. The known harms to unborn babies were allowed to persist for over 30 years. More recently, in 2021, the MHRA reacted slowly to strong signals that there was a serious problem with the AstraZeneca vaccine causing an autoimmune condition called vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia. Denmark and other European countries suspended the vaccine for all age groups on 11 March 2021. The MHRA, by contrast, only started to restrict the vaccine in some age groups nearly two months later, on 7 May—yet there was a signal in the yellow card reports as early as 8 February. How many people were needlessly exposed to a risk? \p Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend hits on an important point. What action did the MHRA take to apologise for or explain its failure to give adequate and timely warnings to potential patients? \p Esther McVey: I do not believe that the MHRA has taken such action. We are probably still waiting for it. Hopefully, that will come out. People are also either not getting compensation quickly enough or not receiving compensation that is commensurate with the illness and damage caused to them.

It is worth noting what happened when The Daily Telegraph reported on the potential causal link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots in March 2021. The journalist who wrote the story received a threatening call from the MHRA warning that The Telegraph would be banned from future briefings and press notices if it did not soften the news—an extremely defensive approach for an agency whose No. 1 strategic objective is to maintain public trust through transparency and proactive communication. Does that sound like an agency that is doing its best to maintain public trust, let alone patient safety?

It is clear that the system does not work. We have good evidence that suspected adverse reactions are under-reported, but what about the ones that are reported? We know from freedom of information requests that the MHRA does not have a process for investigating and following up individual yellow card reports. We know that the retrieval of follow-up information from the yellow card database still requires manual extraction and that only 54% of deaths reported as possibly linked to exposure to one of the covid-19 vaccines were followed up by the MHRA. That is extremely worrying or, as Matt Hancock infamously described it in a 2021 WhatsApp message, “shonky”. The chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, replied to that message by saying that the system “needs to get better”.

Another long-standing problem with the MHRA is its lack of transparency. Take FOIs to the agency as an example. Between 2008 and 2017, only 41% of requests were successful. In 2021, 76% were answered outside the 20-working-day statutory response time. A culture of delay and secrecy has emerged, and MHRA’s behaviour around the Commission on Human Medicines meetings for the covid-19 vaccine benefit risk expert working group show that beyond any doubt. Minutes of the meetings were published just last month, four years after they took place—why the delay? They are stuffed full of redactions that leave us with many more questions than answers, particularly as to why the new vaccines were continually described as safe and effective.

In the meeting on 18 November 2020, the expert working group asks if Pfizer was “required to respond to the 36 questions asked by MHRA”. In response, the MHRA confirmed that “there is no formal obligation to reply”. Why is there no formal obligation to reply? Surely it is essential, when making such an important decision as to whether to allow a new vaccine to be rolled out to the nation, to have those replies. The minutes do not specify the 36 questions. Indeed, they do not appear to have been mentioned again.

I asked a written question last week to see whether, in the spirit of openness and transparency, the MHRA would publish those questions and any answers received from Pfizer. The response was that the MHRA does not intend to publish those questions or any subsequent responses. Why not? Is this not a matter of public interest? Those issues were not resolved before the MHRA gave the green light to start the vaccination of the nation.

Particularly worrying is the issue of lymphopenia, where blood does not have enough white blood cells, which was reported in phase 1 of the trials and then went away—not because they fixed the problem, but because testing for the condition was not conducted in phases 2 or 3.

In summary, the failure to act on the weaknesses of the MHRA will lead only to more harm and further damage to the public’s trust in the pharmaceuticals agency and those tasked with regulating it. My hope is that the debate will help bring those wide-ranging issues further to light and focus the Minister’s mind on finding solutions. I will end on the words of Dr Tom Jefferson of the University of Oxford:

“You cannot support both secrecy and vaccination. Requesting data is not a sign of being against drugs or vaccines; it shows that you favour transparency. Those who try to keep data confidential and criticise those who ask for evidence are anti an evidence-based approach. How can you have informed consent if you do not know precisely what is happening?” \p Christopher Chope: On that point, does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the consequences of the lack of transparency has been a public distrust of vaccines, which is spreading rapidly? As a consequence, for example, there is less take-up of MMR vaccines than there should be and used to be, and that is because of a lack of trust in the system. \p Esther McVey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If people lose trust in vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory agency, that is precisely what happens. We know that these vaccines are essential to many people, so we do not want that happen. We want to ensure that new vaccines and medicines coming into use are thoroughly tested and that, along the way, we keep an overall watch on whether they are working correctly. \p Graham Stringer: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I agree with every word she said. It is late in the day for a Thursday, so I will try not to repeat many of the pieces of evidence and arguments that she proposed, but they are all valuable contributions to this debate.

I will start by talking about the attitude of Members of Parliament and politicians to regulation in general. A long time ago, I had responsibility in the Cabinet Office for dealing with better regulations. I travelled around the country to look at businesses that complained about regulations and see how those regulations could be made better—that was 18 months of my life that I will never get back. I came to a number of conclusions after that. Politicians have a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to regulation. If a child dies, if there is a fire, or if there is another disaster of some sort, there is a cry from both sides of the House for more regulation— not necessarily better regulation and enforcement, but more regulation—when, in many cases, regulations are already there but inspections and enforcement have not taken place.

The other knee-jerk response, which my Government are giving at the moment, is to say, “Regulations are burdensome so we will try to get rid of some of them.” I do not think that either of those responses deals with the issue. We set up regulators—this afternoon we are talking about the MHRA—but, by and large, once they are set up, MPs and Ministers abdicate responsibility and do not consider them until there is a crisis.

When I had that responsibility, I went to see the European Medicines Agency—this was some time before we left the EU. One of the surprising things I found—or   maybe it was not so surprising—was that I was the only Minister who had been anywhere near the place. It was the major European agency that this country got after the Maastricht treaty. It had wide-ranging and important powers, to deal both with the market and with regulation, but nobody bothered with it. If there had been a crisis, however, Ministers and shadow Ministers would have been queuing up to go there.

If there is a lesson, particularly in relation to the MHRA, it is that we should look at regulators—be they water, medicine or other regulators—all the time. We cannot as a Government and MPs abdicate our responsibility, because we then come to a crisis, and the electorate say, “Well, what are you doing?” and the answer is, “Not a lot; we have passed that on.” Those water regulators or medical regulators might be, as the right hon. Lady showed, pretty useless. We should be looking at them all the time.

I was a member of the Science and Technology Committee in 2012. Partly because of that experience, and partly because there was a lot of press discussion and debate about metal hips that were squeaking and not working very well when they had been implanted and about breast implants that were falling apart, potentially damaging and poisoning the recipients, we had an inquiry that reported in October of that year. I will read out some of the comments from the witnesses we heard from about the MHRA, because they are being repeated now. They are very similar to what the right hon. Member for Tatton said about the MHRA’s responses—secretive and slow. For instance, there was evidence that there were problems with metal hips for four years before the MHRA took any action whatsoever. Nearly 14 years later, it still has the same problems.

I asked Dr Heneghan from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford who had authorised those metal hips. His answer was extraordinary: “Nobody knows. I don’t know—nobody knows.” It was a different regulatory regime then, because we were  part of the European Union. Anybody who had the competence—or at least the authority—in any country in the EU could give authorisation, but nobody knew which body had done it, and whether that body was composed of competent people and what evidence they had used to do so.

However, when the MHRA found out, it did nothing for four years. That is disgraceful, and there were all sorts of comments that I can give the House. One was from Dr Stephen O’Connor at the Institute of Physics and Engineering, who said that the MHRA was overly bureaucratic relative to other competent bodies, inefficient, and difficult to deal with. As the right hon. Member for Tatton showed, the MHRA does not answer FOI requests, and it does not tell us what is going on.

The Lancet said about the breast implants, which I will talk about next, that the MHRA was in paralysis and in need of reform. Again, that was a long time ago. It was a different issue with the breast implants, because the MHRA was dealing with a fraudulent product—the products that had been authorised were not the products that were being sold to surgeons to be implanted in women. However, the Committee asked for there to be random and regular testing of the bodies that were responsible for manufacturing those implants. I do not  expect the Minister to know at this time, but will she check whether the authorities have done any of those randomised tests on those bodies?

That is the history. The right hon. Member for Tatton has basically analysed what is going on now, but I will just talk about what we learned during the covid period. We learned that many of the NHS’s constituent parts—although not the clinicians—were secretive. Earlier today in the Chamber, we talked about the Government’s response to the first part of the covid inquiry. At the present time, that inquiry is not getting to part of what went wrong during covid, which was the fact that the NHS did not tell us what was going on, and there was also a restriction on political debate. If we are to get the best policies in any crisis, and in the regular turn of events outside crises, we need transparency so that we know how things can be improved and what we can criticise.

The right hon. Lady made the excellent point that keeping things secret encourages people who do not trust vaccines and have odd theories about how societies is controlled not to take the protection from vaccines. We know that no medicine is 100% safe, and there is no point in pretending they are safe, but vaccines have saved many lives over decades—more than decades; over a century—and it is good for society and for individuals that people understand that, and they will be less trusting if we do not tell them what is going on.

As recently as a few minutes ago, I got an email telling me that the UK Health Security Agency is still refusing to release the cost of the bird flu vaccines it has purchased. What possible reason can there be for not saying how much public money has been spent on a good cause? Having vaccines ready for any flu epidemic is a good thing because it saves people’s lives, as we have been discussing. Why should it be kept secret? Could the Minister to respond to that?

Is there any Member in the House who thinks that turning the MHRA, in the right hon. Lady’s phrase, from a watchdog to an enabler is a good idea, or even knows what it means and what is being enabled? I certainly do not know what is being enabled, but one of the things we should remember is that the MHRA and the whole of the health industry are swimming in a sea of pharmaceutical sharks. Pharmaceutical companies produce some extraordinarily wonderful products that keep us safe, but they also produce huge profits, and sometimes they get their products on to the markets by telling lies, or certainly by sins of omission. Everybody knows about the thalidomide case, and how long it took to prove it and to get compensation for the victims.

Almost at random, I have picked two other cases. With Paroxetine—I think that is how to pronounce it—GSK held back information because it did not release the tests that did not show a positive benefit. It also kept back tests that showed that Paroxetine increased the chances of children committing suicide, and it took a lot of investigation to get that— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Mr Stringer, I assume you are coming to a conclusion soon. \p Graham Stringer: I am. I have one sentence. I am sorry; I did not realise I had speaking for so long.

Lastly, Reboxetine is another example of where the information given out to doctors was inadequate because it did not show the negative tests. I use those two examples basically to show that the MHRA should not be enabling these things. It should be much more vigilant, and it should be asking for powers to demand the right to know all the information that drugs companies have before it says those drugs are as safe as they can be. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. To enable us to get everyone in, I hope all Members will be mindful of those who are to speak after them. \p Christopher Chope: I shall try to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) by referring to a quote from Hayek’s book, “The Road to Serfdom”. I do not claim credit for identifying it myself; it was quoted in the other place by Lord Hannan of Kingsclere on 15 January in the context of the Football Governance Bill. He was talking about the growth of the administrative state, about which the hon. Gentleman was speaking at the beginning of his speech. Hayek said:

“The delegation of particular tasks to separate bodies, while a regular feature, is yet only the first step in the process by which a democracy…relinquishes its powers”.

That is in chapter 5 of “The Road to Serfdom” from 1944, so not much has changed. The MHRA is an example of what happens if we in this House transfer responsibility to unelected and unaccountable organisations.

It so happens that on the Order Paper for tomorrow is my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill, which is sponsored by a former Attorney General. That Bill calls for an independent review of covid-19 vaccine damage. It calls on the Secretary of State to

“appoint a current or former High Court judge to lead an independent review of disablement caused by Covid-19 vaccinations administered in the United Kingdom and the adequacy of the compensation offered to persons so disabled.”

We know that more than 600 people have already been told by the agency responsible at the Department of Health and Social Care that they have suffered disabilities as a result of covid-19 vaccines. A large number of them, where the disability is in excess of 60%, have been awarded wholly derisory payments of £120,000 each.

My Bill goes on:

“The review must consider…the rates and extent of disablement caused by each type of Covid-19 vaccination offered in the United Kingdom”.

Relevant to this debate, the review must also consider

“the effectiveness of Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency monitoring of such side effects, and National Health Service and Government responses to such monitoring”,

as well as

“the adequacy of compensation offered to persons so disabled”.

There has always been an agreement, basically, that  if something goes wrong for people who undertake vaccination voluntarily or are in receipt of other medical products—if they are doing the right thing by the country at large—and they have an adverse reaction, they will be able to look to the Government or the taxpayer to pay  them some recompense under the scheme to which I have referred, if causation is established. The trust built by that scheme has been undermined by the long denial of the previous Government—and, to an extent, the current one—that any adverse reactions had been caused by the covid-19 vaccines, other than the most minor disablement. It has also been undermined by the fact that so many people have applied for a review of their cases. Some people—I think more than a thousand—have been waiting more than 18 months for a decision. That shows that this is a low priority for the Government.

I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, she will be able to explain why the Government will block my Bill again tomorrow. If they were taking this issue seriously, as they should be, they would be open to and supportive of the establishment of an independent review of disablement. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I am setting a five-minute time limit. \p Perran Moon: I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing a debate on what is an incredibly important campaign in support of the reforms to the MHRA. I would like to make clear my interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on Primodos.

I will focus on the human case for reform. I would like to share part of a speech delivered at a recent APPG meeting by Jason Farrell, a journalist who has been instrumental in communicating the campaign for some time and who powerfully put into words the experience of Marie Lyon and other victims. He said:

“In October 1970, in Billinge maternity ward in Wigan, a woman gives birth to a girl. The baby is quickly rushed out of sight and later brought back swaddled. When Marie Lyon unwraps her daughter, she discovers half her baby’s arm is missing.

Meanwhile, in Portsmouth, Shirley Gubbins gives birth. Her daughter is so damaged, medics put her in a cupboard, assuming she will be dead within minutes. Shirley’s husband demands to see his child and discovers the baby’s back is twisted, her face disfigured, and one eye is missing. When she’s eventually allowed to see her baby, Shirley reacts in exactly the same way as Marie does: ‘She’s beautiful. She’s mine.’”

As a relatively new MP, I first met Marie Lyon, campaigner-in-chief and chairwoman of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, just a few months ago at the request of a constituent. Marie has met many MPs in her years campaigning for recognition and justice for mothers and children affected by hormone pregnancy tests. I had not met many campaigners like her before, and I had certainly never met a leader with such reserves of stamina and such a profound sense of injustice.

I speak here on the shoulders of victims, families, activists, MPs, scientists and academics who have called for substantial reform of the MHRA and for the Government to acknowledge the harm done to patients and to implement the recommendations of the IMMDS. The harrowing stories of victims of this scandal after decades of fudges, obfuscation and inaction that have hindered their pursuit of justice must be heard again and again in the Chamber. The evidence is clear. The time for talk has long passed. It is time for us now to act. \p Danny Kruger: I will be as quick as I can be, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to talk about over-prescription and the vaccines. I acknowledge my role as the co-chair and past chair of the beyond pills all-party parliamentary group, which the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) chairs in this Parliament. I thank the secretariat for the great work it does to support the group.

We have a crisis of over-prescription in our country, with the rates of prescription drugs being given to people going up vertiginously. Prescriptions have doubled over the last 12 years. Nearly 9 million people—one in five adults—are on antidepressants, which is way too high a figure. Many people should never have been put on these drugs—they should have been offered non-chemical alternatives—and they should be supported to withdraw. I very much hope that the MHRA and the Government more widely will heed the calls we are making on the APPG for better training of GPs, better labelling of these drugs and withdrawal services for people who want to come off them.

In addition to social prescribing, which I am sure the hon. Member for Stroud will talk about from his experience, I want to mention the important potential role of digital therapeutics, which are not properly commissioned by the NHS but could be a big part of the answer.

I want to talk briefly about the role of the MHRA  in over-prescription, particularly with respect to anti-depressants. We know from evidence, from anecdote and from coroners’ reports that SSRIs—selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—can cause people to take their own lives. There are dozens of documented cases. The most prominent of those recently has been the tragic case of Thomas Kingston, whom I knew and whose family I have been speaking to since his death. Tom shot himself last February after being put on SSRIs. In fact, he was put on that SSRI after another SSRI caused him to feel absolutely awful, so he was put on two in very quick succession.

The coroner for Gloucestershire, who conducted  the inquest, recommended much clearer communication of the risks of these pills, and she is not the first coroner to make that recommendation. I pay tribute to The Times for its campaigning to highlight the fact that so many coroners’ reports have not been heeded by the authorities. I wish they had been, as it might well have saved many lives. \p Esther McVey: The number of people who have taken their lives after coming off SSRIs shows that it is not a one-off or rare. There are many people, including one of my constituents, aged only 25, who took her life. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue. What more can we do to raise awareness of the effects of withdrawal from these antidepressants? \p Danny Kruger: The tragedies that we read and hear about are bringing to light the chronic problem of over-prescription in our society. I am afraid that the MHRA is to blame. A review is under way, but it does not sufficiently recognise the direct harms that these pills can induce in people. I hope that through better labelling and regulation, and a better culture of alternative prescriptions, we can reduce the tragedies that we are so familiar with.

Let me quickly comment, following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), on the experience of the MHRA during the covid epidemic. The vaccines were developed at a frantic rate. We can be very impressed by the speed of the taskforce and pay tribute to the work of the private sector, particularly our world-leading research base. The Government managed to act at great speed, largely because they bypassed Whitehall. But significant questions remain, which my hon. Friend raised, about whether the vaccines are genuinely safe and effective.

It is right that people ask questions about the data on excess deaths and wonder if there is a connection with the vaccine—that is not inappropriate. Ultimately, there is only one way to answer that question: to have the data. However, we do not have access to that data. The Government hold it and, extraordinarily, they have made it available to the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines, but not to researchers—individual-level death data that shows who was dosed with what vaccines and which of them died.

In a debate in the House last April, and previously in correspondence with Ministers, I clearly and simply asked for that data to be made available to researchers, anonymised as appropriate. The UK Health Security Agency has admitted that the data exists, but has refused to release it, almost unbelievably, because of the risk to the mental health of the relatives of the dead. That begs the question, does the data show a link between the vaccines and those deaths? The information tribunal is due to rule on that matter shortly, and I fervently hope that common sense will prevail and the data can be made available to disprove the link, so that our minds and those of our constituents can be put at rest. There is also a case with the information tribunal about the data held by the MHRA on the vaccines’ safety for pregnant women. Again, the agency has been withholding that data for two years.

Let me finish by observing, in the light of the comments made by hon. Members across the House, that we have a genuine problem with the regulation of the medical industry and of medical products. I very much welcome the appointment of R. F. Kennedy to the role of Health Secretary in the United States. He will shake things up over there. Perhaps the Minister can be our own RFK over here, and bring some genuine transparency to the health system. \p Sharon Hodgson: I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate, and I am very happy to be called to speak on such an important issue.

As chair of the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group, I am very interested in the need for MHRA reform in the context of the mesh, Primodos and valproate scandals. However, for time’s sake, I will focus my remarks on MHRA reform and the mesh scandal in particular, not least because the right hon. Lady opened the debate so well, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) will speak about the Primodos scandal and I do not want to steal any of her thunder.

I want to start by paying tribute to all the campaigners we have worked with over so many years on the “First Do No Harm” report scandal, especially Kath Sanson from Sling the Mesh, Marie Lyon, who has been mentioned, from the Primodos campaign, and Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the valproate campaign. I also must pay tribute to Baroness Cumberlege, who recently retired from the other place, who was the author of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review and the former co-chair of the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group. She has been a great support to me over the years. Thanks to her invaluable hard work highlighting key recommendations to prevent future health scandals, including vital MHRA reform, we know what we need to do. Now we must get on with the job.

As we have heard, colleagues here today are in agreement that the MHRA is in need of urgent and substantial reform. One area in particular is the need for mandatory reporting of adverse events to the yellow card by healthcare professionals. Contrary to responses I received when I asked questions on the topic in the House, which argue that the current system works, it does not. It is broken. Let me be clear: the current voluntary system, which doctors enjoy, enabling them to choose whether to log side effects and complications to the MHRA yellow card, is simply unacceptable. This voluntary system has led to many adverse events going unreported. The system must be made mandatory, but that fix alone will not work if the data is there but is not used. The information must be tracked and assessed in real time by the MHRA, to spot trends of harm so that treatments can be stopped immediately if needed, to prevent the repetition of mistakes and, in turn, to prevent their escalation into further health scandals, as we have seen with mesh, valproate and Primodos.

Comparison of datasets conducted by Sling the Mesh found that a whopping two thirds of mesh complications —some as serious as slicing into bladders, bowels or through vaginal walls—were not logged by healthcare professionals to the MHRA yellow card. If these excruciating examples are not interpreted by healthcare professionals as  worthy of reporting, what reason do we have to trust that healthcare treatments are safe? We need to see the MHRA at the heart of patient safety, properly and efficiently regulating and recording and not just nodding treatments through like a tick-box exercise.

Mesh, for example, was allowed from the 1990s onwards on the basis that it was equivalent to hernia mesh. Without any post-market surveillance by the MHRA, it was allowed to be aggressively sold, free rein, in the UK. This ultimately led to thousands of women, including my very own mam, being irreversibly harmed. Had reporting been mandatory, the sheer scale of women impacted could have at least been reduced through spotting a clear pattern of harm and putting a stop to it. It is clear that we need to change the current system, and fast.

Most of the scandals we are talking about today  affect women, so women’s voices must be taken seriously. We should not have to wait until media coverage publicly shames health scandals or documentaries force account-ability and answers upon us. The MHRA needs to be functioning and not just responding to treatments causing harm, but regulating and preventing them in the first place. Surely this is the absolute least we should expect  from a regulation agency that is supposed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of patients and the medicines and medical devices that they receive—hence: first do no harm. \p Rupert Lowe: I should start by alerting people to my declared interests relating to the pharmaceutical industry.

All of us familiar with the growth of the quango will be aware of how these unelected, unaccountable organisations have come to control and dominate British public life—not us, the democratically elected Members, but the quangos. Failure is rewarded and never punished. No organisation encapsulates that point as comprehensively as the MHRA. Its role is essentially to ensure that medicines and medical devices are safe and effective—where have we heard those words before? How can it possibly be trusted to regulate properly when it is funded largely by the companies it is tasked with regulating? It is simply human nature for a conflict like this to impact on the decision-making process.

The biggest challenge in the MHRA’s history was the covid response, and it failed. It enabled the biggest assault on civil liberties and economic prosperity in  my lifetime, which was lockdown—the greatest scandal of them all. It was, quite simply, the most disgraceful period of recent history. The MHRA’s insistence on vaccines for all enabled lockdown restrictions to continue for as long as they did. It must take part responsibility for the consequences: vast NHS backlogs, mental health issues rife, soaring alcohol-related deaths, obesity booming, children’s development wrecked, long-term illnesses mounting, increased substance abuse, domestic violence on the rise, unnoticed child neglect, fathers missing the birth of their children and elderly loved ones left to rot and die alone. We were not even allowed to mourn the dead properly. The wicked list is endless.

None of it was based on any science, and certainly not the vaccination of almost the entire population—including, disgracefully, young children. This was a hideous dereliction of duty by the MHRA. It was not just children it forced the covid vaccination on, but tens of millions of people who had absolutely no need for it whatsoever. There was clear risk from taking the vaccine—not just the initial two doses, but the booster following them. The evidence for the vaccine was simply not there, particularly considering that by that stage, almost the entire population had actually caught the virus, which gave far more effective natural protection than any man-made intervention. The MHRA knew that, but it failed to act. Why? Was it under political pressure not to undermine the wretched covid response? Had it been honest about the real need—or lack thereof—for population-wide vaccinations, the whole case for lockdown would have collapsed.

As of 4 November, there had been 489,991 adverse reaction reports from covid-19 vaccines in the UK. Those are just the reported issues. What is the true number? When individual after individual reports feeling far worse after taking the vaccine than they ever did after the virus, should we not question whether that vaccination was necessary? The MHRA failed. This was simply not a vaccine that was needed by the entire population.

We were fed the lie that taking the jab would protect vulnerable loved ones, which was disgraceful dishonesty. The vaccine did not prevent transmission—we know that now, and we knew that then. It should always have been a fully free and informed choice. If an elderly man in his 90s believes that the virus poses more of a threat than the vaccine, then let him take it. For almost everyone under 70, that is a risk analysis that falls firmly in the camp of not having the vaccine. Don’t even get me started on the abhorrent vaccine passport policy—one of the most evil policies devised by Government in living memory.

The MHRA should have provided full and transparent data so that educated adults could make their own decisions for themselves and for their families. It must act as an independent barrier against both political expedience and corporate profit, protecting public health above all else.

The question is: who regulates the regulator? Who protects against regulatory capture? How did the MHRA allow politicians, celebrities and even its own agency to describe these vaccines as safe and effective, when yellow card data clearly showed it is not universally safe and certainly not universally effective? How could MHRA CEO June Raine say she had transformed the MHRA from a watchdog to an “enabler” of the pharmaceutical industry—an oxymoron for a watchdog that is meant to safeguard public health? It is Parliament’s duty now to exercise its sovereign power to ensure that we learn from the myriad of mistakes. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: We are going to have to drop the time limit to four minutes. I call Dr Simon Opher. \p Simon Opher: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have quite a lot to say here, but I shall squeeze it into four minutes.

First of all, having a regulator funded by a drug company is genuinely a case of marking one’s own homework, and we need to change that straightaway. I think we need a reform there.

From clinical experience, I would also say that the yellow card system does work, but that we never get any feedback from it. That is one of the problems. The other problem is that clinically one is often not sure whether or not something is an adverse effect. We need a very easy system that can just be fired off. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) mentioned low white blood cells, for example, and whether that was a reaction. Then, when a number of different doctors get it, we can accumulate that information.

If I may, I want to say a few things about vaccinations. Vaccinations save far, far more lives than they cause damage. Every medicine that has ever been invented has side effects and I do not deny vaccine side effects. However, the vaccine saved hundreds of thousands of lives. I ran the covid vaccination service in our area in Dursley. At the height of the pandemic, if we injected 180 people over 80, we saved a life—that is incredible.  Compared to that, the side effect rate was incredibly small. It does exist and we need to look at it, but let us not get on the backs of vaccines. Vaccines have saved more lives than anything else.

I really want to talk about antidepressants, on which the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) has already said a few words. We have a problem with over-prescribing in this country. Some 8.7 million people are on antidepressants. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) spoke about Paroxetine causing increased risks of suicide. We need to wean ourselves off medications. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines say that for mild to moderate depression we should not start tablets, yet they are started. That is because people have become a bit over-medicalised, we have 10-minute appointments and no psychological therapies. We must also make use of social prescriptions, available to the NHS, where we can prescribe to patients something that is not medical. We need to de-medicalise what is going on. That can include lots of different things, such as exercise and being very creative. In fact, yesterday I went with the Lord Mayor of Westminster and Lu Jackson to St John’s Wood library for a Comedy-on-Prescription event. Making people laugh can avoid the need for medication. We need to look at those things much more seriously and get people off tablets.

The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said that one of her constituents took their own life when they were trying to get off antidepressant medication. The MHRA needs to put warnings on the packet, but it has failed to do so. We also need a support mechanism for people coming off tablets. Of the 8 million people on antidepressants, about 2 million are trying to get off them, so it is a major problem. GPs, actually, are not that well informed about this. There are some very strong Maudsley guidelines based around micro-tapering, so that people can come off slowly and safely. Some kind of support service might have helped her constituent and stopped them taking their own life.

In conclusion, we have a pandemic of over-prescription and we need to start looking at that. As chair of the beyond pills all-party parliamentary group, with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire we are trying to reduce prescriptions and make it safe for people to come off antidepressants. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Before being elected to this House I worked for nearly 20 years in the pharmaceutical regulation and compliance industry. I know from first-hand experience the critical role that the MHRA must play in protecting the public and its indispensable role in ensuring public trust in the medical sector. My comments, therefore, come from a place of wanting to ensure that that trust, so painstakingly built up, continues to be strengthened.

A recent survey by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry found that 80% of respondents felt the MHRA’s lack of capacity was undermining industry trust and deterring domestic investment—problems compounded by Brexit, which has created obstacles  to co-operation in the European Union. Faced with a large backlog of clinical trial applications, one would imagine the obvious solution is to make more resources  available to recruit and train new staff, and to rebuild relationships with our European partners. However, the Prime Minister seems more determined to demonstrate his commitment to slashing red tape and the need to, as he says, “regulate smartly and regulate creatively”. I must admit I get very nervous when I hear that kind of language used in relation to the pharmaceutical industry, because it is normally code for measures that threaten safety standards even further.

The need for openness, transparency and regulation is probably greater than ever before. Recently, I have had constituents raise with me why the animal feed additive Bovaer, which is given to cows to reduce methane, is not tested or approved to MHRA pharmaceutical standards and why it is not even listed on milk cartons. Constituents have raised concerns with me about the use of carcinogenic chemicals in our food. We know that a host of chemicals that are banned from being used in food in the European Union are permitted in the United States. It is perfectly understandable for people to fear that, amid the bonfire of red tape that the Government are planning to set alight, some things that better protect us might go up in smoke.

Constituents have also raised questions with me about the latest impact of the covid-19 vaccines. Before anyone starts accusing me of being an anti-vaxxer, I took both covid vaccines and agree that they saved many lives, but it is also the case that legitimate concerns have been voiced about long-term side effects. We now know that in the largest vaccine study to date, two very rare side effects—a neurological disorder and inflammation of the spinal cord—have been detected. Other studies have confirmed side effects including inflammation of the heart muscle and the lining around the heart, particularly in young males, as well as blood clots in the brain’s venous sinuses.

Today we stand united in our commitment to safeguarding the health and wellbeing of our citizens. The motion highlights critical issues within the MHRA that demand our immediate attention and action. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review has shed light on persistent and exacerbated patient safety concerns since its publication in 2020, and it is our duty to ensure that the MHRA undergoes substantial revision to address those issues. The safety of our citizens must be paramount, and we cannot afford to overlook the shortcomings that have been identified.

In conclusion, let us not forget that our primary responsibility is to the people we serve. We must act with urgency and determination to rectify those issues with the MHRA. By implementing these recommendations, we can work towards a safer, more responsive healthcare system that prioritises patient safety and trust above corporate profits and interests \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate. My interest in the issue stems from the fact that one of my constituents, Barbara Manning, was affected by Primodos, and, along with the tireless campaigner Marie Lyon—who has already been mentioned today—has been seeking justice  ever since.

For the benefit of Members who do not know this, let me explain that between 1958 and 1978, Primodos was a hormone pregnancy test that was given to about 1.5 million women in the form of pills. It was taken off the market in 1978 amid concerns about the effect on the unborn children of those who were pregnant, but the link has never been formally recognised by regulators or the manufacturer. Some research at the time suggested that there might be an association between the drug and miscarriages, and babies born with shortened limbs, abnormalities in their internal organs, brain damage and heart defects. Many of those children died before reaching adulthood, and of those still alive, some are blind, deaf and brain-damaged.

In 2017, a report from an expert working group of the Commission on Human Medicines concluded that there was no causal association between Primodos and severe disabilities in babies, but there are real concerns about the conflict of interests involving some of those on the expert working group and their connections to the big pharmaceutical companies involved in the scandal.

On 8 July 2020, Baroness Cumberlege published her in-depth findings on how the health system responds to reports from patients about harmful side effects from medicines and medical devices. On the MHRA, she said:

“A regulator must work both for patients and with them. This hasn’t been the case in the past. We are recommending that the regulator of medicines and medical devices… is overhauled. It needs to change and radically improve the way that concerns about medicines and devices are detected and acted upon. The regulation of devices in particular needs urgent change. The MHRA needs to engage more with patients and track how medicines and devices improve—or fail to improve—patients’ health and quality of life. It needs to raise public awareness of its role and it needs to ensure that patients have a core role in its work.”

The review also concluded that the state and manufacturers have a moral responsibility to provide ex gratia payments to those families who have experienced avoidable harm due to their failure to remove Primodos from the market.

The duty of the regulator was to protect women. It chose to protect the manufacturer instead. Thousands of women and unborn children were exposed to a risk that was widely acknowledged at the time. That should not have happened. It now falls to us to put right that injustice, to persuade the manufacturer to pay compensation to those affected families and to reform the regulatory system, so that it protects patients in the future. \p Yasmin Qureshi: My interest in this matter arises as I chair the APPG on Primodos, and it is a campaign that I and many other MPs have been working on for the past 12 years. On one occasion, after a big debate, the Minister ordered an expert working group to be set up. The MHRA was supposed to examine the evidence. We the campaigners and Members of Parliament thought that all the documents we had would be looked at by the MHRA, but clearly it did not look at them. The MHRA was supposed to engage with the victims and their families, but they were not spoken to or dealt with properly, and there was no thorough examination.

In fact, some of the members of the expert working group, which was set up by the Commission on Human Medicines, had connections with pharmaceutical companies. We wanted the MHRA to look at the documents, which showed very clearly that in the 1970s it was accepted by the then Committee on Safety of Medicines that this drug was causing deformities. However, the chief medical officer at the time colluded with  the manufacturer, destroyed the evidence and refused  to help.

We have documents that show that the manufacturer knew there was a cover-up, and yet the MHRA refused to look at them. Subsequently, Professor Carl Heneghan from Oxford University looked at the same material the EWG had looked at and came to a completely different conclusion: he said the evidence showed that there was a connection. The EWG was asked to look at whether there was a causal connection, and it changed its recommendation again. The former Prime Minister, Mrs May, was also not convinced by the expert working group. We persuaded her to set up a review chaired by Baroness Cumberlege, who said there was avoidable harm and that the victims should be compensated.

Throughout all those years, the Government of the day did not want to communicate with us, and they have not been dealing with this issue properly. They have always relied on the expert working group’s report, which has held the victims back and held us back from pursuing a possible legal claim. We say to the Government now that the EWG report needs to be relooked at, and Professor Carl Heneghan’s study of it should also be looked at. Scientific evidence has been produced using an experiment on zebrafish which shows that there is a link with this drug, and we have sent this to the Commission on Human Medicines for the Department to look at.

We must remember that this drug is 40 times the strength of the morning after pill. Women were given this pill and told it had no effect other than to see whether they were pregnant, and it then caused this damage. I ask the Minister today, with the new Government now in place, to please relook at this; the report by  the EWG, which was set up by the MHRA, has been discredited, so please stop listening to it. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Alison Bennett: I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for bringing forward this really important debate and for her excellent opening speech, which was very informative. In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is tasked with vital work, and we all agree that it is there to protect and promote public health. As a number of Members have set out, it is concerning that despite the MHRA’s obvious importance, it clearly  faces a number of challenges that need to be addressed. The Cumberlege review highlighted a conflict of  interests, because the MHRA relies on fee income from pharmaceutical companies; as the hon. Member for  Stroud (Dr Opher) said, this is a case of the agency marking its own homework. It is not a great way to set up its funding.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a really important point about Brexit, which is the elephant in the room. As with so many parts of our economy, Brexit caused major disruption to the pharmaceutical industry. Among other things, the loss of the prestigious European Medicines Agency from London to Amsterdam damaged trust in the UK’s pharmaceutical investment space. \p Danny Kruger: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Alison Bennett: In the interests of time, I will not.

Brexit caused significant confusion for companies looking to sell products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It has also slowed down the time in which novel medicines and treatments can be approved for use, as pharmaceutical companies have understandably prioritised obtaining a single approval, allowing access to 27 markets via the EMA.

Meanwhile, strict affordability models imposed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence mean that companies face a further hurdle before their products can reach patients. Again, that diminishes the attractiveness of the UK market post Brexit. To help address this issue, the MHRA introduced the international recognition procedure a year ago to streamline the authorisation process by incorporating assessments  from trusted regulatory partners worldwide, including the EMA. However, that relies on those partners having already approved the products, so UK patients will inevitably still have access to medicines later than people in other countries, including EU member states. When I met representatives of Roche Diagnostics, based in Burgess Hill in my constituency, they told me about the industry’s serious concerns that the additional GB-specific conformity checks required could be prohibitively expensive and lead to significant delays.

As things stand, the forecast is looking gloomy. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are committed to addressing these issues head-on, and to helping the MHRA become world leading. First, we are pushing to expand the MHRA’s capacity by halving the time for treatments to reach patients suffering from illnesses such as cancer. Secondly, we encourage the Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Cumberlege review, including on compensation, corrective surgery and psychological support for those who were failed and who suffered from faulty devices and drugs. Thirdly—this is vital—the Government should actively seek a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement with the EMA to promote faster access to new and novel medicines and medical devices. That would reduce red tape, cost and friction, providing hope for those who need access to these lifesaving and life-enhancing medicines and devices. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Luke Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this debate, and on  giving Members from across the House the opportunity to raise issues such as Primodos, breast implants, mesh, SSRIs, vaccines and MMR. As a clinician, I have seen patients who have been affected by all these issues, and I know the heartfelt difficulties that they have faced—not only in what has happened to them, but in trying to resolve the problems. It is a testament to her that she has given the House the chance to debate these issues, and I am not sure that the public have ever paid so much attention to a regulator, even in the financial crisis. The MHRA has suddenly become something that people know.

I often used to explain to patients that a regulator should be like a good referee: we should not see them, but they should be there to hold people to account and know the rules. However, modern refereeing is about more than that. A referee has already met the players beforehand, and speaks to the public about how things work. They help to shape the way in which the rules should be interpreted, allowing us to improve the game.

The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) asked who regulates the regulators, and the answer  is that this House is accountable. That accountability  is key.

What are the functions of the MHRA? They are: to ensure that medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion meet applicable standards of safety, quality and efficacy; to secure safe supply chains for medicines, medical devices and blood components; to promote international standardisation and harmonisation to ensure the effectiveness and safety of biological medicines; to educate the public and healthcare professionals about the risks and benefits of medicines, medical devices and blood components, leading to safer and more effective use; and to enable the development of innovation and research that benefit public health.

I welcome the MHRA’s new chair, Professor Anthony Harnden, who was appointed at the start of the year. I hope he is listening to this debate, as it will be important for him in setting his priorities. I pay tribute again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton because, whether or not the MHRA knew this debate was happening, I noticed during my research that all the guidance was updated on the MHRA’s website only yesterday. That is testament to the power of this place, even if inadvertently.

The last Government did a lot in this space, particularly focusing on patient safety and access. They introduced new regulations on medical devices, with the classic example being diabetes monitoring, but they also set out to attract innovation. Their reforms have helped to make the UK an attractive market for medical technologies. I am pleased that both sides of the House agree that this is a great place for the UK to find growth.

These developments were based on a consultation-led approach, following the changes we have had since 2021, when there was a consultation on the future regulation of medical devices. This led to a proportionate and phased approach that minimises supply disruptions and supports system readiness.

Under the last Government, a road map for implementation was set out on 9 January 2024. Again, I am pleased to see that the current Government updated the road map in December. This has the regulatory aims of adapting new technologies, strengthening patient safety and providing clarity for manufacturers that are trying to bring products to market.

All these significant changes try to balance medical technology advances, market capture, patient access, affordability and clinical outcomes. However, as we have heard in this debate, this is all well and good, but “perception versus reality” comes to mind. We arguably have one of the best regulatory regimes in the world and, post Brexit, there is a real opportunity to lead the way. Counter to what the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), said, it is because of Brexit that we were able to regulate around our vaccines.

As has been said today, there are still serious concerns about the system, surveillance and resources, given the medical tech boom. This is a wide debate, so I will focus my remarks on three areas: the current medical market, the emerging medical market, and communications with the public, perceptions and beliefs.

When it comes to the system for current medications, we need only consider what we heard earlier about SSRIs, and particularly their impact on sexual dysfunction —I happen to have that casework on my desk at the moment. Do the Government believe that the yellow card system works, or will they consider a review?

When it comes to emerging markets, we have to remember that the MHRA has a statutory role not only in regulating but in the advertising and promotion of medicines in the UK. We have seen thousands of online adverts for weight-loss injections, such as Ozempic. The Times found approximately 6,500 adverts that mention GLP-1 on Meta’s ad library between January 2022 and the end of June 2024. And Sky has reported that, according to Simple Online Pharmacy, which has access to wholesale figures, 500,000 people in the UK are currently using things like Wegovy.

I would be grateful if the Government could set out what support they are offering the MHRA to ensure that it can fulfil its roles and functions properly, given that it has to manage promotion, safety and supply in all these areas. Are there any plans to review whether the MHRA is able to meet these conditions in a changing medical world?

Finally, and most importantly, if I were to be critical of the MHRA, I would say that the key thing missing on the list of objectives, as set out by the new chair, is communication. Let me finish where I started: a regulator has never been more in the public eye. As a clinician, I know how difficult it is to wade through complex medical data that is both conflicting and opaque. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, freedom of information requests and transparency are key to our understanding of this area. Will the Government look to review how the MHRA interacts with the public, how it communicates with grassroots professionals, and what it can do to explain the hugely important work that it does?

To conclude, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) pointed out, this is all about trust. I think it was Reagan who said, “Trust, but verify”. That seems particularly apt for this debate—for that is the role of a regulator, but it is also the role of the Government and the public. We must build a regulatory system that all can trust, and do so inherently, but that is also easily verifiable at any point. If we can achieve that, we can build a trusted ecosystem that is good for innovation, good for the economy, and, most importantly, good for the people. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Minister. \p Karin Smyth: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this debate and thank her and all those who have spoken for their contributions. We have heard some powerful stories of failure as well as some useful experiences. I have to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the shadow Minister for sharing their expertise. I have heard many of these stories before in my 10 years in this place. Sadly, I have also had a constituent who shared her experiences with me, for which I am grateful. Frankly, those experiences shocked me and my staff.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and many others who have brought their experiences to this place, shining a light on the issues. It is right for us to debate this matter. Six months into the job and I am still learning, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am grateful for being able to take part in this debate.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) that I cannot answer everything, and I am glad that he recognised that. The right hon. Member for Tatton has focused my mind, for which I am very grateful. If I do not do justice to the points that have been raised, I will write to Members about specific things. I am meeting representatives from the MHRA and will be very clear about our expectations. It is absolutely the role of Parliament to be the ultimate monitor of its work.

The MHRA plays a vital role in fulfilling the Government’s health mission: balancing its responsibilities to maintain product safety and championing innovation. I will, if I may, be clear about the role of an enabler. It is about enabling innovative products to reach patients without compromising patient safety and without unnecessary delay.

It is thanks to vaccines and medicines such as antibiotics and modern surgical procedures that we are living longer, healthier, and more active lives. No medical product is completely free of risk; the main objective of the safety monitoring process is to identify any new risks that may emerge. When that happens, the MHRA must take its responsibility seriously, rigorously and transparently when balancing population risks and benefits of each medical product, taking prompt and decisive action whenever that is needed.

On supporting safety, the MHRA recognises the need constantly to seek to improve its safety monitoring systems to deliver better results for people. Recent improvements include implementing the new Safety Connect IT system, following recommendations from the Cumberlege Review. This IT system will improve the efficiency of reporting and processing of yellow card reports, much of which we have heard about today, supporting the prompt identification and assessment of new safety concerns.

In addition, the MHRA makes use of real-world data via the clinical practice research datalink, which collects anonymised patient data from a network of GP practices, across the UK, encompassing data from 60 million patients, including 18 million currently registered patients.

The MHRA has recently launched a pilot, in partnership with Genomics England, to create a rich source of genetic information to investigate the role of genetic pre-disposition in the development of serious adverse drug reactions. The aim is to establish a yellow card biobank to reduce the number of harmful side effects caused by medicines—a step towards personalised prescribing.

The Cumberlege review also highlighted the need to improve the regulation of implantable medical devices. In November last year, the Government introduced new regulations to strengthen the requirements for manufacturers to proactively monitor and report on medical devices once they are on the market, which was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South.

We plan to lay further reforms before Parliament this year, including unique device identifiers and implant cards to improve the traceability of implanted devices, as well as increasing the classification of devices to ensure that they receive the highest scrutiny throughout their lifetime. Finally, the MHRA has made some progress in response to the wider set of recommendations set out in Baroness Cumberlege’s report. It listened carefully to the people who gave evidence and to the review’s findings, and is committed to bring about those changes. It is our job to ensure that that happens.

The yellow card scheme provides the backbone of our safety monitoring system. The scheme relies on voluntarily reporting from patients, parents, caregivers and healthcare professionals. The MHRA also collects reports of suspected safety concerns involving defective, falsified or fake healthcare products. Last year, it assessed more than 118,000 reports, and identified 134 safety signals, but I take onboard the comments made today. When safety signals lead to confirmed risks, the MHRA can introduce specific risk minimisation measures, such as introducing particular warnings about the risk of side effects in the product information, restricting the use of the medicine or medical device, or suspending or removing the medicine or device from the market. The MHRA will continue to proactively encourage the reporting of adverse effects through improvements such as those within the new Safety Connect system, and will ensure that there are better connections between clinical systems, working with the wider healthcare system.

The MHRA recognises that there have been delays in some of the regulatory services that it provides, including licence applications for innovative and generic medicines, variations to licences, and inspections of manufacturing and laboratory premises. Since September 2024, all new applications for marketing authorisations of established medicines are being assessed within expected timescales. That element is therefore improving, but we will keep a close eye on it.

I reiterate my thanks to the right hon. Member for Tatton. This has been an informative and, bizarrely, a wide-ranging but focused debate. Trust is really important. Patients have to be at the heart of our work, and that of the MHRA. Patient safety is the foremost priority. The MHRA is continuing to work on improving engagement and involving patients in decision making throughout the life cycle of the products that it regulates. It will continue to work to facilitate patient access to new medicines and medical devices, in collaboration with health system partners across the UK. The regulator  maintains its focus on continuous improvement, and has implemented new ways of working to maximise productivity in ways that put patients and public health outcomes first. I take the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), that communication around that is key.

The MHRA has turned around performance on clinical trials and is on track to deliver all regulatory services within statutory timelines by the end of March 2025. Later this year, as part of its programme of reform, we will introduce new point of care manufacturing legislation that will make the MHRA the first regulator in the world to introduce a tailored framework for innovative manufacturing methods, taking the manufacture and supply of medicines to patients. It is truly an exciting development, and I pay tribute to those involved.

The process for recruiting the new chief executive is well under way. We welcome Professor Anthony Harnden. His strategic focus is on helping the organisation to protect patient safety through robust surveillance systems, embracing risk-proportionate regulation and fostering an inclusive workplace where people flourish. Without putting him on the spot, we should think about organising a parliamentary event of some sort to bring people together to discuss matters with the MHRA and build that trust. I am pleased to support its work. It is internationally recognised as a regulator. We want to do better. The Government will ensure that the MHRA is better. \p Esther McVey: I thank all Members who have stayed late to speak today, many of them recounting the deeply moving and harrowing experiences of their constituents. All contributions reinforced the failings of the MHRA. In fact, listening to Members, the verdict on the MHRA is guilty as charged, confirming that it is in need of substantial reform. I feel sure that the Minister will ensure that that reform starts here and now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) continues to need substantial reform, as recognised by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review (IMMDS), with patient safety concerns persisting and exacerbating since the review’s publication in 2020; believes that the MHRA’s 2017 expert working group report on Primodos was deeply flawed, with IMMDS later concluding the drug had caused avoidable harm; further notes that the yellow card system for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions is failing, with no process for following up on serious or fatal reactions and conflicts of interest, with 75% of the MHRA’s funding being derived from industry fees, a concern raised in the Fourth Report of Session 2004-05 of the Health Committee, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, HC 42-I, published on 5 April 2005; also notes the MHRA’s delayed response to reports of myocarditis, pericarditis and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia following covid-19 vaccination, despite action from regulators in other countries; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations in the IMMDS review and to acknowledge the harm done to patients and the financial burden on the healthcare system as a result of the MHRA’s widespread regulatory failures. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Tami.) \p Andrew Murrison: I am grateful for this opportunity and declare my interests as a reservist, the father of two servicewomen and the brother of a serving admiral.

Among the many issues that should be keeping Ministers awake at night are two tech-based conundrums that particularly worry me. One is future access to critical minerals and their products, which I have spoken about in the past. The other related issue is the patchy nature of the protection of these islands against missiles and drones. That is what I want to raise this evening.

Everything costs, and it is easy when one is not in government to wish the ends without the means. At the moment, defence is spread too thinly and what I am suggesting would spread it even more thinly. Whether the UK should be globally deployable or focus on the defence of the homeland and its Euro-Atlantic neighbourhood is moot. The likelihood is that we will soldier on, make do and mend—we always have. But the scene is set for the biggest retrenchment since Suez. I wish it were otherwise, but it falls to this Government to make the call. Their attempted unforced surrender of the Chagos islands is perhaps an indication of where their thinking lies.

In 1963, the 35th US President told his National Security Council that European NATO members were not paying their fair share. John F. Kennedy said,

“We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves”.

On Monday, the 45th and 47th President will likely be saying the same thing. Clearly, American frustration with Europe enjoying the insurance policy without paying the premium is nothing new. What is new is the American willingness to strong-arm Europe into changing its ways. Forget 2% or 2.5%—Trump says he wants 5% of GDP spent on defence by all NATO members, and here is the kicker: he wants a 20% tariff on all goods imported to the US. Combine the two and it is not a stretch to imagine him slapping tariffs on European goods unless Europeans step up to the plate.

Ultimately, the single most important reason Trump can do what we fear he is about to do is that America is no longer principally competing with Europe’s proximate threat—Russia. A vast but thinly populated nation of 144 million, a busted economy and a military whose weaknesses have been generously displayed for all to see since February 2022 is not perceived by Washington as a main threat. An America emerging from the 9/11 Bush counter-terrorism era is back to facing off with great powers once again, but the great power is not Russia; it is China.

As the US pivots, European states of all sizes must step up to defend their homeland and safeguard the north Atlantic. There are no free passes. Israel is a small state, but its military capabilities are unmatched in the middle east. Its layered missile defence systems—the famous Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow—and its formidable fleet of aircraft demonstrate how small states, with a little help from their friends, can punch way  above their weight. Several of those small states will provide the first line of defence against Putin’s Russia. The bulk of the cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles that Putin would fire at Britain as a proxy for the US will be intercepted by existing defence systems and fighter aircraft stationed in the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Poland.

While our geography, as so often in our history, gives strategic depth and protection from long-range attack, we can have less confidence in dealing with proximate threats from sea and subsea platforms and with threats to deployed and overseas assets, such as Cyprus, that fall well within the scope of short-range missiles and drones from Russia, Iran and their proxies. In any event, some missiles directed at the homeland would get through in the event of a full-on attack right now by the Russian Federation. That has been our blind spot.

The public would expect that missiles evading the first line of integrated missile defence would be destroyed closer to their target. The Type 45-mounted Sea Viper and the ground-based Sky Sabre are exquisite examples of air and missile defence systems, but there are simply not enough of them—not enough missiles ready to go and not enough industrial capacity to enable resilience in anything more than the very short term. Russia’s war on Ukraine has helpfully made us alive to our vulnerability. Russia, as we have seen in Ukraine and throughout its history, is capable of taking long-term pain in a way that it seems unlikely we would. As things stand, the capital is particularly vulnerable to Russian missile  attack, unless we park all our Type 45s—those that are operational—on the Thames.

Happily, unlike Israel and Ukraine, we are surrounded by friends. It makes sense to be a full part of, and a contributor to, NATO integrated air and missile defence, but European IAMD, and its suppression and destruction of enemy air defence systems, are currently completely reliant on the US. In any event, the suspicion is that a full-on attack by Russia right now would find too many holes in the patchy architecture that has evolved to protect against missiles.

Germany has recognised that threat; it has owned the consequences of doing nothing. It has established the European Sky Shield initiative, and has begun procuring trusted systems such as Patriot and Arrow 3. The UK has been considering joining ESSI. Where are we with that? What about off-the-shelf systems such as Arrow 3? \p John Cooper: I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that point. It is interesting that the Arrow 3 project he mentions is a joint project between Boeing in America and the Israeli defence machinery. Is there something in the innovation offered by Patria, a Finnish company, which is offering to help us build armoured vehicles here in Britain but based on its design? Do we need less of a reliance on domestic systems and to consider, as he says, off-the-shelf systems from elsewhere? \p Andrew Murrison: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Historically, buying off the shelf has proved to be somewhat more cost-effective than designing exquisite systems of our own. I hope very much that, as we go further into this process, we can partner with others to  ensure that what we buy is both integrated and cost-effective. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts  on ESSI.

Ukraine has shown the limitations of the “just in time, not just in case” policy that has driven our failure to stockpile the materiel of war in recent decades. In the 1930s, the shadow factories initiative fitted commercial premises that typically produced cars for reconfiguration as armament factories, in case the need should arise, which it did. Car workers would switch to become the basis of the skilled workforce necessary to create materiel for prosecuting the war effort. That then happened, to the point that in 1940, this country was outstripping Germany in the production of fighter aircraft. With every respect due to the Few, the Battle of Britain was won in Britain’s factories and on its production lines as much as in the skies. Victory hinges just as much on logistics now, except the timelines are far shorter. The defence ecosystem in the US 2022 national defence strategy had more than a whiff of the 1930s in advancing an intertwined commercial-military co-operative.

In a good light, we can see shadow factories in the thematic approach to missile defence taken by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory missile defence centre. Crucially, it is industry partner-based, with a heavy focus on growing suitably qualified and experienced people, of whom we are desperately short. The MDC is now 20 years old. What assessment has the Minister made of it, and what changes does he propose to its structure and remit to help plug holes in our missile defence architecture? In the light of prevailing circumstances, will he consider upgrading the MDC so that it has the salience and clout approaching that of the pre-war directorate of aeronautical production? Then, it was Spitfires  and Hurricanes; today it is missile defence, SDEAD—suppression and destruction of enemy air defences—and drones. Then, it was preparation for the total war to come; now—God willing—it is deterrence.

There are those who say that the solution to our vulnerability to missile attack from the east is simple: it is Israel’s Iron Dome—the close-in element of the layered missile defence system used successfully to thwart Iran in April. However, Israel is a small country with a small population concentrated in a small number of cities with limited critical national infrastructure. It is surrounded by hostiles. Happily, none of that applies here.

Our missile defence must be fully integrated with NATO partners. NATO needs European leadership as the US pivots, and we must not encourage those whose primary interest in defence lies in extending the remit of the institutions of the European Union, rather than the defence and security of Europeans. We do not need the distraction of a separate, competing EU defence architecture; NATO is our strength and our stay, and we must use our status as the continent’s leading military power to ensure it remains so. In particular, we must articulate clearly the case for layered missile defence and SDEAD within a NATO construct, as the US pivots towards the Indo-Pacific. The UK and Europe need NATO integrated air and missile defence that incorporates close-in systems to guarantee major centres of population, defence assets and critical national infrastructure. Crucially, member states must not give an aggressor capable of waging an attritional war grounds for believing that the west will exhaust its ordnance in the first few hours or days.

Where are we with the versatile and scalable very short to medium-range modular ground-based air defence system envisaged by NATO Defence Ministers at their meeting in October 2020? What application might that system have to provide the last arrow in our quiver—one that will destroy missiles that have evaded intermediate layers and are about to land on critical sites in the UK? For a country with no money, directed energy weapons offer a potential solution for dealing with drones and missiles, albeit in line of sight and in good weather. Is DSTL’s DragonFire weapon still on course for service with the Royal Navy in 2027, and what export opportunities are Ministers exploring? Do they expect that Type 26s, Type 31s, and any Type 32s will carry DragonFire or successor directed energy weapons? Will they be fitted as standard, or as expensive retrofits?

Do we really need a sixth-generation manned—or even hybrid—fast jet to replace Typhoon? Would it not be better to rely on the F-35 airframe with mid-life upgrades in a future that is surely progressively unmanned? The lineal, if less romantic, descendants of the Few will be tech geeks, gamers, coders and those who provide a human interface with artificial intelligence. What are we doing to grow them, and will the Minister visit the #TechTrowbridge initiative that I started in Wiltshire’s county town, which was once a centre for Spitfire manufacture? He would be warmly welcomed on his way to his constituency.

The reason that a grisly artillery war has played out in Ukraine is because nobody has been able to command the airspace. Happily and to our surprise, Russia has been unable to suppress or destroy Ukraine’s air defences. In the future, unmanned combat aerial vehicles configured to shoot the archer, not the arrow, will do that. I would be very surprised if Lord Robertson were not casting a critical eye over the global combat air programme, and comparing and contrasting its cost and effectiveness with those of unmanned combat aerial vehicles.

I appreciate the deep cultural difficulty of envisaging an unmanned future battlespace. It is deeply unsettling for those of us steeped in the traditions of the armed forces, but while there will always be a need for sufficient booted and spurred combat troops ready to close with and kill the enemy and hold the ground—as the Member of Parliament for a garrison town, I am not for one moment suggesting a further reduction in headcount—this country will never again be able to expose itself to attritional warfare of the sort we are seeing being played out in Ukraine. Politically and societally, that would be impossible and unconscionable. That means integrated missile defence, SDEAD, drones, and command of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Once again at a dreadnought crossroads, Britain must configure the forces at its disposal for the long term in all domains and take a lead as what is still the principal military power in its Euro-Atlantic voisinage. Early pointers suggesting that this Government are taking the right fork in the road would include difficult and unpopular decisions such as standing firm on the deep space advanced radar capability envisaged for Cawdor barracks on the St David’s peninsula, which was bottled by previous Governments. As we chop to an unmanned future, those pointers would—for example, and very painfully—include consignment of the RAF Red Arrows aero-acrobatics team to the historic flight.

This Government have four years left to run—the time the directorate of aeronautical production had to fit out this country with what it needed to prevail. Recent events have revealed the fundamental truth that we are vulnerable now, as we were then, and the shifting geopolitical plates will likely make us more so. The public will never forgive an Administration of whatever colour who muddle through, leaving them open to the predations of Putin’s advancing missile programme. \p Luke Pollard: I thank the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for calling this debate and for the seriousness with which he has approached it. I share his general analysis of the context that we live in more difficult, unsettled and challenging times. That is the reason why, on coming into office, the Prime Minister commissioned Lord Robertson to begin the strategic defence review to look at our capabilities and to set those against the threats we are facing as a country. I will return to some of those areas, and indeed to the questions the right hon. Gentleman asked.

There is a real challenge when it comes to integrated air missile defence, the threats from drones and the threats from one-way effectors and long-range strike, as we have seen every single day in Ukraine, with the brave people of Ukraine being on the receiving end of onslaughts from Putin’s illegal invasion. Those are the lessons we are seeking to learn in the strategic defence review to make sure not only that we can support our friends in Ukraine with the equipment they need, but that we can adapt our own ways of war fighting and defending to deter aggression if at all possible, and to defeat it if necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues, and I will come on to those in my remarks if I can, but I am sure he will keep me honest if I have missed any by the time I reach the end of my response to him. His analysis of the context of the political challenges in this debate is certainly true. When he was a Defence Minister and I was on the Opposition Benches, the current Defence Secretary and I made that argument. Having heard from the Government Dispatch Box that defence had been hollowed out and underfunded, we argued that we needed a different approach.

I do not like the approach the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of having to “make do and mend—we always have”. I recognise it, but I do not think we should accept it, especially in more difficult times. Precisely because of that, the SDR needs to be bold, and that is in effect the remit given to Lord Robertson, Fiona Hill and Richard Barrons by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that it falls to this Government to make those decisions, and we have already made a number of decisions about retiring old platforms. That is sometimes difficult, and he raises the interesting challenge of how we renew technologies without offending or upsetting the established norms. As an example, Watchkeeper, a 14-year-old drone system used by the British Army, has been retired because it cannot keep pace with the modern challenges of electronic warfare jamming and other things we would be asking it to do if it were to be deployed on a frontline. That is certainly something we feel incredibly strongly about.

I have just returned from the E5 Defence Ministers meeting that took place in Warsaw in Poland, and it is clear to me that our NATO allies are all taking integrated air and missile defence seriously. If we look at the experiences of the nations on NATO’s eastern flank—particularly Poland and the Baltic states, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—we are seeing very real concern about protection of their airspace. Protection is being built up through what they are seeking to procure and the support they are asking for from allies in providing a protective bubble over their countries. Britain’s island geography may have deterred aggressors throughout much of our history, but it is no shield against sophisticated weapons and modern air warfare, and for that reason the SDR has been commissioned. \p David Reed: I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. From the discussions the Minister had at the E5 conference, does he think our allies are confident that we are playing our part in air defence? \p Luke Pollard: I thank my fellow Devon MP for that question. He will be able to read the joint statement by the UK, Italy, France, Germany and Poland when it is published on the Ministry of Defence website on the conference’s conclusion. I made the point clearly in the press conference afterwards that the UK is calling on all NATO partners to increase their defence spending. We have a plan to increase our defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5%. Where any increased defence spending goes matters, because it needs not only to deter aggression, but to defeat it and—perhaps most importantly and relevant to this debate—to be interoperable with our allies. We need to ensure that any investment in defence has an increase in our deployability and our lethality as we fight together. It is the assumption of this Government, with a declared NATO-first policy, that we will be supporting our NATO allies in any defensive measures. That is the reason we have the British Army in Estonia with Operation Cabrit. It is the reason we have NATO air policing in a variety of states along NATO’s eastern flank.

Integrated air and missile defence is an area that all NATO members need to develop. There is not one answer that everyone has reached for yet. It is a difficult, wicked problem that requires investment and a change in strategy. That is part of the reason why that is being addressed by the SDR. That is a long answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope it provides him with the clarity he needs. \p Cameron Thomas: The Minister represents a city and a football club that are close to my heart. I also thank the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing forward this important debate. I am heartened to hear that the Minister views the interoperability of our workforce and our assets alongside our NATO allies. Do the Government view the defence of UK airspace not singularly but, as I do, as the western front of European air defence? \p Luke Pollard: I would certainly be happy afterwards to take up any discussion about Plymouth Argyle and a post Wayne Rooney world.

It is certainly true that the United Kingdom’s commitment to NATO is not just in securing a northern and western flank and dealing with the north Atlantic and the high north; we also have responsibilities to our NATO allies on the eastern and southern flanks. Part of the challenge we have with integrated air and missile defence and the threats that the UK and our allies face is that the definitions of what are the close and the deep have fundamentally changed, because of the experience of the Ukraine war. I recognise that there are Members in this House and this debate who served in our armed forces, and they will be familiar with the broad definitions of close and deep.

It is certainly true that what we previously regarded as close and deep have fundamentally changed. The distances have increased enormously. We are seeing that in Ukraine, and that means we have to re-imagine and re-define the strategies and capabilities we need to be able to operate in those environments. Having the ability to project power and fire at distance is one reason that we have supported Ukraine with so many weapons systems. It is also the reason why the SDR is looking in particular at this area and how any forces and capabilities can meet the threat we are facing. In that respect, I hope that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) understands that the SDR will address many of the answers to his broad question. Our responsibilities are more than just securing the UK homeland; they are about supporting our allies, and indeed it is our allies’ role to support not only their own country, but their NATO partners, including the UK.

The threats posed to our security continue to proliferate and converge. With technologies rapidly developing, protecting Britain and our allies from attacks becomes ever more complex and challenging. Let me be absolutely clear: adversaries must be in no doubt that the UK possesses formidable capabilities contributing to our integrated air and missile defence, along with the will and the intent to protect the UK and our allies. We have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I am sure that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire has seen the quick reaction aircraft, as I have, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth and seen the incredible speed, dedication and professionalism of our teams there responding to threats approaching the United Kingdom. Our radar at Fylingdales provides continuous early warning against ballistic missiles, and the Royal Navy proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 destroyer against different air threats in the recent operations in the Red sea in particular. That included shooting down drones similar to those used by Russia against Ukraine.

In relation to the specifics of our capabilities, I have had the privilege of visiting UK forces stationed forward in Poland using the Sky Sabre system, supporting the NATO logistics hub that supports so much of what we provide to Ukraine. Operation Stifftail has now concluded, and that mission has been a success. I thank all those members of the Royal Artillery in particular who supported that mission.

The Sky Sabre system that was in Poland has been returned to the UK and is being reconstituted. The Sky Sabre system that we have in the Falklands provides continuous air defence to the islands, protecting the sovereignty of the Falkland islands. Having seen that system up close and personal on my recent visit to the Falklands, I thank those members of our armed forces  protecting the skies above the Falklands. We will need to ensure that integrated air missile defence is more than just a bubble over Poland and protection of the Falklands.

I think that is at the heart of what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise in the debate. It is also one of the challenges that the strategic defence review seeks to answer. I will not steal Lord Robertson’s sandwiches in terms of what I expect to see in the strategic defence review, but certainly enhancing our capabilities to meet threats is one of the core challenges of the SDR, and I would expect him and his review team to be making recommendations about how that should be done in the SDR when it is published in the spring. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the time on the path to get to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence will also be published in the spring. Hopefully, that will enable us to look at those two parts together to ensure that we are, in his words, meeting the challenge of stepping up. I agree that there are no free passes, and as a nation we have relied on our strategic depth for a great many years, but we cannot rely on that alone today. That is why our capabilities need to match that challenge.

Our NATO-first approach means ensuring that we deliver not only on the article 3 responsibilities in the NATO treaty to protect our own homeland, but on article 5 and be able to support our NATO allies. That is why we will continue to support our deployments around the NATO area of operations.

As a country, we are leading the way with initiatives such as DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—which will improve air defence integration across Europe and strengthen  NATO’s air and missile protection. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on missile capabilities, which is a catalyst to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine and address the burgeoning security threat to NATO members as well.

We are also forging deeper relations with individual European partners. Hon. Members may have seen the landmark Trinity House agreement signed between the United Kingdom and Germany, which will see us turbocharge a series of major projects across air, land and sea, working in partnership to strengthen air defences and better protect European airspace. We are also working more closely with France, with our most recently signing a letter of intent for the European long-range strike approach—the ELSA initiative—at France’s request. Such initiatives demonstrate our determination to support Ukraine, counter the threat posed by Putin and reconnect Britain internationally.

I realise that I have not got to every one of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but if he will forgive me, I will write to him and place a letter in the House so that all Members can be certain of these matters. Let me be absolutely clear that I look forward to seeing the strategic defence review published and having it as not only Labour’s defence policy, but supported on a cross-party basis as Britain’s defence policy, to secure our nation, our values and our allies in more uncertain times.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.